This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Freedom of speech Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Mid-importance). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Curious why the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an acceptable source when it's a known far-right, anti-immigration outlet known for spreading rampant misinformation and/or outright lies, some of which borders on hate speech. Reference 125, an article by Brian Fishman, claims Khalil supports Hamas and terrorism and refers to "evidence", such as flyers and videos, none of which have been produced or confirmed. The CIS Wikipedia article itself proves the group is a poor source for any information and Fishman's article isn't scholarly in nature, it's the same anti-immigration polemic he's known for. Shana3980 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's used as a reference for the statement "In Matter of Ruiz-Massieu (1999), the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that the Secretary of State's determination of deportability under the statute is presumptively valid if it is "facially reasonable" and based on a bona fide foreign policy concern, but that, as an Article I tribunal, the board could not address the constitutional issue." That's not about Khalil at all, though it I certainly understand why we might not want to use that CIS article as a reference if it asserts negative things about him without evidence, and if the CIS is not generally reliable. So the question is: can we find a better source for the WP content quoted above? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion Yes, the article mentions the quote but the article, titled "Is it legal to deport the ringleader of Columbia University's pro-Hamas demonstration" is more polemic than anything else, with Fishman describing campus protests, and Khalil specifically, as celebrating mass murder and genocide in his introduction alone. I'm new to editing and don't even think I'm allowed to edit this article in particular yet but there's got to be an actual scholarly source for the Matter of Ruiz-Massieu quote. Shana3980 (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that you aren't allowed to edit the article. In fact, the notice at the top of the page says that since you're not extended confirmed, you shouldn't be commenting on the talk page either, other than to make edit requests. I went hunting, and I've found a citation for the first part, but I haven't yet found one that addresses the latter part. I'll search some more and see what I can do. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion Oh, I don't see any notice on the top of the page. Thank you for letting me know and for looking into this. Shana3980 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notices aren't shown to Android users by default. They need to click the 'Read more' link to see them. I imagine the number of people who click that link is quite small (why would they?). So, not seeing the notices is pretty normal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland I'm using the Wikipedia app and don't even have a read more link at the top of the page. I clicked Edit for the first time and got a pop up explaining the BLP and Extended Confirm rules so maybe that's where the notice is for me? Shana3980 (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland Sorry, just found Read More! Thank you Shana3980 (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article and Mahmoud Khalil (activist) were created around the same time (3/10, shortly after news of his arrest), and consensus at the time was to merge the two. I see that @Zuck28 just resurrected Mahmoud Khalil (activist). In light of that, I figured we might want to have a brief discussion about what content belongs where. The content in the Background section is probably the primary overlap. Should we move much of that section to the activist article, with a much briefer summary here plus a Main template highlighting the activist article? The background content about the Trump admin. probably still belongs here rather than there. What are others' thoughts? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that he is notable enough as an activist for a separate article; nothing has changed since the article was deleted.

If it's kept, I think his statements from detention should definitely be moved. This article should focus on legality and political impact rather than him as a person. satkara❈talk 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Satkara, I don't have strong feelings about it either way. He had a bit of media coverage before his arrest/detention, in the context of the 2024 Columbia protests, but I haven't checked them to see whether they're significant coverage of him, as contrasted with significant coverage of the protests. There are many more RSs that discuss his activism in the context of his arrest/detention. Based on what he's said so far, he will clearly continue his activism now that he's out on bail, though there's no way to know how much coverage that will receive in RSs (presumably more than it would have had he not be detained). The activist article is actually in much worse shape than it was when the merge occurred, and it hasn't been improved much since the redirect was removed. If you want to just change it back to the redirect, that's fine with me. Or we could put a proposed merge template on that article for a week or so first, and see if anyone feels strongly about keeping it and wants to work on it. I left a follow-up note on Zuck28's talk page, but no response despite doing other editing; I guess they're not inclined to voice an opinion either way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex topic that requires careful consideration and time. I have hesitated to engage in this discussion because I fear I may not offer the best opinion. However, I firmly believe he meets the notability criteria for a standalone article, so I have revived it.

But I leave the decision to other senior editors. As this is a sensitive topic and I am no expert in it and have very little interest in these kinds of debates. But this is a good idea to move the personal details about Mahmoud to the individual article, and this article should contain the legal proceedings and details only.

Thank you for thinking about me.

Zuck28 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are your three best RSs for establishing his notability outside the context of his detention? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Satkara that Khalil himself is no more notable than he was before the merging of the articles. And, Zuck28 if you are not interested in these kinds of debates, my best advice would be not to resurrect articles after consensus was reached to merge them. Lova Falk (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change “Khalil first immigration court hearing was scheduled for March 27.” to “Khalil’s first immigration court hearing was scheduled for March 27.” LantaFanta (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SI09 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a specific edit request but in my opinion, this article relies too heavily on a) statements made by Khalil's wife, which for some reason are assumed to be completely truthful, and b) Zeteo, a heavily biased 'news organisation' owned by Mehdi Hasan who is a vocal opponent of the State of Israel & Zionism and has previously described non-Muslims and homosexuals as 'cattle'. No credibility should be given to the site, which doesn't even have it's own Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesurias (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People may have different views on what it means to "rely too heavily." Given that the things that concern you have been stable for a while, it's unlikely to change (at least not quickly) unless you make an edit request. Re: Zeteo, if you think that it's not a reliable source, the place to take that concern is the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN), where you can see whether others also think it not reliable. Here, too, if you have concerns, just make an edit request with an alternate source that substantiates the text in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, the Third Circuit ruled that Khalil must go all the way through the immigration courts before he can challenge constitutionality in the federal courts. This means he will have to wait for immigration appeals before he can start all over in federal courts.

Because of that, should legal proceedings be rearranged chronologically instead of separated by federal and immigration? satkara❈talk 01:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]