Talk:Yassin Kadi

Tribune and link to Brotherhood

I took out the part about the El-Kadi family being early members of the Brotherhood, because the source (Tribune) doesn't seem to mention Yassin and doesn't even say this is the same El-Kadi family. Did I miss something? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Outstanding Edit Requests

I am a member of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi’s international coordinating legal team based in London, Carter-Ruck, and I have requested certain edits to this Wikipedia page on his behalf. I refer to my earlier posts on this page of 4 February and 4 March (under a previous username) and via my Talk page on 21 March, 4 April, 20 April and 6 May 2016.

I acknowledge and understand the principles of free speech and the policies of Wikipedia. I am openly amending this BLP page as my edit requests correcting unsupported and/or inadequately referenced statements and allegations have not been taken live. I am mindful of Wikipedia’s policies and would add that I am focussing on preserving neutrality, correcting factual inaccuracies and providing independent references for ease of verification. Dom at Carter-Ruck (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Community members have indicated that they will appraise this article to incorporate examine your concerns. Since it is a complex article it could take more time than usual. As a declared COI editor, it is suggested that you be more patient. I am reverting your good faith edits to avert anybody reporting you (and thereby escalating the situation). Luridaxiom (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dom at Carter-Ruck: Can you assist us by informing the present status of S.2230 - Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 which references your client directly ? Luridaxiom (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have perused your previous posts on this talk page. Several of your references seem unusable here because they are WP:PRIMARY sources, eg. judgements, and it is the policy here that our editors (as a class) cannot be expected to assess the finer legal points contained therein. We need several reliable secondary sources which explicitly say what you want included. Luridaxiom (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It is unlikely that this project's community would treat an unnamed staff reporter's arabnews.com story as the sole citation for a UK court judgment or for allegations of total deceit and intention to mislead. Furthermore, these kind of default libel tourism awards seem to have been stayed by legislation in the USA (where Wikimedia Foundation's servers are located) for the same plaintiff.A ferocious attack on the "chilling effect" of the English law of libel and its use by wealthy "foreign tourists" will be mounted in a top US court today, with backing from organisations that represent a majority of the world's media. Luridaxiom (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your feedback Luridaxiom, which I have taken on board and considered.

I acknowledge and understand the principles of free speech and the policies of Wikipedia. With free speech comes the responsibility of ensuring accuracy. In suggesting edits below I am mindful of Wikipedia’s policies and would add that I am focussing on preserving neutrality, correcting factual inaccuracies and providing independent references for ease of verification.

One of my edits requests a reference to the 18 July 2013 judgment of the highest court in Europe, the European Court of Justice, which has made unequivocal findings (see below) that it was “clear that no information or evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegations of the Muwafaq Foundation’s involvement in international terrorism in the form of links with … Al Qaeda. In such circumstances, the indications of the role and duties of Mr. Kadi in relation to that foundation are not such as to justify the adoption, at European Union level, of restrictive measures against him.”

In relation to the queries that you had raised I can respond as follows:

• Concerning the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorism Designation Act 2015, Mr Kadi vigorously disputes the statements about him at Section 2(a)(25) of that bill and his US lawyers have written to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations seeking the correction of these erroneous statements about him. In particular, contrary to what this bill states Mr Kadi is not a ‘specially designated global terrorist’ in the US or any other jurisdiction, having been de-listed by the US Treasury’s Foreign Assets Control Office on 26th November 2014 as the following links confirm.

• I note what you say regarding the use of primary sources. In relation to the European Court of Justice decision of July 2013 (for which I had cited such sources), a number of articles were published at the time which may be suitable for referencing purposes. Given the unequivocal findings of the ECJ (the highest court in Europe) I believe that this article should include reference to the critical paragraph 153, where the ECJ ruled that it was “clear that no information or evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegations of the Muwafaq Foundation’s involvement in international terrorism in the form of links with … Al Qaeda. In such circumstances, the indications of the role and duties of Mr. Kadi in relation to that foundation are not such as to justify the adoption, at European Union level, of restrictive measures against him.” I am also including here a link to a press release issued by the Court, which may be acceptable for a statement that the Court found no information or evidence to substantiate the allegations against Mr Kadi. I would happy to identify some further references if you feel that more are necessary.I should add that there are a number of existing sections in the article about Mr Kadi which rely on primary sources, including Court submissions, and I would welcome the community’s review of their appropriateness, given what say about this policy. In particular such primary sources are referenced in the sections headed “Continues to work for National Commercial Bank” (44), “Tied to Muslim Brotherhood” (54-56), “1991: Loan Linked to Hamas” (64), in addition to references 30, 71, 101-103, 109, 110. In fairness to Mr Kadi and for the sake of consistency I would suggest that the assertions which rely on such sources in the article ought to be removed.

• Regarding the Arab News article, please note that it was Mr Valdivieso, the then chairman of the UN Security Council 1267 committee who stated in his letter Mr Brisard’s conduct was marked by “deceit and an intention to mislead”. That letter (containing the comments that I had cited) is accessible at the link here. The fact that the U.N./Mr Valdivieso never solicited or endorsed Mr Brisard’s report is also recorded in the Terrorism Commentary on Security Documents Vol 106, published by Oxford University Press. These matters have nothing to do with any allegations of libel tourism, but are simply to do with statements made by Mr Valdivieso. I add that it is also the case that Mr Brisard is identified as the “lead investigator” for the plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit in which Mr Kadi is a defendant. Given these factors, I would ask the community to regard Mr Brisard as a wholly unsuitable source for the article and consider removing the assertions attributed to him, or at least ensuring that appropriate weight is given to those assertions. Dom at Carter-Ruck (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

@Alanyst: @Kendall-K1: I responded on 18 May 2016 to queries raised by Luridaxiom regarding my concerns about the Yassin Kadi article, but have since noticed that Luridaxiom’s user account has been blocked. I am therefore drawing this matter to your attention as you have previously amended this article.

I should again say that I acknowledge and understand the principles of free speech and the policies of Wikipedia. I am therefore focusing on preserving neutrality, correcting factual inaccuracies and providing independent references for ease of verification.

Luridaxiom indicated on 13 May 2016 that community members would appraise this article to examine my concerns, and suggested that I have patience with this process. However I believe there are a number of WP:BLP issues remaining with this article which have not yet been addressed. As you have previously amended the article, I should be grateful for your further involvement in reviewing my concerns, and more widely in trying to bring the article in line with BLP standards and other policies.

I refer to my posts on this page of 4 February, 4 March (under a previous username) and most recently on 18 May, and via my Talk page on 21 March, 4 April, 20 April and 6 May 2016. I look forward to hearing from you. Dom at Carter-Ruck (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have a difficult time with this. The article is a huge mess. The usual problem article has lots of unsourced material, but this one has too much sourced material. Its problems are ones of OR, synth, material not supported by the sources, POV, and other things that are tedious and difficult to fix. My own very light spot checking has turned up almost no content that really belongs here. This was already brought up at BLPN but there were no takers for help in improving the article. I have no real interest in working on it myself; it would be a thankless job. I'm not sure what to suggest at this point. Maybe try BLPN again? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Court documents as sources

All of the material that is sourced to court documents should be removed, immediately per WP:BLP if it's contentious. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been through the article and removed anything that looked immediately suspicious. I am sad to report that material I considered "immediately suspicious" ran into several thousands of words. In most cases I have retained references when removing content sourced to them for reasons like WP:SYNTH and the like -- in some instances this may mean a citation now has only tangential relevance to the sentence that it now follows. I have also removed or changed numerous sections for poor phrasing. The structure of the article is still poor, as it is still a timeline not a coherent piece of prose.

One remaining substantial problem with the article is that the article body talks at length about what is now described as "Defendant in 911 lawsuit", but does not mention at all these claims being completely dismissed, as mentioned in the lede. The only source provided for this dismissal in the lede is from Kadi's own lawyers, so I am reluctant to propagate that back into the body as is. A few Google searches have failed to turn up useful third party sources mentioning these court victories -- perhaps I am doing it wrong or perhaps all the internet conspiracy theories are muddying my search? Could anyone else help in finding independent sources for this? @Dom at Carter-Ruck: is this something you can help with? For simplicity, ideally I just need links to publicly accessible online news reports about the court ruling. All help welcome from anyone else too. MPS1992 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you for all of your efforts. I appreciate that you must have spent quite some time reviewing the article and sources, and I am grateful for your work to date on the page.

Regarding the civil court proceedings in the US, the position in fact is that the 2010 decision which had dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, the claim against Mr Kadi, was overturned on appeal in 2013. That reinstatement of Mr Kadi in the proceedings in 2013 along with 11 other defendants was solely for the purpose of determining whether the US court has personal jurisdiction over him, something that has still to be decided by the US court. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find independent sources for this, as the decisions do not appear to have received any press coverage in which Mr Kadi is mentioned.

However, I think it is fairly important that a section is added about the European Court of Justice’s decision in Mr Kadi’s favour July 2013, commonly known as Kadi II, as the article does not mention this as it stands. This decision was reported by a number of academic journals and websites, and in a court-issued press release, which might be regarded as suitable sources. The decision was significant in that it was the conclusion of Mr Kadi’s claims before the European court, and also for the Court’s ruling that it was “clear that no information or evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegations of the Muwafaq Foundation’s involvement in international terrorism in the form of links with … Al Qaeda. In such circumstances, the indications of the role and duties of Mr. Kadi in relation to that foundation are not such as to justify the adoption, at European Union level, of restrictive measures against him”. I should be grateful if you would therefore consider a new subsection at the end of the article, and perhaps also within the lede, to record this decision. Dom at Carter-Ruck (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into this. It may be a while. Regarding the lede, from what I remember last time I looked, I think the lede probably needs re-writing completely -- probably only around the time the rest of the article is consistent and coherent and neutral. MPS1992 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @MPS1992: I wondered whether you might have had an opportunity to look at this any further please, in particular the possible addition of a section about the 2013 European Court of Justice decision. Do you feel that the suggested sources are useful, or that others might be needed? Dom at Carter-Ruck (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dom at Carter-Ruck: I had made some additions, but for some reason I had omitted to mention them here. In particular, in these two edits I have added a sub-section about Kadi II and then mentioned the topic in the lede. You may wish to check whether my wording "The European Commission, the European Council, and the United Kingdom appealed", and my summarising that as "appeals by the EU and the UK against the earlier annulment of European sanctions", is accurate. I have avoided directly quoting the ECJ's finding, instead using the quote from its press statement as quoted by Associated Press in Arab News. This is largely because the ECJ finding goes into some detail about the claims made against Kadi, including the eventual relationship of some parts of what was previously the Muwafaq Foundation with terrorist organizations, before concluding that Kadi had no involvement with such activities. It is therefore inappropriate to pick out individual parts of the finding except as they are summarized by independent sources -- a problem that occurred with a different bias in earlier versions of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MPS1992, I had not noticed those changes when I posted on here yesterday and I am grateful to you for spending the further time looking at this. I think the wording of those edits is clear and accurate. Dom at Carter-Ruck (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Yassin Kadi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321132425/http://www.secularvoiceofbangladesh.org/Jamaat%20i%20Islami%20%20A%20threat%20to%20Bangladesh%20by%20Chris%20Blackburn.htm to http://www.secularvoiceofbangladesh.org/Jamaat%20i%20Islami%20%20A%20threat%20to%20Bangladesh%20by%20Chris%20Blackburn.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.forbes.com/2008/01/24/turkey-yasin-al-qadi-biz-cz_rm_0124alqadi.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCSbGyLPOYbpf-Io3G-FoUhzDgYAD93VU8800
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231151342/http://www.cjel.net/online/15_2-posch to http://www.cjel.net/online/15_2-posch/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.forbes.com/2008/01/24/turkey-yasin-al-qadi-biz-cz_rm_0124alqadi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231151342/http://www.cjel.net/online/15_2-posch to http://www.cjel.net/online/15_2-posch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

See Comments

See the notes in the subpage at User:Alanyst/sandbox/Yassin Kadi. I have not reviewed the notes as to their accuracy, but the author, who is no longer active, appeared to be trying to analyze the accuracy of this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)