Talk:Yassin Kadi

BLP issues and original research

We currently have a bit of an edit war going on regarding Markshern7's preferred version of the article. I (and by the looks of it, Canoe1967) have serious concerns over this version. Whilst I appreciate the considerable amount of work that Markshern7 has put in, much of this new content is inappropriate for the following reasons:

• It is insidiously non-neutral. The inclusion of this image as the first on the page, the extensive section on a supposedly "unremarkable" meeting with Osama Bin Laden and the insistence on emphasising the accusations of terrorism all lend excessive weighting to al-Qadi's alledged terrorist activities.
• It contains original research, in the form of synthesis of sources to suggest, for example, that al-Qadi sent money to bin Laden, or that he has close connections with Mitt Romney.
• Many of the more contentious claims are unsourced, such as the section on the US Embassy bombings or the section on his charitable donations.

As such, whilst an interesting piece of investigatove journalism, this account is not appropriate under the biographies of living persons policy. I am starting a discussion here to hopefully avoid a continuing edit war. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that a discussion is also underway at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Yasin al-Qadi. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged neutrality of this edit is in question

I appreciate the points made by Yunshui, and welcome point-by-point discussion of the article, but complete suppression of the entirety of my work is by no means a "good faith edit," it is, on the contrary, an overt and highly political act of vandalism done in what appears to me to be bad faith, for what appears to be the deliberate censorship of relevant facts. For example, the suggestion that the inclusion of the first image is someow insidious is entirely mistaken: No photograph of Mr. Al-Qadi himself is available in wikimedia commons, and as many of the footnotes attached to this piece indicate, the debate over the September 11 attacks is at the center of all previous discussion of Mr. Al-Qadi, both in the international press and in all debates on this subject held before the United Nations. To deny that his name is somehow connected to the September 11 attacks is absurd on its face. I therefore ask that the Wikipedia community revert the unreasonably destructive "edit" of the article by Yunshui, who appears to be engaged in vandalism under false guise of neutrality, and I ask for a full peer review.Markshern7 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

If you wish to submit the article for peer review, please do so, instructions on the process are available here.

Whilst I am in no way denying that accusations have been made against Yasin al-Qadi regarding the September 11 attacks, using a picture of the attacks in place of a picture of the man himself is quite simply not appropriate under WP:BLPCRIME. The same is true of many of the other statements made in your version of the article. You use synthesis in order to promulgate a particular viewpoint (e.g. the entire "Mitt Romney connection", which barely mentions al-Qadi at all but instead makes a lengthy chain of inferences which are not explicitly stated in any of the sources), and you continue to add material that is both contraversial and unsourced, in direct violation of the policy on such biographies.

Finally, please do not throw around accusations of vandalism - the Wikipedia definition of vandalism is quite specific, and using it inappropriately is usually considered a personal attack. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

and note that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an investigative expose. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Markshern7, I reported the article because it was bad. It violated so many rules such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:LIBEL, WP:NONSENSE, WP:ALIVE, and the list goes on. For example the "Mitt Romney Connection" was 100% crap and complete drivel so it did not belong here. You were making a lot of accusations and guilt by association without actual strong facts and the sources were not even reliable sources either. So I recommended that it be reverted back to before your contribution to that article. If you want to blame anyone, blame me, not User:Yunshui ViriiK (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's rewrite the al-Qadi article from the top, then, one section at a time

Virii, thank you for your strong comments. Because they lack reference to specific lines or items within the article, I propose that the article be entirely re-written from the top. I will happily await your comments and edits along the way, but I believe that the Yasin al-Qadi article as it presently stands is wholly inadequate for the following reasons: 1)Reversion to the original version re-introduced serious errors. 2) Mr. Al-Qadi's name is not given in full, which opens the door to possible Libel complaints by people with a similar name. I intend to give his full name, as provided by the United Nations page on Al-Qadi, and as required by Wikipedia biography rules. 3) Mr,. Al-Qadi's birth year is incorrectly given as 1956. According to the official Department of Treasury page that listed Mr. Al-Qadi as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, he was born 23 February 1955 in Cairo, Egypt. 4) The original version of the article does not even mention the September 11 attacks, and thus fails to live up to requirements 4 and 5 of Wikipedia's style guide on Biographies, namely it fails to mention or fully explain the reasons why he is famous or notorious. When history books are written, he certainly will be mentioned in connection to the September 11 attacks, and no responsible Wikipedia biography would omit such information.

Do you have any objections to these changes or the introduction of this relevant information? If so, please post and we will discuss. If not, then in 24 hours I will post a re-write of the opening paragraph and await comments from the Wikipedia community. When we have reached a consensus, then we can move on from the opening paragraph to the main body of the article.

I hear very clearly that you did not like the Mitt Romney section, and look forward to improving that section and making it well-sourced as possible, going over it line by line, if necessary, with you and the more experienced editors at Wikipedia.

With regard to sourcing, I would like to point out that there were more than 120 footnotes in the original version, which can hardly be called poorly sourced. I would also like to ask you to calm down and keep your own language and point of view as neutral as possible. Thank you. Markshern7 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

the number of footnotes is irrel if the footnotes are to unacceptable sources or are used in a way to advance claims that the sources do not explicitly make. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb for a prospective expansion of the article is this: when you start talking about something besides the article subject himself, you've gone beyond the scope of the article. The 2nd-, 3rd-, or nth-degree business, family, or political connections (real or perceived) that were in the previous version of the article just don't belong. That includes the entire Romney section; please don't attempt to restore it without citing one or more reliable sources that directly and explicitly link Romney to Al-Qadi. (And this goes for anyone else you think should be mentioned in the article.) alanyst 22:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That sounds very reasonable to me. The points you make above about correcting the information are valid. Let's start with the lead and see how we get on.

I would suggest, if you haven't already, that you have a careful read of No original research, since this seems to have been the source of much of the friction regarding these edits. It's important that we only report what the sources say. To take the Mitt Romney example, if you have a reliable source that catalogues the same chain of connections as you provided and explicitly links Romney to al-Qadi, then we can have section on the Mitt Romney connection (should probably be considerably shorter, though...). If that connection is not mentioned by any of the sources, but instead they suggest, taken together, that such a connection exists, we cannot have such a statement here. Say in your own words precisely what the sources state, and we won't have any problems.

Finally, I should reiterate that the hard work you're doing isn't being overlooked - finding such a considerable array of sources and writing reams of text is fantastic, it's what Wikipedia is based on. If we can reframe it appropriately, this should turn into a good article (even a Good Article!). Yunshui 雲‍水 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(the sections that required 3 "allegedly"s and 4 "reportedly"s to connect the subject of the article to the content of the section were clear clues that SOMETHING was wrong.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen, you are quite right. I have already conceded your point, and I hope to move ahead cautiously with a re-write, and I invite you to please add commentary along the way, if you are still concerned about the article's neutrality. Please be aware that this is my second article for Wikipedia. I am a newbie, and I was not aware of the No Original Research policy; Per Yunshui's suggestion, I have now read the No Original Research policy thoroughly, and my efforts to synthesize material will therefore come to a halt. All I can say is, please don't bite the Newbies, and I will work to improve this article. As always, you are welcome to jump in and make any additions, deletions or changes that you think are necessary in order to maintain neutrality. I hope you will -- your comments and suggestions have been valuable. I will try to learn from them. Thank you. 66.87.7.243 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

Photograph of Yasin al-Qadi is needed

One of the things that seems to be rubbing people the wrong way is the prominent inclusion of a photograph of United Flight 175 hitting the World Trade Center. Believe me, I understand that this area of the page is typically reserved for photo portraits of the subject being profiled, and there are many photographs of Yasin al-Qadi on the internet. But here's the problem: He is a living person, with full legal rights to the use of his image, and none of the images I have found are in the public domain. They simply can't be used without risk of copyright violation. I am therefore putting out a call for help to ViriiK and the other editors in the community. Please help find a public domain photo of Yasin al-Qadi. If I myself can find a U.S. government-issue photo that satisfies copyright laws, I promise to post it in Wikimedia Commons, and then perhaps this upset over the photo of the Twin Towers will go away. Markshern7 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

Opening Paragraph has been improved

Additions made: Mr. Al-Qadi's full name was added, in order to distinguish him from any other person with a similar name. In keeping with rules of biogaphies of living persons, especially those who are charged with any kind of crime that might bring them into disrepute, I have made every effort to footnote the claim that he is in current SDGT status, by linking to the relevant OFAC webpage, which confirms that he is still in SDGT status.

State Department is under great pressure to roll back Al-Qadi's status and take him off the terror list, so I triple checked to be sure he is still on. Federal Register confirms it through 2011 only. Googling for any article that indicates he may have been removed actually turned up a March 2012 article that says U.S. courts haver re-affirmed his SDGT status. The stub from the first draft of this article, which takes his status up to 2008, must therefore be corrected, because it leaves the false impression that both EU and UN had let off the hook. Not so! UN and US sanctions are still full on.

See anything that needs improvement so far? All comments and suggestions welcome. If I haven't heard from anyone by end of weekend, I'll move forward at a fairly rapid pace to the next section: Early Life. This material will include some material that is hard to find, hard to source, and I will make every effort to source well.

Basic arc, of course, will be chrono order. I'll try to keep each section short, succinct and no-nonsense. Most bio comes from American papers, which are clearly slanted, and I will try to balance by including any quotes that Mr. Al-Qadi gives in his own defence.

See Markshern7 sandbox for previews. Markshern7 (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

Massive "Coat Rack" Reverts Are Inappropriate

Red Pen of Doom, please do review the guidelines on Coat Racks, especially the section on "What Are Not Coat Racks." You will find an example in which the biography of a living astronaut gives special focus (and a great deal of space) to his Moon landing, and this is not considered a coat rack or distortion of the subject: the Moon landing is what makes him notable.

In the case of this biography, Mr. Al-Qadi is famous in large part for being sanctioned as a terrorist, and the sections which you've deleted remove highly relevant family history that relates directly to his own life story and the very subject that makes Mr. Al-Qadi notable: Terrorism. To delete all reference to Mr. Al-Qadi's relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and to delete all discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood's historical background within a biography of Mr. Al Qadi is simply not appropriate -- it is a destructive edit that distorts the central focus of the article, and it cannot be justified, which is perhaps why you've made no comments whatever on the talk page.

I invite you to show cause, in detail, why these sections should be removed, and in the absence of appropriate explanation or remarks within 24 hours, I will revert those sections that were inappropriately deleted without comment. If they are deleted again, I will have to conclude that your edits are not edits, but acts of vandalism.

Please do give more clear, concise and positive comments in future, and stop making such broad deletions without giving specific reasons. Thank you.Markshern7 (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

I have removed them because they are nothing but COATRACKS having ZERO or about as close to ZERO as you can get to being about the actual subject of this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is about as helpful as saying "I have deleted them because I have deleted them" -- it gives me no specifics. For example: Can you explain why you deleted the section on the Jamjoom family and their political alliance with the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations? Are you really going to pretend that Mr. Al-Qadi's family and their political affiliations have nothing to do with the subject of Mr. Al-Qadi? How can an editor write anyone's biography without mentioning the person's family? Markshern7 (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

if a person is famous for being an astronaut, then you write about his involvement in the space program and his trip to space but you do not write thirty three sections about the history of NASA and Sputnik and how Sally Ride died and the crash of Skylab and how the moon orbits around the earth and how Jupiters moons were discovered by Gallileo. If you have written two sentences in a row that havent mentioned the subject of the article you probably need to erase one if not both and start over. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have examined The Red Pen of Doom's edits/reverts and I wholly agree with them. Markshern7, the key principle here is that reliable sources must directly establish the connections between Mr. Al-Qadi and what you (or anyone else) wish to include in the article. (See WP:SYNTH.) The material removed cited no reliable sources that directly connect Mr. Al-Qadi to the Muslim Brotherhood, the ABN, or the Nazis. Therefore there is no basis for discussing those groups in the article. I'm sure you have good intentions, but perhaps you misapprehend the purpose of Wikipedia: it is not for investigative reporting or publishing novel insights. alanyst 04:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Alanyst, for your review. Regarding "no reliable sources" that connect Al-Qadi to the Muslim Brotherhood, the ABN or the Nazis, I would refer you to the Talk page on the Muslim Brotherhood and Hassan al-Banna, or simply Google Banna + Nazi and you will find abundant connections. With regard to no "reliable" sources connecting al-Qadi's father in law to the ABN (which counts many Nazi war criminals among its ranks) how is the ABN's own publication of the 1979 Executive Committee, which includes the Jamjooms, not a reliable source? How can you call "irrelevant" the fact that Dr. Ahmed Elkadi (Al-Qadi) headed the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States between 1984 to 1994, when the subject of this biography is Yasin al-Qadi? The source on this was the Chicago Tribune -- how is it that the Tribune is suddenly "unreliable"?

If you insist that I find direct connections to Yasin al-Qadi, I will do so. That is easily done: He had direct business relations with Dr. El-Kadi's replacement as head of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, Abdurahman Almoudi. There are abundant court documents connecting Yasin al-Qadi and Almoudi through their mutual investment in PTECH, and likewise plenty of documents showing business connections between al-Qadi and the MAK (another name for the Muslim Brotherhood, as John Loftus explained in the section which you have just deleted).

I will set this issue aside right now, and move on to adding more basic material on this article, but in general I think that both of you risk putting yourselves into the category of Wikipedia editors who delete all reference to the holocaust from articles on World War II. Your deletions are that egregious, they are contrary to well-established fact, and far from establishing balance and neutrality they will cause a great number of people in the public to question your own neutrality. Do you really want to go there? I ask you to consider carefully before making any further deletions of well-sourced and relevant material. If such destructive edits continue, I will appeal. Thank you. Markshern7 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

The connections of Al-Qadi's father-in-law are not necessarily the connections of Al-Qadi himself. Cite sources that mention Mr. Al-Qadi directly—not his father-in-law, the Jamjooms, someone with the same last name, etc. If a source doesn't mention Mr. Al-Qadi, then neither it nor its contents belong in this article. Any exceptions to this rule of thumb ought to be proposed on this talk page before being implemented in the article, and they'll need to clear a high bar of relevance to merit inclusion. Please understand that I say this not out of any personal attachment to Mr. Al-Qadi or any emotions towards you; it's simply the neutral, encyclopedic way to treat the biography of a living person. (And please be careful about drawing analogies to emotionally charged subjects such as the Holocaust. It's more likely to lead to bad feelings than to a resolution of differences, and the comparison to this case is particularly inapt.) alanyst 16:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If Mr. Al Qadi was working for the Jamjoom Group in 1980, and the Jamjoom group was headed in 1980 by a member of the Executive Committee of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, then Mr. Yasin Al-Qadi himself was working on behalf of a member of the Executive Committe of the ABN. QED.

Is that connection enough for you? If not, why not? What other documentation is needed? Markshern7 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

The leap of logic seems obvious, I know. However, we have a policy that specifically says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In other words, if source A says al-Qadi worked for Jamjoom in 1980 (but doesn't mention the group's leadership), and source B says the Jamjoom group was headed by a member of the ABN (but doesn't mention al-Qadi), we cannot combine the sources to claim that al-Qadi worked for the ABN. On the other hand, if source C says that al-Qadi worked for the Jamjoom group whilst they were controlled by the ABN, then we can have a statement in the article to that effect.

Wikipedia is not especially interested in the truth. Content here has to be verifiable - in other words, in order for it to be in Wikipedia, someone has to have published it elsewhere first. You can't take two published statements and use them to publish a conclusion here which neither of them actually state, even if that conclusion seems incredibly obvious. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment that "Wikipedia is not especially interested in the Truth" certainly give me pause, but I take your main point. I will try to find a direct quote from a respected authority who mentions Al Qadi's relationship to Muslim Brotherhood. Thank you for taking the time to spell this out, Yunshui. Markshern7 (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

Wikipedia is VERY concerned with accuracy, but leaves the pursuit of truth to investigative journalists, scientists, theologians and poets. Once they have made their discoveries or conclusions and they have been upheld by their peers, then it is our job to accurately quote and present their work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Direct Reference to Al Qadi's "ties" to Muslim Brotherhood

I propose to directly quote or paraphrase this source: Comras, Victor D. Flawed Diplomacy: The United Nations and the War on Terrorism (Potomac Books Inc., 2010) p. 98

"Yasin Abdullah Ezzeddine Qadi (Al-Kadi) is an influential Saudi Arabian businessman, born in Egypt, tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and with financial interests around the world. He was one of the first persons designated by the United States for providing financial services and funds in support of Al-Qaeda."

Paraphrase: Al-Qadi is "tied to the Muslim Brotherhood" according to Victor D. Comras, one of the five UN Security Council-appointed international monitors on the measures being taken against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Then one or two lines tops about what the Muslim Brotherhood is (with a convenience link to the Wikipedia article on the Muslim Brotherhood) and keep moving forward (avoid digression). Is that format more acceptable? Markshern7 (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

That is what I was looking for: a reliable source (Comras appears to be an authority) in a non-self-published source (Potomac Books looks legit) making the direct connection. Your strategy to avoid digression by limiting discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood in this article to one or two sentences, and to leave the rest to the wikilink, is an excellent one. I support this direction; thanks for taking the extra steps to ensure this article meets Wikipedia's standards. alanyst 12:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding References

Using the Wikipedia biography of Abraham Lincoln as a model for format, I have made two new categories for references and have begun populating these fields. Obviously most books need ISBN information to be added later. For now I am blocking in some basic sources, which point readers to further reading, and making a list of footnoted sources in alpha order by author. Citation and style of citation will need closer attention and clean-up to fully comply with Wikipedia standards, but I thought it best to add these sources now lest the entire biography seem to be horribly under-sourced.Markshern7 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

List of Law Suits

The chronological arch of Mr. Al-Qadi's life after 2001 includes several lawsuits, which I am busily digesting now. These probably need to be put into a chart or presented graphically. Any suggestions how to present a long list of lawsuits in graphic form? Examples for modelling the format? Markshern7 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

Delisted in UK

Mr. Al-Qadi was de-listed (taken off the list of terrorism suspects) in the United Kingdom when he won a lawsuit there in 2008. In all fairness to him and to UK readers, this fact needs to be added immediately, with relevant details of the lawsuit, and that will be my next post. Markshern7 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7 Have found nothing but press release on website of Qadi's attorney, and am still looking for news reporting to confirm that Qadi was delisted by UK. Will post soon.Markshern7 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

Why was Dar al-Hekma Contoversy section cut?

Red Pen, I guess you deleted the Dar al-Hekma section because you consider it a Coatrack, but you left no clear reason for the cut. Please give your reasons and a suggestion for what needs to be trimmed. This is not a synthesis or original research: It is a genuine controversy being actively debated in the news and on the floor of the U.S. Congress, Mr. Qadi is clearly mentioned in a great deal of the debate, and complete deletion therefore seems inappropriate. Without any constructive comments or explanation why you deleted the whole thing, I will simply revert and re-post in 24 hours. 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

It was me who cut it, because I didn't see any evidence that the Bachmann-Abedin controversy has anything to do with al-Qadi. This is the letter the five members of Congress sent and it doesn't mention al-Qadi once, nor does it mention Dar Al-Hekma. Neither do most of the other sources you added. You need to stick to your biographical topic. Furthermore, you don't seem to know the difference between the New Republic and National Review. Hint: Big difference, and Andrew McCarthy writes for the latter, not the former. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point about the letter making no mention of Dar al Hekma is true, but it assumes that the letter itself is the center of the controversy and that is simply not the case. Hilary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Ms. Abedin, and the political alliance of her family to Muslim extremists and, specifically, to Mr. Qadi (a Specially Designated Terrorist) is at the center of the media debate. The website for Congressman Tancredo (cited) refers specifically to Yasin al-Qadi as an example of Ms. Abedin's "ties to terrorists," but if you missed that reference then your point is well taken: I need to add more references to the many sources citing Qadi. I will do so and will re-post a leaner, better-sourced section. Thank you for adding your perspective! Markshern7 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

History Commons

I noticed a number of citations in the article to History Commons. I inquired at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and a couple of uninvolved editors opined that the site should not be used as a source for this article. This agrees with my opinion of the source, so I will shortly begin removing references to the site and material that depends solely upon it. If anyone thinks History Commons is in fact reliable, I would be happy to discuss it here or at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. alanyst 22:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I suppose I should mention that I'm trying to get this article to a more focused state. Markshern7 has done a lot of work in providing material for this article, and I hope he knows that his willingness to contribute is appreciated. Alas, much of the material is off-topic, original synthesis, or not sourced properly. My vision is of an article that talks about Qadi himself, his life, and the story of his designation as a terrorism financier from 2001 until the present. It should summarize the allegations and defenses put forth regarding that designation, but it should not attempt to state original conclusions or give undue weight to either Qadi's accusers or defenders. And it should have only a handful of section headings. Again, this is not intended as anything personal toward those who have contributed, and I hope this cleanup effort is not taken as such (nor as an effort to enforce a particular point of view; I have no ulterior agenda on this subject). alanyst 23:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Need to confirm material from "False Profits" book

In the section about BCCI and Bin Mahfouz, the book False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World's Most Corrupt Financial Empire is cited for the following statements about Qadi:

• "Shortly after the arrival of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990, Qadi began to establish close business associations with Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, a banker who served the Saudi royal family and whose family were major shareholders in BCCI during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Like Qadi, Bin Mahfouz was based in Jeddah during the time that he served as BCCI's operations chief."
• "Yasin al-Qadi's political position with regard to the U.S. 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia seemed to be clear when he emerged in 1991 as the right-hand man of Khalid bin Mahfouz, a billionaire banker who became notorious that year for heading BCCI, 'the world's most corrupt financial empire.'"

There is also the unsourced statement:

• "Qadi was brought in to act as an agent for Khalid Bin Mahfouz, to help the Bin Mahfouz family repair and re-build their tattered financial empire. He was also brought in to maintain good financial relations with fundamentalists throughout the Islamic world, by building a more shariah-compliant banking network for the royal family, helping them to establish charities and to re-establish street-credit with the worldwide Islamic community."

Can someone with access to the False Profits book (I'm looking at you, Markshern7) please provide quoted excerpts from that book that support these statements? They must specifically refer to Qadi, not just connections of his. If the last statement should be cited to a different source, please provide an excerpt from that too. Thanks, alanyst 03:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I restructured the article into several top-level sections that cover thematic aspects of Qadi's life: his early life and family; his business and charitable ventures; the blacklisting and asset freeze; and the legal actions in various countries. (I'm open to other ideas on the structure but not the one-event-per-section approach of before; this article does not need dozens of sections.) From here I intend to gradually eliminate the level three subheadings by condensing material within them and smoothing the results into a cohesive narrative. The lede also needs to be trimmed down, with some of the most recent additions being moved into the body of the article. alanyst 06:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

I am a member of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi’s international coordinating legal team based in London, Carter-Ruck, and I request certain edits to this Wikipedia page on his behalf. I understand Wikipedia’s policies on edits to BLP pages and in suggesting edits below I will focus on factual inaccuracies and provide supporting independent references for ease of verification.

There are numerous inaccuracies in this article, but of primary concern is the incorrect assertion that Mr Kadi “remains a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” under U.S. law”. Mr Kadi was in fact removed from the US’s terrorism sanctions list in November 2014, following which he is no longer subject to any sanctions / restrictive measures by the US authorities, or by any other authority anywhere in the world. Thus the description of Mr Kadi as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” is incorrect.

I suggest that the wording “However, Qadi remains a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” under US law” is therefore deleted.

To provide proper and fair balance in this respect, the article’s introduction might also clearly state the position regarding Mr Kadi’s de-listing by the US Government’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in 2014, given that such a substantial part of the article goes on to focus on these restrictive measures. I suggest the following sentence is therefore added at the conclusion of the introductory section: “On November 26th 2014, OFAC removed Qadi from its List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List”.

The following web pages may be cited in support of this statement and the position regarding Mr Kadi’s de-listing, and there are further references should these be required:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/05/2014-28598/unblocking-of-a-specially-designated-global-terrorist-pursuant-to-executive-order-13224

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20141203226308

Additionally, I would request that the image of the World Trade Centre attacks is removed from this BLP page. It is a highly emotive image to be included on a BLP page, and where Mr Kadi has never been tried (let alone convicted) of any terrorism-related offence, and is no longer the subject of any sanctions anywhere in the world, we consider the inclusion of such an image to be inappropriate. Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist and in the past have done some cleanup work, which unfortunately has been stalled for some time. I will have limited access to Wikipedia for the next seven to ten days, but after that will try to prioritize this article for further cleanup particularly to bring it in line with the WP:BLP policy.

In the meantime, I will raise this issue at the BLP noticeboard so that it can receive more scrutiny from the community.

As an initial observation, it appears that the suggestions above are reasonable and consistent with BLP, and would improve the neutrality of the article. It is also helpful that recent sources have been provided, though I have not yet assessed their reliability. I will leave a note at the above user's talk page just to set expectations regarding NPOV and COI. alanyst 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Following my previous edit requests in respect of this page, I have further requests that I should be grateful if an editor would review. I suggest that the opening sentence of the third paragraph of the article could be expanded slightly in order to make it clearer. The existing statement that Mr Kadi “was removed from blacklists by…” Switzerland, the EU and the UK in the years identified is somewhat unclear, as it risks conflating the annulment of European restrictive measures by the Court, with the de-listing of Mr Kadi from restrictive measures. I propose that the third paragraph is therefore amended to open with the following:

“Following the European Court of Justice’s 2008 decision in Kadi I, the European institutions relisted Mr Qadi on 2 December 2008. Mr Qadi’s legal advisers launched a new action challenging the renewed EU measures which was successful: the renewed measures against Qadi were annulled by decision of the General Court of September 2010 later upheld by the European Court of Justice in its decision in Kadi II dated 18 July 2013. Separately, Mr Qadi’s name was removed from domestic blacklists by Switzerland (2007) and the United Kingdom (2008). On 13 September 2010…”

The following webpages may be referenced in support of the above section:

http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/Kadi_Press_Release_re_ECJ_judgement_3.9.08.pdf

http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/Kadi_Press_Release_Re_General_Court_Decision-300910.pdf

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/justice-attacks.6cn

http://www.arabnews.com/node/307013”

Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am a member of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi’s legal team based in London, Carter-Ruck, and I request certain edits to this Wikipedia page on his behalf. I ask that an editor review the edits that were suggested on this talkpage at 18:28 on 8 January 2016, and take them live for the reasons set out in that post. Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Without the sources inline with the text, it's just a mess of puffery. Also, threatening to "take edits live" is not a positive way of getting users to respond. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have adjusted the source referencing as follows for the proposed edits to the start of the third paragraph, in an effort to bring the sources in line with the text. I should be grateful if you would consider the proposed edits in light of these changes:

“Following the European Court of Justice’s 2008 decision in Kadi I, the European Commission relisted Mr Qadi through Commission Regulation 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 . Mr Qadi launched a new action challenging the renewed EU measures which was successful: the renewed measures against Qadi were annulled by decision of the General Court of September 2010 later upheld by the European Court of Justice in its decision dated 18 July 2013 . Separately, Mr Qadi’s name was removed from domestic blacklists by Switzerland (2007) and the United Kingdom (2008). On 13 September 2010…” Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

As a representative of Sheikh Yassin Kadi, I kindly request an edit in respect of the presentation of Mr Kadi’s name in this article. Mr Kadi’s family name is “Kadi” (which is also transliterated as Qadi). He has never been known as or referred to himself as “Al Qadi” or “Al Kadi”, notwithstanding that that is how his name has been presented by some organisations and institutions. Qadi, which in Arabic means an Islamic judge, is a common name throughout the Islamic world. "Al Qadi" means “the judge”. I propose that the references to “al-Qadi” are therefore amended where they appear in the article, and that the article’s title is similarly amended. For the sake of clarity, I would also suggest that in the opening sentence of the article, “also spelled as”, is amended to read “also transliterated from Arabic into English as”.

I should be grateful if someone would also review the amended edits that I proposed via this Talk page on 4 February 2016. I add that there are numerous further edits that I wish to propose to improve this page, and I would welcome any views on how best to progress these. Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I will try to address these requested edits in the next day or two. alanyst 00:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you for implementing the requested edit concerning the presentation of Mr Kadi’s name. In addition to these changes, I also propose the following amendments which I should be grateful if you would review, and implement to the extent that you consider them to be appropriate. Again, please do let me know if you feel that further or better sources are required in relation to any of these aspects, as I may be able to provide these:

Introduction

After “blacklist” and before the sentence beginning “On 26 November 2014” in the penultimate line of the introduction, I suggest adding the following to summarise Mr Kadi’s 2012 de-listing by the EU:

“By Commission Implementing Regulation 933/2012 of October 11, 2012 the EU removed its restrictive measures against Kadi. In its judgment of 18 July 2013 in Kadi II, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, comprising thirteen judges, confirmed the General Court’s annulment of the EU sanctions imposed upon Kadi in November 2008. The Court ruled it was ‘clear that no information of 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’.”

Early Life and Family

Mr Kadi in fact has six sisters rather than five. I note that the source currently referenced does not support the statement that he has five sisters, and I would refer to page 23 of the statement dated 17 December 2001, filed in connection with his claim against HM Treasury.

In the second paragraph, I propose amending “subsequently moved to Chicago” to read “subsequently became an intern at the architectural firm Skidmore Owings and Merrill in Chicago”

Business and nonprofit ventures

Mr Kadi became the vice president of the Jamjoom Group in 1981, not 1980, and this is confirmed in his witness statement of 17 December 2001, filed in connection with his claim against HM Treasury. The sentence beginning “A similarly named organization, Muwaffaq Ltd…” is not properly referenced and I suggest this is removed. Muwaffaq Ltd was in fact a commercial vehicle of Mr Kadi and had nothing to do with the charitable activities of the Muwafaq Foundation. However, I do not have any references to third party sources in relation to this.

I propose that the paragraph beginning “Plaintiffs who have filed a suit against Qadi…”, this sentence is extended to take account of Mr Kadi’s denials of this allegation, so that it continues “…an allegation Mr Kadi has repeatedly denied”.

In the paragraph beginning “In 1994, Qadi helped raise the original…”, I believe it is important for this section to make clear that Mr Kadi no longer had any interest in Ptech, Inc. at the time of its closure. I would suggest that the following is added as a new, penultimate sentence of this paragraph: “Qadi had by then divested himself of all his interests in the company on 4 October 1999”

Terrorism Blacklist - 1991: Loan Linked to Hamas

In this section, I believe any references to Mr Salah should be expanded to make it clear that he was acquitted of terrorism charges by a Federal Jury in a Chicago court on 1 February 2007.

December 2002: Brisard report given to UN Security Council

This section refers to a report submitted by Jean-Charles Brisard to the UN Security Council. For the reasons set out in the link below, I consider that the first source cited under this heading should not be relied upon and I would suggest that this section is therefore deleted completely. However, if you believe it should be retained, I propose that the opening paragraph under this heading is extended to include the following:

“Contrary to claims made by Brisard, the former president of the UN Security Council, Alfonso Valdivieso, later confirmed that Brisard’s report was unsolicited and that he had not been commissioned by the UN to produce a report on terrorism financing. Mr Valdivieso described Mr Brisard’s conduct in asserting otherwise as “totally deceitful and marked by the intention to mislead”.” Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

References

 The above user, Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) has made a request at their user talk page for an administrator to "review the suggestions and consider whether these or similar edits might be appropriate". I am posting this comment here, just so all editors reading this talk page are aware of all developments in this discussion.  Seagull123  Φ  21:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)