Talk:Khalid El-Masri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] The salt pit

The article says --American security officials, described in an MSNBC article as members of a "black snatch team", came to Macedonia, and transported him to a covert CIA interrogation centre in Afghanistan known as "the salt pit". --- Even if Khalid is the source, and if he is accurate, the salt pit stuff is not sourced nor credible. Joaquin Murietta 06:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that JM's use of the {accuracy} tag here is a mistaken one. The article cites over half a dozen articles, which contain similar accounts. Summaries of those articles is, I believe valid content for the wikipedia.
JM is perfectly entitled to have private doubts about Khalid's credibility. But he hasn't supplied any reason for us to share his doubts. Until he can do so I think the {accuracy} tag should be removed. -- Geo Swan 18:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. There seem to be ample credible sources here. Acctorp 23:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] placement of the {accuracy} tag as of 2005/12/15

I'm reinserting the accuracy tag, because the article states as fact things that are disputed, rather than stating them as allegations and attributing them to who makes the allegations. In particular, it would be nice to see which are things Khalid has alleged, which things the CIA has admitted to versus denied, which allegations have some independent confirmation (e.g. admissions from the Macedonian government), and so on. Stating a murky story that is disputed flatly as "this happened, then this happened, etc." is sloppy and inaccurate. --Delirium 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about what you consider inaccurate?
Are you challenging that El-Masri was kidnapped, held in a clandestine interrogation centre, and subjected to abusive interrogation? Or are you merely challenging whether there is enough proof to write about his case as if there was no serious question to his version of events?
Can I ask if you took the time to read the references before you applied the {accuracy} tag?
What has the CIA admitted publicly? denied publicly? Very little, of course. Privately? That is a different matter. The existence of the salt pit was confirmed by the Washington Post's CIA sources almost two years ago. Senior members of the Bush administration keep trying to obfuscate their blame for the tainted evidence they used to justify the invasion of Iraq -- implying the blame lay with the US intelligence establishment. But, as many people suspected, we now know that the primary blame for the use of tainted evidence lay with the Bush administration, not with the intelligence officials, except for a few "yes men", like George "Slam Dunk" Tenet. We now know what some commentators speculated on -- that the Bush administration "cherry-picked" intelligence that confirmed the story they wanted to put forward, and ignored the warnings of established, experienced intelligence professionals. Privately, those intelligence professionals are enraged, and have responded by leaking.
Angela Merkel reports that Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice confirmed El-Masri's story. The US State Department's version of events is that Chancellor Merkel misunderstood Dr Rice. Their version is that Dr Rice merely acknowledged mistakes had been made, without confirming this particular mistake. His story has been big news in Germany. What do you think happened when Merkel met Rice? I would be amazed if Merkel didn't ask Rice a direct question about his case. Given the prominence of the case it is inconceivable that Rice wouldn't have been prepared for this question. Do you honestly think anything but a categorical denial of any US involvement in El-Masri's disappearance should be seen as anything other than a confirmation?
Did you read the reference that confirmed that jets from the CIAs covert transportation fleet filed flight plans that were consistent with transporting El-Masri on the days he says he was transported? If, for the sake of argument, El-Masri just made up the story of a CIA kidnapping to cover up for a five month bender; if, for the sake of argument, El-Masri was a hoaxer, like that nutty runaway bride they had in the US last year, he could not have known of the dates those jets travelled. Journalists hadn't dug up those flight plans when his story first came out. This helps confirm that his story is true.
Did you read any of the links that described the forensic analysis of his hair, which confirmed that he had been malnourished during the missing months? This also helps confirm that his story is true. -- Geo Swan 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not in a position to judge whether these allegations are accurate or not, and neither is this article in general; Wikipedia is not a source for original research. All I wish this article to do is, as per policy, report who has alleged what, who has denied what, and generally attribute claims to the appropriate sources. See, for example, the much better-written Stanley Williams: he's even been convicted of murder (a conviction upheld on appeal), and we still don't flatly present unattributed facts; instead, we say things like, "according to court transcripts...", adding "but Williams maintains his innocence". In this case, we should say similar things, like "Khalid alleges..." or "Khalid's lawsuit alleges...", inserting where appropriate things like "the CIA admits [x], but denies [y]", and so on. --Delirium 18:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I looked at the Tookie Williams article. So, what exactly do you think there is to learn from that article? Could you please be specific about your concern? -- Geo Swan 04:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I take issue with Geo Swanremoval of the following entry by meJoaquin Murietta 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Joaquin Murietta has made a habit of leveling accusations and insults at me. I am fed up with them. I am removing this one. To summarize, he has accused me, once again, of trying to abuse the wikipedia to advance a private agenda. It is an insult I bitterly resent and totally deny. The disproof of JM's denial is that my posting record shows I never ignore when people express civil, serious concerns about my contributions.
User:Joaquin Murietta, on the other hand, routinely blows off civil questions. -- Geo Swan 04:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can't change the order of the {ref} tags without changing the order of the {note} tags

I went to the effort of changing the Khalid El-Masri article to use the new {ref}-{note} pairs for the references. The thing about them is that if you re-arrange the order of the references, in the text -- as you did -- you have to put the order of the {note}s in the same order. When a reader clicks on the {ref} link it redirects to the reference section. But the reader relies on the number to determine which reference link they should follow. By rearranging the order of the {ref} tags in the text, without rearranging the order of the {note} tags, the notes bear the wrong numbers. I'd like to call on the person who made the first change to please fix the order of the {note} tags. -- Geo Swan 15:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. It's a pity it's getting so technically complicated for people who just want to write content. Can you direct me to the meta page that describes how to do this so I can learn how to get it right? Nurg 22:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Names similar, or identical?

The article has been changed today from saying his name was similar to the al Qaeda suspect to saying his name was identical. -- Geo Swan 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the names are identical in Arabic but vary in the way they are transliterated to English. Nurg 22:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passport suspected to be a forgery?

The article now implies that Macedonian authorities had independent reasons to believe El-Masri's passport was a forgery.

If his passport was really an obvious forgery, such that it could be detected by a Macedonian border guards, then it would not have taken the CIA a month to determine it was legitimate.

My reading of the various accounts of this controversy is that the only reason his passport was suspect was that it said he was a German, when the al Qaeda suspect was not a German. This article should not imply there was independent reason to suspect his passport was a forgery, unless there really were independent reasons to suspect it was a forgery. -- Geo Swan 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Geo, it appears from the page history that on 25 Oct you wrote the sentence, "The Macedonian border officials had initially arrested him on the suspicion that his German passport was a forgery." Feel free to clarify or correct the article because I'm not sure what you mean. Nurg 00:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article title and redirects

I merged the duplicate article into this one as this was the fuller article. I am not supposing that this is the best article title. I have made a number of redirects as different sources spell his English name differently. I have no objection to the article being renamed if considered appropriate. Nurg 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of entries from Talk Page

I take issue with Geo Swan's editing and deletion of my comments on this talk page. Joaquin Murietta 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 68.147.45.60's biggest problem

The biggest problem here is that there is too much subjective evaluation presented as fact. Let the reader decide if a cell is putrid, if the food is meager. What were the dimensions of the cell? What exactly did he eat, and how much of it did he get?68.147.45.60 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)nameless.

Were El-Masri'ss rations meager?
  • El-Masri lost a lot of weight during his incarceration.
  • The forensic analysis of his hair, that proved he had been in Afghanistan, shows he was malnourished.
What were the dimensions of his cell?
  • El-Masri did draw a diagram of his cell in relation to the neighboring cells. But asking for the exact dimentions is unreasonable. Do you think the guards would have brought him a tape measure?
68.147.45.60, would you consider logging in, and signing your comments? -- Geo Swan 09:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, he did admit to going on hunger-strike; would this not explain his malnourishment? So then that his portions were inadequate would not be substantiated by his malnourishment. I'm sorry; I've no account.--72.38.225.72 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a hoax. El Masri is a victim of illegal human traffic so he shouldn't be in that cell in the first place. Otto 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play it again, Sam!

The article does not seem to mention anything about the search for Sam, the mysterious German who El-Masri claimed visited him in the prison. See for example http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,402289,00.html.

I also think it would be good if the article more prominently referenced material on Wikipedia about the ongoing investigation by the Council of Europe, which recently stated that Europe has become a "happy hunting ground" for foreign security services such as the CIA.

Filur 18:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article on Khalid_al-Masri seems to have more information on Sam. In this article, the mysterious Sam is identified as Gerhard Lehmann. A Google search will reveal more information Filur 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No merger

They are two different people, so a merger would be out of place. There would also be problems with categorys, since only one can be labeled Al Quaeda member. ROGNNTUDJUU! 10:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations stated as fact?

I am inclined to believe that El-Masri's story is true as stated. But it does nothing for Wikipedia's credibility - or for my credibility if I am presenting this story to others - for allegation and supposition to be stated as fact. Departure from NPOV policy does no favours to opponents of extraordinary rendition - we must clearly state the facts we can clearly demonstrate, and separate out the sources properly. — ciphergoth 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


  1. 12 refrence "U.S. seeks to block lawsuit against CIA, Associated Press, December 12, 2006" date is not correct the article was realeased May 12, 2006 (december 12 06 has not even come to past yet) please change
This article states allegation as fact from the very start:

"June 29, 1963) is a German citizen who was, in the course of the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme, detained, flown to Afghanistan, and interrogated and tortured by the CIA for several months as a part of the War on terror, and then released without charge."

All of this is allegation. Needs fixing. 59.167.20.22 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

El Masri's presence in Afghanistan was verified by forensic analysis of the chemical makeup of his hair. This forensic analysis also verified he went through several months of severe malnourishment -- if the fact that he lost about forty pounds wasn't proof enough. Does "dietary manipulation" so severe that the subject's hair shows malnourishment, and the involuntarily lose ten pounds per month rise to the definition of torture John Yoo put forward? Pain as one would feel when dying, or experiencing organ failure? Probably not. But would it meet most people's definition. Probably. Would it meet everyone' definition -- after they had experienced a couple of weeks of this kind of "dietary manipulation"? -- Geo Swan 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denied entry into the US

According to Ben Wizner, El-Masri's attorney, El-Masri was denied entry into the U.S. for no apparent reason.

To add insult to injury, when he arrived at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta, for absolutely no reason he was turned back by immigration officials and put on a plane back to Europe, after being detained for a few hours.

Can anyone else find more information on this? When did this occur? Obviously El-Masri's lawyer has his clients agenda at heart but that doesn't necessarily make him a liar. In the absence of a credible story from the government it looks as if he was sent away to avoid bad PR for the current administration. Funkyj 19:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Both El-Masri -- and his German lawyer -- were denied entry, when he tried to come to the USA to take part in a lawsuit being filed on his behalf. I can't remember the exact date, or the human rights organization that was assisting him. There had been speculation that he was denied entry because incompetent or malicious intelligence officials still hadn't removed his name from the "no-fly list". But denying entry to his lawyer, as well, suggests that this was not a mistake. -- Geo Swan 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the American human rights organization that attempted to help with this case was the ACLU. -Scott P. 16:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can transfer to the salt pit be considered rendition?

The December 4, 2005 Washington post article refers to El-Masri's case as a possible erroneous rendition. But El-Masri was sent to the salt pit, which was reportedly a place run by the CIA. My understanding is that "extraordinary rendition" (or "erroneous rendition") is a term used to describe transfers of people from US custody into the custody of other governments for imprisonment and/or interrogation. This does not sound like what happened here. It seems that he was captured by US forces in Macedonia, transported by US forces to Afghanistan, held by US forces in Afghanistan, and then dumped off by US forces in Albania. Since all of that involved US custody, how is that rendition? Is it the final drop in Albania that makes the term apply? But I thought the term applies only to handing people off from one captor to another — what happened in Albania was just letting the guy loose, so that doesn't really sound like rendition either. —Wookipedian 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer "yes". Plausible deniability. Janis Karpinski, in the weeks after the Abu Ghraib scandal blew up, tried to claim that Abu Ghraib was really an Iraqi facility, not a US DoD facility. If things had gone down a little differently they would have tried to claim that the salt pit was an Afghan facility, and that the CIA commandant was just an advisor to an Afghan commandant. -- Geo Swan 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

While it might have been plausible at one time to claim that this was a rendition, you seem to confirm that it in fact was not. I therefore have added a clarifying paragraph to the article. —Wookipedian 18:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

After further thought, I reverted my own edit. It is not clear to me whether extraordinary rendition actually implies a hand-over of control to an separate entity or whether just movement to a different place for purposes of trying to control the jurisdiction of actions is sufficient to meet the definition. I am not an attorney, and don't have detailed knowledge of such terminiology. —Wookipedian 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As Stephen Grey writes in Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program (St. Martin's Press, 2006, ISBN 0312360231), "extraordinary rendition" is just an euphemism for "kidnapping". Initially, the idea was to bring suspects to the US to put them on trial, later, the intentions altered. As Grey writes, the term had not been made up by the CIA, but been used before by US Marshalls and FBI agents. There is no exact definition, so "rendition" and "extraordinary rendition" are used synonymously. (As I have the German edition of the book mentioned above, it makes no sense to give the page numbers where the origin of the term "extraordinary rendition" is explained; however, it is in chapter 6 of the German edition.) Pruefer 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unexplained edits

There have been a series of unexplained edits.

  1. This edit is counter to the policy of compensating for the wikipedia's systematic bias. Americans may know that the CIA is an American institution. But contributors should not assume that citizens of other countries will know this. -- Geo Swan 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Why were the wikilink brackets removed from the first instance of al Qaeda in this edit. Why was Khalid al-Masri unlinked?
  3. I believe this is a non-standard form of citation. The publisher is in italic, not the title. The Publisher should be a wikilink to the wikipedia's article on the Publisher.
  4. The contributor has removed the subtitle portion of all the article titlss.
  5. As above, in this edit, Der Spiegel is more useful and, IMO, more correct, than SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 1: Naturally, I can't speak for the whole world; but what I can say is that if one mentions the abbrevation "CIA" (in it's English pronounciation) here in Germany, everybody knows what you are talking about, and one can assume that's the same in the rest of Europe :-) But to be more serious: I don't see that creating a WikiLink to the US (at it was before) is helpful to the reader in any way; I was refering to this guideline when removing the link. Pruefer 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 2: Here, I removed (as I recall it) redundant links, with respect to the same Wikipedia guidelines. Pruefer 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 3: I used the style of quotation one gets if using the "cite book" template, i.e.:
Priest, Dana (2005-12-04). Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2006-10-13. 
However, until now, I did not realize that using the "cite web" template would give another result:
Priest, Dana (2005-12-04). Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
Using "cite news" gives another appearence:
Priest, Dana. "Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake", Washington Post, 2005-12-04. Retrieved on 2006-10-13. 
So I'd better use those templates again, last time I simply was too lazy to do so :-) Pruefer 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 4: I did so because to my knowledge it is uncommon to use the subtitles when citing a paper. (At least, it is in German Wikipedia, You have my apologies if that's not the case in the English WP.) Pruefer 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 5: :The contents in "DER SPIEGEL" and "SPIEGEL ONLINE" are not always identical, this might be the case (and in fact, it often is), but need not; as the citation appeared in SPIEGEL ONLINE first, in my opinion it is more correct to cite "SPIEGEL ONLINE" as source, rather than "DER SPIEGEL". Pruefer 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release

The article said Dr Rice ordered his El-Masri's release. This was changed to say she requested his relase, becausne another editor couldn't imagine she had the authority to issue that kind of order. This is from MSNBC:

By May, sources say National Security Council Director Condoleezza Rice learned of the mistake and ordered El-Masri's immediate release. She said as well that the German government should be told of the incident, for diplomatic reasons. But that didn’t end the case. About two weeks later, Rice learned El-Masri was still being held and ordered him released again.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rm inaccurate material -- see talk

Over a year ago I spent some time looking into the German reports that El-Masri had been a member of a radical militant group named "al-Tawhid". The claim is almost certainly bullshit -- based on confusion between Ahl al-Tawhid and Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad.

We are supposed to assume good faith, so I will assume that insertion of the allegation that El-Masri was a member of a radical militant group into the introductory material was not POV-pushing.

But I think it was, at best, extremely careless. Whoever inserted that material didn't bother to read the whole article and see that the allegation had already been addressed.

When I looked, back in March 2006, I did not find any references that definitively said El-Masri was a Druze. So, even though it the most likely explanation, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to insert it into article space.

The material I removed didn't even make sense. It is highly credible that El-Masri could claim asylum based on membership of an oppressed minority ethnic group, like the Druze, when his country was in the midst of a civil war. It is almost unbelievable to think Germany would extend asylum to someone based on their membership in a radical militant group, like Zarqawi's. In addition, El-Masri is old than Al-Zarqawi, and Al-Zarqawi hadn't yet founded his group when El-Masri claimed asylum..

I came across reports that El-Masri had been a squad leader in a local militia when he was a young man in Lebanon. But that is hardly surprising in a country in the midst of a civil war, when practically every military age male could be expected to be a member of one local militia or another.

Hopefully, no one will re-insert the clearly bogus claim that El-Masri had been a member of Al-Zarqawi's group.

Cheers! Geo Swan 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tawhid, Druze, changes, el

  • "Tawhid" simply means union, and in this case most likely refers to the Sunni Muslim militia in Tripoli, Lebanon, during the civil war there. The idea that he might have been referring to the Druze is original research, and seems very unlikely. So I've changed this.

Ok, found some links, MSN link doesn't work anymore, so check these: [1][2]. So it is certain that he was a member of the Islamic Unification Movement in Lebanon.

Also, his name should be written Khaled el-Masri. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Facts that I do not believe are in dispute:
  • There have been German reports that el-Masri reported being a member of, or associated with, a group called "al-Tawhid", when he applied for refugee status in 1985.
  • Zarqawi's group, that was eventually re-named al Qaeda in Iraq, was originally called: "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad".
  • Zarqawi's group had not been founded in 1985, when el-Masri applied for refugee status.
  • Al Qaeda had not been founded, in 1985, when al-Masri applied for refugee status.
  • There are at least two groups in Lebanon that have "al-Tawhid" as part of their name.
Two new sources were offered by one of our correspondents, which seem to me to be just blogs -- not reliable, verifiable, authoritative sources:
Correspondent offered these references to back up the following assertion:

A report on 2006 March 2, claimed that El-Masri may have been a leader of the radical Sunni-Muslim Lebanese group "al-Tawhid al-Islami" during the early 1980s - the time of the Lebanese Civil War.[2] German reports assert that El-Masri reported his being a member of "El-Tawhid" or "Al-Tawhid" when he applied to Germany for refugee status, in 1985.

These sources don't mention "al-Tawhid al-Islami" at all.
I don't think these sources really say he was a leader. The sources seem to say he lead a 16-man squad in a militia, during the civil war -- an NCO, not someone who should be described as a "leader".
I don't see a reliable source describing Al-Tawhid Al-Islami as a "radical" group -- even if we had sources that said El-Masri was a member.
Similarly, I am asking for opinions on whether the Drudge Report should be considered a reliable source, and should be cited here. In this instance Drudge's report doesn't mention el-Masri -- at all. Drudge merely reports a rumor that Zarqawi, the founder of "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" had ties to radicals in Germany.
Our correspondent says that stating el-Masri was a member of the Druze, the Ahl al Tawhid, without a verifiable, reliable reference, would be original research. I agree.
However stating or implying he was a member of "Harakat al-Tawhid al-Islami" based on the German reports that he was a member of "al-Tawhid" in 1985 would also be original research.
The original article from http://focus.msn.dc is no longer online. We have the title of the article, the publication, and the date of publication. If there was a print version this article would remain a verifiable source, even if it is no longer online. What I think happened is that MSN bought a German publication called "Focus", owned it in 2006, and put English translations of its articles up on focus.msn.de. I think MSN has since sold Focus, and the new owners chose not to maintain, or didn't have the rights to the English translations. The German magazine Focus does have articles that tie el-Masri to a group with "al-Tawhid" in its name.
El-Masri war Mitglied bei el-Tawhid
El Masri früher Islamist?
I'd welcome suggestions as to how to deal with the lack of a reliable official translation.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The real treat would be to get out hands on something quoting the actual report. Anyhow, what he have now is the first link you posted, which can be found as a non-bot translated version here[3], and says: "The verschleppte to Afghanistan German-Lebanese Khaled el-Masri was command chief of a radical movement in Lebanon, FOCUS reported.
Der Deutsch-Libanese kommandierte nach Informationen der deutschen Geheimdienste eine 16-köpfige bewaffnete Gruppe im Libanon. The German-Lebanese commanded for information of the German secret services a 16-strong armed group in Lebanon. Das geht FOCUS zufolge aus dem 273 Seiten umfassenden Geheimbericht der deutschen Sicherheitsbehörden an das Parlamentarische Kontrollgremium (PKG) hervor. That's according to FOCUS from the 273-page secret report of the German security authorities to the Parliamentary Control Panel (PKG).
Demnach war el-Masri zu Beginn der 80er-Jahre führendes Mitglied der radikalen Bewegung el-Tawhid. According to el-Masri was in the early 80s leading member of the radical movement al-Tawhid. Die ideologisch der Moslembruderschaft nahe stehende Organisation bekämpfte in erster Linie die als unislamisch geltende Sekte der Alaviten im Libanon. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood organization related fought primarily as un-Islamic sect of Alaviten force in Lebanon. Das Einsatzgebiet von el-Masri und seiner Truppe soll Tripoli gewesen sein. The operational area of el-Masri and his troops should have been Tripoli."
From that, it is clear which Tawhid they refer to. It is the Islamic Unification Movement, simply research the group, it is the only one which was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, was based in Tripoli and fought Alawites.
Also, by reading this [4], it appears that the aforementioned Lebanese "al Tawhid" movement, which is today a political party within Lebanon, has been confused with another unrelated group designated as terrorist with "tawhid" in its name by the German press and others.
By the way, according to this[5], the other Lebanese movement with "tawhid" in its name, the Druze "Lebanese Unification Movement", had only existed for a year in June of 2007, and thus it is impossible that it is the "tawhid" referred to as operating in the 80s.
So to conclude: the Islamic Harakat al-Tawhid al-Islami is the only movement fitting the description in the focus article, Zarqawi's Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad is an unrelated Iraqi group with tawhid in it's name, which some seem to have confused with the Lebanese tawhid movement after reading the leaked info from the report, and the second Lebanese tawhid movement, Lebanese Unification Movement lead by the Druze Wiam Wahab, was established only two years ago, and therefore is out of the question. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That first link you put, above, is just a blog. It does not comply with the verifiability policy.
Please remember that the first line of the verifiability policy says we aim for "verifiability, not truth". It is a good policy. Maybe you have some background with these groups? It may seem obviously true to you that the el-Tawhid el-Masri put on his refugee application is Harakat al-Tawhid al-Islami. But this is not a conclusion in any of the sources.
You wrote, above, that says the "Lebanese Unification Movement" only existed for one year? But the Druze themselves have existed for over a thousand years. Haven't they been known as Ahl al Tawhid that entire time?
Because other people are going to be reading this discussion could you indent your comments so later readers will find it easier to figure out who is replying to whom? Geo Swan (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the link I posted is identical to the link you posted in that it includes a translation of the Focus article, it was translated by a person however, not a bot, and this is the only reason why I posted it and why it is interesting, so I'm not sure what your point is.

You seem to be ignoring my main points, which make clear that the Focus article can only be referring to the Islamic Unification Movement, as it is the only group with the word "tawhid" in its name which even existed in Lebanon during the 1980s (and which was and is known in Arabic by this one-word name alone and variations of it, "Tawhid", "al-Tawhid", "Tawhed", etc., see their website[6]), and the only one that matches the profile in the Focus article (check the Wikipedia entry of the group, it is well-sourced), so I'll repeat:

1: Only the Islamic Unification Movement has ties to the Muslim brotherhood, as it is a group which splintered off from the Islamic Group (Lebanon), which was founded as the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.[7]

2: Only the Islamic Unification Movement worked as a radical armed group during the Lebanese Civil War in the 1980s.[8]

3: Only the Islamic Unification Movement fought against Alawites in Tripoli, Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War.[9]

All this excludes tawhid from referring to the Druze as a people, and any other group for that matter, due to the fact that the Druze are neither linked to the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, or were "an armed radical group in Tripoli, which fought Alawites during the civil war". In fact, no Druze even live in the city of Tripoli. Furthermore, Druze wouldn't refer to themselves as simly "al-Tawhid", it wouldn't make linguisitc sense.

This also excludes the other Lebanese movement with tawhid in its name, the Druze-lead political party calle the "Lebanese Unification Movement", as this group was founded only two years ago.[10]

So the question is not whether the Focus article referred to the Islamic Unification Movmement when it mentioned "al-Tawhid" (it is pretty much indisputable that it did), but whether el-Masri himself referred to this group when he mentioned "al-tawhid". Funkynusayri (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree that I am ignoring your points. Your conclusion that the translation of the focus article could only refer to the "Islamic Unity Movement" may very well be "true". But it is not "verifiable". We have to comply with the wikipedia's policy on verifiability. You don't have an authoritative source that has drawn this conclusion. So you can't put it in article space.
Even if the references you cited DID draw that conclusion, they are just blogs. They are not authoritative enough to cite as references.
You write: "...the Focus article can only be referring to the Islamic Unification Movement, as it is the only group with the word "tawhid" in its name which even existed in Lebanon during the 1980s (and which was and is known in Arabic by this one-word name alone and variations of it..." -- Do you have a reliable, verifiable source for this assertion?
You write: "In fact, no Druze even live in the city of Tripoli." You may know this somehow. Maybe you lived there, or you have relatives who lived there? You may know this some other way. But what we aim to put into article space has to comply with the verifiability policy, which aims for "verifiability, not truth."
You write: "Furthermore, Druze wouldn't refer to themselves as simly "al-Tawhid", it wouldn't make linguisitc sense." I don't speak Arabic. Maybe you do. Sorry, that doesn't make you a reliable source.
You aren't the only person to reach private conclusions you can't put into article space. The wikipedia's policies don't allow us to insert our own unsubstantiated conclusions, no matter how sure we are we are correct. I've been in the same situation I think you now find yourself in. In those cases I sat on my private conclusions. I kept my eyes peeled to see if an authoritative source reached the conclusion I had. I am sorry, but I think this is what you have to do too. Geo Swan (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, yet again you ignore my three main points, what you just commented on was backstory and context. So I repeat:
1: Only group known as "tawhid" that has ties to the Muslim brotherhood, as it is a group which splintered off from the Islamic Group (Lebanon), which was founded as the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is The Islamic Unification Movement.[11]
2: Only group known as "tawhid" that worked as a radical armed group during the Lebanese Civil War in the 1980s is The Islamic Unification Movement.[12]
3: Only group known as "tawhid" that fought against Alawites in Tripoli, Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War is The Islamic Unification Movement.[13]
Funkynusayri (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please show respect for other wikipedians by following the indentation conventions -- so other readers can tell who is responding to what. Geo Swan (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are forcing me to be more blunt.
I did not ignore your points.
WRT to point 1 -- blogs aren't reliable sources.
WRT to point 2 -- blogs aren't reliable sources.
WRT to point 3 -- Time is not a blog. Time is a reliable, verifiable source. But http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951288,00.html does not back up "Only group known as 'tawhid' that fought against Alawites in Tripoli, Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War is The Islamic Unification Movement." -- You need a non-blog verifiable source that says "Khalid El-Masri was a member of the group Harakat al Tawhid al Islami" -- or reasonable equivalent -- if you are going to have the article state he was a member.
Yes, I have read your repeated claims that this is obviously true. I do not agree that it is obviously true. Even if you were to convince me it was obviously true this would not matter -- at all. Because you aren't a Reliable Source, and neither am I.
Please look at WP:SYNTH. It is a shortcut to a section of the policy on no original research. No original research doesn't just proscribe wikipedians inserting brand new ideas. It also proscribes taking one thing that is verifiable, and another thing that is verifiable, and connecting them with a novel connection -- a previously unpublished synthesis.
"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."
You have unrelated verifiable material.
  1. Khalid El-Masri is reported to have listed "El-Tawhid" or "Al-Tawhid" on his refugee claim in 1985.
  2. Khalid El-Masri is reported to have been a junior NCO in a militia in Lebanon prior to seeking refugee status.
  3. A group called "Harakat al Tawhid al Islami" had a militia, still has a militia, in Lebanon.
Who, other than you, and your unreliable blogs, has connected El-Masri to Harakat al Tawhid al Islami? Nobody.
It doesn't matter how obvious you think this conclusion is, because your conclusion is "original research".
I am going to repeat myself. It doesn't matter how obvious you think this conclusion is, because your conclusion is "original research".
Your conclusion may very well be correct. But putting it in article space is a policy violation, because you can't cite a verifiable source that drew that conclusion.
If you are going to respond please observe the indentation convention. -- Geo Swan (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring this, which you provided yourself? [14]

"According to el-Masri was in the early 80s leading member of the radical movement al-Tawhid. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood organization related (bad bot translation, but means they were related to the Muslim brotherhood) fought primarily as un-Islamic sect of Alaviten force in Lebanon. The operational area of el-Masri and his troops should have been Tripoli."

That, not the "unrelated verifiable material" you mention, is what I based my conclusion on. Is that not verifiable?

I could easily find other sources than the blogs you complain about that state that the organisation known as al-Tawhid, or Harakat al-Tawhid al-Islami, fits the above description. But I don't think it would make a difference, as the full name of the organisation isn't mentioned in the German article above.

So well, as I doubt the full report on el-Masri will ever be published, all we have is that Focus article, which describes an organisation which can only be "Harakat al-Tawhid etc". I understand if you object to the Wiki article saying that the Focus article in fact does refer to this organisation, because they do not refer to the organisation by its full name (though it rarely is referred to by its full name anyway).

One thing I find strange though is that you accepted the mention of the Druze in this article, though it was unsourced, pure speculation, and extremely unlikely.

I may have taken for granted that some of the things I said were obvious, but I realise that I should maybe take it into consideration that some of this political info is a bit obscure to non-Lebanese.

So let me be entirely clear and simple:

1: The Druze are completely out of the question, due to them not being ideologically affiliated with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in any way.

2: The other Lebanese organisation with tawhid in its name is completely out of the question too, as it was formed only two years ago.

So I agree, the article should not say el-Masri is believed to have been a membver of the exact group I mention, but that it is probable that it is the group referred to in the article. I'll make the article reflect this and hope that you agree. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What did Rice know?

The article states that Rice was aware of the error and requested El-Masri's release, using an article from MSNBC to back that statement. However, reading several other press links I find that Rice denies this. Any thoughts on this? Gandydancer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)