Jump to content

Talk:Jamal Khashoggi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Adding "He was a sympathizer and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood" to the lead

[edit]

I added "He was a sympathizer and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood." to the lead but was reverted (without explanation, by SharʿabSalam. So, let's discuss. I think it is important enough to be in the lead, and it is, more or less, a summary of what is in the article. More sources can be found in the archives of the talk page (search Muslim Brotherhood) but I have not checked any sources. Perhaps a better wording can be found. There are several quotes in the article about him being in the brotherhood, in the Political views subsection. The lead should be balanced; perhpas the Muslim Brotherhood membership is too "shocking" - that is why I did not add it directly to the first sentence (that would be too much given his subsequent work). Some of Khashoggi' opinions are in the lead so it should be incorporated somehow. So, 1) what would be a proper short summary of his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and 2) how (where) in the lead is hould be incorporated? WikiHannibal (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHannibal, I clearly explained in the talk page. No sources say that he was a "sympathizer of the Muslim brotherhood". Clearly you are violating BLP (still affects his family) by adding unsourced content to the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, no sources? The article reads, for example: "Khashoggi stated that Saudi Arabia ... must ... build alliances with organisations rooted in political Islam such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and that it would be a "big mistake" if Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be friendly.", quotes him as saying: "yes, I joined the Muslim Brotherhood organization when I was at university; and I was not alone" Other opinions have it: Khashoggi was supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood ... In one of his own blogs he argued for the Muslim Brotherhood. Sources at he respective places in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiHannibal, that no way means he "was a sympathizer of the Muslim brotherhood". You are clearly violating one of the most sacred principles on Wikipedia which is WP:BLP. You are making original research to an article that affects BLP.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To WikiHannibal - RS do not say Jamal "is a sympathizer" to Muslim Brotherhood. SharʿabSalam▼ is correct, that should be removed from the article completely & especially removed from the lead. Also, the RS say that Khashoogi was a member of the brotherhood in the late 1970s [1] when he was a student at Indiana University in America, up through his time covering the Soviet(Russia)-Afghanistan War, and then left the brotherhood sometime in the early 1990s [2]. (I will note here for historical purposes, that during the Russia-Afghanistan War, the United Stated trained, funded, and helped the Afghanistan mujahideen whose members included the Muslim Brotherhood against the Soviets. [3]) Since any membership he had with the MB ended almost 30 years before he was assassinated, it does not belong in the lead so it should be removed because it is not important at all to his bio. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added he "was", based on the coverage of this topic article. I the article is not neutral or lacks important info, it would be best to change the article, perhaps using your sources. Also, this article is about the persoange, not the assassination, so it should cover his life in its (encyclopedic) entirety. More historical context is needed to explain his relations with the Muslim Brotherhood but to say that is "shloud be removed from the article completely" is a little too far-fetched, in my opinion. Cheers, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To WikiHannibal - Reliable sources do not support your claims. For example, RS do not say Jamal "is a sympathizer" to Muslim Brotherhood so yes, it should be removed completely from the article. I know you're working hard, but you should stop adding things that RS do not support, otherwise, you risk starting an unnecessary edit war. SharʿabSalam▼ is correct, you are violating WP:BLP. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: I just used info in the article. RS are not needed for the lead (per WP:LEAD. RS should be in the article. If some sources in the article are not reliable, please tag them. When sources say he was a member, and "argued for the Muslim Brotherhood", is "sympatizer" a correct/safe hyperonym or not? How would you summarize his relation with the Muslim brotherhood? The topic is covered in the article but, as I said, perhaps not with enough context. Also, as you can see, I did not add it to the article again, so not sure what you mean by "should stop adding things that RS do not support". Also, when you claim I violate WP:BLP, please be more specific what exactly I violated (there are several subsections); I find MOS:BLPLEAD more to the point: "make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article", and "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject ... should be kept in historical perspective. ...new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." WikiHannibal (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include loaded language such as "sympathizer", you'd better have good sources saying "sympathizer". starship.paint (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Khashoggi's grandfather

[edit]

I wanted to edit the reference to insert the New York Magazine Google Books URL but am unable to do so correctly. Here is the URL I wanted to insert: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=NugCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Khashoggi+%22has+a+Jewish+grandfather%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRkenl5MLuAhVuRhUIHT17BLEQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=Khashoggi%20%22has%20a%20Jewish%20grandfather%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcljlm (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this source, according to the quote: ""In it, [Adnan] Khashoggi declared his love for New York and his love for Jewish food and even trotted out the startling fact that he has a Jewish grandfather". There is no mention of Jamal in the source, or whether this is a paternal or maternal origin. I haven't found any other sources that claim Jewish heritage (of Jamal, or even Adnan for that matter). Sseevv (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link between Adnan and Jamal and the claimed Jewish grandfather has called the attention of some antisemitic Islamists like here: "Khashoggi Jewish" on the Islam-Radio Network website, where you can read the original. They write (my emphasis):
>So this "Saudi" family/clan is in fact Turkish and - according to its leading member even with a Jewish heritage.
>...as Judaism according to the Jews is nothing you can rid yourself of; once a Jew always a Jew runs their axiom.
An article about the man who had the interview with Adnan can be found here. The man, Howard Rubinstein is shown bringing up every now and then false claims by his clients to being Jewish, in order to recieve the sympathy of his Jewish readership for them.
פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Khashoggi

[edit]

On-line translators including Google and Bing translate kaşıkçı to spoonbill, a type of bird.

The article claims, with a referenced source, that:

His surname means "spoon maker" (Kaşıkçı) in the Turkish language

However, "spoon maker" would be an occupational surname and the idea that anyone works as just a spoon maker seems doubtful.

Something's not right.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, google translate is not always accurate when it comes to Turkish. Traditionally, people in Ottoman families used an occupation as their second name (see, for example, Turks_in_Algeria#By_occupation). In this case, Kaşık means "spoon" and the ending, ci, attached to the noun denotes a person involved with what is named by the noun. Here are a few more sources that translate the surname as "spoon maker":
Jonathan Rugman: "The name Khashoggi is spelled 'Kaşikçi' in Turkish and means 'spoon maker'."
NPR: "The family name in Turkish means "spoon-maker," perhaps a nod to a history in that trade."
The Times: " Jamal Khashoggi was born in Medina, Saudi Arabia, in 1958. His father, Ahmad Khashoggi (the name means “spoon-maker”)..."
New York Times: "His family name, of Turkish origin, means spoon maker..."
Times of Israel: "Khashoggi’s ancestors lived in what is today central Turkey. The family’s name means spoon maker and its Turkish spelling is “Kasikci.”"
The Week: "The Khashoggis were originally from the central Anatolian city of Kayseri. Khashoggi is the Arabised form of Kasıkçı, which means spoon-maker."
Sseevv (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is unnecessary trivia? If we had an article on the surname, the etymology might be relevant, but not here. Would it enhance the article on David Bellamy to know that his name derives from the French for "beautiful friend" or that Louis Chevrolet's surname means "a person who cultivated goats"? Jamal Khashoggi didn't make spoons, neither did his father Ahmad Khashoggi? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case it is relevant. 1) it illustrates a family background in the spoon making industry; 2) in Turkish sources (especially since his death at the Embassy), refer to him exclusively with this surname; 3) most biographies on Jamal see it appropriate to emphasise this fact; 4) it is an usual surname in Arabic and provides clarity on its origin; 5) thus, this clarity also avoids making mistakes like translating the surname as a spoonbill. Sseevv (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we see similar examples on Wikipedia, e.g. Charles Saatchi, Mother Teresa etc. I'd say that what is far more irrelevant is the lengthy sentences on Adnan and Dodi for the "early life" of Jamal.Sseevv (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not convinced. I think it might deserve a footnote at best. Likewise at Charles Saatchi - I don't see that the meaning "watchmaker" enhances our understanding of him. Mother Teresa is a very different case. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Mother Teresa a "different case"? Sseevv (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that she's not known by that name. But yes, maybe that's also footnote material. Happy to hear other editor's views on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My original point was that "spoon maker" as a real life occupation seems unlikely to me - who just makes spoons and nothing else? - so an occupational surname literally meaning spoonmaker is a good deal less likely in my mind than a typical occupational surname such as the English occupational surnames Smith, Fletcher, Wainwright, Cooper, and so on.

So while the reasoning that Kaşık means "spoon" and the ending, ci, attached to the noun denotes a person involved with what is named by the noun ostensibly makes sense, the result of that reasoning based on a perfectly sensible understanding of the language strikes me as likely to have missed something which a native speaker of the language would be able to elucidate on the grounds that - well, if you make spoons, you're going to be making something else too. If the spoons are metal, you'll be making other metal things (so Smith, perhaps?); or if the spoons are wooden, you'll be making other wooden things.

It strikes me that if Kaşıkçı is in fact used in Turkish to refer to the bird called the spoonbill, that's also consistent with the word literally meaning spoonmaker, since the spoonbill bird has a bill shaped like a spoon - making a spoonbill involves making a spoon, if you see what I mean; it's not ridiculous to suppose that Google Translate isn't wrong when suggesting that particular translation. But of course, it can't be trusted.

For sure, the fact that many sources state that the name means "spoon maker" cannot be ignored - but how do we know that those sources do not all derive from the perfectly sensible reasoning presented here which, while based on a logical understanding of the language, might possibly be mistaken in the context of the language as it is actually used?

I do not understand Turkish at all so I'm in no position to have an opinion one way or another.

I think the opinion of a native speaker of Turkish is needed here.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native speaker of Turkish. I can assure you the translation of "spoon maker" is correct. Many Turkish comedy films have even reinvented fictionalised Khashoggi family characters by making "fun" of their surname; for example, “Adnan Bıçakçı” (Adnan the knife maker) in Ortadirek Şaban (1984) and “Efruz Çatalcı” (Efruz "the fork maker") in Gırgıriye'de Cümbüş (1984). Sseevv (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Michael. I have not read the whole discussion thoroughly, but it seems you originally had issue with "spoon maker" would be an occupational surname and the idea that anyone works as just a spoon maker seems doubtful. Let mee assure you, the idea is perfectly sound; occupation names in "Middle Ages" were quite specific; the same occupation is attested in many other European languages (Latin, of course ("coclearius"; see Coclearius in this entry); French; German; Slavic languages, etc.) and in many of them exists as a surname today. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your explanations. There's always something new to learn. I gave the example of Fletcher as a typical English occupational surname - Fletcher literally meaning one who attaches fletchings (feathers) to arrows. I suppose spoon maker isn't really any less specific.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New report

[edit]

The Biden administration recently released a report on Khashoggi’s death; is can be read (on Wikisource) here. It should be added to this article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

TE(æ)A,ea. Did you mean this page? It's quite heavily redacted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 31 solid black rectangles sort of caught my eye. What do they cover up, or are they just for decoration? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They cover the security codes. Unredacted, they would show (U/SECRET), or some other code in place of “SECRET.” The only actual redactions are of the names on the title page. For more thorough redactions, note this report. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamal_Khashoggi&oldid=1212455251"