Jump to content

Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 20 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus on the final target. There were two options, Killing of Jamal Khashoggi and Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, that have reasonably strong support and good arguments. About twice as many people !voted in the latter, but it could simply be because that section was first. With about 2/1 support for each option I am closing this RM and suggesting that a new one be started to pick one of the two options (i.e. "choose either A or B") as a firm(er) consensus. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification - I do understand that there were many moves before (and after) this RM started, but consider this close a temporary measure because "Choose A, B, C, D, or other" had no result - I will start a procedural RM to decide "A or B". Primefac (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


Murder of Jamal Khashoggi → ? – So far this page has been moved twice, both of which were undiscussed. This is a brief straw poll and move request to determine consensus for the article title. Please indicate your opinion on the following names: Danski454 (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi

Hi, I went through your sources but did nof find what you said was there. There is always some catch - "apparent assassination", "appears to be an assassination" etc. Even the newspapers cannot say he was assassinated because nobody knows that. What I found is below for anybody to check. But I am afraid this discussion has been tainted by your shallow (I'm sorry) interpretation of the articles. (I mean other editors did not even look into the articles, I suppose, just took your word on it. So, 1 "apparent killing" and "apparent assassination"; 2 "apparent assassination" (same quote used in [1]); 3 "Turkish authorities ... leaked information ... indicating Khashoggi had been assassinated"; 4 "allegedly assassinated" 5 "killing" in the title, cannot access the rest; 6 "assassinated journalist", "what increasingly appears to be an assassination" - this article is not news but labeled "Opinion" = Opinion piece; 7 "Turkish authorities ... narrated the crisis ...attention on what they said was ... assassination", [Turkish] "officials ... Khashoggi was assassinated" Feel free to edit/add to my quotes if anyone finds a mistake or something. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support This was not a death, Saudi Arabia has already admitted he was killed.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Oh...that's very silly to assume he was accidentally killed. --Mhhossein talk 12:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the aforementioned reasons. (talk) user:Al83tito  12.50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 'Assassination' seems to be the appropriate word here. No-one has yet made a persuasive case for the use of an alternative term. Concordiac (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: the Saudi government's claims have been evolving over the past few weeks and make it hard to consider it a reliable source on the Khashoggi killing, and it's obviously not a source with a reputation for fact-checking; it's now uncontroversial that Khashoggi was killed extrajudicially (illegally) in the consulate; it's uncontroversial that Khashoggi was a political opponent of the Saudi government and that the Saudi government wanted him to stop his political activities; so wikt:assassination - murder for political reasons is well-sourced. Boud (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Support this since this best fits the current narrative, as well as some of the possible narratives that may emerge based on whatever we know till date. VP101 (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as RS are describing this as an assassination. We don't necessarily use what those involved(such as Saudi Arabia) call it, it's what independent observers call it. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Unless we know that the Saudis were intentionally planning on killing him, "assassination" is far too strong a word, even if RSes are using it. --Masem (t) 16:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it not Original Research to ban the words used by reliable sources? --Mhhossein talk 17:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The "assassination" is what the Turkish gov't are calling it, so they are involved, and most sources are repeating that. Neither BBC or NYtimes seem to use "assassination" to describe this situation. --Masem (t) 17:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources said it was an assassination, so it was an assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
If reliable sources found the Turkish claim to be suspicious and inaccurate, that is what the reliable sources would say. As shady as the Erdogan government may be, reliable sources do not become null and void when they find the Turkish claim credible Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose there is currently zero evidence for this. Even if there was, it would be provided by someone taking a side, and it would be POV. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The right descriptive title and as used by reliable sources. He's an international figure and even the Saudis, after all the dithering, they now admit he's "killed" (read: assassinated). They lacked the effrontery to claim "we found him 'dead'" so we cannot just say he's dead.–Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, until we can establish what actually happened. This is Paul (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral, prefer Murder. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support it was an extraterritorial planned killing. The FBI is helping the Turkish LE, the intel was shared. Some, it seems, do not like to read. Please watch this video: "Inside the Turkish newspaper landing some of the most explosive Khashoggi scoops", VICE news, it's only 7 Min. long. It took seven minutes for Jamal Khashoggi to die. --87.170.201.82 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't know yet on who's orders was he assassinated. Until a specific governmental issued report by either Turkey, US, or Saudi Arabia claim that he was assassinated we shouldn't call this assassination yet, wait until official details regarding the death becomes more evident instead of just echos media speculations. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - political killings are called assassinations, and there are a large number of sources calling it this. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support He was killed for political reasons, so this title makes sense. Felicia777 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There is no logical reason to believe that this was an assassination. It's perfectly normal for 15 people tied to the Saudi Crown Price to engage in casual conversation with a well known dissident, which happens to include use of a bone saw, and accidentally leads to a death without cause. Anything short of a full fledged confession from the Saudi government, we cannot simply conclude the obvious. It's unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C003:9A33:3DB2:3918:2B18:4419 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No indication why he died yet. Even if later absolutely clear that the prince ordered his death to quash a reform campaign, that's just oppression. "Assassination" tends to work best where the victim is the relatively prominent political figure, and the killer doesn't routinely kill his enemies (on purpose and by accident) to maintain an already-strong position in command of armed forces. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Your statements are patently false. It is entirely clear that he was dismembered alive with a bone saw. Furthermore, Khashoggi WAS a prominent individual. He was well known as a former Royal Court insider and advisor to the Royal Family. His prominence is what led him to be targeted by the government even while he was in exile in the United States. Assassination is the killing of a prominent individual, often (but not necessarily) for political reasons. There is nothing in its definition that precludes direct or indirect perpetrators being even more prominent than the prominent victim. Nor does the definition preclude an actor engaging in many assassinations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C003:9A33:A100:D014:24C7:5133 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
He's prominent, no doubt, just not relative to his (supposed) assassin. Anyway, my statements are just my opinions on where the word works best. For my prefered dictionary definition, we still lack the "murder" and "political reasons" bits. The article only has opinions on those. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I do not think this is intended as a discussion. Unsigned IP, it is by no means clear "that he was dismembered alive with a bone saw." Such info is not confirmed by any side. Also do you think that if you push the mayor of your town in the pub, he trips and dies, you assassinated him? According to Oxford English Dictionry, it is "The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack, typically with a political or ideological motive, sometimes carried out by a hired or professional killer." WikiHannibal (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The above is a completely bogus argument. And appears to me from your quotes above that you have a weak understanding of WP:GOOGLEHITS and how search engine works. Please note that a vast majority of the "23,600,000 pages as results" for khashoggi "death" will have only death mentioned and "Khashoggi" missing i.e, they are irrelevant. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I clearly said "in my case", but you are welcome to conduct your own Google survey. And here's the last paragraph in WP:GOOGLEHITS:
{{quote frame|quote=Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.}}
I relied on Google News for my results, in case you haven't noticed.
Please note that a vast majority of the "23,600,000 pages [...] will have only death mentioned and "Khashoggi" missing - Highly doubt it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
User:DBigXray, I share Fitzcarmalan doubts but more importantly, if you search in news for "khashoggi death", you get 1 million hits, for "khashoggi killing" some 862 thousand, while for "khashoggi assassination" only 19 thousand. I think you are jumping to conclusions far too quickly. Have you done a seach yourself? And I would welcome your comment to the analysis of your sources at the beginning of this discussion. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Please read this primer and [9] on how to use Quuotes properly with google search. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
And be aware that the big numbers that magically always end in zeroes mean absolutely nothing worth knowing. "khashoggi death" gives "about 1,690,000 results" to me, but actually looking at the results finds 77. These include such relevant and timely information as a mass cull of rabbits, an unwitting killer drug dealer and Chester Bennington's suicide. Nobody knows why. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Google Search for "Jamal Khashoggi" gives "About 33,700,000" results. I thought I could start checking them off now, and I might get to about 250 by Friday. Could someone else check the other 33,699,750? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 I am sure you wil find more bunnies and dogs than what InedibleHulk could find.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, my investigation uncovered bunnies and drugs, not dogs. And I barely tried; they were hiding in plain sight on page eight. Giving "saudi dogs" the old college try, I find a whopping 180 results (of "about 6,950"). Many suggest Khashoggi died while being killed by murderous assassins, if that does us any good. There are also tales of literal Saudi dogs, but these raise more questions than answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There's actually been some breaking developments in this regard in the last 24 hours: the Saudi foreign minister himself said the killing was a "murder" and that it was directed by highly-positioned officials working directly for the crown or security services, though who exactly they are is unclear: two of the crown prince's aides have been sacked and there's been at least 18 arrests: [10]. The Saudi narrative has now changed to reflect that Khashoggi was murdered, but now insisting that the crown prince played no role in ordering or sanctioning the killing. Before this most recent development, I think I would have been !voting as you did above, but at this stage, I think the move is now warranted. Snow let's rap 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
And Reuters is still using Killing in their reporting of the Saudi foreign minister's comments - [11]. It's not that the article won't probably move eventually elsewhere - it's just still premature. Note that assassination vs. murder is also variable per the final outcome - if this was a sanctioned state action - assassination would be correct, not murder. However if we are to believe Saudi stories of things getting out of hand and personnel taking their own initiative in the consulate - then it would be murder. For now - killing simply covers all of the above possibilities. Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely get where you are coming from: even if this does clearly fit the definition of an assassination, we still should not be moving faster towards that description than the sources. That's why I almost !voted "neutral" on this, pending further developments in the sources, per WP:CRYSTAL. But at the end of the day, I decided WP:IAR may apply here: I very, very rarely use that policy as a predicate for my editorial decisions because I believe it is lazy and can lead to serious issues. But ultimately I just can't imagine this article is going to end up anywhere else than either "assassination of..." or "murder of..."; it's just too big a story at this point and there are too many stakeholders who will not want to allow a euphemistic or vague description in the way the event is publicly discussed, especially with the details the Saudi government has now disclosed.
On a side note, just to give you a head's up, Saudi officials have now stopped using the "fight that got out of hand" narrative and are now describing the murder in terms of a "rogue operation". Reports remain confused and inconsistent on the particulars, but many sources are now reporting that the audio recordings that the Turkish government says are in their possession came from a skype call originating from the office of a Saudi minster and aide to the crown prince--which minister apparently exchanged tense words with Khashoggi and then ordered his death directly. We'll have to see if this stabilizes as the story, but it is consistent with all previous information released by Turkey and would explain the origins of the recording (if not how Turkey intercepted it). Unfortunately, the truth is we may never know all of the details. Snow let's rap 23:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm less concerned about how the assassins try to cover up the assassination than the fact it happened. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Though it seems probable that this was an occurrence of premeditated assassination (killing for a political motive), it would be premature to affirm this before either the Saudis admit it (thereby renouncing their version of accidental death) or an independently set up inquiry into the event establishes it, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as premeditated and deliberate. Burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and it is important for WP's credibility as an independent information platform that it not be susceptible to being seen as taking a political position before any of these scenarios occur. Lansonyte (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support: "Assassination" is generally used for prominent public figures. I'm not entirely sure the victim fits that criterium. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm entirely sure Michael Jackson fits that criteria, and since his killer raised sufficient doubt about intent to kill him, we generally call it the Death of Michael Jackson. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think it necessary to explain assassinations obviously only apply to murders done to silence an influential political or religious figure... Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
He was the King of Pop. Far, far more people have been moved by his stances on various moral and civic issues ("Beat It", "Black or White", "Heal the World") than had ever read a Khashoggi article or attended a Khashoggi conference, especially while they were alive. Could have easily won election someday if he wanted, had he not been poisoned. Some say Obama couldn't have done it without him. The Saudi people are still rallying behind him in 2018, and they are not alone. He has often been called bigger than Jesus. I'd be surprised if half the people rooting for Khashoggi today even remember his name nine months from now; his online impression is already quickly fading from Trump-related stories, as all things must. Still, most importantly, no evidence of an assassination plot has surfaced, much less proof. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no any doubt he was intentionally killed for political reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. As of yesterday, even the Saudi government acknowledges that this was a targeted slaying carried out with the coordination of highly positioned crown and security officials: [12]. That tips the scales for me, as a pragmatic matter. The sources have not as yet caught up to begin uniformly describing this act as an assassination, and I will admit that raises WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL concerns for me with regard to leaping towards judging "Assassination of..." as the WP:COMMONNAME for this article (hence the "weak" in my !vote). Nevertheless, as I expect this discussion will run for a couple of weeks, I'm bringing my perspective into conformity with where I think the sources are absolutely likely to go, as a pragmatic matter. I may have to re-visit that perspective as the sources develop, but all things considered, I think this would serve as the most factually accurate and editorially responsible option, now that even the state apparatus from which this violence emanated admits that the killing was a targeted murder. Snow let's rap 23:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although we may be sure this is what happened, we need to wait for the full facts to come out, or at least for enough time to pass for independent sources to be able to draw a convincing conclusion as to what happened. Deb (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It can only be called an assassination if it is proved to be premeditated, but the jury is still out on that one, even though many sources are saying it was premeditated.Boardhead (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Boardhead, Deb it looks like you are looking for truth here, although we can guess the truth, but we really aren't concerned about it, please see WP:NOTTRUTH--DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
No - I'm looking for referenceable facts (as opposed to popular opinion). Deb (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, what Deb said. Boardhead (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest support of the century. When you look at the meaning of "assassination", it clearly fits in with this context. (Anonymous user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.115.157 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and speedy close because of the overwhelming support. JE98 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Given the recent coverage and the basic interpretation of the incident in mainstream media, there is just no doubt now. Capitals00 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm getting the feeling that a partial reason for a lot of the viewpoints here is based on whether the person voting thinks Khashoggi was actually killed or not. Personally, I'm on the side that it was a murder, but whatever. I haven't even read the article that thoroughly, so I might be wrong... Pie3141527182 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The formal role of the Saudi government seems to be the main point of contention for people regarding this semantic change, which I believe isn't relevant. Classifying this as an assassination does not require the perpetrator to be a government, or even be sanctioned by one. Many of the most famous assassinations in history were orchestrated by perpetrators acting in support (perceived or otherwise) of a political entity either without being sanctioned in any way by said entity, or acting as a "rogue" faction of it, including John Wilkes Booth, who was part of a private conspiracy to revive the Confederate government, and Gavrilo Princip, assassin of Franz Ferdinand, who was operating at the behest of a clandestine group made up of Serbian military officials, a group which the Serbian government famously denied any involvement with or responsibility for, despite widespread suspicion that the assassination has Serbian Intelligence support (not an unsimilar situation to this one). Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The word 'murder' is more appropriate for the gruesome nature of this death. Other similar events, such as the Chain murders of Iran, also use the word 'murder' to describe the event. LissanX (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • But surely the "gruesome nature" of the method doesn't really matter? If he was killed, for political reasons, on the orders of others, it is "assassination" and the exact method is irrelevant, regardless of how gruesome? Alternatively, perhaps the method was also ordered. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@AlessandroTiandelli333: actually many sources have doubts about the Saudi explanation. That does not change the fact he was killed for a political reason. Moreover, Saudi Arabia has changed it's story and it has admitted that the killing was premeditated. [14] SharabSalam (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That's neither Saudi Arabia, an admission nor a changed story. It's the top prosecutor, who simply says Turkish evidence now indicates the suspects committed their act with premeditation. Not necessarilly "killing" nor a "murder", simply the act they are suspected of carrying out. Maybe more people wouldn't think "the Saudis" are changing "their" story if more people realized different Saudis say these different things, and different media play up different words in painting them all with the same brush. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@AlessandroTiandelli333: a premeditated murder is an asasination. Reliables sources said it is an assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I do note that the Guardian uses "believed to be handpicked for Khashoggi’s assassination". But the dominant and common term - as of now - is still killing, and so we should stick with that; and the NYtimes attributes "as part of a premeditated assassination" to Turkish officials rather than stating it as fact. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Death of Jamal Khashoggi

Proposal opposed. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Even Saudi official sources, no longer call this incident as death. see Saudi foreign minister says killing of Khashoggi was 'tremendous mistake', BBC: Khashoggi death: Saudi Arabia says journalist was murdered--DBigXrayᗙ 13:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you'll find that murder necessarily involves a death, so it can't be "plainly wrong". I think you might argue that the term is inadequate in accurately reflecting what the Saudi government has claimed. Although there is still precious little evidence that he is actually even dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately all cessation of living functions by living thing is "death" no matter what method was employed or how people refer it, be it natural death, suicide, euthanasia, killed by sword, killed by 15 murder squad or whatnot. I mean plainly wrong in the sense that this is whitewashing it for Saudis and downplaying the murder which is now beyond doubt to any reasonable person. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, if we want to cover all bases, for some reason. Personally, I can't imagine someone feeling lonely or depressed enough while buzzing on adrenaline. Call me closed-minded, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:PROPORTION. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (2nd choice to killing). Factually accurate and not in dispute (i.e. even if murdered - he died). Most MSM outlets are using death/killing-of at this point. Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This was most common in sources before the admissions and evidence, but has become obsolete. It's already known that he was killed. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: even the Saudi current story admits he died (perhaps in a fistfight with a bone saw). "Death" does not preclude assassination, killing, murder, or any other form of homicide. Let's let readers draw their own conclusions from the article, not from the title, which should be as NPOV as possible. Jonathunder (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Striking because the Saudi story has changed yet again. Jonathunder (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support While I personally think that he was assassinated, we should wait until it has been confirmed by some reliable source. The most recent information says who ever killed him killed him premeditated. So we need to wait for new information before this move.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose While I am for the first title change option, if we couldn't go with assassination, I would go with killing. Death is much to vague, especially considering the Saudi Arabian government even admits it was a premeditated murder. Howpper (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murder of Jamal Khashoggi

Insufficient support to consider this as an option. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support while he could have been assassinated, no official yet (Turkey, US, Saudi Arabia) has claimed that it was an assassination apart from journalism. Murder describes the situation now the best instead of "Death" which implies he died randomly or "Assassination" which implies he was politically assassinated. We may included an "alleged assassination" in the article and show all the details which supports it, just not confirm it as the pure truth on the name of the article since there are conflicting stories and we should be neutral and not take sides. Wikiemirati (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Support, as per Wikiemirati. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support but assassination is better. Source said it was an assassination, with a planning. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No convictions. I oppose this title unless Saudi Arabia itself admits to murdering Khashoggi. We should absolutely not rely on partisan courts like the ICJ, which ordered the U.S. to lift its Iran sanctions on the same day that Khashoggi was killed. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Neutral. This title is a bit more specific than "killing", but I'm not entirely convinced that it's better than "killing". wumbolo ^^^ 06:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia heard you and did what you asked them to do. Khashoggi death: Saudi Arabia says journalist was murdered--DBigXrayᗙ 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Where's your source for this "Order to kill"? I'm sure that would be welcomed in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Those articles contain murder convictions. This one doesn't. Not a match. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Those are not political murders. A political motivated murder is an assassination. @PlanetDeadwing:--87.170.193.158 (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A very similar case called murder: Chain murders of Iran LissanX (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it was a planned assassination; a "murder" can be spontaneous (more or less), an assassination implies planning...with 15 men flown in to Istanbul for the job, that was surely the case here, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is more accurately an assassination. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan 💬 03:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Most of the sources I'm reading describe Khashoggi's death as a murder, and it seems even Saudi Arabia is tepidly admitting it was a murder. Whether this murder rises to the level of assassination in its execution is to be determined by impending investigations. FallingGravity 04:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not having enough numbers in the mainstream media which WP:COMMONNAME requires. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Premature. Saudis are still claiming a "fistfight" or some other story. No charges or convictions. Most MSM outlets are using death/killing-of at this point. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Appears to now be the most used term in reliable sources following the recent revelations. He WAS killed and, apart from the Saudi government, few sources appear to promote the claim that it was entirely accidental. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons I opposed "assassination" at this stage of the enquiry. Deb (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support: It is confirmed that he was killed, and the vast majority of evidence states he was murdered. Few claim it was an accident, mainly the Saudi regime, which frankly have no credibility. He word 'murder' better depicts the nature of this gruesome event. LissanX (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Assassination is a word that is used by people who oppose the other side, so it violates WP:NPOV. Therefore, Murder is more accurate as a word to use for this article.
Comment I don't think that it's a matter of POV but a matter of the meaning of the word. Both sides agree that Jamal was killed for a political reason but they disagree on who is responsible for the assassination. SharabSalam (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Killing of Jamal Khashoggi

Ah ha. So you don't need any time-wasting legal formalities like a trial or a verdict? And I think that User:Boud might also wish to take issue with you that "assassination" (if that is what it actually turns out to be) is actually technically something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL. No trials or verdicts in the Whitechapel murders and Jack the Ripper cases either. I guess in your mind Mary Ann Nichols, who is ID'd as a murder victim in her lede, was not actually murdered. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Please don't try to guess what's in my mind. This is the 21st century, isn't it, not Victorian London (even in Riyadh)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
While homicide does appear to be the admitted-to least common denominator right now, do we really want to rename the article every day, as more details emerge? Killing does not preclude homicide (or murder or assassination.) Let the article evolve until everyone has released all their evidence and made all their denials and accusations, and once the dust has settle, then we can rename it to Murder of, Assassination of or whatever. It seems extremely unlikely that Homicide of would be the final title, so why go through the additional iteration? I don’t think that’s how WP article names are supposed to work. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Which RS state that is a possibility? Do the Saudis typically dismember someone who has a cardiopulmonary issue or falls in their consulates? 331dot (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about Saudis, but getting rid of a body when an attempted kidnapping, robbery, rape, beating or extortion goes south is only human. As is claiming they left alive and you have no idea where they went next, if anyone asks. Of course, the same goes for premeditated murder. Disposal alone doesn't prove anything, but it can hinder your prosecutor's attempts to prove anything, too. It might indicate the disposers didn't have impunity, as someone carrying out state orders might, but it also might not. When in doubt, vaguer is generally better. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That is a patently absurd rationale. If you attack someone with a deadly weapon and with the intent to kill them, and they fall in flight and die from being impaled by accident, you have still murdered them. If you attack someone with intent to kill them, and they have a heart attack before you can suffocate them, you have still murdered them. Your reasoning is unbecoming of even a 10 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:c003:9a33:a100:d014:24c7:5133 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2018‎ (UTC)
That first thing is more like attempted murder and criminal negligence causing death. At least in Canada; the unlawful blow needs to do the actual killing for murder to stick, regardless of intent (see Death of Sammy Yatim). The second is more like a (normally) reasonable use of force to maintain control and gain compliance during an arrest. The intent (and action) of a carotid choke isn't to suffocate at all. Typical worst case scenario, the victim goes to sleep and wakes up soon after, a bit confused and tingly. In strange cases with unhealthy people, the stress of fighting the position itself can exacerbate existing conditions and kill without a murder (see Death of Eric Garner). Those cases aside, in this article there's nothing resembling a proven intent to kill, or even a charge of such, so a murder title isn't suitable. Maybe later. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That was an unnecessarily cruel comment @InedibleHulk:! No RS ever stated that as a possibility. I hope some calls 9-1-1/medical emergency when you have a cardiopulmonary issue! And takes care of you.--87.170.198.80 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Not my intent to be cruel or suggest I read it somewhere. Just saying the guy was almost sixty and did spend more time at a desk than a gym. There might be something to the idea that "If you put someone of Jamal's age in this position, he would probably die." Anyway, I hope paramedics reach you in time, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Euphemism! (Like User:Boud) It was a premeditated murder! With a political motive. Khashoggi was a very prominent man, from a very prominent family - on a global level prominent. The Khashoggis are a well-known and affluent family in Saudi Arabia, since well before the times of Adnan Khashoggi. WP-category "Category:Khashoggi family". A planned, premeditated, killing = murder. With a political motive = an assassination.--87.170.198.80 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide your source(s) that this was "premeditated murder!" You might also want to let Donald Trump, and a few other world leaders know, while you're at it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not sources. We in WP do not do OR :-) It's references. Of which I have plenty. And so you, Martinevans123, do! With "bonesaw" and "Salah Mohammed Tubaigy" it's logic. But what you are now doing, Martinevans123, it's called politics. World leaders, will have to find a modus vivendi after that period of barbarism in the Middle East. I (we?) just want to write an encyclopedic article. --87.170.198.80 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Sources, references, citations, basic material, published accounts, whatever you want to call them, ok? No, I don't believe I'm "doing politics". Tubaigy may have carried a bone-saw, but we don't yet know if he ever used it. Pretending that we do know he did is not "logic" And please don't try to connect me with defending "barbarism in the Middle East." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I tried to connect the hard work of diplomats, politicians and other representatives to a period of barbarism/ war - do not try to turn my words around in my mouth ;-) !!! Pretending we (en:WP) do not know certain facts is abominable. We know Tubaigy was in that consulat. We know Jamal is dead. We know a cleaning crew with three boxes of bleach entered that consulate just before the Turkish authorities went in to investigate. A bizarre and ridicule move, appreciated globally. Take care! --87.170.198.80 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Very sorry if you feel your efforts are wasted. Sorry also if I have misinterpreted your previous scolding. Feel free to add the three boxes of bleach to the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly support (for now) — Killing precludes neither murder nor assassination. Keep in mind that this is still a somewhat fluid situation. However plausible, the assassination hypothesis so far is based on nothing beyond anonymous (mostly Turkish) government sources. We can still rename the article once the Turks (and perhaps U.S. intelligence) have released all their evidence, the Saudis have made their (however implausible) denials, and world media has sifted through all of that. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Killing is not POV pushing, nor a euphemism for murder or assassination, it is rather inclusive of the aforementioned terms, and thus the title most resistant to capricious changes as new details emerge. It is uncontroversial that Khashoggi was killed. As far as we know, he didn't slip and fall, commit suicide, or die from disease, precluding other types of "deaths". He may well have been murdered and/or assassinated, but per WP:PRECISION, "killing" is sufficient to identify the context of the article. The text can explain (probably in excruciating, pedantic detail, if I know Wikipedians) the exact context and legal definitions of the manner of the killing. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While he was killed, it is more accurately an assassination. It was planned and 15 men were flown in for the job. Then Saudi Arabia lied to cover up by saying he had left the embassy from the back door. It is an assassination and the title should reflect that. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan 💬 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in support of Assassination which better clarifies a political killing. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. No factual dispute (the Saudis admitted he was killed (in a "fistfight" or some other story). Most MSM outlets are using death/killing-of at this point. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for now --As other people have said this makes sense for now. Calicodragon (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Effectively picks the side of the Saudi government (that he was accidentally killed) over the multitude of reliable sources dismissing or doubting the claim. Most sources I see now appear to use "murder". Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Describes the topic perfectly under NPOV. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:BLPCRIME. While the evidence does point toward this being a politically motivated premeditated murder, this is still a developing situation, and I've not seen sources calling this an assassination enough to justify that title. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No doubt, he was assassinated. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • 331dot earlier the reliable sources were calling this disappearance. But since yesterday when the confirmation from Saudi Arabia about his killing came, assassination and killing are the 2 commonly used word. And Ever since the story first broke out 10 days ago, The killing squad was almost always called out as "assassination squad", so I believe we are well covered here. here are some of the sources. using Assassination [17][18][19][20][21][22][23]--DBigXrayᗙ 13:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
331dot I understand your point, however journalists are not criminal investigators and we should follow what the official criminal investigation report states not journalist speculations, regardless if they are right or not. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Have changed my mind. No convictions, not even any charges. Can easily change in future if needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think charges or convictions are relevant here. Comparing the Wikipedia articles murder to assassination, there doesn't seem to be a strong legal aspect to the meaning of "assassination" - it seems to me that it doesn't mean that a court has decided the reason for a killing. Could a national level or international court case against any of the suspects (including the political leader presumed to have ordered the operation) change the "knowledge" of whether or not Khashoggi was killed for political reasons in the judgment of historians and political scientists who study the KSA? The only source giving an alternative point of view is the KSA government, which in this situation has shown itself to be extremely unreliable as an information source - it can't have not known that a major political opponent was killed in its consulate and then suddenly discover what happened. Boud (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT seem relevant: is "assassination" non-NPOV? The KSA, as of its most recent claim (conflicting with earlier claims), has the POV that the killing was accidental, not political. Is the KSA POV a WP:FRINGE POV? or a significant minority POV? Would "killing" be giving undue weight to the KSA POV that no journalistic sources take seriously? Boud (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:NAME - for a descriptive name: NYT: lending credence to reports that the writer's assassination was planned. - NYT says it was an assassination, and probably planned; Independent Online (South Africa) title - "Khashoggi assassination: How safe are South African critics of Saudi Arabia?" - IOL says it was an assassination. Boud (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Those charged with murder usually get a trial in a court of law, not in IOL. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't see how a title of Assassination implies that any of the suspects are legally guilty. The political nature of the killing is a separate question than that of who is legally responsible. Boud (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I agree there is an important distinction. But currently we seem very long on press opinions and very short on actual facts. By the way, IOL also says this: "They'd also be mindful of the long reach of Saudi Mokhabarat (security forces) as the willful murder of Khashoggi demonstrates." So I'm not too convinced they even see that nice distinction here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Needing to have someone convicted for murder in court before we can describe it as such is an unrealistic standard. What about Murder of Junko Furuta? She died during torture and so the legal verdict was "committing bodily injury that resulted in death", but does that make it any less of a murder? The torture was planned and the likelihood of killing them was understood. For most people and, apparently, Wikipedians, that was enough. Wikipedia is not a legal document. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have moved it to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi for now. This is not intended to confer preferential treatment on this title in the eventual conclusion of this RM, just that in the absence of any other stable title or agreement (and "Murder of..." certainly doesn't have agreement, looking in its section above), "Killing of..." is clearly the most neutral and least controversial title. There is no dispute that he was killed, whatever form that took. It should remain there until the RM is closed and a permanent name chosen. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to wonder why Wikipedia even exists. It seems like most people discussing this view Wikipedia as existing only for the purpose of collating every ignorant or meaningless claim and counting them to see who wins Homecoming Queen. Or that Wikipedia only exists to repeat what other people have already said. There is absolutely no reason why it should be necessary for anyone to be charged and convicted before this is called a murder. That's patently absurd. Fortunately, justice systems don't rely on that kind of nonsensical reasoning, or it would be impossible to ever prosecute a murder before a conviction has been rendered. There is no reason to build "consensus", either. If one person says it's raining outside, and another person says it's dry outside, should we take a vote, or should we acknowledge the true facts? Nothing is accomplished by deferring to ignorance or absurdity. It does not matter whether other sources are using a particular vocabulary choice. The issue is not whether one or another title is neutral, it's whether the title is an accurate depiction of the facts. And the accurate depiction of the facts is that Jamal Khashoggi was assassinated. He was a prominent individual killed for political purposes. That is an indisputable fact, and it is also the very definition of an assassination. If you don't have the fortitude to state accurate facts, then stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia and start calling it a plagiarism platform for popularity contests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:c003:9a33:a100:d014:24c7:5133 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)‎
Um, yes. Wikipedia only exists to repeat what other people have already said in reliable sources. Well spotted. If the assassination is an indisputable fact, you ought to be able to provide the sources for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that Khashoggi was dismembered alive with a bone saw has been widely reported by reputable news sources across the world. These news outlets have cited Turkish and other intelligence officials pointing to, among other evidence, audio recordings of the attack Khashoggi was able to make from his Apple watch, and were uploaded from there. If that is not good enough for you, then you need to go back to school with all the other angsty teenagers who want to argue a priori knowledge into a nihilist style excuse for why they refuse to follow the rules against smoking in the bathrooms. Seriously. You are demanding an absurd and unreasonable level of "proof". Is Wikipedia supposed to pretend that without access to classified information we cannot be sure that truth is truth?2601:140:C003:9A33:A100:D014:24C7:5133 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
“… has been widely reported by reputable news sources across the world” — and it looks like all of these many reports are based on a single (unnamed) Turkish government source. The fact that many RS around the world are repeating the source is not the same as having multiple sources. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
And? You are demonstrating my point. You are demanding an irrational level of "proof". In any other instance, the fact that widespread international news agencies afford enough credibility to a single government source would be adequate. You are simply inventing excuses to ignore plain facts. But just to be clear, there is nothing that indicates all these many new reports all relate back to a single government official. All these news reports cite Turkish government officials for their information, but there is no indication that they all are using the same source, or that any of these news outlets know who the source was that gave info to their competitor outlets. You are doing nothing more than evading, and laughably so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C003:9A33:F0A1:DF10:7BB9:3631 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It depends with whom you wish to dispute. Thanks 2601 ;-) . --87.170.198.80 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Or even just a "fact" in the legal sense of that word. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources - please see my analysis of the sources at the beginning of "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" section. (I believe thy are the same as those in this Discussion section.) Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • My opposition to any move or change is due to the lack of conclusion to the appropriate investigation(s) and subsequent trial(s) and disposal(s), including "sanctions"; assassinations,murders,manslaughters,etc, result in death, often referred to as "unsanctioned killings" or "extrajudicial killings". The best course is to await the conclusions of justice, whilst working on perfecting the article as best possible. Silicon Wadi126.3.20.194 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There never was a logically valid reason to call this anything other than an assassination. Now, there is not even a simpleton's reason left. The Saudi government is now acknowledging that it was a premeditated murder. The director of the CIA has confirmed that she has listened to the recording in the possession of the Turks. And the idiotic "maybe he died from natural causes in the course of being strangled" are put to bed when we compare to the recent pipe bomb terrorist attack in the US (that none of the bombs exploded does not diminish the fact that it was a terrorist attack; similarly the incompetence of a choke hold failing to kill him and instead causing "nothing more" an enormous amount of fear that leads to a heart attack does not create a logical exemption to calling a duck a duck).2601:140:C003:9A33:B165:9F7:DC5F:B363 (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems somewhat unlikely that an exact cause of death will ever be established, as a post-mortem examination may not realistically be performed? Even if the body it actually found. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Because we want to keep it unbiased, we may want to keep it as "death". Although I personally agree that this was an assassination (planned by the Saudis), this is an encyclopedia, and because of that, we should try to keep everything unbiased. We can all agree that Khashoggi is dead, and we should leave it there. This article already contains some bias because this is an intensely political topic, we should do our best to prevent more. And again, I myself believe it to be the Saudis' fault, but there is a small percentage of the world that thinks it was not. To keep bias away, we should make it "Death Shibe08 (talk)" or at least "Killing Shibe08 (talk)". Thanks. -shibe
@Shibe08: What!? You are completely wrong. Since the 25 October 2018 even Saudi's public prosecutor says - based on evidence - that the murder was premeditated. A with a political motive = assassination. There is a small percentage of the world believe in the tooth fairy. So what. --87.170.197.31 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
A small percentage of us believe in due process and a right to a fair trial. The prosecutor didn't mention murder. Even if he later does, the next step would be charging someone with murder. Then trying and finally convicting someone. During that process, things like motive would emerge. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Why this page has not been moved back to Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi?!?!? The Saudis have retracted their initial denials that Khashoggi was murder inside their consulate and acknowledge that his death was intentional and premeditated, and given that Khashoggi was a public figure killed for political issues by an assassin squad, regardless of who may have planned the murder, this event was clearly a textbook assassination. This move request is stalled for no reason when any doubt that this event was an assassination has vanished in the past seven days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.186.175 (talk • contribs) 01:08 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If this was a "textbook assassination", I think someone may have already returned that textbook to Amazon for a refund. Do we know who ordered an assassination? There seems to be only one person who's name is in the frame for that order. But, as far as I know, no-one yet has any proof of that. It may be that we have to wait until the outcome of he prosecution, that the Saudi government has now promised, before we will ever know who was ultimately responsible, or even what the motives of the killer, or killers, were. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on the latest reports Saudi Arabia has admitted that he was killed by Saudi assassins. Now, who ordered these assassins, is a matter of investigation, but it does not change the fact, that Khashoggi was killed for his critical journalism and political leanings. It still is a political killing, no matter how you see it. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The lead section currently just says this: "A Saudi-Turkish joint investigation found evidence indicating the suspects acted with premeditated intent and had murdered Khashoggi." If, as you say, "Saudi Arabia has admitted that he was killed by Saudi assassins", I would expect to see a clear statement to that effect in the lead section, supported by several secondary sources that all use "the a-word." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Just look at the Media coverage of "assassination"+jamal+khashoggi --DBigXrayᗙ 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to select some sources and amend the article accordingly? That might help precipitate a closure of the WP:RM, although I have to agree that any consensus does not seem very clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alleging one thing and writing another

An editor wrote: 

Legal residency can be temporary - nobody's claiming he was a permanent resident.

While sustaining text that has the following link: «legal resident of the United States». Do I really need to spell out that if you follow that link, the first sentence on the link reads: 

Lawful permanent residents, also known as legal permanent residents, and informally known as green card holders

One wishes people would be more careful. I've reverted the other editor's edit. XavierItzm (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your inability to distinguish between the presence and absence of the word "permanent" should not become anyone else's problem. Nor should your inability to distinguish inline templates from those intended to go at the top of sections. Do not add the template again without acquiring consensus. --JBL (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It is really somewhat inane. Please, XavierItzm read: in "O visa": "An O-1 visa is initially granted for up to three years. Subsequently, it can be extended for one year at a time. There is no limit to the number of extensions that may be granted." Ergo Khashoggi's status was lawful. His satus was permanent, if he wished. And as Khashoggi had accepted a Wilson Center fellowship, ergo he wanted to!
And if XavierItzm does not agree with us, perhaps he can accept David Ignatius wrote in the WoPo: “Friends helped Khashoggi obtain a visa that allowed him to stay in the United States as a permanent resident.” ---87.170.198.116 (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Has really no-one followed the link? The article says in blue «legal resident of the United States» and if you follow the link the 1st sentence reads "Lawful permanent residents, also known as legal permanent residents, and informally known as green card holders". The link is unwarranted. Self-evidently Kashoggi had no green card, as he was under an O-visa. You cannot be under an O-visa and be a lawful permanent resident at the same time. Sloppy work, people. XavierItzm (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
No. You haven't followed the links.--87.170.194.211 (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I have. This is how I know the article's link to "Lawful permanent residents, also known as legal permanent residents, and informally known as green card holders" is utterly incompatible with "O-visa" which is temporary. XavierItzm (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I've gone ahead and removed the link to "Lawful permanent residents, also known as legal permanent residents, and informally known as green card holders", since the guy was clearly under an "O-Visa". You cannot be under both at the same time! XavierItzm (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

MI6 spooks knew Saudi plot to kill Khashoggi

Labour MP Gill Furniss said: "Media reports have surfaced this weekend suggesting UK intelligence services were aware of the Saudi plan to abduct the journalist Jamal Khashoggi and take him back to Riyadh, and of the deployment of the hit squad to Istanbul for that purpose."

Ah, and between his first visit to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Sept. 28 and his gruesome assassination he was in London . --87.170.202.218 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Your stories are about a planned abduction/kidnapping/capture, not a killing/assassination/murder. Two very different things. Media were aware US spooks were aware of the same October 9, so it's reasonable to assume at least all Five Eyes spooks were aware around the same time. Aware of a plan to abduct. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The Sunday Express is citing British intelligence sources confirming that GCHQ picked up intercepts showing that a "member of the royal circle" had ordered that Khashoggi be abducted and taken back to Saudi Arabia. The sources said that the orders had "left the door open" for "other actions" should Khashoggi prove to be troublesome, indicating that the British knew that he might be harmed. The British reportedly urged the Saudis to call off the operation. So neither the British nor the Americans chose to warn Khashoggi. --87.170.202.133 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Saudi chemical weapons and disposal of body

Both these points should be added into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The Express, in a separate article, says his body "may have been disolved in acid": "... a senior Turkish official ... they were considering the possibility of acid having been used to destroy his remains in the grounds of the Consulate or at the nearby residence of the Saudi consul general.... The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said biological evidence found in the garden was consistent with the theory that his body was disposed of near to the place where he was killed." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Martinevans123 Thanks for new section. Yes, more outrageous details. but these 3 new releases, clarify the picture more so, why the urgency of getting him out of the way. I gues these should go into the investigation section. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess they are claims rather than "details", but yes I think they would go in "Investigation". No objections to adding, although we usually need more than a single published source? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Dissolved in acid, is not "new" news: L’enquête - Affaire Khashoggi : le vrai visage du prince saoudien - C Politique - 21/10/18 → Kemal Öztürk - Yeni Şafak. Anyway I added it, thanks for your copy edits. What about the "murdered over a report he was preparing on the Saudi use of chemical weapons" and Britain 'KNEW of kidnap plot and BEGGED Saudi Arabia to abort plans'? --87.170.196.168 (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a second good source? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
(Noting that the Daily Express is almost never considered reliable source.) ——SerialNumber54129 12:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
In which case, is there even one good source for this? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The "Saudi chemical weapons question" was asked by "4 Vérités" from France 2 to foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. He knows nothing. → "Affaire Khashoggi : Jean-Yves le Drian n'a "pas connaissance" des informations de la Turquie sur l'assassinat". francetvinfo.fr. 12 November 2018 --87.170.197.74 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Erdogan's Article in Washington Post

Moved from Killing of Jamal Khashoggi

In a Washington Post oped Erdogan detailed Turkey's stance on the Khashoggi murder as a "clear violation and a blatant abuse of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations," underscoring that not punishing the perpetrators "could set a very dangerous precedent." Erdogan slammed Saudi inaction against the consul general Mohammad al-Otaibi, who lied through his teeth to the media and fled Turkey shortly afterward, calling it "deeply concerning". He warned that no one should dare commit "such acts on the soil of a NATO ally again". He wrote: "As responsible members of the international community, we must reveal the identities of the puppet masters behind Khashoggi’s killing and discover those in whom Saudi officials — still trying to cover up the murder — have placed their trust". "We know that the order to kill Khashoggi came from the highest levels of the Saudi government." Calling the killing of Khashoggi "inexplicable" he urged the international community's duty to uncover the whole truth.[1]

References

  1. ^ Recep Tayyip Erdogan (2018-11-02). "Saudi Arabia still has many questions to answer about Jamal Khashoggi's killing". Washington Post.

IP87 added the above content which was reverted by User:Martinevans123 due to problems with the tone. Martin, I feel the article should include some of this somewhere. Should we c/e it for tone and move to Turkey Response ? open to suggestions to improvement and thoughts.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no objections. But I think we may need to be careful with the size of additions at this stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm just as perplexed as after this reverted Martin! The "tone" is that of Erdogan. It's his conclusion after one month of "Investigation". --87.170.202.132 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
All the reported speech is fine. He said it. But I wouldn't put "Erdogan slammed Saudi inaction" or "lied through his teeth to the media". This isn't the Daily Star. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC) p.s. but if you're building a case for AN/I, I can send you plenty of other debateable reverts :)
Martinevans123 I dont think anyone is planning an ANI. IP 87.170.202.132, I also believe that the word slammed doesnt belong to the neutral category and will be reverted within minutes. Can you copy edit and propose a second version of the above content below with more neutral tone. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"In a Washington Post op-ed Erdogan described the murder as "inexplicable" and as a "clear violation and a blatant abuse of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations," arguing that not punishing the perpetrators "could set a very dangerous precedent." He criticised Saudi inaction against the consul general Mohammad al-Otaibi, who had misled the media and had fled the country shortly afterwards. He warned that no-one should dare commit "such acts on the soil of a NATO ally again" and wrote: "As responsible members of the international community, we must reveal the identities of the puppet masters behind Khashoggi’s killing and discover those in whom Saudi officials — still trying to cover up the murder — have placed their trust... We know that the order to kill Khashoggi came from the highest levels of the Saudi government." He urged the international community to uncover the whole truth.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Erdogan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

--Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38 pm, 4 November 2018, last Sunday (4 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

Let's not over-complicate things, I do not know what that "AN/I" is. I have never read the "Daily Star", I am not trying to push any tabloid*ish* wording.
Erdogan wrote in that WaPo article: "Though Riyadh has detained 18 suspects, it is deeply concerning that no action has been taken against the Saudi consul general, who lied through his teeth to the media and fled Turkey shortly afterward. Likewise, the refusal of the Saudi public prosecutor — who recently visited his counterpart in Istanbul — to cooperate with the investigation and answer even simple questions is very frustrating. His invitation of Turkish investigators to Saudi Arabia for more talks about the case felt like a desperate and deliberate stalling tactic."
I may be clumsy in a perfect neutral wording, and would appreciate any help ;-) I tried to phrase it close to his language. --87.170.202.132 (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Could someone kindly restore my contribution here?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 diffs will be helpful to figure out what you want. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
My proposed text was discarded here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 I restored your version. your version seems to have accidently removed by the IP87, hope you will forgive him for that. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

thanks Martinevans123 for sharing your version. I find your version to have fixed the issues we had discussed above. I am in support of Martinevans123's version. If IP87 has no objections, this version can be added to the article. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have added Martin's version to the article since there is no objection to it. It was added to the investigation section as it was originally added by IP87 . Although I feel that the Reactions> Turkey seems to be a better place for this, since it is The president's comment. what do others think about the location ? I must admit that I do not have strong feelings about the location. Either of the 2 are acceptable to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seemingly off-topic material removed

Here I've WP:BOLDly removed some seemingly off-topic material added in this 4 Nov edit.This material is interesting, but it seems off topic in this article and, particularly, in the Admission of involvement section where it was placed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I'll let Madawi al-Rasheed, professor of social anthropology in London, granddaughter of the last prince of Emirate of Jabal Shammar explain it: Going forward, Saudis will need to find a way to reinsert themselves into the politics of their own country. In: Foreign Affairss, November 5, 2018. It's not off-topic, it's the heart of the matter, "the poodle’s core". Ahmed bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is reinserting himself. --87.170.199.166 (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Snowden: Israeli firm's spyware was used to track Khashoggi

Does this new report merits an addition into the article now ? pinging User:Martinevans123 User:Nil Einne who had reviewed the topic in past.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Saudi prosecutor seeks death penalty

May warrant a new section. CNN reports today:

"Saudi prosecutors said Thursday they would seek the death penalty for five people allegedly involved in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
A total of 11 people were charged, the Saudi Public Prosecutor's office said, adding that the five people facing capital punishment were directly involved in "ordering and executing the crime."
The prosecution also shared details of the journalist's murder, saying Khashoggi was killed on October 2 following "a fight and a quarrel" at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Prosecutors say Khashoggi was tied up and injected with an overdose of a sedative that killed him, then his body was dismembered and removed from the consulate by five people and given to a local collaborator."

Reported by many very sources, including: Al Jazeera,The Guardian, BBC. Washington Post, ABC News. etc., etc. The BBC says: "Saudi Arabia's public prosecutor has concluded that an intelligence officer ordered Jamal Khashoggi's murder, and not Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman." But it certainly looks like it was an assassination. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This content merits to be added, as a next logical step after Arrest. In Saudi Arabia, section there is a subsection titles arrest, This can be added to that section for now. May be Arrest can be renamed as "Arrest and prosecution"--DBigXrayᗙ 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, fine. By the way, I must say that I just read through the "Investigation" section again and I think there is quite a lot of material that is definitely not "investgation", especially towards the end. What do you think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
True, the French detailed responses arent needed there. (may be just a line mention is enough) Do you think that detailed info should be removed entirely or just moved to France response section ? also note that talking about the section Arrest, Reuters last reported that there is no evidence of any arrest so possibly this latest news is just a hogwash to show the world SA is doing something while more details emerge --DBigXrayᗙ 19:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The Reuters statement was five days go, so I'd consider it well and truly superseded. But the article already states quite clearly that people have been arrested? I personally think that much of that detailed info on France could be trimmed out. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the article must certainly mention the Saudi statement that Saudis have arrested folks. but I am yet to find some news agency verifying this piece of info, that indeed they were arrested. Reuters noted that there is no evidence. Please go ahead and add the section on prosecution above into the article if you have not added already, Clearly this needs to be updated. I have removed the French statements and started a new section below. On a side note> since the rename discussion is relisted yet again for another week, Martinevans123 how about you rethinking your !vote ? are you still sitting on the fence ? There are strong reasons as you stated above to call it Assassination now. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to note, out article currently states this:
"Eighteen Saudis were arrested, including the team of 15 operatives which an anonymous Saudi official claimed General Ahmad Asiri sent to confront Khashoggi and, if necessary, detain him for return to Saudi Arabia."
and this:
"On 19 October, Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia has arrested 18 people related to the case without naming them."
and this:
"He also added the 18 arrested Saudis would have to be tried in Istanbul."
and this:
"Those who have been arrested will go through the proper process."
All statements perfectly well sourced. So why the sudden qualms about evidence for arrests?? The five now hand-picked for the death penalty must be among these 18, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Martin, to be fair, all these reliable sources are quoting Saudi official statements. These are valid refs to support these Saudi statements. Reuters have also said that Saudi have stated that they arrested them, but Reuters also tried to verify their arrests from its own sources, and concluded that It does not have any evidence that they were indeed arrested. I am not saying that the article should be drastically changed. The article already says all these things. I just wanted to check from you if reuters or any other news confirmed what Saudis are stating about the arrest. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that the current content of our article here makes it look very much like "arrests have been made". Am not sure how we'd work that Reuters statement into the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC) p.s. oh yes, am quite happy to sit firmly on the fence for now.
Not seeing the harm in reliable sources citing official statements. Pretty sure that's how it's always meant to work. The section should be titled something neutral and standard like Legal proceedings or Trial(s), rather than focus on the prosecution aspect(s). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved from Killing of Jamal Khashoggi § Investigation
Detailed content related to comments from the French

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, however, stated during an interview on France 2 that he was not aware of the presence of any such tapes in French government possession, adding that this meant to him that Erdoğan "has a political game to play in these circumstances."[1] Turkey strongly rejected Le Drian’s statements. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said those comments were unacceptable and not a reflection of the facts: "Our intelligence shared information with them on Oct 24, including the voice recordings. It is very impudent for them to accuse our president of playing political games." Fahrettin Altun, the communications director at the Turkish presidency, told AFP in a written statement: "Let us not forget that this case would have been already covered up had it not been for Turkey's determined efforts." And added: "If there is miscommunication between the French government’s various agencies, it is up to the French authorities — not Turkey — to take care of that problem."[2][3][4]

A senior French diplomat later clarified Foreign Minister Le Drian never commented on intelligence shared between France and Turkey and that he was neither confirming or denying French officials having listened to recordings: "What counts for us is to establish the complete truth... whatever one may think of the recordings the entire truth can’t be based on the Turkish recordings. We are still waiting for elements from the Saudis."[5]

The Saudi press used Le Drian’s remarks to indicate Erdoğan was deceiving the world about the extent of his knowledge of Khashoggi’s killing in an attempt to undermine crown prince Mohammed.[6]

In contrast to Le Drian, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave — on the same day — the first public confirmation of the claim by Erdoğan that Ankara had shared audio of the killing with world governments. Trudeau said from the Canadian Embassy in Paris: "Canada’s intelligence agencies have been working very closely on this issue with Turkish intelligence and Canada has been fully briefed on what Turkey had to share." Trudeau added that he thanked Erdoğan for "his strength in responding to the Khashoggi situation" on the sidelines of the Paris ceremonies weekend.[2][6] The German government also confirmed it had received information from the Turkish authorities, but declined to elaborate.[7]

References

  1. ^ "Le Drian says not aware France has Khashoggi tapes, contradicts Erdogan". Reuters. 12 November 2018. Retrieved 12 November 2018.
  2. ^ a b Madjid Zerrouky (12 November 2018). "Le premier ministre canadien confirme l'existence d'enregistrements de l'assassinat du journaliste". Le Monde. S'il y a un problème de communication entre les différentes institutions au sein du gouvernement français, il appartient aux autorités françaises et non à la Turquie de régler ce problème.
  3. ^ "Turkey slams French FM's statements on Khashoggi tapes, confirms sending recordings to France". Daily Sabah. 12 November 2018.
  4. ^ "Colère de la Turquie accusée de "jeu politique" par la France". France Soir. 12 November 2018.
  5. ^ "Le Drian says not aware France has Khashoggi tapes, contradicts Erdogan". Reuters. 12 November 2018.
  6. ^ a b Patrick, Patrick (12 November 2018). "Trudeau says Canada received Turkish tape of Khashoggi murder". The Guardian.
  7. ^ "Geheimdienst-Kooperation Frankreich widerspricht Türkei - offenbar keine Aufnahmen zu Khashoggi-Mord erhalten". Der Spiegel. dop/Reuters/AP/AFP. 12 November 2018.

I have moved the content above out of the Investigation section to here. , If someone wants to CE some of the stuff from above and re add them to the article in another section (e.g. French response) they are welcome to do so.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

US Treasury imposes sanctions on 17 Saudis

Looks like US and Saudis have agreed that Qahtani will take the blame as "the boss". all the recent news points to this --DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Turkey released pictures

[26] Turkey leaks photos of Jamal Khashoggi’s dismemberment by Saudi authorities site says they didnt --DBigXrayᗙ 22:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How utterly sickening and repulsive. But one wonders why this took so long. Images were a hoax. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Gruesome. Saudis did not say any dismemberment had happened, they had said the body was wrapped in the carpet. These pic has everything you would expect, except the carpet. Patrick Bateman wearing a rain coat, face cover, and a F'in chain saw. I think Turkey is forcing Saudis to admit everything. Pretty sure we will have the video released soon--DBigXrayᗙ 22:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Quite. It looks as if the camera is in the ceiling...possibly a concealed spying camera that Turkey had placed there, and that they didn't want the Saudis to know about, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
or may be a compromised CCTV camera. In any case, Turks have owned SA big time. Not only they were spying,they even had cameras  where the killing happened. I guess it is safe to call it "spy B slap".--DBigXrayᗙ 23:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps we all look forward to the lovely Skype call, too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
http://archive.is/hdobz archived, Huldra (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
"A second longer audio recording that contradicts with key findings of the Saudi public prosecutor", from Hürriyet Daily News should be included, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that article says this:
"Another tape, Selvi wrote Nov. 16, was recorded 15 minutes before Khashoggi arrived the consulate.
In this 15-minute recording, “the Saudi team discusses how to execute Khashoggi. They are reviewing their plan, which was previously prepared, and reminding themselves the duties of each member,” according to the columnist.
“There is also evidence from the period after the killing. Turkey has the international phone calls made by the 15-member Saudi hit squad,” he noted.
Seems pretty damning evidence, if it proves to be true. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
So now we can expect version 5, (or is it version 6?), from the Saudis, about what "really happened". (If anyone had described this in fiction, then it would have been dismissed as the plot would surely have been considered totally implausible...) Saudi Arabia’s Investigation of Jamal Khashoggi’s Murder Is a Tragic Farce, The New Yorker, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't even know the "investigation" had begun. I guess this ought to be added to the article.Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way we can use any of these photos? Do the Turkish prosecutor retain copyright over the them? Huldra (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

lets wait for reliable sources to confirm . Looks like the authenticity of the pic is disputed. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
So,quite simply that was a hoax. All that description has been redacted and the source explains that the images were actually from Braquo, "... a [2009] French crime drama television series created by Olivier Marchal." I have redacted my comments above, as appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

CIA blames MBS

  • Washington post : CIA now concludes MBS ordered the killing assassination . Got to love the timing of this news. I guess US was trying hard to contain the damage, but Turkey had better plans. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a link for that, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, The Washington Post Huldra (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Also here: CIA concludes Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman ordered Khashoggi murder: Report, Middle East Eye, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
And Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-khashoggi-cia/cia-has-concluded-saudi-crown-prince-ordered-journalists-killing-washington-post-idUSKCN1NL2P4 .
The CIA folks clearly weren't pleased with Trump's attempt to 'barter' Fethullah Gulen in return for Erdogan easing his campaign against MbS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyrD8Sv2IIM
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/erdogan-foe-fethullah-gulen-used-as-pawn-to-save-mohammed-bin-salman-5vtfxjt8b
https://www.dw.com/en/us-denies-it-will-extradite-erdogan-foe-fethullah-gulen-to-reduce-heat-on-saudis/a-46321149
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/if-trump-sacrifices-fethullah-gulen-protect-saudi-arabia-he-will-ncna937281
https://www.businessinsider.de/turkey-says-us-attempt-to-hush-khashoggi-probe-wont-work-fethullah-gulen-extradition-2018-11 - --87.170.195.137 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Clearly todays CIA reports deserve to go into the article. Not so sure about the news about Gulen. Cause some say there are talks and some say US openly denied. I my opinion the info about gulen may be skipped for now, until more sources confirm this story--DBigXrayᗙ 07:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
President Trump Aims To Placate Turkey To Cover Saudis On Khashoggi Killing | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC → Her last question: What dystopian movie is this? --87.170.192.87 (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
IP87, yes Soylu's tweet also agrees with what you seem to imply above and in all likelihood that is what has happened here. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Cartoon of killing of Khashoggi

Caricature of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Jamal Khashoggi shown as the pen of journalist published by Fars News Agency

Octoberwoodland has removed this from the article calling it a BLP violation. I disagree. MBS has been reported by all the newspapers as the man behind the killing from the beginning and now CIA also confirms this. See above section. WP:Mainstream media has reported it and it seems appropriate for Wikipedia to do the same. Lets have a wider consensus. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add it back to the article.
  • support adding the image back as nom. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose OMG! -- you put that in there. Sorry brother I would have messaged you before taking it out had I known you did that. :-) I think it may be a violation of WP:BLP. What exactly is the policy on parody and satire on Wikipedia? My issue was not so much the image as the caption on the image -- which is clearly a BLP violation -> "Cartoon showing crown prince dismembering Jamal Khashoggi". Use a different caption identifying the image as satire and parody, and I have no objections. After doing some research on this issue, I have concluded that the image is a WP:BLP violation as satire and parody regarding living persons is not allowed on Wikipedia unless it's in an article which as its main subject is parody or satire. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

::I added text to the image that the cartoon is a parody.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the image until consensus is reached. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
its ok  Octoberwoodland, No hard feelings. I am ok for any copy edit of the caption to improve it. Cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary so many war articles and political articles on Wikipedia carry cartoons some random examples here Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact#Negotiations, Consequences in Finland File:Caricature gillray plumpudding.jpg#File usage File:Lincoln and Johnsond.jpg#File usage. It seems surprising to me that you haven't seen them.
Fyi: French, German and Turkish Wikipedia are already using this cartoon c:File:Jamal Khashoggi.jpg. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
None of these examples involve living persons. Two of them are about deceased persons and one is about a political issue.DBigXrayᗙ what is needed here is an RFC to update the WP:BLP policy to allow satire and parody, and associated rules about these issues. Without such an addendum the inclusion of satirical content is currently defined as a violation of WP:BLP. Perhaps you can propose an update the the WP:BLP policy? Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, here is another Mohammad bin Salman cartoon, already live on Yemeni Civil War English wikipedia article. A cartoon is not a BLP violation. And BLP no where states that cartoons are not allowed.--DBigXrayᗙ 04:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Use_of_Satire_and_Parody_in_Articles_about_Living_Persons_(public_figures). Please feel free to comment on it and ask for some sort of position from the community on this topic. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This discussion was closed by a Wikipedia Admin since the general consensus from other editors was that the current policy already addresses the issue of the use of parody and satire, and what was being discussed was the application of the BLP policy rather than changes to the policy. The general consensus of the editors who responded was that WP:BLPCRIME, WP:DUE, WP:NFCC, and WP:BLPSTYLE would have to be applied to the caption and content of each image, as well as what exact "opinion" or abstract concept was being portrayed by an editorial cartoon. What was not resolved in the discussion was how to quantify specific elements within an image regarding whatever it was portraying, requiring that each image be subjectively judged on a case by case basis. Given all this, the use of the proposed image violates WP:BLP and WP:BLPSTYLE. Even if MBS ordered Khashoggi's assassination, he did not personally chop him into pieces, a member of his assassination team did, so the image is clearly libelous, false, and misleading. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
by your logic this image is File:Caricature gillray plumpudding.jpg also false and misleading cuz Napolean clearly isn't as large and he never ate the world. and so are most caricatures. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that particular editorial cartoon isn't being used to discuss a living person so I think it's ok to use. The present cartoon talks about a living person, so the aforementioned tests from WP:BLP apply. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 same here and i believe, that happened because Journalism was the victim in both these cases. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Unfortunately journalism was also the victim with the fake pictures. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you refering to "Al-Sura"? Quote: "Al-Sura is an independent platform for citizen journalists, social media activists, and independent analysts that focuses on Iraq and the Middle East. Al-Sura aims to make the world aware about what is happening on the ground by striving to provide verified content and thorough analysis. Al-Sura does not receive funding from any source and depends solely on the efforts and donations of its contributors." The "Al-Sura" folks made an error. Not an hoax. At least they quickly admitted to their mistake. Big time error, inane unprofessionalism. Not journalism. --87.170.192.87 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No personal sticks in this (WP BLP) fire, but the cartoon itself looks pithy and salient to the event. Zezen (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump will not listen to tape

Donald Trump won't listen to the audio tape of Khashoggi being killed because, he says: "It's a suffering tape. It's a terrible tape. It was very violent, very vicious and terrible": [27]. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Now why does that not surprise anyone that Trump wants to ignore the facts and continue to deny the involvement of MBS. The press is now saying Trump will issue some sort of statement on the CIA investigation implicating MBS on Tuesday November 20, 2018. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
He says his aides have briefed him fully on the content of the tape. So I think he should be congratulated for actually trusting his staff (for once). That said, I wouldn't be surprised of they were all fired next week. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 well the POTUS has used some wonderful words to describe the tape, (based on how he was briefed by his team) So I say, these comments should go to the POTUS reaction section. It appears as though the fiancé was right in declining the invitation just before the election and asking US to do more here. It is clear from the news so far that the US and KSA want this case to just "go away" from the public memory while the Turkey is doing everything it can do "not make it go away" --DBigXrayᗙ 22:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Well we know the Saudi prosecution wants five of the suspects to "just go away" quite permanently. And I guess, the sooner the better from his point of view. I agree it could go in the "POTUS reaction section." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Royal Family In-Fighting

Saudi royals are withdrawing their support of the crown prince. Dozens of princes and cousins in the Al Saud family want to see Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz, 76, a younger full brother of King Salman and uncle of the crown prince take the throne instead of MBS as a result of the aftermath of Khashoggi's assassination.[28].Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Octoberwoodland: Would you please read the section "Changes to the Royal Court". Is there still something missing?--87.170.199.227 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That section is rather sparse right now, we should probably add the info about the associated drama to possibly replace MBS with someone else. I doubt however that this will happen since his father has essentially given him free reign, for all we know both he and his father may have ordered the killing. There is a drama here that must unfold before we know enough to comment. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Pompeo's plan to shield MBS from Khashoggi fallout

Martinevans123, In continuation of the above, it turns out that US and KSA not only want it to go away but also meticulously planned the "going away". accordingly
That's mind boggling... "plan includes an option to pin the Saudi journalist’s murder on an innocent". --87.170.200.197 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi/Archive_2&oldid=1033373185"