Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

List of alleged perpetrators

• dailysabah.com 15-member Saudi 'intel squad' sent to target WP's Khashoggi identified

This section can now be expanded using the source above. It was trimmed before but now that we have a WP:CFORK I believe this article deserves more information on the list.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Current template on top of the article

Hi All, I have removed {{current}} template since it said "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable."

well 17 days have passed since his killing and the time of rapid change of events are now over. reports now are reliable. Template no longer relevant here. we can have a discussion here if some editors feel the article still deserves this template. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

17 days may have passed since his killing but only two days have passed since it was actually confirmed, and we're still learning many of the details for the first time. I say keep the header for now. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

Jade Phoenix Pence, Please follow WP:INDENT. This Current template says "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses," which is simply not applicable anymore for this article. Obviously since the investigation proceeds more fact will come up, but the major points (i.e. death, members involved etc) are not going to change. User:FlightTime had also removed this template. Please do not re-add this template before making a WP:CONSENSUS here. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jade Phoenix Pence: DBigXray Is correct, The template is meant to alert editors of rapid changing edits, it is not used to advertise or confirm the death/event itself. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to keep saying "Saudi Arabian" or is "Saudi" enough after the intro?

I'm fairly confident "Saudi" is shorter and would make reading faster (34 instances = 272 free bytes and 136 syllables), but unsure of potential connotations/ramifications/confusion. Any advice? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, Saudi is a commonly used term for the country by the mainstream media, go ahead, use it confidently. e.g. [1]--DBigXrayᗙ 06:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I did it, but not confidently. "Replace All" found five instances I didn't count by hand. Everything seems to still work. Thanks for the assurance. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think just like it would be absurd to abbreviate Hong Kong to Hong, likewise it would be absurd to abbreviate Saudi Arabia as Saudi. The House of Saud is the ruling house, therefore a something like a Saudi Prince makes sense, but to call the country of Saudi Arabia as Saudi makes no sense. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 13:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s how it’s (the country) popularly called by a lot of people. Like calling anything ‘Britain’ is technically wrong, but it’s still done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.40.241 (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"Britain" is only used incorrectly in the way that "Holland" is incorrectly used to refer to The Netherlands. Use of "Saudi" as a shortened form of Saudi Arabia is an entirely different kind of misuse (if the particular circumstance is indeed a misuse), that would be more akin to using "Trump" as an adjective for all things having to do with the United States.2601:140:C003:9A33:A100:D014:24C7:5133 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see how "faster reading" is in any way a concern. The average adult reading speed is 200 - 300 words per minute. What you're asking about would be a difference of less than one minute for reading the entire article. If anything, the benefit is to contributors being able to save a little bit of energy. With that in mind, if you want to shorten or abbreviate the name it is best to be guided by a basic understanding of the name. The land and general countryside is known as Arabia, as it has been known for centuries. The House of Saud is a royal dynasty that rules most of Arabia as a monarchy. Thus, the state's official name is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. When you are making statements that directly or indirectly lead to the ruling dynasty "Saudi" is an appropriate adjective. The Saudi government is that government run by the House of Saud, a Saudi prince is a prince from the House of Saud, etc. It can be argued that phrases like "the Saudi people" or "a Saudi citizen" are appropriate inasmuch as they identify subjects of the House of Saud. On the other hand, more general statements where the the current ruling dynasty may be irrelevant, it may be more appropriate to use "Arabia." Such as "The Arabian oil fields constitute the largest deposits in the world." You can also use "KSA" as an abbreviation for "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" much as "US" is used for United States.2601:140:C003:9A33:A100:D014:24C7:5133 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking at all about abbreviating the country, just the adjective "Saudi Arabian". 2601 makes some good points about describing the geography versus describing the people, though. I'll keep those in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you 2601 ;-) I even want to copy + paste that to "talk:Jamal Khashoggi". There someone automatically "Replace All" everything. And let's keep in mind that Holland is a region and province and sometimes it is quite right to write Holland.--87.170.198.80 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The name of the country in Arabic is "Alsauddiah" which means Saudi but the full name is "AlMamlakah Al-Arabiya Asaudiah" this is similar to Syrian Arab republic but we don't say Syrian Arabian. It really doesn't matter what matters is what people often use which as far as I know is Saudi SharabSalam (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How does this qualify in terms of the Trump administration?

This is definitely squared around Saudi-Turkish relations, yes. Though, a large portion of the commentary surrounding the event - from both politicians and the media - has correlated to Trump's reactions, in between him doubting Khashoggi's death, him believing the Saudi government and him saying that economic relations are too pressing to let the killing disrupt deals. Does this qualify as a Trump administration controversy, or is it too far removed from American relations to even matter? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a US-Saudi-Turkey incident and not just Saudi-Turkey. After the news of the murder broke out, It was reported that how Trump responds will be the most important decision he takes that will have future ramifications. (I will skip the link as I can't find the link and forgot where and who said that, probably from CNN). Some papers have already criticized him for giving a "free pass", Joe and Mika calling it "Pathetic and a complete embarrassment" [2], John Oliver making some interesting observations. I am sure this incident will have a place on Trumps admin wiki page. How long will that section be, will depend on how Congress responds to his acts. It was reported that If Trump will not respond to Khashoggi killing, Congress might so clearly, it will be interesting to see how things proceed. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC) 

@DarthBotto: The assassination of Jamal Khashoggi is a challenge for the Trump administration, because of ‘the three prince gamble’: MbS, MbZ, and Kushner. KSA is the linch pin for the foreign policy of this administration! "Earlier this year, Dexter Filkins wrote a piece for The New Yorker titled ‘A Saudi Prince’s Quest to Remake the Middle East’, arguably one of the best and most detailed analyses on the chaos of what we call ‘the three prince gamble’: Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ), and Jared Kushner." ... "Fast track nearly two years into the Trump administration’s tenure, and the blunders of the MBS-MBZ-Kushner relationship have become far more numerous and catastrophic." ref. There are no US-ambassadors to Turkey or to KSA − Kushner beeing "point-of-contact". The implication is that Kushner gave the name-list for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel imprisonments (2017 Saudi Arabian purge), and that the Jamal's assassination was done with his knowledge. In KSA "not a soul" can cough — without the NSA knowing it. Read: David Ignatius: "did U.S. spy agencies know about threats on Khashoggi — and when?" --87.170.197.225 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"Fistfight"?

There's a lot of talk about a "fistfight" or "fist fight", often attributed directly to this statement that just says "fight". Unless I'm missing something the government actually said somewhere, we should probably avoid repeating that. It seems to be feeding an idea that the story changed when it "became" about grappling, or that "Khashoggi was a 59-year-old journalist, not a prize fighter." The New York Times elucidates with "punches were thrown", but that's the only such claim I find through Google. For a few hours, our own article explained (through pipelink) that it was straight-up bare-knuckle boxing. Anybody else see anything corroborating from the horses' mouths, possibly in Arabic? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN used it in its headline here? Not sure where they got it from. I have to agree that a piped link to bare-knuckle boxing is not ideal. Probably some well-meaning editor who was trying to find the nearest link and discovered that "fist fight" redirects to a 2017 American comedy film? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A likely story. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The statement Came on the Saudi Channel at 1 AM local time (When Saudis are expected to sleep), It was in Arabic. Even the BBC reported it as fist fight, I am sure the "fist fight" in arabic was in the saudi statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much every English story in the last twelve hours is about how unbelievable the official "fist fight" story from Friday is, but none seem to mention its (glaring?) absence in the official English story from Friday. I'd like to believe the BBC's translators know what they're talking about, but part of me thinks the Saudi Foreign Ministry also knows how to translate. A bit torn. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd need a fluent Arabic speaker, who had access to the original statement, to answer this. In British English I think "got into a fight" usually means physical contact, which may or may not involve fists or punches. Whereas in American English I think that can often mean just "an argument"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Google Translate claims this Arabic story says "hand-wrath" in the headline and "a quarrel and a clash in the hands" in the statement. That's kind of close. This one turns into "fistfight" in the headline and "fight with the hands" in the body. Getting closer. This most recent one just says "a fight", and I'm back to square one. Stupid machine translations. This unrelated "quarrel with the hands" notes the loser left with scratches on his neck, which doesn't seem like fist behaviour to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think these 2 sources [3][4] nail the source of the "fist fight" (saudi press statement)"The discussions between Jamal Khashoggi and those he met at the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul... devolved into a fistfight, leading to his death," the Saudi Press Agency said, citing the public prosecutor. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that's probably as close as we'll get. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Though the (apparently?) same Saudi Press Agency release here says the same discussions "led to a quarrel and a brawl". I give up. For now, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this Arabic "hand-wrath" term necessarily mean fights with knuckle striking with hands balled into fists, or more broadly any sort of fight using the hands? Grappling also uses the hands, as do palm strikes and knife-hand karate chops which do not require the hands to be balled into fists, and pushing/shoving can also be done with the hands without making fists. Ash Carol (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget eyepokes, fishhooks, facerakes and the dreaded testicular claw (whooo!). Generalities aside, I think "hand-wrath" is probably a Google quirk, but the common thread is certainly hands over fists. Given its use to describe the guy with the scratched neck and the guy who was choked out, I think it clearly means overall hand-to-hand combat. Many see a choke as an arm and neck thing, but hands are vital in applying and defending. All a simple and honest misunderstanding run amok, the optimist in me thinks. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we certainly yet know if it was alleged to have been 1 against 1 or 15 against 1? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't. But physics and my own experience in hockey brawls suggests they all didn't have room to jump in even if they wanted to. I'd wager a maximum of four doing tangible work, though that sinking feeling of being surrounded and outnumbered can certainly play a part. We'll only ever guess at what was going on inside him, but we'll see what happened around him on YouTube soon enough. For now, we see two men wore his clothes that day, but only one literally walked in his shoes. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hand-wrath is a Google Quirk. from everything I heard from reliable news sites, so far, once inside, Khashoggi was surrounded and a Skype/video call was made. Qahtani insulted Khashoggi, who replied back. At the end of the conversation. Qahtani asked the Tiger squad to bring him his head. the assassins then moved on to cut his fingers, which filled the consulate with harrowing screams (heard by witness), he was then injected by something which stopped the screams. and dismembered in 7 minutes. Saudi intel sources also indicated that his fingers were presented to MbS who had earlier vowed to cut fingers of anyone who writes against him. (I am yet to hear if indeed the head was presented, but I see no reasons why that order would not be completed). --DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not just "cut the fingers", but actually "chop off the fingers", yes? The term "fist fight" now sounds a bit too ironic. Sky News said his head and other body parts were hidden in the Consul's garden with a "disfigured face": [5]. But later reports have added that the parts were in a well in that garden, e.g. RT - [6] Not a very well-thought out disposal plan, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

yup I meant "cut off".Thanks for the sky link. It is expected from the members of this Tiger Hit squad to destroy the face to avoid suspicion, but the age od DNA, I think this is silly. I am glad that his family will have some peace after completing his funeral, they had been asking for the body.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the disfigurement may have been performed for other reasons. But we may never know. Or least probably not for a long time. I'm not sure if the well can be added to the article not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

what other reasons ? Why do you doubt that well cant be added? sounds like a good information and sourced as well. After reading the Sky link you gave, I was think how stupid these guys are, I mean, even movies are far better than them in handling murder evidence. Seems like the most botched up hit job in the world and Turkey is taking full advantage of the same. More info of these guys was published here and I found myself to be in complete agreement with the first person named Hanouma Wala who commented on that link. do check it out. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Orders from the organiser(s)? As a mark of power? As some kind or personal revenge? In a botched attempt to remove the head? As a means of returning the lips, as well as the fingers, to the organiser(s) (in punishment for speaking out as well as writing)? I'm sure there might be other reasons. Ah yes, things are so much easier in the movies. This is all just speculative WP:FORUM. If there are multiple sources for the well, I think that could be added. Was just surprised that Sky had not reported it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the Saudis were hoping everyone would think they obeyed TV and movie rules and Khashoggi would only have to fight one person at a time while the other people danced around in the background? Since the bad guys were obeying TV and movie rules, even if they were trained special forces some random old person winning would definitely have been possible. Anyway it seems a moot point now as they seem to have accepted that it was a premeditated murder. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Injection of drugs is usually done by hand. It could have been very fast and not lethal, so they calmly left the room anticipating smooth and amicable cooperation of the subject who proved mentally agile, (frantically) searching the room`s cabinets and drawers and appliances for some detergent, some antidote, stolidly opposed to any cooperation and unwilling to conceed, drew ire of the others who then proceeded to exact wrath by hand, causing death. A killing of similar circumstance reported in the media may be recalled in a hotel room in Dubai where "muscle relaxant" was injected by a team of Israeli Assassins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.23.162 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Move to killing

Hi

There are no consensus to move to kiling. So, for this reason, I have moved again to murder because it is the stable version and it was the last tittle before the begenning of RM. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no stable version of the article as it was only very recently created, and was moved around several times in the first day or two. The RM above will hopefully come to some conclusion about the long-term name, but in the mean time it is not acceptable for a high-traffic article to remain at a non-neutral title that clearly does yet not enjoy consensus. "Killing of" is unambiguous, and is an accurate WP:PRECISE title irrespective of how it happened. That is why I have parked it there for the time being. Furthermore, your move was clearly WP:INVOLVED as you have expressed opinions and !voted in the discussion above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the discussion here, "killing" is an unacceptable title. There clearly is a lack of consensus that Khashoggi was killed. Supposedly, we must be open to the possibility that he died of natural causes, or may have committed suicide. Yes, these arguments are absurd and only an idiot would believe them. Nonetheless, based on the ridiculous "anything goes" standards that are used to insist that "assassination" is not acceptable, neither are we permitted to acknowledge the fact that Khashoggi was killed. We can only say that he has died. For that matter, we can't really even say that much. Someone was seen walking around town in his clothing later in the day. We should rename this to "disappearance" and include a section that discusses the possibility that he's living in the Galt's Gulch with Tupac and Biggie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C003:9A33:F0A1:DF10:7BB9:3631 (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014, it's "killing" and "title". Both "kiling" and "tittle" mean something else. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 just learnt 2 new words. thank you. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have requested "Full temporary page move protection" at WP:RFPP while the discussion is underway. since folks are getting impatient and I am getting unnecessary edit conflicts due to page moves. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: you have not the right to move the article during the discussion to a tittle who is not consensual. I will ask an admin to reverse it. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 and DBigXray: It is not acceptable to rename to a title that is in no way acceptable or consensual in the midst of discussion and even though it is unlikely to be adopted at this time. The best is to return to the original title or stable title. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014 you can post at its entry on WP:RFPP. I believe this article should currently stay at the present location (killing) until we have closed this discussion above. please do not move war over this silly thing. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014, I've moved nothing, thanks. But it's now also linked on the Main page ITN section with the word "killing". You will also have to consider how to reverse that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: WP:INVOLVED is about admins only. They have not the right to block user, or protect page or participate to an WP:AN as admin if they are involved. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 and DBigXray: the current title is unconsensuel and bad. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. My views expressed above. Maybe we need to wait for that WP:RM to close before opening anther one? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014 you are entitled to your opinion, but I think the current page location is good enough and there are other reasons as well as mentioned by Martin above, so until the RM discussion is closed please have patience . please drop the WP:STICK and move on. Any further move warring will only get you blocked since WP:DS are on this page, you have been warned. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 and DBigXray: But we must admit that the renaming done since this morning was a mistake and often during the RM, if a non-consensual renomination takes place, it is canceled to return to the launch state of the RM. Could I made a request to reverse the unconsensuel move? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014, Even if you ask for a move, it will likely be denied, since the RM is ongoing and current location is a neutral location. Your own first page move that you made on this page, was without any consensus. Had you started a talk page discussion first and then moved to death, you could have claimed WP:STATUSQUO but since you did not get any consensus and unilaterally moved the page. you do not have a strong ground to ask for a revert. hope it helps. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The current title is fine for now, since the Saudi's are currently rewriting history and Turkish authorities have refused to release the video and audio recordings of his killing where they alleged he was tortured and assassinated. Looking at the situation from the Saudi viewpoint, in their culture they have no concept of free speech and basic human rights, and as such, dissidents are routinely branded as "criminals" under their form of Shariah law, and subject to imprisonment and execution if they criticize their rulers. The 15 man team sent to Turkey may very well have been there to arrest him and return him to Saudi Arabia. I can see it from the Saudi perspective as well. Leave the title as "killing" for now, it's generic and is about as close to the current set of facts. I personally think it was an assassination, but time will tell. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland and DBigXray:But it does not work that way. All the other renames took place before the beginning of the discussion and it broke the freeze of the conflict that took place by the renaming request. And the current title is not really neutral. "Kiling" is a point of view. And this is the least popular title. This accomplished fact is deplorable.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ask an uninvolved admin to revert it back to "Death of Jamal Khashoggi" until the rename discussion is resolved and closed. That title is completely neutral. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014 death is your own opinion. "death" is a washed up "Saudi POV" and it is the least popular title. IMHO "assassination" is most appropriate but I can live with "killing". as I said, above, your own move was done unilaterally without any consensus, so you cannot claim STUTUSQUO or a STABLE VERSION. So, next time you think of making a controversial move, start a discussion as given in the procedure of WP:RM, regards. I will be offline now. bye--DBigXrayᗙ 22:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything DBigXray just wrote. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland and DBigXray:You can answer me later. Once again, what is problematic is to have unilaterally renamed this morning without consensus. When I renamed to "murder" it was a compromise. But here, the approach of this morning is problematic especially since the author of the renaming knew that there was no consensus to rename.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• The page should be moved to Murder of Jamal Khashoggi per the WP:TITLECHANGES policy, which is based on an ArbCom decision. There is no such thing as a "stop-gap consensus". In fact, the WP:TITLECHANGES policy requires the consensus of a Requested Move discussion. While it does not mean that a bad title should remain, there is no strong consensus that the pre-RM title is bad in this situation. "Assassination" may also be considered per the policy, "default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". wumbolo ^^^ 16:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Wumbolo this page was created as Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi see the diff, based on your logic, the page should be moved to assassination, but I am ok to leave it at Killing intil the closure of the RM discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's either "asssassination" or "murder", per the policy. If we go by Amakuru's rationale that there is no consensus to move to "murder", then we must move to "assassination". wumbolo ^^^ 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: btw, you cannot move pages out of the way to allow a page move. The old redirect has been restored. Danski454 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Amakuru what is your opinion on Wumbolos comment ? --DBigXrayᗙ 17:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Venn diagram

@DBigXray: thanks for your question. Ordinarily, and according to the guidelines, Wumbolo's point is correct - while an RM is ongoing, we keep it either at the title at the beginning of the RM or at the "default" title. That would be the long-term stable title or, if there is no stable title, (as in this case) the default is the title of the first non-stub version, which is indeed Assassination of Jamal Khaghoggi. In this case, however, I made a judgement call as an uninvolved admin (call it WP:IAR if you like) that because his is a high-profile page right now, and linked from the main page, the priority until consensus is established should be neutrality rather than what the letter of the guidlines says. As I see it, the event will fall somewhere within the Venn diagram at right. If it's a murder, then it's also a killing. If it's a killing then it's also a death. And so on. Thus the most neutral interim title (until we choose a permanent one) is the smallest circle on the Venn diagram which is not disputed. Right now that is "killing". Even if it's a murder, "killing" is not inaccurate. As such, and to avoid further disruptive moves, I suggest we stick with this title until the RM is concluded. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I dispute it is a "killing." It's true, I have no rational basis for doing so. But there appears to be no standard here for a rational basis for anything. There is no rational basis to dispute that this is an assassination. Also, your diagram is inaccurate. All assassinations are murders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:c003:9a33:946e:9370:e5e8:6012 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Murder is the deliberate and illegal killing of a person, and in many jurisdictions it must be proven in a court of law, with lesser convictions possible such as manslaughter or an aquittal due to diminished responsibility. An assassination, on the other hand, is just a politically motivated killing. The assassination might be legal (and hence not murder), or the person doing it might not qualify for a murder conviction for various reasons, but it would still be an assassination.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That is completely false. Stop speaking. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. You're making things up so you can pretend to be some kind of wise expert. An assassination is always an illegal act. By definition, a legally sanctioned killing an EXECUTION. Stop making excuses for stupidity. That's the problem around here--too many people want to chime in with any absurdity whatsoever, and reason it on their amateur level 3rd grader thinking. 2601:140:C003:9A33:B165:9F7:DC5F:B363 (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think that statement is "completely false". But regardless of my own view, please don't instruct other editors to "stop speaking" and please try to avoid personal attacks. Your comment comes very close to being just that. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly agree with most of that, Amakuru. Thanks for clarifying. The four choices listed here are of course, in the main, just Wiki-isms of convenience. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru for sharing your thoughts, while some of the points are debatable I agree with the overall spirit of your response. Anyway the RM discussion has now expired waiting for a closure and move to Assassination, where it originally was. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave the close of the RM for another admin, since I've been involved enough with this one already. I wouldn't like to say which way the consensus (or lack thereof) lies right now...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User:Primefac as discussed above between User:Wumbolo,Amakuru and others, the page was started at Assassination and then moved without discussion to Killing. normally it should have been reverted to initial location first but as discussed above after 4 moves, it was kept at Killing since a RM discussion was ongoing that time. Should the new RM discussion be started after moving to Assassination or Should the new discussion be started on this title itself. This is just a policy related question. And I hope you can guide us. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have clarified my close above. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Body

Middle East Eye reported "Turkish authorities believe part of Jamal Khashoggi's body was transported out of Turkey by one of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's bodyguards."

The article currently says this:

"Middle East Eye cited an anonymous Saudi to say the Tiger Squad brought Khashoggi's fingers to Mohammad bin Salman in Riyadh as other evidence that the mission was successful.

Although the source you give describes a "big bag" Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Saudi Arabia transfers $100m to US State Department

• Saudi Arabia transfers $100m to US State Department - middleeasteye
• Saudi Arabia Delivers $100 Million Pledged to U.S. as Pompeo Lands in Riyadh - The New York Times

Appears to me as something that deserves a mention in the article. the timings simply can't be ignored. thoughts ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How incredible. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed and explains the White house reactions soon after this. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't Saudi Arabia regularly fund the State Department? If nothing scandalous occured around the last few times it happened, I don't think we should make a mountain of a molehill. But if that's truly an unusual amount, we shouldn't make a molehill out of it, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems it technically funds the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, my bad. In 2014, the Press Secretary said the US had another $97 billion coming, which (by my math), makes a hundred million bucks both a crazy high number and a laughably small percentage. Guess it depends how you look at it, but it's far more significant than most of the crap in the amazingly large US reaction section. I could understand how some reliably sourced outrage might fit well there. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Since all the major newspapers in the world (NYT, WaPo, FOX, CNN etc in US) are reporting this,[7] it merits a mention in the article. As editors its not our role to investigate why, but just to add the reported facts to the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, while I agree that some amount of copy editing may be needed but with this edit you have removed major portions of this scoop. I think it is important to note that this payment was not a mandatory or fixed payment and no timeline was decided, and the timings of the payment are indeed worth noting. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you can find a known person making that point rather than a nameless weasel, I agree. Surely a congressman has complained? A news anchor? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post has Joshua Landis insinuating this sends a wink and a nod to Trump for his continued cooperation, if you're interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

IH, please refer to this coverage. Purported because Saudi have not issued any statement that the money they wired on the day Pompeo landed is for Syria, until then it is purported / alleged. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Subsection for this

• I believe this information should be in the Saudi subsection because it is a reaction from Saudis. InedibleHulk has moved this to America subsection, with which i do not agree with. May I know why ?--DBigXrayᗙ 20:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not a reaction, it's a previously-agreed payment which the US coalition envoy says was already expected around this time. The hubbub in America about scoring a hundred million dollars is the part that wouldn't have happened if this death hadn't preceded it. Even if you don't believe that, I think you can appreciate how it isn't a denial or admission of involvement, so don't put it under either of those subheaders if it must be a Saudi reaction at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I also say this information should be in the "Saudi subsection". The payment should already have been be carried out in August! → but questions persisted about when and if Saudi officials would come through with the money. here... suddenly (!!) the Saudis have no questions more! And there will a second "reaction" (Euphemism) in the in the "Saudi subsection". The Saudis will compensate Turkey with large amount of cash! --87.170.193.243 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Questions persisted from whom, and why? McGurk seems to think everything's on schedule. Has Saudi Arabia ever not paid up? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You may have "questions" I do not! That's a $100 million bribe. Trump officials will for ever insist the timing was pure coincidence. But Middle Eastern experts say something different. Has Saudi Arabia ever not paid up? = are specialists in corruption, blackmail and bribery. Brett McGurk is as disgusting, nauseating, repulsive, obnoxious, sickening and repugnant as Ahmad Asiri. McGurk as envoy to the coalition "fighting" the "Islamic State", organizes and pays the "moderate rebels". Read: [8]. "whom, and why" What do you want to know more: Joshua Landis: “In all probability, the Saudis want Trump to know that his cooperation in covering for the Khashoggi affair is important to the Saudi monarch”. And clown price Mohammed bone Saw wants that ‘Pulp Fiction’ video of the murder from Erdogan. --87.170.192.74 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm no happier with the mess in the Levant than you are, and everyone directly involved in war business is inherently slimy. But that doesn't make them any less directly involved in it. Landis may have a keen interest in the area and enjoy sharing his insights with the press, but seems far less likely than McGurk to understand the intricacies of handling blood money. The nameless weasel may be the smartest man in the room, but until we have any public indication of what his job is, I'm not about to give him the benefit of the doubt. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you both of you for responding to my Question. I think it should be in the earlier denial section, simply because of the date of 16 Oct. Their acceptance of the kiling came on 19. They had probably hoped the payment would help them to keep the storm in control while it passes. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What does simple chronology matter when it has nothing to do with a denial? And what harm is there in putting it under neither subheader, just plain "Saudi Arabia". I still don't think it's a reaction, but it's closer to that than to a denial or admission, so a more reasonable compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

IH, your suggestion of creating a third subsection is also acceptable. The subheadings can be renamed or even removed altogther. but chronology in the Saudi Arabia response section is important. things will look out of place if not chronological. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 20:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest a third header, just to put it under the country's name like we do for the rest of them. Removing all subheaders and going chronologically works for me. Eventually, some of these reactions should make their way into Investigation, though; Saudi Arabia and Turkey are basically in this together, whether they cooperate or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving it to the top of the Saudi section will break the chronology of this event. I find no good reason not to add this in the Initial denial section. Since this is indeed an event in that section of timeline. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't we just agree on removing subheaders altogether and arranging responses chronologically? I may have misread your proposal, but it certainly sounded closer to that than to expanding the two troublesome subheaders to six. In any case, this July deal regarding the Syrian conflict is somehow now wrapped up in the "Possibility of rogue killers", itself not a Saudi response to anything at all, but a fucking "hint" from Donald Trump to reporters he has repeatedly accused of missing the point. Stick to the plan and keep it simple. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no agreement that i can see above to remove the subheaders altogether. the only consensus we have is to keep the incidents in a chronological order in a subsection. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"The subheadings can be renamed or even removed altogther. but chronology in the Saudi Arabia response section is important." Look familiar? That was you. "Removing all subheaders and going chronologically works for me," said me. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Flags

Recently an unregistered user has added flags to the Reactions section. This includes flags in headings (which goes against MOS:HEADINGS). Martinevans123 has removed some of the links as redundant, these could be replaced using the {{flag}} template. --Danski454 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, flags are often controversial. But whatever looks neater is fine by me. Aren't all these countries sufficiently well-known to not require links (especially if one or more of their ministers are linked) ?Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar thought of using the {{flag}} template. I think it will be a good idea to include it. what do others think about this ? --DBigXrayᗙ 20:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with flags I have seen some similar articles using flags for countries reaction SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's looking a lot like Nil points all round, at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes to "looking like Eurovision Song Contest" ;-), they disturb the readability.--87.170.192.74 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

At such a tiny size, don't help and probably distract many readers. Jonathunder (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with Jonathunder, the flags are small enough to not distract and of enough size to be easily recognisable. Overall I believe this has improved the readability. And would support keeping it. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've always hated them, and still do. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Skype Call, the source of all the audio and video doing the rounds

• Reuters How the man behind Khashoggi murder ran the killing via Skype

• Saudi Crown Prince’s Advisor Al Qahtani was beamed into a room of the consulate via Skype.
• Insulted at Khashoggi over the phone. Khashoggi responded back.
• Turkish intel source: At one point Qahtani told his men to dispose of him. "Bring me the head of the dog",
• Turkish and Saudi intel source: Turkey President Erdogan currently has the audio recording of this call.

Mind boggling stuff. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That is just too shocking for words. Can this even possibly be true? And I thought the $100m was incredible?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I won't call this pair of anonymous sources nameless weasels, but "people familiar with the matter" earlier said the CIA did hear the audio recording these two say Turkey refuses to share with "the Americans". Though maybe they mean different recordings or different Americans. Probably all much clearer tomorrow, if anybody feels like waiting. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can only imagine all these events, just like a thrilling movie, only that it is real with a sad end. Martinevans123, hold on to your horses, Erdogan had already boasted that he will drop the real bombshell on Tuesday, so we should be hearing more stuff in a few hours from now. Tuskish and Saudi sources say, Erdogan has the possession of the audio of this skype call. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. The details revealed by The New York Times last week are somewhat sketchy but sufficiently gruesome that, when compared alongside this, start to form a bigger, very much uglier picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. I think my horses have just about had enough, thanks.

• I trust Erdogan more than Reuters's anonymous sources. Skype Technologies is a U.S. company, and I doubt that Turkey has the audio and doesn't want to release the audio to the U.S. wumbolo ^^^ 11:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Sometime the descriptions of the recording make for better political theater than the actual recording (in Arabic, many stmts probably not comprehensible due to mic placement to the unaided naked ear, etc.) - easier to imagine the scene with such snippets (as opposed to a garbled piece of audio) - delaying release and timing releases builds up suspense. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Skype is a Microsoft company, first and foremost. Just happens to have a headquarters in the geographic US. Multinational corporations can pick and choose which states they help. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, Erdogan's speech has validated all the leaks, and placed them on record. CNN updates on the case. For us wiki editors, this is good as it is a far more reliable source.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure Erdogan mentioned Skype or the phrase "bring me the dog's head"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Those references will make his speech unnecessarily aggressive against the Saudis, he still has a diplomatic game to play --DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So he didn't validate those leaks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed meet Jamal Khashoggi family

• Saudi King Salman, Crown Prince Mohammed meet Jamal Khashoggi family the expression when you know the killers. there is video too. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Saudis: We only planned to drug him Wow. this keeps getting interesting. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Shaking the hand of Khashoggi's son could backfire for bin Salman Nick Walsh tears into the recent excuses in the last para of this article. do check out. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Their cruelty knows no bounds. Noticed the "security" guy in the background? Hand on his weapon! It’s important to note that Salah has been banned for over a year from leaving the KSA, he has not been able to mourn with his siblings. Who can even begin to imagine how painful this is? It's an other "Yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch"-moments. Why has the US foreign policy to be always so disgusting! --87.170.206.21 (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Jamal Khashoggi's son has left Saudi Arabia Reprots CNN, but no information of where The Saudi-US Dual citizen went to ? --DBigXrayᗙ 22:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

... Pompeo "made it clear to Saudi leaders that he wanted Salah Khashoggi to return to the United States, and we are pleased that he is now able to do so" ... --87.170.197.31 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Safely landed in Washington DC. --87.170.194.55 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Who are the 15 men?

the lede says: "President Erdogan, in his Tuesday speech (23rd October), indicated that the 15 men arrived " - but gives no indication who this is talking about. 198.161.4.63 (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done IP 198.161.4.63, I have added a link to Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Alleged_perpetrators hope it helps. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorting out Investigation and Killing sections

There's a lot of stuff about the findings of media and Saudi investigations in the Killing section. Wouldn't it better to split the Investigation section into Media and Police subsections? Use Killing to simply describe the deed itself, as best we currently understand it? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk I Think it is too early to split right now. In the absence of final investigation report, everything we know right now is from media sources. may be in 2-3 weeks when we have more clarity, we can think about how to arrange it in a better way. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pegasus Spyware on his Iphone or Android

Why is this undermentioned?126.3.20.194 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably because most editors have never heard of it and/or have not seen any reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

how does it take a year for something like Pegasus` for android to be included in the article? It has been added just now from an old ZDNet story. The skype speculation received much attention, but fully compromised Android phones AND AppleIphones merely a footnote. It`s enough to put one off wikipedia, sadly. The Illegal Israeli IT industry has targeted, or collaborated with operatives to target Jamal Khashoggi. There is a referenced citation of an article connecting the two, and that must be included in the Jamal Khashoggi articles interwikilinked to Pegasus (spyware). It has been sufficiently well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.20.194 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This article has existed for less than 1 month so of course it can't have taken a year for anything to happen. Likewise, an old ZDNet article is not likely to be relevant to this article, given that the killing only happened a few weeks ago. If you have problems with Pegasus (spyware), discuss that at Talk:Pegasus (spyware) not here. If you have some relevant WP:RS directly linking Pegasus with the killing please present them. Maybe one of the reasons why this has received little attention is because the relevance to the killing is unclear. While it may be concerning that someone waa spying on Khashoggi, the thing about this case is he was apparently killed in the consulate after having earlier made plans to return. I.E. It was no secret that required spyware to uncover. If anything, the suggestion is spying is how someone has audio of the murder although there are many different speculations as to what form. I'd note that AFAICT, the article doesn't even mention what seems to be the most common speculation namely that the consulate was bugged by the Turkish government. Perhaps info uncovered from the spying is why the decision was made to murder him, OTOH, many people seem to think his public known activities were probably enough to make him a target since the person who targeted him didn't need much. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The uncovering of Pegasus spyware infecting Android was a year ago but the Pegasus article doesn`t say it, a year later.

Lemme run this by you folk; no one doubts that the Saudis did it; no one doubts the Saudis use collaborators; no one allows mention of Israeli collaborators. Somethings fishy

I spy with my little eye something about Abdelaziz. Peter Micek says "I am not aware of any attempts regarding Khashoggi himself." Are you? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted additions of this contentious material by User:126.3.60.195 from the article since clearly folks here do not agree to add this into the article, User:126.3.60.195 please discuss here to generate WP:CONSENSUS --DBigXrayᗙ 20:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The dead body and body parts

Moved from Killing of Jamal Khashoggi

{from investigation section} On 23 October, Jamal Khashoggi's "body parts and disfigured face" were reportedly found in a well in the Saudi consul's garden.

{from Killing Section}

On 23 October, Sky News reported that Khashoggi's body parts had been discovered in the garden of the Saudi Consul General's home, about 500 metres (1,600 ft) from the consulate. The sources told Sky News that he had been "cut up" and his face "disfigured".

References

There were some reports of body parts being found. There were denials that body is not found yet. But BBC as of today still reports [9] no signs of the body. Not sure if this piece of info about body being found should remain in the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Turkish sources alleged that body parts and a disfigured face had been found in the garden, Sky News reported, but the discovery has not been confirmed.. Based on this I am moving the related content from the article to here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm beginning to lose track of what is just rumour, what is actual fact and what is somewhere in between. The severed fingers now seem less likely if there are no hands without them missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I think SKY reported a Turkish politician (not an official) for this information. Did SKY retract this report yet ? NYT already reported that this is not confirmed. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That Turkish politician who alleged Jamal's body parts were discovered in a well, which is located in a garden in the residence of the Saudi consul general, was Dogu Perincek, a prominent Left-wing nationalist. I do not link to → Sputnik → it's verboten ;-) --87.170.195.30 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem so. Business Insider has it here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Even better: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/live-erdogan-reveal-naked-truth-behind-khashoggi-killing-1248347390 → Perincek is not generally regarded as a credible source of information ... his comments were picked up by foreign news outlets... China Xinhua News agency ... Sputnik, Al-Mayadeen News, and a number of Turkish outlets. ... During his speech on Tuesday, Erdogan said the body of Khashoggi was "nowhere to be found". --87.170.195.30 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't be long before we see List of Jamal Khashoggi killing conspiracy theories? But great to see our own trusty Daily Mirror getting a mention there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem leaving this in the article. If it turns out to be untrue, I would still leave it in the article but add the word "falsely" to the first sentence. Even if false it is interesting because it would illustrate the type of false rumours floating around at the time. Boardhead (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Boardhead if we go down that path, i am sure, we will have to eventually rename this article as Rumours associated with Killing of Khashoggi, we can obviously make one or two exceptions for more popular rumours but then, there will be dispute on which rumour can be considered popular and which one is not. this piece of information is indeed confusing, and would need clarifications. hence I felt best to remove it from the article and keep it here, till we have a confirmation of the finding of the dead body. however if we have consensus to re add it and others also think that way, I am open to adding this back into the article. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Reaction Sub-sections

Sub-sections such as "Left the consulate alive" and "Reports of death are false and baseless", "Killed in a fistfight", "Murder was a mistake", and "Murder was premeditated" are highly excessive for the amount of information in the paragraph and more of a narrative than a section head. Sounds like they should even be cited information than a sub section. Please consider rephrasing as per MOS:HEAD Sub-sections should "Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Wikiemirati (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray your Sub-sections sounds like statements made by Saudi Arabia. They don't explain the Saudi response, but are rather paste their statements on a header making it confusing for the reader who wants to know what's going on. Chronology can be established with the previous sub sections (initial denial, later admission, etc). Please consider rephrasing to decrease redundancy and avoid confusion. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was just editing it and wondering whether to put those statements like "Left the consulate alive" in quotes. Would that work? --Snowgrouse (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

They seem like tabloid headers to me. That's not a knock on the content, just remind of The Sun. The entire account (which hasn't changed near as much as Western news implies, but rather naturally evolved as facts came to light) would be best told succinctly in Investigation, which should be split into Turkey and Saudi Arabia sections. "Reactions" from Saudi Arabia should resemble (in form) the sort made by other states; something brief and public about condemnation/condolence/resolve from a government spokesman or minister, not a mish-mash of everything leaked to reporters mixed with paragraphs of various non-Saudi reports regarding Saudi reactions (or lack thereof). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, these headers aren't like a tabloid's, but plagiarized directly from this BBC article. That's even less cool. And the quote about a fist fight was also lifted verbatim from the same BBC account, rather than from the Saudi statement (that much is fixed now). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikiemirati, yes This is a Saudi Reaction subheadings. So Obviously it has to be based on the "Saudi reactions" from their statements, And not some made up stuff. If you have suggentions to copy edit it to a better subtitle let me know and we can discuss. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• InedibleHulk what exactly are you calling Plagiarism here ? By your Logic clearly the BBC and the entire mainstream media have blatantly plagiarized the Saudis. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The BBC came up with six headings, paraphrasing various Saudis' claims, and you stole all six without paraphrasing beyond removing "he" from "left the consulate alive". Then you invented the seventh to match the last stolen one. That one wasn't plagiarism, but lazy, prejudicial and misrepresentative of what the prosecutor said. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You are still falsely accusing me of plagiarising without pointing the statements, I would like to see actual phrases that you are calling plagiarism here and then I would like to discuss each one. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"He left the consulate alive" became "Left the consulate alive". "Reports of death false and baseless" became "Reports of death are false and baseless". "Possibility of 'rogue killers'" became "Possibility of rogue killers". "A brawl and a fistfight" became "Killed in a fistfight" (your finest work). "Murder was a mistake" didn't change a bit (your biggest mistake). To be fair, that's five (not six), and I'll admit I was wrong about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Now you are talking on the real point instead of issuing vague accusations. we are going to discuss each point so allow me to create further subheadings. The idea is to reach a consensus on each point. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Last time we agreed on anything, it was to remove all subheaders, and list responses chronologically. Why slog through this tedium to just reach some other compromise you'll quickly ignore? Force of habit? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No you are clearly mistaken here, I dont recall that we agreed on removing "All the Subheaders" can you share the diff where i said so. My memory may have failed me. and the subheadings are to keep the discussion focussed. so kindly respond there. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

See here for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had stated that as one of the ways to proceed and it was open to discussion. You never responded to that suggestion. So where is the consensus for removing it altogether ? --DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And as you know allegations of plagiarism are quite serious allegations, so I hope you respond below or else I will take it as you have no answer to defend your allegations and would suggest you to strike of your allegations on plagiarism. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I clearly reponded in the affirmative, it works for me. Then I reprinted it, to be double clear. Next I linked the reprinting of our agreement immmediately above, to be triple clear. Now I'm still wasting my time with you, trying to be quadruple clear.

If you didn't want to be accused of plagiarism, you shouldn't have insisted on so closely parroting the letter and intent of someone else's work. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, As i said below, you are free to leave the discussion at any moment. if you want to continue, it has to be WP:CIVIL, I have point by point rebutted your allegations that the Saudi Statements are the actual source which newspapers around the world are basing their headlines on. But to me it appears that you are only interested in WP:IDHT and not in the improvement of this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

older version added by DBigXray	current Version as edited by InedibleHulk
8 Reactions 8.1 Saudi Arabia 8.1.1 Left the consulate alive 8.1.2 Reports of death are false and baseless 8.1.3 Possibility of rogue killers 8.1.4 Killed in a fistfight 8.1.5 Murder was a mistake 8.1.6 Murder was premeditated	8 Reactions 8.1 Saudi Arabia 8.1.1 Left the consulate alive 8.1.2 Reports of death are false and baseless 8.1.3 Payment to US for stablization in Syria 8.1.4 Killed in a fight 8.1.5 Killing was a mistake 8.1.6 Killing was premeditated
version	version

Left the consulate alive

"He left the consulate alive" became "Left the consulate alive".InedibleHulk

This piece of information is originally quoted to Reuters from here Saudi Arabia’s Consulate General in Istanbul said in a statement that Khashoggi had left the consulate building, the Saudi state news agency SPA reported. It said the consulate was working with Turkish authorities “to uncover the circumstances” of his disappearance.

References

Clearly this is from the original Saudi statement, let me know how you would like it to be put. that is concise and yet conveys the statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Both this heading and "Reports of death are false and baseless" heading can be summarized with "Denial" or "Initial denial". You may add the details of the Saudi statements under this heading. "Left the consulate alive" as a heading raises confusion as it is not a full statement, nor a comprehensible or intelligible sentence but rather part of a sentence. Its almost copy pasted by the BBC article reference in the beginning of this discussion and violats WP:copyvio policy. Please provide reasons on why this heading is better than the more concise, brief heading which was previously written? Wikiemirati (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This was the first reaction from the Saudis hence it has prominence, The fact that in a few days time, Saudi accepted that he was murdered, makes this first claim more important and in stark contrast to it. the Saudis regularly changed their statements and the sections have been divided to cover this fact in a chronological order for the reader to see. Joining all these subsections back to make a huge subsection titles "Initial Denial" fails to cover the points i stated above, moreover, the very long length of this para will also make reading more difficult. see MOS:BODY.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Reports of death are false and baseless

"Reports of death false and baseless" became "Reports of death are false and baseless".InedibleHulk

(see the following paragraph in the article) The English-language Arab News on 10 October 2018 reported that Prince Khalid "condemns 'malicious leaks and grim rumors' surrounding Khashoggi disappearance" and that "the reports that suggest that Jamal Khashoggi went missing in the Consulate in Istanbul or that the Kingdom's authorities have detained him or killed him are absolutely false, and baseless".

References

Clearly this is from the original statement, let me know how you would like it it be put. that is concise and yet conveys the statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibility of rogue killers

"Possibility of 'rogue killers'" became "Possibility of rogue killers". InedibleHulk

Mr Trump addressed snatched questions from reporters over helicopter engine noise at the White House, describing King Salman's denial as "very, very strong"."It sounded to me like maybe these could have been rogue killers," he added. "Who knows?"

References

Clearly this is from the original statement, let me know how you would like it to be put. that is concise and yet conveys the statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump is not a Saudi, and what maybe something could sound like to him is America's problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, you are missing the whole point, You have to clarify in each of these subsections how this is plagiarism. and then give me your preferred version of the subsection heading so we can agree to a consensus.

This statement is made after the phone call with Saudi King, Donald Trump here is a secondary source, for the Saudi king. he clearly attributed the king for that statement. so yes it qualifies in the Saudi response section. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going point-by-point on this. You blatantly stole the concept of a five-point presentation from the BBC and made only the slightest effort to change some titles. It's not ethical and doesn't work to summarize the content it was sloppily adapted to cover. I prefer to remove all subsections like we agreed two days ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk , I must remind you that we are here on this talk page discussing to improve this article, not to push the Saudi or American or Turkey POV here. I have clearly stated from where titles are coming from and I already said I am open for copy edits of these headings to reach a consensus. you here are just appearing to follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to find ways to censor these. You are welcome to contribute constructively to these discussions and you are equally welcome to leave the discussion at any time. what you are not welcome is to engage in edit war, and WP:CENSOR --DBigXrayᗙ 13:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Does not warrant a sub section head in my opinion. This is a statement made by Trump as a suggestion after speaking with the Saudi King and can be included into the original text as it was previously. Wikiemirati (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Killed in a fistfight

"A brawl and a fistfight" became "Killed in a fistfight" (your finest work). "Murder was a mistake" didn't change a bit InedibleHulk

"“Preliminary investigations… revealed that the discussions that took place between him and the persons who met him… at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul led to a brawl and a fist fight with the citizen, Jamal Khashoggi, which led to his death, may his soul rest in peace,” the attorney general said in a statement.

References

Clearly this is from the original statement, let me know how you would like it to be put without plagiarizing anything. that is concise and yet conveys the statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not clearly from the original statement at all. The original statement is now cited and quoted, with no mention of fist fights. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you accusing of BBC and Times of israel of falsifying the statements of the Saudi attorney general ? They have clearly put the statement inside "quotes" and yes it does say "fist fight". unless everyone other than you is lying here. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they misquoted. The statement clearly says "a quarrel and a brawl". Plain English. Also nothing about "may his soul rest in peace". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk Well TBH alleging BBC of misquoting is a pretty big and severe allegation to make, and sadly for you BBC is correct here. What you referred above is the second statement that was released by the Saudis on the same day, and releasing the second statement without explicitly stating that the first statement is null and void, does not infer that the first statement that included the quote fist fight as a flase statement and misquote. I encourage you to do a little more searching before making such wild accusations. just to prove your WP:POINT--DBigXrayᗙ 13:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop pinging me, I already know you're here. Show me this statement with a fistfight and soul in it, and I'll eat my words. For now, searching the website only finds this unrelated story. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"“Preliminary investigations… revealed that the discussions that took place between him and the persons who met him… at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul led to a brawl and a fist fight with the citizen, Jamal Khashoggi, which led to his death, may his soul rest in peace,” the attorney general said in a statement.Sources I have made it visible for you now. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

I asked for the statement, not recycled coverage of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You asked for the exact official statement, I gave u again, although it was given in teh first reply as well. And then all these reliable sources stating the same. You are supposed to read the links and if you disagree point out what is the problem them, why you claim they are unreliable, we can tehn proceed to WP:RSN for this WP:DR. What you are doing here is clearly WP:IDHT, And I must point that this IDHT must be avoided.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

These are all copies of an AFP story, as far as I've clicked. As with the one guy selling the Tiger Squad exclusive, echoing it doesn't count for more. The problem is likely that AFP made a mistake and it spread. You claimed there were two official statements, just show me the first. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

[10] This should be enough for you. if not , lets proceed to the WP:RSN --DBigXrayᗙ 13:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the same piece you stole from to start this mess. Why would it be enough the second time you show me? Show me the alleged first statement from that day. If you can't, stop showing me anything. This detail is fixed already. (They weren't all AFP stories, though, I spoke too soon and apologize). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Confusing title to the reader as it does not form a basic grammatical sentence. I agree with InedibleHulk that this highly looks like a five point presentation made into subsections. Consider rephrasing to convey a proper thought presentation. Wikiemirati (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It is neither confusing nor grammatically incorrect. Plus it is widely used and cited for this incident. The fact that the Saudis brazenly claimed a fist fight with a 60 year old caused an uproar. Here are some more for you to check out, and Mind you, all of them use the word fistfight. Other than trying to WP:Censor facts here, if you do have a genuine suggestions for a better title for this section, I am all ears and open for further discussion for a title that keeps the sanctity of the information. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

How am I censoring? You may include all this and/or all other Saudi statements you want in the text and I have not removed or censored any as you claim. I am talking about the title and how to properly form a title head that will not confuse the reader. Again, wikipedia is not another news outlet like Washington Post, BBC, or whatever you are citing. Those sources cited does not mean we should abide by the same title they use. WP is not a newspaper. In my opinion, the previous subsections were way clearer than these multiple new subsections. Wikiemirati (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikiemirati, You want the word fistfight to be dropped from the section title and yet you have not given any reasonable justification for this. your claim of "confusion" are clearly unfounded since this is a part of the official statement and widely stated in the international media. if you have suggestions to copy edit the statement, please share your prefered version below and we can proceed with out discussion on teh merits of your proposed version of the section heading. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Where did I mention I want to drop the word "fistfight"? Again, please don't make assumptions. Previous subsections made way more sense to me "Initial denial of involvement" and "later admission of involvement" than putting Saudi statements on headers. Titles should "not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article" as per MOS:HEAD. "Killed in a fistfight" redundantly refer back to the subject of how the journalist was killed. Wikiemirati (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that "Killed in a fistfight" is a "redundantly" reference back to the subject of the article, please refer the example on MOS. in fact it succinctly makes a title for the subsection. The fact that it was brazenly used and widely criticized, by the international community and reported widely by the media(see my references above), makes the usage of this word even more relevant for the heading.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a relevant statement but it does not introduce the topic. You may include the statement or the entire Saudi speech if you want in the text, but you should not use it as a title as it is not your statement and titles cannot be cited. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and headers and titles in Wikipedia are not newspaper headers. The statement is a quote and belongs to the person who said it, not to a Wikipedia editor. Wikiemirati (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

The first two subsections are in direct violation of WP:Copyvio. The subsections are written as a journal or a newspaper entry. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Timely news headlines incorporated into a Wikipedia article are not suitable for Wikipedia, you are welcome to edit our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style. Wikiemirati (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

how about joining the discussion in existing subsections above instead of opening more and more ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an important legal matter. For legal reasons, wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or published material. Wikiemirati (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Kindly avoid threatening me with COPYVIO legalese, If you think it is a copy vio go ahead and open a case at the copy vio noticeboard. These lines are based on the Saudi official statements and have been used by newspapers all around the world to make headlines, I am not sure your claims of COPYVIO will fly, but as i said nothing stops you from trying and making an attempt. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith I have not threatened nor engaged in an edit war. I have only cited the Wikipedia policy. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The section on the U.S. is about as long as the one on Saudi Arabia, yet has no subheadings at all. We can do without them, and if they are copyright violations, we must remove them. I am going to be bold and do so, subject to further discussion here. Jonathunder (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Jonathunder no these are wrongly claimed as copyVio and I have clearly clarified this in the section above.

Regarding section on US, Kindly understand that this article is getting expanded everyday. I do agree that the section on US also needs to be split into subsections, but that is not a justification to merge other subsections. Long walls of text without subsections inherently make reading difficult.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

with this edit I have divided the subsection of US response into 3 parts, we can divide further if needed. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If you think subheadings help readers, you are welcome to write some that are not plagiarized. Jonathunder (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done let me know if you have more suggestions. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Romoving plagiarism is more than a suggestion. Do not undo it. Jonathunder (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jonathunder my edit after yours was a copy edit and not simply a revert, and yet i see that with this revert you have removed it. Care to explain why exactly the recent version of headings is a copy vio ? I suggest you to kindly self revert since after the copy edits the concern has already been resolved. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Jonathunder Wikiemirati (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. The section headers were copied from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45937448, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

After this section had been all bundled up together, the chronological order was gone. When I saw the page today, it made it look like the latest development was the whole "it was an attempt to bring him home, they were going to put him in a safe house" thing and that the "he died in a fistfight" explanation was the last one. Yet the Saudi government didn't use terms like "premeditated" or "murder" until *after* the fistfight explanation had caused an uproar and after Erdogan had called it a murder. So I went around and rearranged the paragraphs, so that it's now in chronological order. Although there's still stuff about the arrests of 18 people and the dismissal of a couple of the hitmen/court officials at the top of the section, which could be moved to the end with the "we need a month to investigate this" statement, as both are summations of the situation that might work best at the end (until new developments in the case happen, of course). Snowgrouse (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. There's plenty of good information in the text that needed rearranging as information was added as things got clearer. Good job! Wikiemirati (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. Why did you remove the bit about Turkish leaks triggering the Saudi government changing their story more and more, BTW? Just curious, not about to start an edit war. I felt that the Turkish pressure was and is relevant, as it's been forcing the Saudi government to admit various things and without it, I doubt things would've moved on as much as they have done so far (which is not that much, but still). Or was it something in the previous phrasing; did it look too non-neutral POV?--Snowgrouse (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Snowgrouse Isn't it obvious to you whose POV this user is trying to push on this article ? --DBigXrayᗙ 10:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith. I haven't followed the individual edits closely enough to start classifying people in camps (you or anyone else even if there have been arguments here that have been blown out of proportion, IMHO), but have mostly stayed on the copyediting side. I asked for this user's rationale, giving them a chance to explain why (the edit could've been made for non-biased reasons, such as repetition and such; it wasn't obvious vandalism or bias). You can hardly fault anyone for that. Snowgrouse (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snowgrouse. I initially moved it to "admission of involvement" for chronology to make sense and to avoid repetition on why Saudi kept changing statements as they were pressured by Turkish investigations. However, I see the section restored but chronologically put as a lead and with user:fitzcarmalan fixing non-NPOV wording. Makes more sense now. Oh and thanks for assuming good faith! Meh, I've hardly made any edits on this article and I'm already accused of POV pushing by someone who extensively edited the article disagreed consensus from 4 users, including 2 admins on basis of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wikiemirati (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

opposition to including Smartphone-tapping in article

Smartphone tapping rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Several editors have, on several occassions, deleted or removed material from the article concerning Israeli Cybercriminal activity (purportedly) carried out on behalf of the Saudi government. This IP contributor has been warned on the talkpage with threats of blocking. The following response should prevent further bias against the material presented by the contributor, yet the contributor anticipates such and hereby gives notice of exemption from the Three-Revert Rule; Firstly, the editing done on the article in question from this IP has been primarily to ensure the article reflects the reality of the CONTEXT of the victim and the persons/groups who sought to exploit or harm the victim, who is likely now deceased, with consideration of timing. The victim, Jamal Khashoggi, was a writer and editor for newsmedia in several countries, and it might have been frowned upon to have cited references from his own work. Several editors of wikipedia have come aboard the article in question, which has been heavily edited over the past week. The See also section of the article shows 17 other wikipedia articles, many of which are not related to the killing of Khashoggi; the most glaring omission in light of the depth of the article is the concerted removal of the Israeli smartphonetapping. Wikipedia is not the place to explain that the Israelis have been selling weapons, or trying to sell (even nuclear weapons to Apartheid Regime of South Africa) weapons, high-tech IT products (and smartphone-hacking tools), to 'Tyrants, Dictators, and Oppressive Regimes', and that they have done so successfully and consistently, whether cruise missiles and AWACS and drones to China, or cruise missiles and drones anti-missile-missiles to Saudi Arabia. In this case, it is not about Israeli bombs dropping on Yemen by American aircraft operated by the Saudi Airforce, it is about smartphone hacking-for-hire, and has been reported in mainstream media in several countries and regions, 'including in a newsmedia outlet of the victim', around six months before the victim was killed. The most recent addition of the smartphone-hacking-for-hire referenced published material of the very day of the dissappearance of the victim, not published by the victim, but covering the same topic of the victim`s April article in middleeastmonitor, which may have been frowned upon had it been referenced. Given that the See also section has a wide range of links, it cannot be appropriate to further delete info (or prevent further reading on it) if the smartphone-hacking-for-hire matter is included in that section, which shall be done subsequent to this notice. Thank you for your continued rational and intellectually-honest reaction.~ The victim was hacked by the Israelis (perhaps also as proxies of Saudi Arabian), and a self-described "colleague" of the victim was likewise hacked by the Israelis, the latter upon which a story was written in the victims press, six months prior to the disappearance. The references are there, the historical precedent of such operations is there, and it remains tabooed in the MSM, and 'sadly' here on wikipedia. Further deletion of, or prevention of further reading of, the smartphone-hacking-for-hire material shall grant ample cause for this 3RR exemption notice to be upheld. Any attempts to block this IP will have been done out of intellectual dishonesty and will have been done shamelessly.126.3.45.203 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC) You have made no coherent case for inclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

What does "gives notice of exemption from the Three-Revert Rule" mean? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I warned the IP for WP:3RR and he is trying to justify that his crusade is acceptable. I explained it to this IP on my talk page, that he will still be blocked if he fails to provide reliable source linking the murder with this software. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

by that logic you would have to block anyone who fails to provide a reliable source linking the "murder" with;

• Freedom of the press

• Human rights in Saudi Arabia

• Israa al-Ghomgham – Saudi human rights activist who documents the 2017–18 Qatif unrest and faces execution by beheading
• Sheikh Baqir al-Nimr – dissident cleric executed for criticism of the Saudi regime
• Raif Badawi – imprisoned Saudi dissident, writer and activist
• Hamza Kashgari – pro-democracy activist and columnist imprisoned for blasphemy
• Dina Ali Lasloom – imprisoned Saudi asylum seeker
• Samar Badawi – imprisoned Saudi activist
• Fahad al-Butairi – abducted in Jordan and taken to be imprisoned in Saudi Arabia
• Manal al-Sharif – Saudi human rights activist
• Loujain al-Hathloul – imprisoned Saudi activist
• Mishaal bint Fahd bin Mohammed Al Saud – Saudi princess executed for alleged adultery
• Sara bint Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud – exiled Saudi princess and regime critic

• 2016 Saudi Arabia mass execution
• 2017 Saad Hariri affair
• Serena Shim - American-Lebanese reporter for Iran allegedly murdered by Turkish government

I`m not saying the above see-also`s are not informative further reading, I`m saying Saudi Spooks using Israeli collabourators or Israeli hacking tools AGAINST THE DECEASED AND DECEASED`S COLLEAGUES deserves a wikilink, thats all. You have tried to make a big deal out of it when it is not a big deal, it is so simple. As if "spyware" and malware is in the realm of spies, or government secrecy!Thats just silly! gimme a break, Saudis have been provided hackers-for-hire from cybercriminal hotbedSilicon Wadi, used the hackers in tailing their prey, and some intellectually recidivistic (likely paid) editors are censoring that from the article. Honestly, do you see any consensus on inclusion of any of the above, and if no, stop being obstructionist.126.3.23.85 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

IP user 126.3.23.85 Please see MOS:SEEALSO to understand what is allowed and what is not. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)--DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It is for you (doing the warning threatening of blocking or blocking) to understand what is allowed and ensure common-sense prevails over any other special interests to which you may be beholden.210.161.164.200 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

IP user 126.3.23.85, do you see any consensus forming here for adding that link? If you have one, you might want to share an eternal here of an external secondary source that links the killing to Pegasus (spyware), thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Salah Mohammed Al-Tubaiqi at Istanbul airport.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Erdogan`s Speech/ misrepresentations and omission within this article

His proposal, his three questions, and the "doors and cabinets", or "cabinets and drawers" are not mentioned, although added within minutes after his speech, were removed and the contributor blocked for false BLP-Vio excuse.210.161.164.200 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sept. 11 Documents

An anonymous IP placed the following into the article after being reverted by several users. The IP had continued to place the content back into the article without discussion in an edit war.

One of the four 9/11 widows - known as the "Jersey Girls" - mentions the unusual timing of the disappearance of Khashoggi with respect to the release of documents by the Department of Justice, supporting the 9/11 Families' Litigation, that may implicate the Saudi government in the 9/11 attacks.

References

Other editors need to review this content to determine if it conforms to WP:OR and WP:RS. The current sources are from blogs which are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. The content from the blog indicates that much of what is there are loose conclusions (original research) about some sort of link between the Khashoggi murder, Saudi Arabian officials, and 9/11. Some of the content clearly violates WP:BLP from this blog. Comments from other editors welcome. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Octoberwoodland and support the removal of the said content as an WP:UNDUE conspiracy theory sourced from blog and lacking a reliable source. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "Over the past decade, Washington lobbyists have raked in $76.9 million advocating for the Saudis on everything from nuclear power to fending off legislation that would leave the kingdom liable in lawsuits filed by family members of victims in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

...

"Among the long-time Saudi lobbyists, Hogan Lovells lobbied in 2016 against the release of congressional documents related to Saudi Arabia and the Sept. 11 attacks. Ultimately, the House Intelligence Committee released 28 pages detailing ties between the kingdom’s elite and terrorists. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and critics say the Saudi ruling family has maintained power through an alliance with religious hard-liners."

...

"The lobbying effort included housing U.S. veterans from around the country at the Trump International Hotel in Washington while they fanned out over Capitol Hill to stress the importance of U.S.-Saudi military cooperation. The initiative caused an uproar when some veterans complained that they were unaware they were acting on behalf of the Saudi government." from: bloomberg --87.170.201.83 (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"The suspects in the incident had committed their act with a premeditated intention"

It's become fashionable for Western media to translate the above into a claim about premeditated murder. Some editors have run with that idea here, and some will likely continue. It's important to differentiate what the prosecutor's statement stated from what reports on that statement report and not conflate them into one account. Nobody has been charged with any crime, nor has the prosecutor indicated what act the suspects are suspected of committing.

The word "premeditated" is most commonly linked with "murder", so some jumping to conclusions is understandable, but any act can be premeditated. Even a premeditated killing (which the prosecutor doesn't allege) isn't necessarily murder if the killer has a legal excuse, such as carrying out state business. Let the wheels of justice do their turning before trying to get ahead of them, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:MAINSTREAM--DBigXrayᗙ 12:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. What's your point? The same sources which claim the prosecutor said murder also relay his actual words, just further down the page or in another article. When one reliable source presents two contradictory claims, we're allowed and expected to use editorial judgement in selecting the one that isn't demonstrably false. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

that essay summarizes all I had to say, You are getting into WP:ANALYSIS here, Something that is strictly prohibited for editors to indulge into.

Since your topic of starting this thread was to get into Analysis let me ask you, Saudi issued statement that "Suspects have Committed their Act with Premeditated Intention" what was that about ? I hope you are not inferring this as to intention for barbecue party. (if you don't trust Telegraph, dont use it, use something else)

While you are at it I would also suggest you to read what WP:PRIMARY states and follow that. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 16:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Many criminal acts are alleged to have occured that day, any or all of which may have appeared intentional. These include harassment, intimidation, attempted kidnapping, false arrest, drug trafficking, physical assault, insubordination, reckless endangerment, murder, evidence tampering, conspiracy, desecration of a corpse, obstruction of justice, improper use of public funds and mischief, to name a few.

We still use NBC News as the secondary source to properly relay the primary statement. The exact mainstream claim is "In a statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency, Saud al-Mojeb said indications were that the 'suspects in the incident had committed their act with a premeditated intention.'" It was previously used to say someone said each of the suspects murdered Khashoggi; even Saphora Smith's interpretation said nothing of murder, only killing. Flatly failed WP:V. And even her own surmisal can be safely disregarded in light of the demonstrably true contradictory fact she reported (what the prosecutor really said).

As always, I'll reserve the right to remain silent concerning the legality, morality or tastefulness of barbecue party matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems you are trying too hard now, don't sweat it. BBC: Khashoggi death: Saudi Arabia says journalist was murdered --DBigXrayᗙ 19:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And you're not trying nearly hard enough, because that's an entirely different Saudi from the one we're talking about. Why do you insist on blending them all together and painting the whole imaginary clump as a liar? Do you think all 18 suspects murdered one man, too? When you say they later agreed it was murder, do you realize who you're including in "they"? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I understand your concerns. it needs some improvements, Allow me to work on this article and then we can discuss how to imrpove this further. I have several recent sources to update the article with. that should answer most of your questions. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood a single concern of mine since I met you, and when we did (somehow) agree on removing subheaders, you insisted it never happened. You'll misrepresent your recent sources like you've misrepresented your old ones, I have no doubt, but since I can't ban you and want to take a break from reverting you, I'll give you yet another chance to accurately reflect facts from articles you find online. Perhaps this time you'll put the wants of an impartial encyclopedia over your irrational need to paint an entire country as a cohesive unit of sneaky murderous tigers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The conflicting news were caused by the Saudi mainstream media. They literally tweeted some tweets regard this issue and then removed them. Just wanted to make this clear. --SharabSalam (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. But none of the mainstream stories on this cite tweets or Saudi media. Only the same public statement, presented two ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Turkey

This report from The Washington Post got me a thinking: Shouldn't there be a section about criticism and reactions to what the Turkish government is doing? Also, the diplomatic power game between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the USA should be noted. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 17:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that will be WP:UNDUE for this "Killing" article, at best we can include an internal wiki link to the articles that discuss that topic. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. What about a new article titled 2018 Saudi Arabia-Turkey conflict? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 13:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

JSH-alive, You Should first create that section in the article Saudi Arabia-Turkey relations as a section. if it has enough material and notability you can eventually WP:CFORK into a new article. I do not suggest creating that new article now, as it will be merged immediately do to lack of independent notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for suggestion. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Limit Saudi reactions to government reactions or anonymous officials.

The Saudi reactions section contains reactions from Twitter, Al-Arabiya, Okaz, Al-Yaum, Al-Jazeera, The New York Times, Al-Ahldaki and The Washington Post. This is not how these sections typically work, nor how this same section works for other countries. Tried to include only Saudi government reactions, like a normal article does, and was reverted with the ridiculous claim that these are Saudi-owned outlets. The insistent reverter also wants to falsely attribute "quotes" plucked from news stories or Donald Trump to Saudi officials, and claim the Saudi Arabian government has determined murder, which is even more fucked up. This outside commentary should be in Aftermath, or a Media subsection of Reactions, if anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Title of the section under discussion is Saudi Reaction and not Just Saudi official reaction(or Saudi Propaganda)
• Twitter has suspended a number of bot accounts that appeared to be spreading pro-Saudi tweets about the disappearance of Khashoggi.

References

• Regarding the above Twitter related content quoting the ref ("Many of the bots, which tweeted in both Arabic and English, were caught sharing identical strings of posts with a litany of pro-Saudi nationalist hashtags. One hashtag, roughly translated as “#unfollow_enemies_of_the_nation,” spread through more than 100,000 tweets over 24 hours from both real and automated accounts. Other hashtags were used to praise Saudi Arabia’s current king, Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, or to spread rumors implicating Khashoggi’s fiance in his disappearance."[11]) is quite relevant here as the Efforts of the establishment to influence the social media.
• Saudi owned channel, Al Arabiya tows the official line and hence its reports are also relevant to the Saudi section.
• Al Jazeera's coverage of Arab world clearly doesn't belong in the Saudi section and I do not protest moving that. I see that someone else already moved it.
• Regarding the 100M$ it was already discussed here Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Saudi_Arabia_transfers_$100m_to_US_State_Department that it needs to be added. If you have further comments respond there.
• regarding the Saudi reactions summary section discuss on Talk:Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#Summary_for_Saudi_Arabia_reactions_section--DBigXrayᗙ 00:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Summary for Saudi Arabia reactions section

Moved from Killing of Jamal Khashoggi §  Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabian officials have changed their statements several times citing death by "fist fight" to "rogue operation" and on 19 October stated that Khashoggi killing in the consulate was a premeditated act.

References

The line above from the The intro of the section Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi#_Saudi_Arabia has been removed by User:InedibleHulk, care to explain what your problem is with this ? And would like to know your alternate version of this line for this section (Note: This is the last line of the summary of the entire Saudi response section). I am open to constructive and WP:CIVIL suggestions to improve this. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk's version "Various Saudi officials have given various accounts over time."

You've seen (and twice reverted) my preferred version. The problem with your wording is that it's a multi-layered bullshit cake. The public prosecutor did not say "fist fight", and the foreign minister (reportedly) said "rogue operation". These are two people with two accounts, neither of which contradicts the other. The prosecutor then says the suspects carried out their act with premeditated intent, nothing about killing/murder, nothing contrary to his earlier statement and nothing contrary to the minister's.

The only real change in government stance happened after it learned the team's report about Khashoggi leaving was false, and that he died there. There is absolutely nothing sketchy about a state tending to believe its own agent over an enemy state's claim alone, and something even admirable about admitting an error after that state provides solid damning evidence.

If you can see where someone changed their story in any meaningful way, it would be good to directly explain that change, rather than listing a series of buzzwords from each update and expecting readers to read between the lines. Can a fight not possibly happen during a premeditated rogue act, or something? And where have you ever seen a summary required for a Reaction subsection at all? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE: Bret Baier grills Saudi foreign minister over death of US-based columnist in consulate I am sure you have seen the Foreign minister openly calling it "mistake" "rogue operation" etc, but you will still call it "(reportedly)" If this is not blatant POV pushing then what else  ?
• Washington Post and Chichago Tribune

• The Saudi government acknowledged early Saturday that journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, saying he died during a fistfight, but the new account may do little to ease international demands for the kingdom to be held accountable. The announcement, which came in a tweet from the Saudi Foreign Ministry, said that an initial investigation by the government’s general prosecutor found that the Saudi journalist had been in discussions with people inside the consulate when a quarrel broke out and escalated to a fatal fistfight.

• BBC: How has the Saudi story changed? First, Saudi Arabia said Khashoggi had left the building alive, then that he had been killed in a "fist-fight" inside the consulate. It finally said that Khashoggi had been murdered in a "rogue operation" that the leadership had not been aware of. An unnamed Saudi official told Reuters news agency on Sunday that Khashoggi had died in a chokehold after resisting attempts to return him to Saudi Arabia.

• NBC: After vehement denials that Riyadh was involved in Khashoggi's disappearance, Saudi officials admitted last week that the U.S.-based dissident was killed inside the building. However, the Saudis had previously maintained that Khashoggi’s death was a mistake when an attempt by operatives to persuade him to return to Saudi Arabia escalated into a fatal fistfight. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Fox News on Sunday that the death was the result of a “rogue operation" in which individuals exceeded their authority.

• Reuters Saudi officials initially insisted that Khashoggi left the compound on Oct. 2 after completing his paperwork. Turkish officials, however, said they believed he was killed inside by a team sent from Saudi Arabia. Riyadh’s numerous shifting accounts of the killing have undermined Prince Mohammed’s standing in the West.

I have shared the reliable sources stating the same information, so my version is not only correct but also properly sourced. If you believe these sources aren't reliable then please proceed to WP:RSN and make a case there. You are attempting an obvious WP:STONEWALLING here--DBigXrayᗙ 02:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Reactions split proposal

I propose moving out the Reactions section into a new article titled Reactions to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi (mirroring the title of this article). I think that this is starting to border on WP:SIZE and is a bit WP:UNDUE at this moment to have 26 paragraphs about the Saudi reactions, 22 paragraphs about the U.S. reactions, lists of all countries in the world, reactions by random judges in Argentina, WP:ROUTINE business deals by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all this amplified so much. wumbolo ^^^ 16:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• No issues. Rzvas (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Good idea. Just need to leave a shory summary of the section in this article. Thank you.Al83tito (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that the reaction section is quite long, but even if a split is made, the reactions of KSA, USA, and Turkey are central to this article and will still need to be present in this article in a substantial way because removing their reactions will impact the understanding of this topic. If reactions from minor countries and businesses are moved it would not hurt the article much if they are covered in a paragraph in this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

American reactors aren't central, they're just overheated, noisy and everywhere. North and South America alike are only retelling the story of a Turkish guy killed by some number of Saudi guys; it's only up to other Turkish and Saudi guys to determine how this case plays out. There might be some pertinent stuff in the 22 paragraphs to merge into articles like Saudi Arabia–United States relations, arms industry, political positions of Donald Trump and The Washington Post, though. The personal sanctions bit might be useful left here, if someone can explain what these sanctions entail. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: You are welcome to restore anything you think is central, just watch out for duplicate citations now that I have fixed them. Keep in mind anyone who wants to read the blow by blow can go to the new article, so we can just keep it short on this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder that nothing has changed, if anyone's interested in starting this move. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Still sitting there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - A split seems appropriate here. --Wikiemirati (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Seven months later, still no independence or opposition. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

For this to happen a summery to leave in its place is needed and a summarizing lead needs to be written. The rest is just cut and paste and choosing cats at the end. I take forever just to write a sentence, but I can cut and paste real fast. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"For 18 days, Saudi Arabia denied Khashoggi had died in the consulate, before indicating a team of Saudi agents had overstepped their orders to capture him when a struggle ensued. Turkey said it believes the killing was premeditated and approved by the Saudi government, and sought extradition of the suspects. The United States reserved judgment to protect a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Other countries expressed various sentiments and concerns."

Or something like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're no Quickdraw Rick McGraw, but I guess I set those expectations too high myself. "Really fast" is relative, after all. If you can finish the cutting by October, we're still on pace to outzip the prior two quarters, and we can probably all be home choosing cats by Christmas. Just gotta stay hungry, eye on the ball, eye of the tiger, don't stop believin', time after time, ain't no mountain high enough, all that jazz! And if not, I understand. Must get real busy back on Earth in summer, what with all the rapid changes and such. We sure don't get much of that, out here in the future. But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. Whenever's good for you, eh! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk The 4 line para written above is a pathetic excuse for this summary. I would not allow any removal/replacement of content with this kind of a summary here. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? It's sourced and a well summarised paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that's DBigXray. We're eternal virtual adversaries. I forget why, have grown to accept it. I distinctly recall remembering to include America's non-reaction for him in particular, though. That's how I know I'm the hero in our subplot. Objectively, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh shit, it's all coming back to me now. Tiger Squad. We went in together as brothers, assuming good faith and seeking collective wisdoms. But then the tigers came. They were everywhere, man! First five, then seventeen, next fifteen or five. I had to invent a fictional reporter character of my own just to stay sane amidst the waves of tiger tales that poured from his transmitter, day after day. Biggie buried him in a collapsible box! Is that why he returns to haunt me now? The eye of the tiger remark? It was an accident, I swear! Stop reminding me, bro! Let Tiger Island fade into legend, for Pete's sake. Poor, poor Pete... InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done I split it as best I could. I tried to improve on InedibleHulk's version. (I know, hard to believe.) I think the extra attention to the US reaction is justified because while everyone else reacted pretty much as one would expect, Trumps reaction was more shocking, scary, upsetting, controversial. I am sure others will ruin improve on it. I also copied the headers from this talk page and updated them as best I could. The real pain was cross copying the citations. That took at least an hour. Although, I suppose I could have just left it for the bots to sort some of it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Added citations.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Let it thus be known, from this day forth, that Richard of Earth did save the day when all hope seemed lost. May your lost hour echo throughout history and rest assured. Mister, you're a better man than I. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Shucks folks I'm speechless Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)