Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 3

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

Requested move 28 October 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. Both proposed titles are permissible, but there is a clear preference for this option, and a clearly increasing trend of sources using this terminology as reporting has clarified the circumstances of the event. bd2412 T 18:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Killing of Jamal Khashoggi → ? – This is a procedural re-nomination of the request that was closed earlier today. There were two options that had strong support, and now the decision must be made as to which one to choose. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please give your opinions below. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Care to tell us what "killing"+jamal+khashoggi generates? Better yet, try "killing"+jamal+khashoggi -assassination and "assassination"+jamal+khashoggi -killing. Then, while you're at it, move over to Google News and let me know what your results are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking through your sources: "apparent assassination", "apparent assassination", "leaked information to U.S. intelligence and mediaoutlets indicating Khashoggi had been assassinated under orders from the Saudi royal court", "allegedly assassinated", "Turkish officials have said they possess evidence showing that 15 Saudi agents assassinated", opinion piece and so not RS for facts, "what they said was a brazen, state-sponsored assassination". None of the sources you chose support stating directly, as a fact, that Khashoggi was assassinated, which is what the title in Option A says, because all of them attribute or don't treat it as a certainty. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Gentlemen, Mainstream Media has been using lot of terms for this so we can obviously find lot of sources for each term. But there has been a trend recently towards using the terms Assassination and Killing more and more as the days went by. Especially after the Saudi confirmation of premeditated murder. I will just end by share NYTs recent coverage on this (emphasis mine)

New York Times "identification of 15 Saudis whom Turkish officials said had been sent to assassinate Mr. Khashoggi and dispose of his body.... Another suspect, Dr. Salah al-Tubaigy, is an autopsy expert, lending credence to reports that the writer’s assassination was planned... He expressed confidence in several intelligence reports that suggested a Saudi role in his assassination."

--DBigXrayᗙ 15:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said before, more and more sources are using Assassination as the details emerge CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination (Washington post 16 Nov)--DBigXrayᗙ 07:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A - clearly a politically motivated killing against a prominent critic of the Saudi Arabian Government, which makes it an assassination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A per DBigXray. It's widely accepted that this was politically motivated in some sense or another, and "assassination" implies that there might be geopolitical consequences. "killing" is quite vague, and implies that there is some widely accepted explanation for the process of making someone dead. If something like torture is proven, we might consider a title like "Torture and assassination". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 20:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B, and I encourage the closing editor to not simply count !votes but also weight the arguments that are policy-based against those that aren't (by the way I have nothing against the previous closure). Most of the editors who supported "assassination" did so based on their personal interpretations of the events, with arguments along the lines of "politically-motivated killing = assassination" dominating the previous RM, and will apparently be the case here as well. While I'm thankful to InedibleHulk for pointing out the significant inaccuracies found in Google search results, I stand by my original argument, which is that "assassination" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B as per wiki policy WP:BLPCRIME. Since conflicting counts still occur on 'who' ordered the assassination. As an encyclopedia, calling it an assassination incriminates on our accounts the alleged people who ordered the killing mentioned in the article. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law as per wiki policy. Calling it a political assassination (which it may be) stands against Wikipedia's policy and implicate the alleged who denied it. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction and regardless if I or anyone else think it truly is a political assassination or not does not matter. WP:CRIME "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." "Assassination" implicates the involved government, who denied it. From an encyclopedic point of view, we shouldn't use "assassination" yet. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B: "Killing" is objectively correct and undisputed. Khashoggi was killed, and there is literally nothing wrong with saying that. The only argument that has been presented against it is that it doesn't take a strong enough position about the killing, but it is explicitly not Wikipedia's role to take a position; under NPOV we present the facts of the event and let them speak for themselves. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Please note WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
You're suggesting that non-neutral content is ok? Or is not covered explicitly by policy? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • B The article doesn't even claim who killed him, much less why. Wait for prosecutors with access to evidence to build a semblance of a case, rather than relying on the suggestions of pro-reporter reporters who've never even talked to whomever the killer is supposed to be. And even then, I'd wait for those authoritative allegations (whatever they eventually are) to be tested in a legitimate court (or at least admitted through torture). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A Because a premedited murder is an assassination and per WP:PROPORTION, all of the POV have not the same importance. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The recent notion that a Saudi prosecutor mentioned premeditated murder is a fabrication. Even if it weren't, prosecutors routinely allege living people are guilty of crimes before they're convicted. Literally every person ever awaiting trial for anything, innocent or guilty, was called a criminal by the prosecution. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a court of law, and as such, the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here. We just write about what reliable sources are saying about an event. And since wikipedia is not a court of law, the notion of assessing the credibility of any individuals is also not our job, we let the writers of these events do that for us. The current consensus of the press and those reporting on these events are that this was an assassination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Court or no, an editor has spelled out above how the presumption of innocence absolutely applies here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: no, it is not a fabrication. Reliable source said he have admitted it. Also, in all case, waiting that KSA will admitt an assassination is not necessary if reliables sources said it is an assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. You'll not find any that directly quote "murder" or "killing", just "premeditated". Because that's the only word the prosecutor used. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Octoberwoodland, InedibleHulk is alleging here that all these above internationally renowned newspapers that wikipedia calls reliable sources are into the business of news "fabrication" and he also wants us to believe none of them used "murder" or "killing" with "premeditated", well obviously we can see from the list above who is "fabricating lies" here. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say they didn't use "murder" or "killing", I said they didn't quote them. All quoting out of context, adding either "murder" or "killing" as each writer sees fit. I could just as easily claim you just called me "renowned", and anyone could just as easily look at your original text to prove me wrong. Same deal with these liars. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope you know that you aren't making any sense now. calling these reliable sources as "these liars". But, yes you can carry on with your POV. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you think critically and not get duped by old tricks. Don't take offense. FYI, I was also helping Panam2014 on this, not Octoberwoodland. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: it was a murder. And KSA have admitted that it was premedited. So it is an assassination. And again, it is not necessary that KSA admits that it is an assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
No, the prosecutor alone admitted (a strange word choice) the suspects' "act" or "crime" was premeditated, depending whether you read the statement I already linked or this Reuters TV review: “Information from the Turkish side affirms that the suspects in Khashoggi’s case premeditated their crime,” said the statement carried by state TV. There are many acts and crimes that aren't murders or assassinations, which can be planned and carried out by multiple suspects. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: again, it is your own opinion, nor of sources. Also, the act is a murder. Also, in all case, the Saudi position is not necessary to chose a title. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
(The Guardian does use "believed to be handpicked for Khashoggi’s assassination", but that is inter-pressed with the main use of "killing", and the NYtimes attributes "as part of a premeditated assassination" to Turkish officials rather than stating it as fact and so does not support Option A despite it being used to above; ergo both the common and neutral name is "killing")
Many arguments above for Option A are weak - we go by WP:RS - not our interpretations of what they support, or cherrypicking terms used because we'd prefer assassination over killing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A he was killed for a political reason. I understand who argue that reliable sources doesn't mention assassination but I say reliable sources state he was killed for a political reason which is by the definition an assassination. If we are going to put what reliable sources are literally stating then it should be killing of Jamal khashoggi for a political motivation not just cherry picking a half title. The reason this killing has got a lot of attention is because it was for a political motivation. SharabSalam (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • opinion Why not name it Jamal khashoggi case? By far it is the most common title. It will also fix this disputive issue. WP:COMMONNAME also does not apply to this title (killing of khashoggi) because it is about common names not verbs and their synonyms and definitions SharabSalam (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A reasonable suggestion. Would provide a compromise until the promised legal process completes. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, cuz this is not a burglary or trespassing etc. this title is making it too vague and sounds like whitewashing. not supported by WP:COMMONNAME--DBigXrayᗙ 10:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't quite get what your first statement was about. According to Oxford dictionary the word case means: An incident or set of circumstances under official investigation by the police.[9] it is not just limited to "burglary or trespassing etc". It is actually supported by WP:COMMONNAME [10],[11],[12] also Saudi mainstream media still call it a case. As a matter of fact many politicans still call it a case including Trump. There is also a small chance that Jamal khashoggi is still alive since his body has not been found and the investigation is still going on. SharabSalam (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMONNAME requires most commonly used title, "Case" isn't the most commonly used. But you have voted, your opinion, so its ok. lets see if other users support "case" like you or something else. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A per DBigXray, Octoberwoodland, Panam2014, and Ahmer Jamil Khan. The title should reflect the truth. I really only see one enduring disruptiv editor... --87.170.201.92 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I see. So the world's press, with a little help from Wikipedia, how now established "the truth" of this matter? No need for the outcome of a formal investigation, or a criminal trial, or any other time-wasting process like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, dear Martin, that's not what I intended to say. You may want to read what Germany's foreign intelligence agency Bundesnachrichtendienst wrote about bin Salman's unstable nature? MBS has a pattern of behavior, a reputation as an impulsive, even reckless decision-maker. By doing "wetwork" so openly they are making a statement. We will problably never get "the truth" in this tragedy about a refom-minded Saudi journalist, but MbS does simply not have a shred of plausible deniability. --87.170.201.92 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
My dear anonymous IP, I'll probably stick to the huge number of English language sources, thanks. It was you who used the t-word. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not suggesting you read German ;-) I gladly provide, what I have read this last days, in English language sources: Is Saudi Arabia safe in Mohammed bin Salman's hands? or German spy agency warns of Saudi intervention destabilizing Arab world or The Reverse Midas Touch of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Is Turning the Middle East to Dust (Quote from there: "The document was pretty astonishing, both in its undiplomatic bluntness and remarkable prescience. ... And so it has come to pass. In fact, despite being repudiated at the time by a German government more concerned about diplomatic and commercial relations with Riyadh, the BND warning turned out to be eerily prophetic.") So, recognizing that the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth, is unattainable, but attending to the most informative research and causal evidence.--87.170.201.92 (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B - It's not clear whether it was an assassination or murder or just plain killing. So we'll use "killing" as a placeholder.Hansen SebastianTalk 12:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Turkey has been claiming all along and now even Saudi Arabia accepted that it was "premeditated" not sure what kind of clarity for "assassination" you are looking for. A placeholder is no longer required. See my NYT Quotes above.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Um, their headline is specifically "Saudi Arabia, in Reversal, Suggests Khashoggi’s Killing Was Premeditated"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
COMMONNAME isnt just based on the headline but the coverage. While we are looking at the headlines, take a look at these.
--DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option B: It's been here a while now without confusion and seems to be the title that best fits. An assassination is a killing, after all. Jonathunder (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A: as a descriptive title under WP:NDESC. The sources, including Saudi official sources, agree that it was a state-organised deliberate killing (the hierarchical level at which it was authorised remains disputed - MBS's team acting behind his back versus MBS ordering/authorising the killing as a failsafe if Khashoggi were to be uncooperative); and the vast majority of reliable sources agree that Khashoggi was killed for political reasons; so "assassination" satisfies WP:WEIGHT, given the sources, as a descriptive (not legal) term. Even the Saudi official sources now acknowledge that the "team"'s instructions were to bring dissidents back under control - the political repression aspect is uncontroversial. Boud (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option A Enough sources now make it clear that it was an assassination. "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" would be more accurate. Capitals00 (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We have no idea about "accuracy", and neither do the world's press, as all the evidence has not been presented. Yes, we can make an informed judgement of likelihood, based on the contradictory statements, many from anonymous sources, video records, official explanations, etc. etc., as can the press. But I don't think that's a judgement pertaining to "accuracy". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The sequence of events showed that the murder was premeditated. The Saudis initially wanted to denied all knowledge of the Khashoggi’s fate: The Khashoggi’s "disappearance" phase. But the perpetrators have not just been identified as Saudi, several of them are known to be close associates of the crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. So they were forced to admit that Khashoggi had died in the consulate, though they claimed that that his death was unintended and the consequence of a bungled interrogation. Days later the Saudi Foreign Minister admitted that is was a murder. Now it is acknowledged that he was not only murdered but that the crime was premeditated. So it is clear that it was an assassination. It would be a massive humiliation for the King and for the dynasty if the Crown Prince had to be removed for perceived complicity in murder. We are now looking for some other "member of the royal circle" to take the fall. But it remains an assassination. --87.170.195.102 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
extrajudicial execution = assassination since both are politically motivated killings, and are pretty much the same. I do agree with you that from the Saudi Arabian perspective, Khashoggi was a criminal under their form of Shariah Law because he was criticizing the "Steward of the Two Holy Mosques", and since under Muslim law anyone who criticizes an Islam religious leader is guilty of blasphemy for which the punishment is death. I can see it from your viewpoint as well but both terms are interchangeable and it's still an assassination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
What Agnes Callamard says is good enough for me. Once again, apologies for not jumping one way or the other. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Octoberwoodland: it seems to me that you have put some ignorant claims in your comment. There is nothing wrong with criticising so called "Steward of the Two Holy Mosques" even this term "Steward of the Two Holy Mosques" is not from Islam and has nothing to do with Islam. Let me remind you that the Saud kingdom was created with the support of the British colonization. In fact Islam introduced democracy after prophet Muhammed (pbuh) death the rules were chosen by the people each one is different from a different family from the other. Saudi Arabia is a western creation in the Arabian lands just like the Zionist entity. I hope you put that in your mind before saying any BS again. --SharabSalam (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at this article -> Grand_Mosque_seizure -> Al-Qahtani was killed in the recapture of the mosque but Juhayman and 67 of his fellow rebels who survived the assault were captured and later beheaded. They were not shown leniency. The king secured a fatwa (edict) from the Council of Senior Scholars which found the defendants guilty of seven crimes: violating the Masjid al-Haram's (the Grand Mosque's) sanctity; violating the sanctity of the month of Muharram; killing fellow Muslims and others; disobeying legitimate authorities; suspending prayer at Masjid al-Haram; erring in identifying the Mahdi;exploiting the innocent for criminal acts. On 9 January 1980, 63 rebels were publicly beheaded in the squares of eight Saudi cities[11] (Buraidah, Dammam, Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Abha, Ha'il and Tabuk). According to Sandra Mackey, the locations "were carefully chosen not only to give maximum exposure but, one suspects, to reach other potential nests of discontent.". Pretty clear that violating any religious teachings can be punished by beheading, and Saudi Arabia has laws on the books that "blashpemy" and "apostacy" against Islam can be punished and some have been punished by death. Criticizing Mohammed, or any Mullah or Imam can be punished severely. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
You gave an unrelated story. In Islam there is no punishment for criticising the king or any a Muslim scholar. This is all bunch of non sense you came up with. even insulting good Muslim scholars will not get you punished from the government but from God. Again Saudi Arabia is a Western Creation it is supported by the West. Most Muslims hate the Saudi regime and those who love the Saudi regime are hypocrites Muslims because Saudi Arabia is clearly an ally of the American regime that has killed over 9M native Indies. We Muslims should not be friends with regimes like this and this is written in the Qur'an and Saudi Arabia is not following it. So next time you try to criticize Islam don't talk about Saudi Arabia because it is clearly a non Muslim regime. Muslim scholars in Saudi Arabia are paid to say what their government is saying. If you want to criticize Islam use Islamic references not a Saudi one. Next time please differentiate between Saudi Arabia (A regime that was created by British colonization and is supported by the West) and Islam, between ISIS(an organisation that mainly gets support from the West and the Zionist entity) and Islam. SharabSalam (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be talking past me. I am referring to Saudi Arabia and their history, not Islam in general. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several predominantly Muslim countries are absolutely barbarous in how they deal with their citizens, and the Charlie Hebdo shooting is a great example as to what can happen if someone is critical of Mohammed. You are blaming the West for what goes on in Saudi Arabia, but the fact is it's mostly Muslim's behind all this violence, including 9/11. I realize that there are many Muslims that are peaceful folks, but let's be honest, as a whole Radical Islam is a serious threat to the civilized world. In the present case, one of the Saudi generals said "bring me the head of this dog" after Khashoggi refused to return to Saudi Arabia. They then killed him, beheaded him, and chopped him into pieces. All of the perps are muslims, ISIS and it's bloodthirsty followers are muslims, the Taliban in Afghanistan are muslims. Al-Quaeda are muslims. What am I missing here? And yet another case of someone sentenced to death for Blasphemy against Islam -> Asia Bibi blasphemy case. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Octoberwoodland:, @SharabSalam:: please keep focussed on the debate at hand about the article title - here's a gentle reminder on WP:NOTFORUM: You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, ... In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, .... Whether this assassination is attributable in RS's to Saudi Arabia as a state or to its de facto leader MBS seem to me to be on-topic, but attributing the "deep" causes to Islam more broadly, to Judeo-Christian-Islamic "traditions" such as lapidation, or to XIXth/XXth/XXIst century Western colonialism seem to me rather off-topic, since that would require the sort of perspective that we would require from academic authors who tend to publish on a slower time scale than the mainstream media. Boud (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • suggestion I have said this but it didn't get any attention maybe this time it might get attention. Why not name it Jamal khashoggi case? It is actually the second most common name if not the first.

There are 20,200,000 results for Jamal khashoggi case in google. 27,600,000 results for Killing of Jamal khashoggi (this might be found in articles that also mention case and killing as allegations.). 2,510,000 results for assassination of Jamal khashoggi plus "Jamal khashoggi case" seems more neutral since it is used or has been used by both sides of this conflict. It is still a case because it is still under investigation the word case means: An incident or set of circumstances under official investigation by the police.[13] SharabSalam (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I previously supported Jamal Khashoggi case, but now that the UN has determined extrajudicial execution I'm not so sure. I think Google Search results are irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Martinevans123: The UN said it was likely to be estrajudicial execution. They are still not sure. Today they have demanded that the investigation should include experts [14] which means they still can't tell whether it is certinly an extrajudicial execution or not. It is a case sin it's still under investigation SharabSalam (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's good enough for me. If an expert enquiry changes things in future, so be it. I think there's enough certainty to warrant a change to that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Lean towards option A, per my comments in the previous RM. However, I would not find option B inappropriate either. Snow let's rap 10:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A, per WP:PRECISE. First of all, this title is descriptive, not a name per se, and so WP:COMMONNAME does not have the same weight as it does in articles about topics with names (places, persons, things, companies, etc.). We still should be guided by usage in reliable sources, of course, but not so literally as with topics with names. That's why sources that say it was in assassination in so many words are just as relevant here as are sources that explicitly refer to the killing as an assassination. Among the sources, there is virtually no question about the motivation of the killing being political. By referring to this killing as an assassination we are simply being WP:PRECISE, which we should do. Now, obviously there is no other killing of Khashoggi from which we need to disambiguate, but that's no reason to not be more precise especially when we can do so while being essentially just as WP:CONCISE. It's just more accurate. --В²C ☎ 22:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This was an event. Events are things. Things have names. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but it was not a named event. The Super Bowl and Oktoberfest are named events. This was not. Various sources refer to this event in various ways; I don't think it's accurate to say it has a name. So we have to come up with a title; a descriptive title that's as consistent with usage in reliable sources as is reasonably possible, but we're not required to follow usage as tightly as we are with named topics (including named events). --В²C ☎ 23:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Assassination confirmed -> Option A - The Turkish government has released the audio recordings of the actual killing of Khashoggi which indicate he was killed for political reasons on orders of the Saudi Royal Family. [1] Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment in "Threaded Discussion" below, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "'Tell Your Boss': Recording Is Seen to Link Saudi Crown Prince More Strongly to Khashoggi Killing".


user:Al83tito, FYI the original source for the report the WaPo actually used assassination, CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination (Washington post 16 Nov) --DBigXrayᗙ 05:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • Octoberwoodland, I have removed your section splits, because this is a "one or the other" situation. If we go with subsections like you had created, we will end up with more of the same as in the previous discussion, where two dozen people will support each one and a dozen will oppose each one. If anyone is on the fence they should say so, rather than giving "weak support for this one" in one section and "I suppose this will work" in the other. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: reliable sources said it was an assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And at least as many sources, probably more, call it a "killing" (which does not preclude assassination). Jonathunder (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathunder: A clear majority speaks of assassination. For the rest, the term "kiling", "murder" does not contradict "assassination". Finally, the neutrality is not to put on equal footing two versions with a total disproportion. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"A clear majority speaks of assassination." <citation needed> You are correct that "killing" also includes murder and other types of homicide. That is why it's the best choice. Have a look at the Venn diagram far up on this talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathunder:The diagram is problematic. The renaming was not consensual and was not to be done under these conditions. There, the sources are clear. In addition, articles use less precise terms to avoid redundancy, but given COMMONNAME, the title should be as precise as possible. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
You say the sources are "clear" but I have no idea how you conclude that from the huge volume of coverage that uses many different terms to describe this killing. Jonathunder (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


@Jonathunder:The source is used in the same article or between two articles from the same journal. So, it is clearly an assassination. Please see the sources at the top. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: the UN has now determined that it was extrajudicial execution. So perhaps neither of the two current options are adequate? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Martin, I wrote that to finally convince you that it was an assassination. Cuz extrajudicial execution = assassination. --87.170.201.212 (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Except that the word assassination doesn't appear at all in the opening section of Extrajudicial killing. If those two are, as you say, completely synonymous, you may want to go and correct it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Assassination confirmed -> Option A - The Turkish government has released the audio recordings of the actual killing of Khashoggi which indicate he was killed for political reasons on orders of the Saudi Royal Family. [1] Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "'Tell Your Boss': Recording Is Seen to Link Saudi Crown Prince More Strongly to Khashoggi Killing".
  • Don't you think this Requested move should be formally closed, by a non-involved Administrator, before the article is changed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    The Washington Post article says (emphasis added): "The recording, shared last month with the C.I.A. director, Gina Haspel, is seen by intelligence officials as some of the strongest evidence linking Prince Mohammed to the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, a Virginia resident and Washington Post columnist whose death prompted an international outcry." That doesn't yet look to me like a definitive outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
One method of achieving consensus is to update the article with confirmed facts. This requested move is now backlogged because everyone else is too afraid to just say what the sources are telling us. Irrefutable evidence exists and is now public that the Saudi Royal Family ordered his killing for political reasons. I am simply updating the article with what the sources have said all along. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree both with the conclusion you have drawn from that one source and with your decision to dissociate the RM here from the article content. By all means add the WP report in a fair and balanced way, but please do not pretend that it has decided everything? Not least this RM. This has been a particularly sensitive and complicated discussion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
My conclusion is based on what the Turkish government has been saying all along, since they are clearly in the know here. Several facts back that up. 1) It's obvious that the Turkish government has engaged in covert surveillance of the Saudi consulate. 2) they have a recording of the killing and they also have a recording of Skype calls made from the consulate allegedly informing the crown prince that khashoggi has been killed. 3) They have an alleged recording of his royal highness and henchman telling the assassination squad "bring me the head of this dog". 4) they then chopped khasoggi into pieces and disposed of his body. 5) not one iota of evidence or disclosure from the Saudi government has been forthcoming in the weeks since they claimed to have arrested the 15 man team. It's obvious that the Turkish government was doing surveillance and did not want that fact out there in the press, but they had a front row seat to Khashoggi's killing. With all this I cannot infer anything other than it was an assassination, and the Saudi's are now stonewalling everyone including the press with their misinformation campaign, to keep folks like you and others who may call their bluff from writing about what's going on here. Either the tapes are legit or not. I think Turkey has known all this for some time. It's time to act and just say what the sources are telling us. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Your conclusion is not unreasonable (except that I don't think anyone, including the Turkish Government, has actually named the Prince?). But I think you should get consensus here before you make those edits to the article. It makes sense to get this RM closed at the same time, so everything is actually consistent? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Waiting for the RM discussion to close is not unreasonable and is in fact quite logical. I also understand that for wikipedia to use the phrase "assassination" requires a fairly large burden of proof since we will be stating that the Saudi Arabian government carried out an assassination, which is a huge deal. So given these facts and issues, your suggestion that we proceed carefully is wise and prudent. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. It all depends on consensus, of course. So comments from any others are welcome. Hopefully, we should be able to move to closure of this RM soon. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It is already on the top of the backlogged RM section. so yes, we expect this to be closed soon. The recent news shared by Octoberwoodland are in strong support of the Option A. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
What I see above is "--Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2018" and a listing at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions#November_14,_2018, not the backlogged section (I count only 11 backlogged RMs) - so another two days (since 14+7-19 = 21-19 = 2) appear to be needed before an uninvolved person is willing to close our RM. Boud (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: The reliable sources use assassination. Also, kiling is not opposed to assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Surely it's fairer to say that some reliable sources use "assassination" and some reliable sources use "killing"? There is no exclusive split. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC) p.s. the word is killing with two l's. Tne word kiling means something else. Thanks.
No, there is a clear majority, not to mention that the term "kiling" does not contradict "murder", but those who write "kiling" do not mean that there was no murder. We must at least vary between the two terms.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to show us one single reliable source that uses the word "killing". And where are your statistics for a "clear majority"? How do we know that those who "write "kiling" do not mean that there was no murder" - do they all say that explicitly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014 and Martinevans123: - re where are your statistics for a "clear majority" - Ditto. Did you know a clear majority of clear majorities are total BS? NickCT (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: - Do a basic search engine test and you will find the majority of RS using "killing". Some RS do use "assassination". On WP, we try to avoid cherry picking though, and try to reflect what the majority of RS use. I never said killing was opposed to assassination. I'm not arguing assassination is wrong. Just that it's less common. NickCT (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT:Your approach is too restrictive. It does not take into account that an article can use both terms. But it is a fact that reliable sources speak of assassination. And assassination is a more precise term.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: - As compared to your approach? Which is non-existent? Compare "Assassination of JFK" to "Killing of JFK" and it's clear "assassination" is the verbiage most commonly used. Here, it's clear "killing" is most commonly used. Commonality trumps precision. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
No your last message is wrong. Except that I do not pretend to disqualify your method, I formulate clear and objective objections. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: - Search engine tests are objective. You're objecting to something objective, and not offering an alternative. NickCT (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT: No, it is bisaised. We should also take account some things. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: - The "You're biased. I'm objective" argument is convincing. NickCT (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT: Definetly no. I have proved that your approach is not the best. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

All of the reliables have been used at least one time the word "murder". To vary their language, they can use an equivalent term at the bottom of the article or in other articles then return to "murder". There is no reason not to write "assassination" unless it is to give the slightest importance to all points of view, including the Saudi POV, which has been refuted several times. And this violates WP: PROPORTION.--Panam2014 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That's quite an extreme claim. I'm sure you have a strong opinion on this question, which we should respect. But you have presented no actual evidence in support of your opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Already done. Please see NYT, WP, The Guardian. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Well those are three reliable sources certainly, but hardly "All of the reliables". All of your previous statements also provide no evidence. I guess you must mean "Already done by other editors". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


We can start by quoting all the quality sources in large circulation and you will see that it is the case. These sources have been provided for a long time.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we probably can. But most people find actual links to published material quite useful. And what's "a long time" exactly... since the news broke? I'll leave it to others to respond further, if they feel the need. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014:, @Martinevans123: "feel the need"? What do you mean, Martin? The CIA and the Washington Post felt it: "CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination". There was a development of events and knowledge. In the in the early days it was a only "disappearance". With some arguing it was a (en)forced disappearance. We now know he is dead. And that his death was premeditated. And we know the "agents of his death" "are high enough to represent the state". Please, we can all learn from each other, you once apologised "for not jumping one way or the other", kind of noble, kind of the purpose of a encyclopedia ;-) But for now I can not understand your mindset or the logic behind your reasoning. What's the point of a encyclopedia, when we can not write about what's in front of us? --87.170.200.197 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
IP87... which, Panam2014, or me, or both? "If they felt the need..." to remind Panam2014 yet again to provide sources not just opinions (as you have kindly done). My mindset is that "assassination" requires some kind of proof of who the boss was. Maybe that's "asking too much" because certain world leaders (no names, no pack drill) don't seem that bothered. In the absence of a proper investigation, perhaps we will just have to follow the terms used in reliable sources. But I think maybe The Washington Post has more of an axe to grind than most here? What Agnes Callamard said is still good enough for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Yes, the question were addressed to you, Martin. Thank you for your answer, but I continue to not understand you... :-(
1. You are confusing me with "no names, no pack drill" (→ "Investigating the English language" So thank you, I learned something ;-) ). You meant punishment will be prevented if names and details are not mentioned? Saudi authorities admitted responsibility. Five men are threatened with death penalty. And 3 countries don't sell weapons to KSA anymore - that's punishment.
2. We don't need the mentioning of "the name" of "the boss". It is unimportant to determine if Khashoggi’s assassination was ordered by the monarch, the mercurial crown prince, his D.C. ambassador brother, the Deputy intelligence chief Ahmed al-Assiri, the violent enforcer "Lord of the Flies" Saud al-Qahtani, the bodygard Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb or someone else. Saudi authorities admitted responsibility and the order came from "high enough to represent the state". What do you want more? --87.170.200.197 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there is still the question of the conclusion of the legal process, even if it happens in what many consider to be the wrong country. This may reveal who was ultimately responsible. You mention six possible individuals as being responsible for ordering the killing? So are we ready to add any or all of these names to the article as being responsible, beyond all reasonable doubt? I'm not sure that the fact that punishment has already begun makes the identity of those responsible any clearer. Aside from "punishment", perhaps the international community now has more leverage over Saudi Arabia to bring the war in Yemen to an end. If that were to happen, then at least some good would have come from the dreadful and barbaric death of this one defenceless man. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I continue to not understand you. It's really bizarre. What is your question regarding "the conclusion of the legal process"? In KSA? That's not crucial for our decision "killing" or "assassination". As the "the name" of "the boss" is not crucial. --87.170.200.197 (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Then, very respectfully, I give up. If any others can understand, I'd be pleased; if nobody can, too bad. I don't intend to comment in this thread again until the RM is closed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I have not really been following this discussion, but I've done some looking around. The Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya article seems a reasonable parallel -- the killing/murder/assassination, termed an assassination in that article title, of a prominent journalist who was critical of the rulers of a country. As I read that article, neither the killer nor the person who ordered the killing have been identified in that case. Going by the definition in in the Assassination article, it seems to me that the article title should term the killing an assassination and that this killing should be included in the List of assassinations in Europe article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Assassination effectively claimed by Saudi sources The official Saudi sources now only dispute at what level of seniority there should be responsibility for the assassination. The arrests of 17 and proposed execution of 5 correspond to procedures in response to what the world sees as an "assassination" of a political opponent, not in response to an apolitical "killing" for cash/theft/passion/anger. So repeating my above points: "assassination" (option A) is a descriptive title under WP:NDESC that responds to the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. WP:COMMONNAME will need more perspective - months or years - by which time we could re-open the debate about reverting from "assassination" to "killing". Boud (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Boud You make a good point, consider moving this to your !vote as an addon in the section above. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If we look at the last few votes, it is clear that the consensus seem to be converging to the Option A. I hope the closing admin, also takes this convergence while considering the closure of this thread. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Automatic archiving

Because this talk page is over 200 kB, I have, for now, changed the archiving period to one day. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And now it's set to 7 days. Maybe 14 days would be more reasonable? Depending on how much discussion takes place once the name issue is resolved. Boud (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
"I doubt too much discussion will take place now. once the RM is closed and archived, I would support moving the archive to 15 days. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Configuration issue

If you want the {{Automatic archive navigator}} header template to work properly on the archive pages, then move Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archives/ 1 to Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 1. Otherwise, replace {{Automatic archive navigator}} with {{talk archive}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks wbm1058 for taking a look at it and fixing this. I had no clue why CBot created weirdly named archives such as "/Archives/ 1" which was not geting picked up by the archive box links. But now it looks all good --DBigXrayᗙ 04:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Khashoggi's private WhatsApp messages

A good article with nice graphics that presents some of the excerpts of the whatsapp messages. Should we add some of the information in the disappearance section ? This article does help to set up context leading up to the assassination. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What we really need is an article on Omar Abdulaziz (activist)...I added it to a dab page; Omar Abdulaziz; anyone, please feel free to start it, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2018

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus: although it's not a hard-and-fast rule and I tend to ignore it if discussions require more input, this has already been relisted once and there has been a recent requested move. Considering, by my tally, that twenty-four !votes have been cast with twelve on each side, it's pretty clear that this requested move isn't going to be able to generate any lasting consensus. With regards to the strength of the arguments, both sides make good points, WP:UCRN, WP:POVTITLE and WP:NDESC have all been invoked and reasonable arguments can be made from each side. As the event in question happened quite recently and it's still very much a developing story with Pompeo's visit and the CIA assessment, I am in no way saying that this title should remain for all time, however I would advise against a renomination within at least a month so more data about search terms can be gathered and we'll have more media reports to go on with regards to what the common name is. Many thanks, (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi → Killing of Jamal Khashoggi – I am starting this RM after getting permission of the closing admin of the previous RM.[15]

I feel confident with saying that previous RMs failed to substantiate the arguments for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, both of which supports "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi".

Since the issue is highly circulated in news, we will compare the Google News results:-

We can also look at the raw Google search results:-

There is a complete lack of any reliable sources using "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" as the article title. However there are over 100s of news and reliable sources that use "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi" as their article title. Some of these are:-

@Ammarpad, DBigXray, Fitzcarmalan, Tpdwkouaa, Galobtter, Octoberwoodland, Wumbolo, Wikiemirati, JasonAQuest, Martinevans123, IProud81, InedibleHulk, Panam2014, Ahmer Jamil Khan, SharabSalam, 87.170.201.92, Hansen Sebastian, Jonathunder, Boud, Capitals00, Snow Rise, Born2cycle, Flooded with them hundreds, Al83tito, Narky Blert, NickCT, Ribbet32, WikiHannibal, Lansonyte, Deb, Animalparty, Icewhiz, AlessandroTiandelli333, and This is Paul: pinging the participants of requested moves per closing admin's request. Sorry if I missed any. Rzvas (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • First, this discussion was just closed a month ago after more than a month open. While BD2412 did not object to the new request, I question whether it will be productive to have the discussion again now and whether the results of the previous request can or should be disregarded. Is there a pressing need to revisit this so soon? Second, as many commented in the previous discussion (in which I did not participate), the current title is a WP:NDESC descriptive title, which is a way to name articles under WP:AT policy that does not rely on prevalence of a variety of possible titles. Thus contrary to the proposal, the data above is not in and of itself an indication that the article title should be changed. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose again. The last RM discussion was closed less than a month ago, There has been no new alarming update on the topic. This article was first created at this title both the RM discussions had voted with clean and strongest consensus for the current title. A new RM is just an exercise in futility without any solid rationale. I also agree with all the points by @Dekimasu: above who had mentioned it quite clearly. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Arguments based on newspaper headlines and the like are badly flawed. '"Slaying" Jamal Khashoggi' yields 281,000 Google hits, but 'slaying' is a word no-one uses in real life. '"Murder" Jamal Khashoggi' yields 7,950,000 Google hits. '"Death" Jamal Khashoggi' yields 12,700,000 Google hits. WP article titles should reflect what something is, not what newspaper subeditors call it (which is usually the shortest and punchiest word, regardless of accuracy).
I stand by my argument in the previous WP:RM: "[The title should be Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi b]y analogy with, among other examples of politically motivated attacks, Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and Georgi Markov#Assassination". I now add to those examples Assassination of Julius Caesar, Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
We should be consistent, descriptive and precise in our use of words. 'Death' (the commonest search result) would be true but bland. 'Killing' or 'Murder' would be more accurate. However, the correct word for a politically-motivated lethal attack is 'Assassination'. Narky Blert (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
(Arguments based on the etymology or the original use of a word have no value in a language as fluid as English, where the meaning of a word is defined by how it is used, not by how some authority thinks it should be used. So, it is only as a historical curiosity that I note that the original Assassins under Hassan-i Sabbah were politically-motivated killers.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Those articles are using WP:COMMONNAME which is contrary to this article. Are you saying that all "Killing of.." articles should be always named as "Assasination of" even when it is not a common name?
"Killing of.." is more appropriate here just like Killing of Peter Fechter, Killing of Adrian Donohoe, Killing of Igor Kornelyuk and Anton Voloshin, Killing of Patrick Harmon and many others. Rzvas (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Newspapers can definitely be used to find the WP:COMMONNAME, but not their headlines! When we limit our google news search to article contents except the article title, we get 22.4K for killing vs 1.2K for assassination. This is not actually terrible, a topic of such significance will easily satisfy the recognizability requirement because the current title means almost the same thing as "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" making the WP:COMMONNAME argument to move less useful (am I explaining this right). Both titles satisfy all WP:CRITERIA, but "assassination" is more accurate and is still consistent with other articles about assassinations as already explained above. wumbolo ^^^ 06:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW oppose and would support a speedy close. The last discussion ended barely a month ago and the consensus was fairly clear; the exact arguments that the OP is putting forth here (in their rather non-neutral filing (I suggest they review the requirements for framing such a discussion at WP:RfC) were duly considered by an exceptionally large selection of community volunteers, and the argument did not carry the day for consensus, as reflected in the closure statement. If the OP had misgivings about that close being reflective of consensus or policy, there is a process for challenging it: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. What should not be done is for a user to wait just a few weeks and then try to re-litigate the matter with the same arguments; I appreciate that this is a nuanced issue and one upon which reasonable people may disagree. But this is not really the proper process for challenging a consensus decision, and only the fact that the OP sought the closing admin's approval makes this not outright WP:DISRUPTIVE, if I am going to be perfectly blunt. Snow let's rap 07:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • How "the same arguments" were used in the previous RMs when search results were not presented in the previous RMs? One can challenge a close only if they believe that the closer failed to recognize the presented argument in the RM than challenging the close because of the argument that wasn't provided in the RM. Rzvas (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A) Yes, they most certainly were raised (in both RMs and several satellite discussions on this talk page and elsewhere: since you apparently did not read them very thoroughly, try a ctrl+f with the search query "search" on those pages, [16], [17]),
B) with that massive number of veteran editors contributing, you can bet that the search results were heavily scrutinized and the "numbers game" factors you are highlighting were considered, but
C) absolute values in Google search queries have long been seen as a very weak form of evidence in any WP:WEIGHT discussion on this project for a vast number of reasons: for starters, only the smallest fraction of those results are going to be WP:Reliable sources that would pass muster under our policies, and thus are absolutely useless to our weight determinations. Second, as a pretty obvious semantic matter, terms often fold into one another in pragmatic usage in natural language. What Wikipedia's process and policies explicitly call for is reviewing what established, identified reliable sources say on the matter, in context and then generating content which summarizes those perspectives collectively. What they do not call for is a fly-by analysis of raw search result figures (typically by editors who have little or no background in statistics or media analytics allowing them to generate any kind of useful meaning from this indiscriminate, poor quality data). Even so, you can bet that the "there's more of X than Y" analysis of raw search figures was considered. But it didn't carry the day with the editors responding to the RM request.
And, D) even if all of the above were not true and you really had hit upon something novel that all of those dozens of other editors had somehow failed to consider, it still would be a questionable move to open a new discussion so soon; consensus can change, but constantly relitigating an issue just after a formal close is just plain WP:disruptive, no matter how good-faith the motivation or how convinced the party resurrecting the issue is that they have the right end of the stick and it's not the one adopted by consensus. We typically discourage these kinds of "Oh, but what about X!!" style return to issues over the short term. Partly this is just about WP:bludgeoning and not letting talk spaces get mired by eternal debate on just one issue (whether it involves POV pushing or not), but it's also about realism: this effort of yours (like most attempts to re-open an issue that had a solid consensus behind a particular approach so soon after said consensus was reached) is destined to change the mind of absolutely no one. In fact, I can tell you that approaching it in the way you have is only likely to make parties involved even more entrenched in their views: this is often the outcome of renewed debate on a contentious issue, no matter the context, and here your approach will look like gaming / a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK to many (even though you did not participate in the previous discussion and are presumably doing this for good-faith reasons). There's a reason we generally let a strong consensus on a contentious issue stand untouched for a while, unless there have been very significant new developments in the facts or a sea change in the sourcing--even if your proposed change would lead to improvement in accuracy and/or neutrality of content (and I don't think it would in this case, but that's an aside), if the only achievable result you can hope for is wasting more community time and getting more people dead-set on a narrow range of options, you're better off leaving the issue alone for a while and revisiting in circumstances where people might give ground and search for new reasonable middle ground solutions. Policy, community consensus, and best practice all recognize this reality of human debate and collaboration, and hold that rapidly re-opening discussions is generally not appropriate or helpful. There is a close challenge process so that closures which fail to appropriately capture the consensus can be reviewed, but by your own analysis of the closure, that is not the case here. Snow let's rap 20:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The word "assassination" has overtones that are not appropriate in a case where we do not yet know the full facts. "Killing" is more accurate. Deb (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "didn't get my way the last time, let's keep trying until we have it." "Killing" is non-neutral whitewashing. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Who exactly are you addressing? Deb (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Deb, based on his indentation level, and vote, one would assume he replied to the OP. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Whoever he's talking to, the comment is out of order. Deb (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed because I never made any edits to this page before this RM. Rzvas (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Killing is more accurate, and assassination is far less used in WP:RSes. There may be merit for Murder of Jamal Khashoggi (which is fairly widely used) over Killing. Assassination implies this is state sanctioned, and at the moment whether this was a "private" initiative of various Saudi officials (ergo murder by them - some of the suspected officials quite high ranking) or a state sanctioned act is unclear, though it would seem that RSes presently prefer to frame this as an act of murder over state-sanctioned assassination - it seems it even unclear whether the Saudi team intended to kill Khashoggi or "just" kidnap him back to Saudia Arabia (Atlantic) - killing him in a "botched rendition". Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, you don't bring a bone saw to a rendition, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Snow Close - clearly a politically motivated killing of a prominent Saudi Dissident which makes it an assassination. The press and most of the reliable sources also state it was an assassination. This nomination is for a name change that was previously debated and decided and this discussion should be WP:SNOW closed as such. New York Times and other reliable sources refer to this incident as an "assassination" as the story developed. The nominator's unclear links and stats above fail to mention these sources. There is a distinct chronology behind all these stories from reliable sources which eventually lead to the press referring to the event as an "assassination", but you need to follow the chronology of the reports for this to be evident.[1][2][3]Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/world/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-killing-saudi-arabia.html
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45775819
  3. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-now-admits-khashoggi-killing-was-premeditated-n924286
  • Support, I believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion or question a decision and I do not recall the OP being involved in the first RM discussion. Outright calling his re-opening of an RM "disruptive" a 'waste of time' and wanting to close it immediately seriously makes me question the moral values of people. As I concurred with many in my previous RM, I believe 'Killing' the best way to describe this incident because of how it was made extremely popular by media. The issue was and still is a major news reel and most people who learned about the murder did so from major news outlets who called it "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi", which satisfies WP:COMMONNAME policy in my books. People will type and look for that when they would want to look for more information on what happened. Regardless assassination or not, commonname still implied that the most common name be used hence why Wikipedia page of Kiev is titled Kiev and not its official name Kyiv and how Wikipedia page of Houthis is called Houthi movement rather than their official name Ansar Allah. That's My two cents. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Nothing here seems to indicate anyone's morality is an issue, don't know where that comes from. As previous editors have already pointed out, this nomination is about something already discussed and settled that the minority did not agree with. Like other editors have stated above, "try, try again because we did not get our way the first time" is the message I am getting from this RM renomination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
All I'm seeing here is someone's proposal being thrown out the window because he's seen as "Trying hard". I have seen your comment before you updated it. Even if his proposal fails, let the due process take its course. Assuming bad faith and calling out someone because he's seen as someone who did not get his way in the first place is just wrong. He did get an approval from the closing admin and he wasn't a participant in the first RM. Let him voice his opinion. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The previous RM discussion was open for over a month which was plenty of time for the nominator of this RM to comment and participate in and they failed to do so. I am not saying people should not be free to discuss changes, but the time came and passed and the previous RM was recycled and relisted to get the widest possible consensus. It is doubtful this outcome will be any different if the process was repeated. Unless new facts emerge we should not go back and revisit every closing decision. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
It was a contested move and people have the right to challenge it. I believe the admin assumed good faith when he allowed the OP to re-open the discussion and that's what I'm doing too. I don't disagree with your completely, however I do believe people should have the right to voice their opinion and challenge decisions in Wikipedia. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
There's an established process for challenging a close, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Short of that, editors are expected to not drag contentious issues with a resolved consensus out of the bin every few weeks just because they missed the party and think that things would have gone entirely differently if only their take on things had been taken into account. Under not just common best practice but also policy, this is considered disruptive, especially when the recently achieved consensus involved as large a number of editors as the previous discussion did. I'm not about to drag the OP to a noticeboard over the matter, but I do think this discussion ought to be closed and they should avoid opening discussions in circumstances such as these just because they think they are have the golden analysis that forty other editors somehow didn't consider at all. Snow let's rap 08:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE exists for discussing the arguments that were made on RM, not for the arguments that were never made on the RM. Participants of the first RM were not notified in the second RM which resulted in changing the title to "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi". Obviously those editors would be more eager to participate who failed to get their more outstanding page title in the previous RM. Now since no one is going to close this as speedy close, you should better focus on telling us that how "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" is a more common name. Rzvas (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The first RM ended as no consensus, and while you and I may feel that pinging the participants back for the second discussion may have been a good idea, there is absolutely no requirement that such be done in order for the clear consensus that resulted in the second discussion to be considered a valid one; besides which--many of those editors did particpate in the second discussion, notification or not (no non consensus rm and the consensus RM were right on top of eachother, as the second was recommended by the closer of the first--and even the first RM resulted in a significant majority of respondents preferred the current title, by a wide margin). And as has already been explained to you repeatedly above, the fact that you did not have access to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (and I agree with you that this is so), does not in any sense mean that your decision re-open this discussion in the fashion you have is any more appropriate or less WP:disruptive, just because you are convinced that you have the golden argument. Even if you had a novel argument, the way you have approached this would be inappropriate under policy and best practice--but as it happens your argument was advanced in the previous discussion and rejected by the consensus. It is also an argument predicated on a form of "evidence" that is routinely dismissed in such discussions on this project, and yet which people routinely take account of--certainly not some new form of information that drastically changes the analysis such to justify throwing out an immediately recent and strong consensus and starting the row anew.
Look, this is the last time I'm going to repeat all of this for you (this is out third time through the cycle on most of those points), and I'll ask that you WP:AGF that I've said it for your own good as much as the community's--you proceed as you wish on this matter, but I'm telling you in all sincerity and good faith, you're headed for choppy waters here. At best this is going to be a no consensus result that is going to waste a lot of community time, get a lot of people riled up and spill into other spaces, but it could also result in your conduct being put under the microscope. Do what you feel you need to, but don't say I didn't warn you when the situation goes to pot. Snow let's rap 19:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and evidence provided by OP. "Assassination" is not adequately backed by any reliable sources and still remains an unpopular speculation. Shashank5988 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty clear WP:COMMONNAME rationale. I imagine the reason most sources aren't using "assassinate" is that the world is typically reserved for political figures. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    See Category:Assassinated dissidents. Out of 14 people in the category, only one is a politician. wumbolo ^^^ 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Wumbolo: - Only 14 people in that cat and more than one are politicians. All you need to do is ask Google to define "assasinate" and you'll find the common definition relates to killing for political reasons. NickCT (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and comments above. In addition to the WP:COMMONNAME rationale, the merits of the WP:NPOV can be seen in the intro to the article. —  AjaxSmack  03:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I supported "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" in the earlier requested moves[18][19] but this time the evidence is very convincing enough for me to support the proposed title as more WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Capitals00 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose On the grounds that (1) there are no new proposed reasons compared to the previous debate and that (2) it's too soon to judge if there's going to be a long-term WP:COMMONNAME that will clearly dominate what English-language historians (and other-language historians in languages where the killing/assassination distinction translates clearly - knowledge about the event is not limited to the English language, only this article is limited that way) use to describe the event. (1) implies that there's little chance of getting close to consensus. (2) implies that the one factor most likely to be a new factor (long-term perspective) will not be known for a year or a few years - by definition. The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is, from my informal memory of hearing references to it, a well-established term that dominates the standard description for what triggered WWI - for an event 104 years ago. I don't propose waiting that long, but a moratorium on changing the name for at least a year would seem reasonable so that people don't waste more energy on this. Boud (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Since WP:PRECISE is cited in the claim that the debate should be reopened, i.e. that there's a change in reasons compared to before: it is overwhelmingly clear according to all the sources, including the official sources in Saudi Arabia, that the killing was political - an assassination. This was clear when the previous debate was closed, and has not changed. Boud (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per users October, and Narky. Media uses "catchy"/"interesting" titles. Here, we should overlook WP:COMMONNAME, and name the article after what it is: an assassination. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi" or "Murder of Jamal Khashoggi" per what I said at the last RM. At the last RM the sources were at "killing" now sources seem to generally use "murder". Sources use "assassination" much less often so per WP:COMMONNAME either of those two seems preferable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – His death does not fit the usual colloquial meaning of "assassination", and most sources apparently do not use that term. "Killing" is simple and objective, and should generally be used for Wikipedia articles when there is any doubt about whether to use a more questionable term. Are there any other examples of a killing of someone primarily known as a journalist that are called "assassination" in a Wikipedia article title? In my experience, the term "assassination" is primarily applied to the killings of prominent political figures (e.g., someone holding a political office or campaigning for a political office or a very prominent activist who gives speeches in front of large crowds of people) or clear potential rivals for leadership positions (e.g., someone with a hereditary claim to a throne), which is not the case here. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
See Georgi Markov#Assassination, mentioned above. Colloquial meaning and your experience do not define the word. Narky Blert (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
That seems a bit off topic. I don't think it's just me. It also appears that most reliable sources do not use describe this topic as "assassination of …" —BarrelProof (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I'd also support the title starting with "Death of" too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per sources. Reliables sources use assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per relevant sources. Sorabino (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Go with the sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Rreagan007 and Panam2014: Did you folks notice that very few sources use "assassination"? Statistics are provided at the top of this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • You are just flat wrong and the OP clearly has cherry picked his sources above and they are misleading and unclear and intentionally exclude those reports which call this an assassination. A large number of the relevant sources refer to this as an assassination -- period. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Which reliable sources use the exact "Assassination of Jamal Khashhoggi" except Wikipedia? Just now from January 4, NYT article[20] called it "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi". Just speculating that this is an assassination doesn't make it mainstream or a common name. Rzvas (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
They are listed in the article and below. You're whole argument appears, at least to me, to be POV whitewashing with cherry picked sources and distorted facts to whitewash the event. I assume you can read and research the reliable sources in the article? Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I still need concrete response to my question. "Which reliable sources use the exact "Assassination of Jamal Khashhoggi" except Wikipedia?" Like other person noted here that even "Slaying" "Jamal Khashoggi" can bring a few results, just like "Assassination" does, but we need to select what is WP:COMMONNAME. Rzvas (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. You might want to research sources in the article which state emphatically this was an assassination before initiating an RM which directly contradicts your position and indicates you failed to read the article and review it's sources. "The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul .... As per your own arguments of WP:COMMONNAME there is just one example that the "common name" is "assassination of Jamal Khashoggi". Another one, CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination. [1][2] Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-concludes-saudi-crown-prince-ordered-jamal-khashoggis-assassination/2018/11/16/98c89fe6-e9b2-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.5e9311a613f7
  2. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamal-khashoggi-killing-cia-concludes-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-ordered-khashoggis-assassination-2018-11-17/
Also, it's not a matter of whether we can find some sources that use "assassination" or not. Lots of press attention has been devoted to his death, so you can probably find some sources to support anything you want. But that's not what we should be doing. We should be trying to look at the percentage of sources, not the number. Also, even if some sources say it was an assassination, that is not necessarily how they identify the topic to readers – an assertion that it was an assassination might be in an article body, but we're talking about what should be in the headline. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not clickbait journalism, so we should avoid putting POV into our titles and even avoid giving readers the impression that we might be putting POV or political activism into our titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree that the POV whitewashing to change "assassination" to "killing" is contrary to the recent sources and analysis by the CIA and contradicts reliable sources. I disagree that we as editors should ignore what the sources are saying and whitewash the title by disregarding these sources. This was a vicious crime and should be presented as such. It cannot be defined as anything other than an assassination based on the facts. I realize editors of conscience may disagree, but we as editors cannot ignore what the sources are saying. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Even the sources that use "Killing" clearly say that "Killing was for political reasons". If the nom had proposed the title "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi for political reasons" I would have supported this move, but instead half of the title was selectively dropped and attempts to whitewash this incident as a plain "Killing", which is unacceptable. Talking about Clickbait, I hope you know that this whole incident was in the news for a long long time and still is simply because of the fact that it was a "political killing", now removing the "political" part from the title and making it appear as a plain "killing" is the kind of whitewashing that we should actually be avoiding here on wikipedia.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        • @Octoberwoodland: - How exactly does one "cherry pick" search engine results. Perhaps you could cherry pick a search engine test results that shows the opposite trend? NickCT (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
          • The OP is cherry picking clickbait results, spinning them, then formulating misleading claims while failing to take into account solid and reliable sources in the article. It is not relevant what google thinks of the article, but what the sources in the article say. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
            • @Octoberwoodland: - "cherry picking clickbait results" - Wow. BS flag is getting thrown on that one. How exactly does one "cherry pick click bait results"? Have you read Wikipedia:Search_engine_test? If you're not using search engines to determine the COMMONNAME, what are you using? Your imagination? NickCT (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In continuation of my Oppose !vote in the beginning of this thread, I felt that I should elaborate more on this, so here are some more points.
  • This was not just a killing, Khashoggi death: Saudi Arabia says journalist was murdered for his political views. The sources, including Saudi official sources, agree that it was a state-organised deliberate killing (the hierarchical level at which it was authorised remains disputed - MBS's team acting behind his back versus MBS ordering/authorising the killing as a failsafe if Khashoggi were to be uncooperative); and the vast majority of reliable sources agree that Khashoggi was killed for political reasons. [21]. A political murder is called Assassination, so this is a clear choice as a descriptive title under WP:NDESC. Reliable sources are also calling it Assassination / assassinated / assassination Squad. And ever Since the admittance for murder came from the Saudis this number has only increased.
  • The whole foundation of this new RM discussion is based on WP:GOOGLEHITS which by itself is not always a reliable criteria for renames. The reliable sources that do not mention "assassination" still state he was killed for a political reason which is by the definition an assassination. If we are going to put what reliable sources are literally stating then it should be "killing of Jamal khashoggi for a political motivation" just cherry picking a half title and claiming WP:GOOGLEHITS as evidence is hardly useful in this case. The reason this killing has got a lot of attention is because it was for a political motivation.
  • I also feel that changing title from "Assassination" which is per WP:NDESC to Killings is also a sort of whitewashing on this part, something that several editors in earlier RM discussions had raised.
  • This whole incident was in the news for a long long time and still is, simply because of the fact that it was a "political killing", now removing the "political" part from the title and making it appear as a plain "killing" is the kind of whitewashing that we should actually be avoiding here on wikipedia.
  • some links and quotes as evidence to my comment below.

New York Times "identification of 15 Saudis whom Turkish officials said had been sent to assassinate Mr. Khashoggi and dispose of his body.... Another suspect, Dr. Salah al-Tubaigy, is an autopsy expert, lending credence to reports that the writer’s assassination was planned... He expressed confidence in several intelligence reports that suggested a Saudi role in his assassination."

-DBigXrayᗙ 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC) [updated on 14:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)]
You seem to be finding sources only for the links that include the "Assassination" and "Jamal Khashoggi". We don't need paragraphs and sentences to decide WP:COMMONNAME but more common use. Just now on January 4, New York Times titled their story as Pompeo Plans to Press Saudi Leaders Over Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Even a few oppose !votes have agreed that "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi" is more common name. Rzvas (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • First you start this entirely disruptive WP:RM discussion that was closed after 2 widely accepted consensus threads that went on for a month each, with deceptive statements such as "There is a complete lack of any reliable sources using "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" as the article title".
  • And then repeatedly [27][28] make comments to other editors asking "Which reliable sources use the exact "Assassination of Jamal Khashhoggi" except Wikipedia?" Now that you are answered with the reliable sources, you respond stating, you have a problem with that.
  • Even the sources that use Killing clearly say that Killing was for political reasons. If the title "Killing of Jamal Khashoggi for political reasons" was proposed. I would have supported this move, but instead you have selectively dropped half of the title and tried to whitewash this as a plain "Killing", which is unacceptable. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC: Should be create a new section about "what is going on between Khashoggi's family and Saudi government?"

The consensus is that while it is due weight to cover the information in existing sections of the article, the consensus is against creating a new section about "what is going on between Khashoggi's family and Saudi government" per WP:UNDUE.

Cunard (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Should be create a new section about "what is going on between Khashoggi's family and Saudi government?" - Forest90 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

According to a person close to the family and a former Saudi official familiar, the Saudi government have paied millions of dollars' worth to family of Jamal Khashoggi after the incident. I found a lot of reliable sources which worked about this subject. For example CNN News agency called this money as blood money. As you know, in this special case, everybody's can't share every things. All sources or News website try to find the fact and they focus on every event. So, This subject looks like important and notable itself and if you look at the Article you can't find any things which covered the incident as the fact has said. At the end, my question from you is; is the subject qualified to pay more?Forest90 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN did not call this blood money as you have tried to state in two articles a total of four times. No article that I can find states that any blood money has been paid. Only that it could be paid in future under Sharia law. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The topic is covered in the article in one paragraph, and I think it is sufficient: On 6 November, Al-Jazeera quoted a Turkish official saying that Turkey was informed by Saudi Arabia that it will pay "diya" (financial compensation for murder or bodily harm, under Islamic law) to Khashoggi's sons and fiancée.[1] In April 2019, it was reported the four Khashoggi children were given houses believed to be worth up to $4m each, and monthly payments of around $10,000 by Saudis Arabia.[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHannibal (talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Saudi Arabia to pay compensation to Khashoggi family, fiancee: Turkish official". Middle East Eye. 6 November 2018. Retrieved 10 November 2018.
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/02/saudi-arabia-paying-jamal-khashoggis-children-thousands-each-month-report
I have added the correct formatting for an Rfc. I also closed the duplicate discussion at Talk:Jamal Khashoggi#RFC: Should be create a new section about "what is going on between Khashoggi's family and Saudi government?", directing people to come here to discuss. I intend to remain neutral in this matter. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Richard-of-Earth.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We don't use headlines. If you look at the body of that source, it says: "could receive", not was paid. Some are using the term for current payments, which don't appear to fit the Sharia definition of blood money. O3000 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No the problem here is that it is not that noteworthy to be in a new section. I am not against including any missing information but adding that section seems WP:UNDUE which means giving too much attention to things that aren't noteworthy and not significantly reported in reliable sources because that makes the article less neutral.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think O3000 is trying to avoid considering many Wikipedia rules. This subject that I added here is notable itself and many reliable sources worked about this subject. It's not matter you like this subject or not, this is Wikipedia and according it's rules we can share this issue under it's law. I don't understand why you make this subject personal and try to stop this.@Objective3000 and Ahrtoodeetoo:.Forest90 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: I think a new section need for this subject, because this is obvios we will see a lot of news by reliable sources about this subject and the section will expanded to.Forest90 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: thank you, this is my mistake that opened two RFC in each article separately. This subject which I try to have a section inside the Khashoggi Article is under investigation by many News website, most of them are reliable sources and this subject have special matter for many of them. If you search about the subject you will find what I'm saying. I'm not a Wikipedia newbie, I never like to have conflict with other user, but the truth most publish in relevant Article. At this time, this subject is hot and have published by many News website. I hope we consider this subject as a spotlight in Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi Article. I hope the above user who were against me, speak with Wikipedia rules for stop the subject publishing inside the Article. I rod all of them, It's really confusing that some of them only say NO and NO and NO. If this subject broke the Wikipedia rules or we can't find enough reliable sources for the subject, please tell me, because my google search show me a different result. Thank you All. I hope look me as your friend not a opponent.Forest90 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
How on Earth is this personal? I !voted no for the reason stated. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes publish the subject, because the subject don't cross the Wikipedia red lines. Some user mentioned may the subject be against this rules or that rules. As I remember we have never been here for conflict. We are here to speak about reality and publish it. This subject will clear many things about Khashoggi assassination. The subject is not a one hundred percent clear subject. But I ask you; Is the Khashoggi assassination a clear subject today, too?Forest90 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No. (Summoned by bot) Undue weight, per others. There does not appear to be any specific info which is currently not included and the desire appears to be highlight info already included and specifically to use very 'loaded' phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The information seems important and well documented enough to warrant being in the article, but creating an entire section for it seems to be a step too far. It's the sort of information that could make up a short paragraph in an "Aftermath" section, but doesn't really fit as an entirely new section. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No as per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No Undue weight. Barca (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) Undue weight would be given by having a whole section., but some information should be included in the article. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Forest90, are there specific details that you believe are missing? If so, please identify them and the supporting source(s) for each one. R2 (bleep) 23:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi R2. I think the Article need a section to explain what is happening in Khashoggi family after his death. There is a lot of news that say the family of Khashoggi revived money and real states via Saudi government. If you open below link, will find what I'm speaking:

1)https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/02/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-children-intl/index.html

2)https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/02/saudi-arabia-paying-jamal-khashoggis-children-thousands-each-month-report

3)https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/khashoggi-children-have-received-houses-in-saudi-arabia-and-monthly-payments-as-compensation-for-killing-of-father/2019/04/01/c279ca3e-5485-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.958c98791ee2

4)https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-khashoggi-children-payments.html

5)https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamal-khashoggi-children-blood-money-payouts-saudi-arabia-washington-post/

6)https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/khashoggi-blood-money-reported-payments-saudi-writer-s-death-raise-n990361

7)https://www.france24.com/en/20190402-khashoggi-children-homes-money-saudi-arabia

@WikiHannibal, SharabSalam, Ahrtoodeetoo, and Objective3000: and this link's are some of reliable sources which covered the subject. Also, you can find many website link that I didn't put them.Forest90 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Forest90, you miss the point again. Above, I have copied for everyone's conveninece the text dealing with the topic: On 6 November, Al-Jazeera quoted a Turkish official saying that Turkey was informed by Saudi Arabia that it will pay "diya" (financial compensation for murder or bodily harm, under Islamic law) to Khashoggi's sons and fiancée. In April 2019, it was reported the four Khashoggi children were given houses believed to be worth up to $4m each, and monthly payments of around $10,000 by Saudis Arabia. What you want to add ("the family of Khashoggi revived money and real states") has been there all the time. How do you propose this sourced content need to be changed? This discussion is a waste of time. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
WikiHannibal, I don't like waste any body's time. I mentioned in my RFC title, this subject is covered by many news website and I think it's need a section, not a paragraph or sentences. Almost, Khashoggi case is updating and this subject could expand more than past.Forest90 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
If it expands in the future, we will reconsider. but, there simply isn't anything unusual about the Saudi gov't paying victims money. The amounts are probably unusual, which is why it is mentioned. O3000 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Forest90, I asked for specific details, not the extremely vague "what is happening in Khashoggi family after his death" with a pile of sources. Please identify with specifics what you think is missing, and for each specific item please identify the specific source you think supports that specific item. R2 (bleep) 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi R2. Please read the below paragraph carefully, because I'm sure that the main part of them never mentioned in main article, and this information will expand via reporter in future:
The family could also receive tens of millions of dollars in blood money payments following the trial of Khashoggi's alleged killers in Riyadh. All told, the family could stand to collect more than $70 million in cash and assets, the source estimated.
The Saudi government would contend that these payments are intended to make amends, but the expectation is that in exchange for the money, they won't publicly criticize the royal family over Khashoggi's death, the source said.
Khashoggi's four children have each been gifted homes worth as much as 15 million Saudi riyals (around $4 million), the source said. Salah, who as the eldest son handles the family's relations with the government, has been given a large home in Jeddah, where he works as a banker. His brother, Abdullah, and two sisters have been given houses together in a different compound.
In addition to the property, Khashoggi's four children each received a one-time payment of 1 million riyals ($267,000) and will each receive a monthly stipend of $10,000 to $15,000, which could continue indefinitely, according to the source.
The houses, one-off payments and monthly allowances were approved by Saudi King Salman, the source said.
If the men are convicted and sentenced to death, the Saudi justice system would allow Khashoggi's family to grant their father's killers clemency through the so-called blood money arrangement.
The family could receive further payments of as much as 100 to 200 million riyals ($26.7- $53.3 million) as part of blood money negotiations that might be expected when the trial concludes, CNN's source said.
The Saudi government didn't respond to multiple requests for comment Tuesday. So far, Khashoggi's children have not openly criticized the kingdom, despite the CIA's conclusion that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered their father's killing.
Salah, a dual US-Saudi citizen, is the only Khashoggi sibling who plans to stay in the kingdom, according to CNN's source. Abdullah and his two sisters are still in the United States and have no intention of returning to live in the homes given to them in Saudi. CNN's source said they are not able to sell the homes and pocket the money either.

In main article, the only thing that mentioned is: On 6 November, Al-Jazeera quoted a Turkish official saying that Turkey was informed by Saudi Arabia that it will pay "diya" (financial compensation for murder or bodily harm, under Islamic law) to Khashoggi's sons and fiancée. In April 2019, it was reported the four Khashoggi children were given houses believed to be worth up to $4m each, and monthly payments of around $10,000 by Saudis Arabia. What you want to add ("the family of Khashoggi revived money and real states") has been there all the time. I'm only insist on, we have to expand this sentences, it's not enough for the subject. Khashoggi case is expanding every day and this subject didn't pay enough as it's deserve.Forest90 (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The article contains text on what has happened. Much of what you are talking about is speculation about what might happen in the future. If it does, we'll include it then. O3000 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
So, it's your idea, but when a new user decide to read the article, find a lot of information in many section. I'm saying we have to create a new section and collect such as this information under a subject. This is make the Khashoggi family aftermath, as an ordered section which a outer reader can red this section and only pay to this section, my friend.Forest90 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't include speculation about what might happen in the future. As for the past payments, the source (CNN) relies solely on a single anonymous source and doesn't make any statements in its own voice. Those statements are not reliable. R2 (bleep) 17:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
My friend, R2, I didn't say to pay speculation things. This information which I added above collected from reliable sources. It's not acceptable for them (all that reliable sources which I added) to publish a hazy information about Khashoggi. Khashoggi news circulate between all news website, and every body is trying to publish something new and true about this case. We can't close our eyes to reliable sources because their decided to hide their news sources name.Forest90 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
We only cite reliably sourced content. That’s Wikipedia 101. Please stop pinging me. R2 (bleep) 22:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No ‘rogue operation’ - not an anomaly

The Saudis said Khashoggi’s assassination was a ‘rogue operation’. That was a lie. A new piece reveals this repressive regime’s ongoing efforts to harass, kidnap and "disappeared" its critics around the world:

MBS interview

Recetnly, two editors added two separate paragraphs about an interview (or two interviews, PBS X CBS?), interpreting it/them quite differently. Their entries need to by summarized/merged, so as not to confuse the article. Or, they can both be deleted because, as I think, they do not provide new singnificant info to the already quite a long article. Will do that myself later, if not corrected by other editors. WikiHannibal (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove them. This needs a consensus of where should this information should be; which section, and how we can summarise it. The significant of the news is that MBS said he bears all responsibility for the killing.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the one in the lead section. There are already seven paragraphs in the lead. We don't have more than four paragraphs in WWII article.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, but the ref you removed was more recent than the other, which is about a future event, and I think "all responsibility for the killing" needs to be kept in the context of denying involvement. So I still think keeping only one of the refs/original wordings (not based on their placement but content) is not enough. (Not implying you have to be the one who does the work of sourcing/merging etc.) WikiHannibal (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
WikiHannibal, I made some changes and merged some so that it makes sense. The old source is about leaked information from the interview before it was aired.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • TBH I need to rewrite some of the article content, it is not well organized and there are some original research (I think). Will do that later.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Regarding the interview with CBS, it involved important information about the issue, so it deserves to be in the lead to keep the article updated with summarized paragraphs. I can't see the point where a significant paragraph is removed because the lead is too long. Jaseromer (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The article had seven paragraphs before you added the interview to the lead, Wikipedia only allows four paragraphs. Notice that the lead only contains a summary of the body of the article, that means you should have written the information first in the body of the article and then you can add it to the lead. I have fixed your mess and you dont see the point. Thanks!.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for merging the info Jaseromer readded... WikiHannibal (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
No need for thanks. I was just kidding. By the way, there is a paragraph in the lead that says the following, "Saudi Arabia was placed under unprecedented scrutiny, and economic and political pressure from the international community to disclose the facts."[29] the source is behind a paywall and I can't verify whether the word "facts" is appropriate or not. It doesn't seem appropriate.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi/Archive_3&oldid=1110171346"