Talk:Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamal Khashoggi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005032859/https://ecommons.lau.edu.lb:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10725/982/Rada_Soubra_Barrage_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1 to https://ecommons.lau.edu.lb:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10725/982/Rada_Soubra_Barrage_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Info

There were two links under the heading of "external links". I used one of them to add source to the page. The other one, placed below, is a dead link. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Interview with Fareed Zakaria on ForeignExchange.tv

I find this article to be very short on facts, and mostly biased speculation.. this is disappointing to me. I wanted Khashoggi's biography in detail. Who were his parents? etc.. not just to speculate on what happened when really nobody knows what happened outside of who actually did it, which makes this propaganda spread by those who wish us to believe that some Saudis killed and dismembered him. We don't know that, and it's equally likely that some Turks did it. Actually, without habeas corpus, we don't know that he is dead. All we know is that he is missing. So, I think the article should be deleted entirely unless it is labeled correctly as 'speculation on his disappearance', instead of 'biography' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.57.133 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, at this point it can not be titled 'biography' so best to call it 'speculation on his disappearance' WDRezvani (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Dedicated article for disappearance/assassination?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's consensus for this this split and it has been over one week this is open. As of writing this, the article is currently almost 80Kb and is rapidly expanding into countries' policies and actions or inactions, corporate reactions and whatnot which although are informed by this death has little to do with the actual biography" of the subject. On the headcount we have 24 in support and 8 in oppose while 2 can be grouped as neutral although both expressed possibility of the split once the article get more expansion, which it did, also one opposer eventually changed to support. All the opposers, save 3, opposed because the article was not long enough and they did so on or before October 12, the last version on that day was this which is greatly different from today's. The article has quadrupled that in content and 57 references became over 140. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles of > 60 kB are recommended to be split while those of over 100kb should almost certainly be. This article surpassed the 60kb threshold and per all indication it will also surpass the latter with more revelations coming in making the split even more necessary..–Ammarpad (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Given the sizable amount of media coverage of, investigation into, and international reaction to, does anyone else think it would be worth creating a dedicated article to Khashoggi's disappearance? It seems sufficiently notable as anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2010s_missing_person_cases . PvOberstein (talk)

Agree He deserves an article on his own, but his disappearance may eventually overrun it.--Gorpik (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree There is now so much info about his disappearance that it needs its own article. (Eg: The 15 Saudis allegedly involved have all been named.) Also: if there are any Wikipedians in Istanbul: a photo of the Saudi consular building there would be greatly appreciated, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary yet, but probably will be soon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Possibly For now, one article seems sufficient. I don’t think the names of the alleged 15 Saudis involved need to be included unless and until additional details about their biographies emerge, until they are criminally charged, etc. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, for now it may be easier to have just one article. Eventually, it might split in two.--Gorpik (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need all their names. It doesn't matter who they are yet. Calicodragon (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree With the emergence of the taped evidence of his murder, real or not, this has become an international incident which exceeds the scope of the subjects particular biography. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree Absolutely. The fact that it is a subsection of the main article will stop the expansion of that section to the length that would be appropriate for a diplomatic incident of that size.Acebulf (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree Just my opinion, at present, the section is not that long, and I believe 2 or 3 short paragraphs can be added to it as the topic develops. As new info is added, older claims get trimmed or removed. I think the new article would have to copy some/much bio about Jamal Khashoggi anyway, including the Saudi context, while the disapp. section would not be that long. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree This article is the right place for now, where people looking for information on him would come. the content as of now is also nothing more than claims and counterclaims and claims of evidence. The proposed new article would be nothing more than a list of "he said , she said". In future when there is considerable actual evidence and real repercussions (e.g. Diplomatic, political, legal) of his disappearance only then would I suggest WP:Content forking out a new article on his disappearance. For now let's all work to improve this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree the article is not enough long. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree Absolutely. WDRezvani (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree for now. The article size is reasonable. If the biography section ever becomes comprehensive and the death/disappearance section becomes much bigger, then, yes. Wait and see. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Possibly: Disagree for now, but there's a chance this will change as things develop and the article becomes larger. Jonathunder (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like it's headed in that direction. Jonathunder (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree There's only really a need to split if size were an issue. Since this article can contain all of the necessary text and still easily be read, there's no need to split it off. --Jayron32 20:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree : I think his disappearance should have its own article but we should put an overview of his disappearance in this article then add the Template:Main to the section. SharabSalam (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree : I think this event is extremely significant and should have its own page. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• per WP:NOTNEWS this section is not mature as of yet, most editors above agree that May be in future when more facts and evidences come out, this article can be forked into new one. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree : It's notable enough. Oranjelo100 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree : Even Agent Orange who routinely calls the reporters the enemy of the people is talking about retaliating for his alleged death but we don’t even know for certain if he’s dead or alive. While I believe it’s the former, it’s certainly worth its own article at this point for further detail.Trillfendi (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree : AgentOrange haz NSA. NSA haz intercept. AgentOrange knew he was in danger. Khashoggi was sent to the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul from the Saudi Embassy in Washington DC.!!! Kushner forged a bond with MbS and discussed the names of Saudis disloyal to the MbS, some of whom ended up being tortured and killed. MbS rewarded Agent Orange with $110 billion in weapons deal to "protect" his population the size of NY state. AgentOrange is describing weapons sales as jobs program = insanity. There are no U.S. ambassadors to Turkey or to Saudi Arabia = insanity. Kushner is the point-of-contact for over two dozen countries = insanity. Turks had the Saudi consulate bugged, and are sharing audio and video. And now AgentOrangeJr boosts smear linking Khashoggi to terrorism= insanity. --87.170.194.229 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, part of this is pretty accurate: Khashoggi was once on excellent terms with bin Laden, What Kushner "forgets" is that that was a time when the US was also on excellent terms with bin Laden! ....(Remember those Mujahedin received by Ronald Reagan in the White House?) MbS will probably might survive this crisis...but my bet is that he will be dead as a dodo (politically speaking) within 5 years, as his economic reforms fails miserably, (I also agree that the Turks most likely had the consulate bugged....but "leaks" red herrings about an Apple watch, in order to distract from that..), Stay safe, whoever you are, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree Wikipedia doesn't need a new article for every major current event. Endymion.12 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree This agenda is too big, with regular new updates coming out each day, it needs its own page. Technopunch 09:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree I think that his disappearance is worthy of its own article by now. Considering the importance. Calicodragon (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree His disappearance is a case with a lot of information, importance and deserves its own article. 390Trains (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree His article is getting large and the disappearance and associated drama warrants another article to properly balance the content. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree The story has gotten bigger and more widely covered over the last few days. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree As of right now I believe this is the correct article for that. I don’t believe there is enough content to justify an entirely new article. LissanX (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree The article and this section do not appear long enough that a separate article is necessary, which would result in two short articles. No information is irrelevant to Khashoggi himself that warrants separation. Reywas92^Talk 04:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree Diplomatic event with different angles and perspectives. Ekem (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree International publicity by this guy, plus, if this guy never went missing and caused multiple conspiracy theories and has almost caused the us to split diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, then this biography would have never been created in the first place. DerpieDerpie:D 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Only that "this biography" was created 9 July 2006‎. --87.170.198.197 (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree Notable enough to spilt from the article. Sheldybett (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: As I have noted above, In future we may have a separate article due to WP:CFORK but not now. All those users voting Agree, can you please explain what information you would like to add in the new article that cannot possible be added here ? The length or size of the current article is well below the accepted limits for a CFORK, hence a new article may not be justified for now. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree This is a very prominent event - an international incident - that has more than escalated beyond the scope of being a flash in the pan. As such, this does not qualify as NOTNEWS. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be not better if create a separate page for the Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, since both are notable? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The only point I would make here is the separate article should probably be titled Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, but we need some verification from reliable sources the Saudi's actually tortured then murdered him, which we are close to having at this point. Give it a few more days and we may know enough to split the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

With today's news, we can now rule out the article title containing "disappearance", and the question turns on whether it was not a premeditated death (as Saudi Arabia claims today), or a planned assassination, as other countries' inquiries are indicating: "Death of...", or "Assassination OF...". Thank you, (talk) user:Al83tito  12.10, 20October 2018 (UTC)

Agree the two articles are both notable to stand on their own, especially as new information comes in. I definitely agree with Octoberwoodland, because it looks like he was assassinated but we should probably wait until it is confirmed. Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree his disapperance and probable assassination has created all sorts of international reactions, still unfolding, and are likely to go on for a long time. So an article focussing on his life, and another on his death and all that has followed after his disapperance, makes sense. Further, I have a difference of opinion with those above that say that one single article is warranted. I differ in that there is more to his probable death than his life story: there are diplomatic consequences, reputational issues for the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, etc. These consequences are in addition to "he said she said" scenario being claimed by one user above. So having a dedicated article to his disapperance and all sorts of consequences is the right way to go. Thank you, (talk) user:Al83tito  11:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Al83tito, You have to read a comment along with the timestamp and not take it out of context. Based on the reports released until 12 October, this was nothing more than allegations. Even now although things have progressed, no concrete evidence or investigation report have come out. Although there are some diplomatic results (Folks dropping out of the meeting) No major diplomatic action has taken place. so yes, this is still at the stage of "Allegations and counter allegations" (i.e. "he said, she said") secondly the new proposed title is also dispute d betweeen disappearance vs assassination (due to no concrete information) So although most peopl eincluding me, agree that this article possibly deserves to be WP:CFORKed some time in future, but for now adding all the relevant information into this article is what we have to do. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray you make good points all around. And you are right that I had not noticed the time stamp. Thank you for your nuanced response. I do think that now we are very close to getting to the point when the article should be split, while waiting a few more days to get more info from the news, and also develop consensus here, is a good approach. Thank you (talk) user:Al83tito  12:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Gorpik that he "deserves an article on his own" and that "his disappearance may eventually overrun it". There is room on Wikipedia for another article particularly on an incident like this that is going to be a catalyst for change. I came to Wikipedia this morning looking for an article on his disappearance and assassination, assuming there already was one, after reading so many headlines and updates in the international media.Oceanflynn (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree Both Jamal Khashoggi and his assassination are notable. Trump will need a new policy towards Iran; relations with Saudi Arabia must be reconsidered; the crown prince's position is now untenable; this brutal murder of a respected journalist will have international consequences. This is history in the making, and splitting this article is long due. Concordiac (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree The section on his murder has become unwieldy; and both he and the manner in which he was killed are notable enough to warrant a split. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

Please replace:

• "After his second resignation from Al Watan in 2010, Khashoggi was appointed by Al-Waleed bin Talal as director of the Al-Arab News Channel in Bahrain"

• → with →

• After his second resignation from Al Watan in 2010 Khashoggi maintained ties with Saudi elites, including those in its intelligence apparatus. In 2015 he launched the satellite news channel Al-Arab, based in Bahrain outside Saudi Arabia as the country does not allow independent news channels to operate within its borders. The news channel was backed by of Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and partnered with US financial news channel Bloomberg Television. But the channel was on air for less than 11 hours before it was shut down by Bahrain.[1]

And add: Analysts said Khashoggi might have been considered especially dangerous by the Saudi leadership because he was not a long-time dissident, but rather a pillar of the Saudi establishment who was close to its ruling circles for decades, had worked as an editor at Saudi news outlets and had been an adviser to a former Saudi intelligence chief. Thanks! [2] 87.170.201.68 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. No guarantee it will remain as is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

Please add:

"In June 2017 Khashoggi relocated to the United States." Source: [3] 87.170.207.114 (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Added, thanks. Had you considered registering as an editor? Might be easier? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing, Martin! Life is not always easy to live, is it? I may have my reasons to stay an "anon IP editor", even if it means being bullied and disrespected in the editorial process. But I have the right too. You maked me feel welcomed :-) --87.170.207.114 (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

With a contentious topic such as this one, it's often better to suggest changes at the Talk page first anyway. So you are at no real disadvantage in that respect. A registered account is a good way of making your location anonymous. Your sensible requests suggest that you would be very welcome as a new registered editor. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Presumed Dead

a large number of sources state he is presumed dead. The person infobox for the article states "Missing, believed dead having been allegedly killed by Saudi Arabian agents". WP:BLP does not apply here if the presumption is that he is dead, which certainly appears to be the case. Shouldn't the article lede state "was" instead of "is". I am in somewhat unfamiliar territory as far as BLP goes since BLP only applies to living persons, not dead ones. Any comments to help clarify this. I think the lede should refer to him in the past tense not present tense, and WP:BLP most likely does not apply if he is presumed dead. Comments please. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No. He's presumed alive the same way he's being presumed dead by segment of sources. Note a significant number of reporters even reputable like WPost, BBC and Reuters are only recycling- with more analysis- the little they got from Turkish local pro-government papers and police sources. I am in no way exonerating Saudi or saying he's alive but not saying he's not dead either. So BLP will still apply until such a time when he's beyond doubt confirmed dead or such time when no reasonable person will believe he's alive. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP says: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." The policy may also apply to the recently deceased. See WP:BDP. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree with Octoberwoodland, WP:BLP still applies here till confirmed dead. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree supported by various sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• YES YOU ARE 100% RIGHT. This is about basic GOOD journalism, facts and standard correct Grammar. Anyone who cares about Jamal Khashoggi need to realize that making up FALSE or NON-confirmed statements will NOT further his case.

I changed the word in the lead "was" to "is" yesterday evening and added a short paragraph. "His death has yet to be confirmed." This is the ONLY correct way to state facts at this time. Some one with ZERO regard for actual facts immediately erased my edit and put a lock on the story. Who ever did this is showing blatant disregard not only for the facts but also a complete violation of Wiki rules and ethics. Even if all reports at this moment point to a brutal murder we have YET TO GET CONFIRMATION OF THIS. The rest of the article discuss in GREAT detail the alleged murder theories. But we have not yet any evidence of his death, his status is reported as missing, hence we can ONLY say that he IS -- not was! Please respect this. Everybody following the case believe he has been killed, and more likely even brutally so. But until we see pictures, hear eyewitness reports of this or find his body or other evidence, Khashoggi remains NOT DEAD, and hence IS.

• Alternatively we could -- in addition to the VITAL changing of was to IS -- we could add to my comments.

"He is currently missing and presumed killed but his death has yet to be confirmed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global Writer Journalist (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You are just flat wrong. The Turkish Police have already stated they have evidence from his apple watch he was tortured then murdered and dismembered and that he never left the consulate. His death has been confirmed by Turkish authorities. People keep writing "we need his death confirmed, so how many times do the Turkish authorities have to say this?Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That apple-watch-story is silly! Turkish authorities have thus far refused to make that evidence public because it would clearly illustrate the extent to which the Saudis, as well as other diplomatic missions in the country, are monitored — something that represents a clear diplomatic affront. The WaPo newspaper has reported that government sources from Turkey and the United States possess audio and video evidence proving that the journalist was in fact murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2. It was a premeditated plan. The WaPo had previously written that it was in possession of intelligence agency information proving that MbS had intended to lure Khashoggi from his home in Virginia back to Saudi Arabia in order to jail him. But Jamal didn't take the bait. So he was instead lured to Turkey, where his fiancee lives, and he disappeared in the Saudi consulate, never to be seen again. --87.170.202.84 (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Disappeared? He was murdered!

Come on, Wikipedia. There can be no remaining doubt. Mr. Khashoggi was viciously murdered by the Saudi government. Facts aren't neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainBemused (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

CaptainBemused, The murder is yet to be confirmed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, until that happens, we cannot update as murdered. The article already says allegedly murdered, and that is based on the reliable sources. see WP:BLP for more.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

Please repair that important fn (right now #23) → http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/jamal-khashoggi → was it → https://www.weforum.org/people/jamal-khashoggi ? 87.170.198.197 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

Please add:

Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), announced on October 13 that she was "horrified" by the disappearance of Khashoggi, but still intended to attend the Future Investment Initiative (FII) summit in Riyadh. But on October 17 she decided to join "the growing list of people and organisations opting out of" the FII summit.

Refs:

• https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/international-monetary-fund-chief-backs-out-saudi-conference-over-khashoggi-537818211
• https://www.latribune.fr/economie/international/affaire-khashoggi-le-boycott-du-sommet-economique-saoudien-s-emballe-794313.html

Merci ;-) 87.170.207.190 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance again

I tried to sort the mess in the section about the disappearance, using just the sources that were in the article. Some of the info was not sourced while it made the appearance it was. I made a number of small edits, describing what I did and why, so that anyone can check the sources. I have no reason to back up any part in this political conflict (if there is one) but I cannot stand poor journalism and editing, when I see it. User:Openlydialectic sees it as POV, and reverted it. I reverted it back as clearly my version of the section is more precise, and call for a discussion, which of my edits are not neutral etc. I hope other editors will get involved. Meanwhile I ask for a status quo. BTW User:Openlydialectic, please explain here, what you mean by the claim I am not neutral in this, when you said that: "I get from your edit history on Wikipedia that you clearly feel very strongly about issues surrounding Saudi Arabia's actions, but please try to remain neutral." Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

+comment: More than 10 editors edited the page between my edit and your revert, and changes were made in the Disappearance section and the relevant section of the lead. So I assume none of them saw my edit as controversial, non-neutral or anything like that. That is why I believe the lead was accepted as status quo. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fiancée’s (alleged) eyewitness account of Khashoggi never leaving keeps getting removed

The new Disappearance section dedicates four paragraphs to anonymous (?) Turkish sources, but fails to mention the account that triggered the investigation, i.e., that Khashoggi’s fiancée had accompanied him to the consulate, waited outside, but never saw him leave, which in turn prompted her to contact Turkish authorities hours after the consulate had closed. This has widely been reported (incl. by listed references), but for whatever reason keep getting removed by article rewrites. This should be mentioned, shouldn’t it? —ThorstenNY (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph mentions that, sort of. It might be clarified a bit, though.--Gorpik (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify further as I do agree it's an important point. My wording may be a little sloppy but I couldn't quite think how to do it without what would have been too much close paraphrasing of the source, others are welcome to improve it. I've also clarified the Saudi Arabian response namely he left via a back door. I don't think anyone believes not only because there's no reason why he would do this but also because I assume CCTV has all entrances covered but we still need to mention what they are saying. I've removed the date, I don't think it really matters when they first said he had left. For starters, it's my understanding she did ask a security guard and they claimed he'd left and in any case in the unlikely event the Saudi Arabian story is true, them not mentioning he had left until the next day is not particularly surprising if they didn't know he was apparently missing. But the main reason I removed the date is I'm not certain when they first said he'd left via a back door as my source didn't say. I presume it was the day after he entered the consulate when the story blew up but I don't know. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it may actually be worth clarifying what the fiancée did since I think people may wonder why she reported him missing without checking with the consulate. As I said, I don't believe this is what happened. It may also be worth adding the Saudi's claim (even if no one believes it) namely that the security cameras in the consulate did not record only display/stream. IMO it's important since the obvious question people have is if he left, why can't you show us video of him leaving?' Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree that it should be mentioned both in the article as well as in the Lead per WP:MOSLEAD. There are enough reliable sources mentioning this crucial happening. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Relative of Adnan, cousin or nephew ??

He is a cousin of the late, high-profile billionaire Adnan Khashoggi ???

cousin or uncle of Jamal Khashoggi ? Jamal Khashoggi is mentioned as a grandson of Dr Muhammad Khashoggi, so Adnan - a son of Dr Muhammad - and Jamal would be uncle and nephew, not cousins ?? The French journalist of the Parisien tabloid newspaper may be wrong then when he talks about a cousinage relationship ??

--Wisdood (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdood (talk • contribs)

Added VOA as a ref. Now clear? --87.170.201.237 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vincent Lextrait: Have you read the VOA ref? --87.170.192.239 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, doing it now. Will fix the article on Adnan if all okay. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Now both articles fixed. Thanks for the heads up! Vincent Lextrait (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice!--87.170.202.21 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Died

Hi Could we add that he has been killed or allegedly killed? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean in the lead section, perhaps in the very first sentence? I think probably, yes, given that the article already says, supported by good sources:

"According to numerous anonymous police sources, the Turkish police believe that Khashoggi was brutally tortured and later killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul by a 15-member team brought in from Saudi Arabia for the operation. One anonymous police source claimed that the dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate and all of this was "videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Magnitsky Act enables the president to apply targeted sanctions against individuals involved in human rights violations

The article is now protected, can please someone add a few words too "a tremendous shift in public opinion" and "Magnitsky Act"?

• [4] "James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC, said Khashoggi's case has led to "a tremendous shift in public opinion", towards Saudi Arabia, "not only among [Americans] but also in the Senate"."

• [5]→ "... senators on the Foreign Relations panel sent Trump a letter Wednesday giving the president three months to determine whether Saudi Arabia violated the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which prohibits extrajudicial killings, torture and other egregious rights violations. A determination that Saudi Arabia did violate the act would trigger sanctions on Saudi Arabia unless Trump specifically waives them. ... have been given access to a classified intelligence report regarding Khashoggi's case. After reading the report, Corker said he couldn't divulge its details, but told NBC News there was "no question" that it confirmed his skepticism about Saudi Arabia's explanations." --87.170.192.239 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• IP User 87.170.192.239, the article is not protected. it has WP:PC (pending changes enabled) so you can go ahead and make the change adding relevant sources and it will be accepted if it is a constructive edit and follows the WP:V policies. If you plan to add controversial information it is better to gain WP:CONSENSUS here first before adding it on the article. Controversial edits without consensus at the talk page are likely to get reverted. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Nope. I can not change one iota.--87.170.202.21 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I found the button ;-) --87.170.201.68 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

IP User 87.170.192.239, You can use Template:edit semi-protected here to request this edit. Just add {{edit semi-protected|Jamal Khashoggi|answered=no}} here with the Current version text from the article along with your New Edited version text and the sources supporting. Me or someone will add it into the article for you. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: put the following paragraph back into the lede

Khashoggi was detained in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018. According to Turkish police, they believe that Khashoggi was then brutally tortured for several days and later killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul by a 15-member "murder team" brought in from Saudi Arabia for the operation. With his ordeal videotaped, his dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate.

References

I added it a few days back, but it was quickly removed from the article by User:WikiHannibal with much of the other information that showed Saudis in a bad light. Can we vote on adding this info to the lede? In my opinion, the lede urgently needs a description more detailed then "He is currently missing and allegations have been made that he was murdered and dismembered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on 2 October 2018" Openlydialectic (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support, pending sources But looks generally reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. some sources missing here

• But might need to be trimmed a bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Now that the lead section has some detail restored and the article itself is linked on the Main Page I expect it will be getting quite a lot more scrutiny. So this thread might need to be closed as "overtaken by events"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• tortured for several days !??? May I cite your own ref: “The initial assessment of the Turkish police is that Mr Khashoggi has been killed at the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. We believe that the murder was premeditated and the body was subsequently moved out of the consulate,” one of the two Turkish officials told Reuters." → His body was cut into pieces that same day.--87.170.202.21 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I commented on the deletion in the section above (Disappearance again), and asked for discussion. Nobody commented. Not sure why this surfaces here again. As you can see in the history, I went through ALL the references used in the section at that time, commenting on my edits. The result is still present in the article. Only one anonymous police source, quoted in one newspaper source (other newspapers quoted/attributed the info to that one newspaper) claimed that the dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate and all of this was "videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country". Please try to discriminate between facts and rumors. Whoever wants to add (any of) this, please check the sources first, and apply (un)due weight. User:Openlydialectic, I ask you again to explain your comment "I get from your edit history on Wikipedia that you clearly feel very strongly about issues surrounding Saudi Arabia's actions, but please try to remain neutral."; Martinevans123, you know my editing work from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370; here I just apply the same scrutiny; I copy my explanation from above here for clarity:

  I tried to sort the mess in the section about the disappearance, using just the sources that were in the article. Some of the info was not sourced while it made the apeearance it was. I made a number of small edits, describing what I did and why, so that anyone can check the sources. I have no reason to back up any part in this polictical conflict (if there is one) but I cannot stand poor journalism and editing, when I see it. User:Openlydialectic sees it as POV, and reverted it. I reverted it back as clearly my version of the section is more precise, and call for a discussion, which of my edits are not neutral etc. I hope other editors wll get involved. Meanwhile I ask for a status quo. [...] +comment: More than 10 editors edited the page between my edit and your revert, and changes were made in the Disappearence section and the relevant section of the lead. So I assmue none of them saw my edit as controversial, non-neutral or anything like that. That is why I believe the lead was accepted as status quo. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiHannibal (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'll go one by one with your claims you've described above.
  1) >I went through ALL the references used in the section at that time, commenting on my edits.
  No you didn't. You were just claiming things like, and I quote "the description above is more neutral and accurate, acc. to one of the sources removed "was detained Tuesday in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, according to his fiancée and a close friend", which statement is irrelevant" that are clearly wrong.
  2) >Only one anonymous police source, quoted in one newspaper source (other newspapers quoted/attributed the info to that one newspaper) claimed that the dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate and all of this was "videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country".
  Speaking of wrong. That is wrong. Have you read any of the articles on this scandal in literally any newspaper? Start with Washington Post for example: [6]. Multiple sources, other sources that I used in that very lede also mentioned multiple sources.
  3) >"I get from your edit history on Wikipedia that you clearly feel very strongly about issues surrounding Saudi arabia's actions, but please try to remain neutral."; Martinevans123, you know my editing work from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370; here I just apply the same scrutiny
  I don't know about your editing work on MH370, I've never edited that article or looked at its contributors (although I did enjoy reading it). However your edits and their explanations on this page do strike me as if you were not NPOV. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would not want anything posted that's not properly sourced. Still waiting for those two other sources. So I've amended my !vote above. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You can look at them here. I may not have been clear above, but I am ready to change parts of the sentence, for example, if it indeed is (as it looks right now) true that he was not tortured for more than a day, but instead killed on the day of his torture. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It might help your case if you added them here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to simply summarise the entire content of the article. Adding this paragraph as it stands would seem to risk making the article unbalanced. Note that the last source given above, the South China Morning Post,does not seem to say anything about the dead body being "chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate." In fact, even the existing lead paragraph is quite large. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• support the article should show a neutral point of view of the incident therefore deleting or reforming sourced informations in a biased way is unneutral. SharabSalam (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose brutally tortured for "several days" this is pure Original research, sources does claim he was killed tortured before death, but none of them say that it took several days. Please point me if I missed something. I do agree that the lead needs to be expanded but the version above is not something that should be added back. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes they do, you are just plainly lying. The references that are included in the text right after the torture statement very explicitly state that he was, and I quote those sources, "brutally tortured.
  Here's a quote from Daily Sabah (source number 4): "Khashoggi was "brutally tortured, killed and cut into pieces, everything was videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country," a senior Turkish police source told Middle East Eye." Here's a quote from Middle East Eye (source number 6): A senior Turkish police source told MEE that police believed that Khashoggi, a prominent critic of the Saudi government, was "brutally tortured, killed and cut into pieces" inside the consulate after visiting the building on 2 October. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Killed before death? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• corrected typo, thanks for pointing--DBigXrayᗙ 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Openlydialectic, you accused User:DBigXray of "plainly lying" but you did not provide any explanation to his comment. User:DBigXray mentioned that none of your sources say that it took "several days", and he wrote the relevant part in bold for you to see. And yet your response is not about that at all, but starts with an insult. I suppose you just did not read his comment carefully (I see you commented on the "several days" issue in your earlier response to Martinevans123), but that is all this is about. Critical reading, attention to detail, etc. I wonder whether an apology would be appropriate. What do you think? And please also understand that the Daily Sabah article specifically refers to Middle East Eye, so these are not two sources but only one, the Middle East Eye article. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Did the government really ban him from twitter?

does a government have the power to ban accounts from twitter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8FC0:2:5D83:A07A:B2A9:A15D (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think only Twitter itself could do that. But the source is Khashoggi hmself, in The Washington Post [7], saying this: "The government banned me from Twitter when I cautioned against an overly enthusiastic embrace of then-President-elect Donald Trump." I guess they just told him to stop? Either way it might be worth making a slight amendment. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Khashoggi had an universal, all-encompassing gag order: "For those views, reported in The Washington Post and articulated in tweets and at a Washington think tank, he was ordered by the Saudi authorities to stop writing and speaking publicly, unleashing a chain of events that may have culminated in his disappearance and possible death inside Saudi Arabia’s Consulate in Istanbul last week. [8] @Martinevans123: --87.170.197.111 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's very interesting and puts the "banned from Twitter" sound-bite more into context, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It does when Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al Saud is the second biggest shareholder [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murchison-Eye (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's quite a revelation. I had no idea. Not the kind of juicy WP:SYNTH that we can include in this article, of course (unless a reliable third-party source has made that connection)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jamal Khashoggi was a protégé of Alwaleed bin Talal. Talal was his sponsor for the news channel Al-Arab. Talal's holdings are not exactly known. Much of the filings are hold on KHC and the company likely masks some of its moves through the use of third parties. Theoretically, if it owned stakes above 5 percent in a stock, an SEC filing would say. He may have been the fifth-largest holder in Twitter at the end of the second quarter of this 2017. He owns stakes in Apple and recently acquired a 2.3% stake in Snapchat. (Here a vid with Bloomberg after his two-month detention at Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh after he payed a settlement (2017 Saudi Arabian purge) On Secret Deal to Secure His Release → He was so scared and nervous he couldn't even speak out one normal sentence!). Khashoggi was on Twitter till Oct 1. His body was cut into pieces Oct 2. That universal, all-encompassing gag order was not done in San Francisco by Twitter nor was it done by Alwaleed bin Talal. --87.170.198.197 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Share-holders, not matter how large their holding, are not CEOs and are not necessarily on the Board of Directors, are they? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes you are right, Martin. Shareholders want a share of the profit from a corporation, but they don't work there ;-) Shareholders, buy shares on the stock exchange/ bourse /Börse (Secondary Market = The Stock Market). Shareholders own shares issued by the corporation; and the corporation owns the assets. So if you own 33% of the shares of a company, it is incorrect to assert that you own one-third of that company; it is instead correct to state that you own 100% of one-third of the company’s shares. Shareholders cannot do as they please with a corporation or its assets. This is known as the “separation of ownership and control.” --87.170.198.197 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC) User 87.170.198.197 re added it for you --DBigXrayᗙ 17:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Birthdate?

The birthdate cited in the article was added by an anonymous contributor on 10/6/18. There is no citation for this date and online references to it ultimately point back to Wikipedia. I suggest that the birthdate be deleted until an independent source can be cited. RandomCritic (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection. Well spotted. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. did you see this?

Added refs (source Hatice Cengiz) but this level of conspiracy is too much for me ;-) Origin of the passport which appeared at metabunk. And the comments... WikiHannibal (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes that "Mashhour" looks a bit familiar, doesn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure either Hatice Cengiz, or the passport picture (which could easily be faked) are reliable sources, but something is better than nothing.RandomCritic (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that Gamaliel is not convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: perhaps you could explain why you removed the source? Is it that you do not believe Hatice Cengiz when she published an aticle on 13 Oct, saying "Today is Jamal’s birthday", or is it something else? Your comment "none of these sources appear to provide the oct 13 date" is not very revealing. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: I wonder why you should believe his alleged "fiance" who is not even recognized by Jamal's sons ! However, there is a photo of Jamal with his family celebrating his 54th birthday in March, while his passport writes January ! So I recommend to write only 1958, I would say that the source of 13 October is only created by his "fiance" and probably cited by some other media ! 27.84.198.160 (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Khashoggi wrote 3 books

Hi all, Jamal Khashoggi wrote 3 books. Is anyone capable of identifying the basic bibliographic information?

@Huldra: @Martinevans123: @SharabSalam: @DBigXray: @WikiHannibal:

Source [10] in translate.google → "He writes a weekly article every Saturday in Al Hayat. He has 3 books: Saudi Arabia after September 11, titled "Critical Relationships" by Riad Najib Al-Rayes and "Rabee Al-Arab, The Brotherhood's Time", published in February 2013."--87.170.199.75 (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Has he written three books, or was he just a contributor to those three? The authors seem to be named others? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No matches for his name on abebooks.com or amazon.com. The closest is this match for a book published by "Riad Al Rayes" (Unfortunately, I don't read Arabic), Huldra (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I found 4 books, 2 of which are mentioned in the blog. Of course the names are not the same as translated by google translator. Feel free to edit my comment for better clarity, and/or add the books to the article.

1) Saudi Arabia after September 11, titled "Critical Relationships" by Riad Najib Al-Rayes (Riyad al-Rayyis = publisher, 2002) and similar, ebook

2) Rabee Al-Arab, The Brotherhood's Time, published in February 2013.

3) ?? not named in the blog article

4) http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1021295090 , 1996

5) http://www.worldcat.org/title/ruyat-muwatin-2030-wa-bi-hamishihi-al-ilal-al-failah-lil-tahawwul-al-watani/oclc/1054081105 2018

WikiHannibal (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: Very, very cool WikiHannibal! Would you please add the books to the article? --87.170.197.111 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, if you wish to have some info about them added in some form, write the text as it should be added, and where, and I am sure it will be accepted. UPDATE: See also https://jamalkhashoggi.com/index.php/books/ WikiHannibal (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

well according to Arabic Wikipedia he wrote three books

• Critical relations - Saudi Arabia after 9/11[11]
• Spring of the Arabs and the time of Muslim brotherhood[12]
• Occupation of the Saudi market[13]

This is my own translation of their titles. They are all in Arabic so I don't know if it's necessary to add them to English Wikipedia. I don't know much about them but the first one talks about how bad was 9/11 events to the relationship between Arabs and America and how Israel exploit that to justify the occupation and also he criticised Bush and his policy. SharabSalam (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose your first two are my 1) and 2), not sure if your third one is my 5), perhaps you can add year of publishing? WikiHannibal (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The Khashoggis as intel assets

• @Martinevans123: Please help again.

• @DanGong: Why did you did that: [14]!? Please take the time to read the refs before you put "Added 'citation needed' tag". The "dispatches" are those from Khashoggi. Please resort the statement regarding Sudan. The Khashoggi's interview with bin Laden in Sudan is an important one. Hassan al-Turabi played a key role in the 1989 coup d'état that brought Omar al-Bashir to power, he once also hosted bin Laden. Al-Turabi championed radical Islam in the 1990s, inviting bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to Sudan, which became a safe haven for jihadists (War in Darfur). Khashoggi traveled to Sudan to meet bin Laden, but bin Laden refused to back down from his new mission of fighting Americans in the Arabian Peninsula.

Please read:

• Dispatches_(book)

• Operation Cyclone: "However Sir Martin Ewans noted that the Afghan Arabs "benefited indirectly from the CIA's funding, through the ISI and resistance organizations,"[62] and that "it has been reckoned that as many as 35,000 'Arab-Afghans' may have received military training in Pakistan at an estimated cost of $800 million in the years up to and including 1988."[63] Some of the CIA's greatest Afghan beneficiaries were Arabist commanders such as Haqqani and Hekmatyar who were key allies of bin Laden over many years.[64][65] Haqqani—one of bin Laden's closest associates in the 1980s—received direct cash payments from CIA agents, without the mediation of the ISI. This independent source of funding gave Haqqani disproportionate influence over the mujahideen.[44] Haqqani and his network played an important role in the formation and growth of al Qaeda, with Jalalhuddin Haqqani allowing bin Laden to train mujahideen volunteers in Haqqani territory and build extensive infrastructure there.[66]"

• and Timber Sycamore!!!

• https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/death-of-a-dissident-saudi-arabia-and-the-rise-of-the-mobster-state: "Worse, from the royals’ point of view, was that Khashoggi had dirt on Saudi links to al Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks. He had befriended Osama bin Laden in the 1980s and 1990s in Afghanistan and Sudan while championing his jihad against the Soviets in dispatches. At that same time, he was employed by the Saudi intelligence services to try to persuade bin Laden to make peace with the Saudi royal family. The result? Khashoggi was the only non-royal Saudi who had the beef on the royals’ intimate dealing with al Qaeda in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. That would have been crucial if he had escalated his campaign to undermine the crown prince."

• Jamal Khashoggi was also an operator for Saudi and U.S. intelligence services. "Khashoggi couldn’t have traveled with the mujahideen that way without tacit support from Saudi intelligence, which was coordinating aid to the fighters as part of its cooperation with the CIA against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan." ... "Khashoggi’s intellectual interests were shaped in his early 20s when he studied in the United States and was also a passionate member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The brotherhood was a secret underground fraternity that wanted to purge the Arab world of the corruption and autocratic rule it saw as a legacy of Western colonialism. Khashoggi was hardly alone in this belief." "An important confrontation between Khashoggi and bin Laden came during a 1995 interview in Sudan. Wright recounts how bin Laden bragged about how his terrorism would drive the United States from the Arabian Peninsula. The journalist pressed him to disavow violence inside Saudi Arabia: “Osama, this is very dangerous. It is as if you are declaring war. You will give the right to the Americans to hunt for you.” Bin Laden refused Khashoggi’s efforts to get a statement on the record." ... " He wrote a column on Sept. 10, 2002, saying that Arabs should recognize that bin Laden had attacked Saudi Arabia and Islam when he struck the twin towers." ... “When I speak of the fear, intimidation, arrests and public shaming of intellectuals and religious leaders who dare to speak their minds, and then I tell you that I’m from Saudi Arabia, are you surprised?” [15]

Jamal Khashoggi supported the Muslim Brotherhood during the "Arab Spring". This was in line with the US administration supported regime change program for most of the Middle East. After the fall of President Mubarak in Egypt and the election win by the Brotherhood the Saudi rulers feared to be the next in line. They started to finance counter revolutions in Egypt and elsewhere. MbS finances the US occupation in Syria. Under the reign of King Salman and his son the suppression of all aspects of Brotherhood influence intensified.

• Peter Dale Scott: The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy. The arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi was a Saudi CIA asset. (Is he the most famous one? Trivia: The Khashoggi superyacht was in the James Bond movie Never Say Never Again and later was acquired by Donald Trump!) --87.170.197.111 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

IP87, that's quite a reading list, and quite a large amount of material. Almost like an essay, in fact. My advice to you - create your own account. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Why was his birth date updated without a confirmation?

Hello there, It came into my attention that Jamal's birth date was updated right after his fiance comment on his birthday. I always knew that Wikipedia is in the neutral side. Two evidences were provided that his birth date is in March. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpgPEBnXgAUfADQ.jpg His tweet which is still on his account: https://twitter.com/JKhashoggi/status/48449489484251136 His instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/liOiMzGASM/ Her tweet: https://twitter.com/mercan_resifi/status/1051146067008544769

Regarding his passport date, 50ish years ago there wasn't any birth documentation for most saudis until they went to get it and the government decided to use 1st of Rajab (The seventh month of Arabic calendar), which shows in his Arabic birth date on the right side 1/7/1377. (I would assume this is a theory, and believe in his posts because they were made by him)

Both posts approve that his birth date is in March (either 13 or 14), I think this needs to be looked into to refute the lies. --VAlcatraz (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NTY (not his fiance) is a reliable source. A Twitter account is not a source. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Death details in lead section

Re this removal, with the edit summary "(reduce bloating of lede, lede is meant for summary)" we're saying that the highly unusual nature of his death is not one of the most notable things about him and is not worth summarizing, yes? And that it is just "bloat" in the lead? I'm quite surprised by that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Martinevans123, the lead as it stands right now is very short and nowhere near bloated. Plus this content is entirely relevant and explains the seriousness. I believe the removal of this content from the lead was unjustified and should be added back. If there are valid justifications to trim the content we can discuss that, but removal is not justified.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note a correction first, I didn't removed the text, just moved it to more appropriate section and it was later removed by another editor as duplicate of another paragraph. The lede currently well summarized the article to give a casual reader overview of what the matter is all about and it's not short as claimed in respect to its size. There's no way for everything to be recapitulated in lede. This article is currently in mess as every new theory is dumped which are largely recycling and further recycling of news/evidence from anonymous Turkish sources, where there's little to no Press freedom. So if you want add the text, do it as you see fit. I just gave my view and may well differ with yours –Ammarpad (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally I think the lead is OK as it is, until confirmed/official statements from some authority appear on the death/disappearance. I understand that people want to expand the lead to reflect the most recent "news". In that case please consider that 1) murder/dismemberment are already covered in the lead; if more details are to be added, I think it would be better to expand on that statement rather than just simply add new "news". 2) WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." 3) Do not forget that what is reported about the murder/dismemberment are mostly rumors by anonymous Turkish sources, usually not confirmed by any other source. To cite them, esp. in the lead, introduces unreliable sources into the article, and creates WP:UNDUE; for more see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I can accept the argument made from "reliability" or "recentism" far more readily than any made on the basis of supposed "bloating". The article needs to avoid any accusations of sensationalism or lurid headline, of course. But I think most readers would agree that, while the murder of this innocent man would be considered unusual enough, the manner in which it is claimed it was performed takes the episode into wholly different realms of notability. So I would have no objection to seeing the very minor reference to "murdered and dismembered" slightly enlarged with some of the detail contained the article. I think the fact that we have the single name of one well-identified individual the most notable aspect. But then perhaps considerations of sub judice must apply here? In which case perhaps he should not be named at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that we now seem to have the names and mugshots of all 15 suspects. So I think the lead might need to at least mentioned that the 15 alleged perpetrators have been identified and their names and photographs published? Perhaps someone will advise Mr Pompeo to just to read just this article instead on his way back to The White House? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Mugshots of suspects or standard airport pictures of travellers? Who knows? ;-) Anyway, no official statemnts about who did it and what in fact they did.WikiHannibal (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry was wearing my tabloid glasses. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Censorship

Why is Dr.K. wiping mass amounts of content from the article? This includes wiping out sourced information on his disappearance. Is this legitimate or should the deleted content be restored?

Some of the stuff he’s deleted include:

"Khashoggi was dragged from the Consul General’s office at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and onto the table of his study at the next room. Horrendous screams were then heard by witnesses in the consulate. The screaming stopped when Khashoggi was injected with an as yet unknown substance."

"At that same time, he was employed by the Saudi Arabian intelligence services to try to persuade bin Laden to make peace with the Saudi Arabian royal family."

"It was not clear whether the Saudi Arabians intended to arrest and interrogate Khashoggi or to kill him, or if the US warned Khashoggi that he was a target." LissanX (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he just deleted sourced material. @Dr.K.:

No, he deleted text which was copied verbatim from the sources. See WP:COPYVIO. That isn't allowed. If you want to use those sources to write your own, original text, please do so. --Jayron32 18:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you regard the names of the hotels, where these suspects stayed, as copyrightable? Or indeed the details describing the means by which they flew to Turkey? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving Reactions to the Bottom

I wanted to propose moving the reactions section to the bottom of the article, and have investigation below disappearance. What do you think? LissanX (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree. It makes sense to read chronologically. --Aleccat 02:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree - sensible proposal which is widely followed in other articles as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Done during the complete restructuring of the section. Hope it is OK. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Images from Commons added by User:LissanX

All of the Commons images added to the article by @LissanX: appear to have copyright issues (and were uploaded to Commons by that user). I've tagged them for deletion on Commons. William Graham ^talk 03:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I’m not Wiki-savy but all of those images have been reproduced countlessly across the internet. LissanX (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia Commons is for free and freely licensed media. Images that fall under WP:FAIRUSE may generally be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, but I am less familiar with those policies. (I spend most of my time on Commons and Wikidata.) Those images may be appropriate for uploading to English Wikipedia, but I would encourage you to look into English Wikipedia policies first. I can say with some confidence that the images are not appropriate for Commons. William Graham ^talk 03:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 15-member Saudi intel squad.jpg
• Mohammad al-Otaibi.jpg
• Mohammed bin Salman and Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ahmad Asiri.jpg
• Salah Mohammed Al-Tubaiqi in uniform (cropped).jpg
• Starving Yemeni child and mother.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete claims of live dismemberment until corroborated

The horrific and sensational claims about Kashoggi being dismembered while still alive, should be treated with healthy scepticism.

The only source for the claims, which contradict other coverage such as CNN, are the Middle East Eye, who don't go into detail on their own sources.

The Middle East Eye is owned by the Qatari government, and have a long history of pro-Qatari articles, sensational claims and journalistic campaigns against Saudi Arabia.

That's their prerogative, and why Qatars government signs their paychecks. But I would suggest that they're not a reliable source in this case given their ownership and history.

I would suggest that we remove the claims, at keast until they have been coroberated by a second source. (Who isn't just quoting MEE.)

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.137.71 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Our article for Middle East Eye currently says this: "Additionally, according to The Guardian, MEE has been noted by Saudi Arabia as a news outlet funded by Qatar (both directly and indirectly); But it does not say: "The Middle East Eye is owned by the Qatari government". If that is indeed a fact, for which you have reliable sources, I would strongly suggest that you add it to that article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure that details can be removed from an article just because they may appear to be "horrific". I believe a number of sources have suggested that Khashoggi was cut into pieces, not just Middle East Eye? MEE may be the sole source for the identities of all of the suspects, but not for the details of what they are alleged to have done. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think several sources have reported on the dismemberment (after all, nearly everyone seems to agree that the forensic specialist brought a bone saw), but I don't know if anyone have reported on it being done while he's still alive which weren't either quoting MEE, or quoting sources quoting MEE. While I know this is somewhat ORish, a complicating factor IMO is that how they claim to the conclusion he was still alive is unclear. If you look at the report [16] they appear to suggest he was tortured and screaming until injected with something and then dismembered. While some sources have said video was available, most sources are now just saying audio including the MEE. (With Turkish sources claiming that it came from the iWatch, but no one even those who fully believe they have it believing that claim, most seem to think it was from what nearly everyone does [17] even if they aren't supposed to i.e. a bugged consulate.) How they concluded he was still alive if they only had audio is unclear. It may be the time frame, I think nearly injected substance will take at least a few minutes to kill although it would also be somewhat hard to predict [18]. It could be something that was said during or after. It could be that it's impossible to be sure if all they have is the audio and no other good evidence whether he was still alive. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair appraisal. There are very many grey areas and unanswered questions. Perhaps it is only MEE that claims he was still alive (even if not conscious). I suspect that those anonymous sources would probably not know why he was screaming. Perhaps just from fear or being brutally dragged? I'm also not sure how much experience the Saudis might have with lethal injection - they seem to favour other methods of capital punishment, for example? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• العميد الركن أحمد العسيري.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Twitters suspends accounts appearing to smear Jamal Khashoggi

I believe this should be added to reactions section, Thoughts ? --DBigXrayᗙ 12:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References

No objections to a brief mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done WikiHannibal (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Spoonmaker

I see that the origin of the surname appears at Khashoggi and that's where it belongs. But I'm struggling to see how it is relevant here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123, I added that info here, as an etymology section, that most of our BIO contains. It is relevant due to the turkish origins of his name, even though he was a Saudi citizen. The turkish meaning is not expected to be known by the Arabs which he was a citizen of. People will be wondering about this piece of information, hence I belief, this article merits including it here. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see any evidence that "most of our BIO contains" an etymology. In fact, I'm struggling to find even one other. How does this factoid help the reader understand him? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I also do not see the relevance of the etymology and doubt that "most of our BIO contains" that. Turkish origin is OK but why the Spoonmaker? WikiHannibal (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate IMO. And no, most of our BIO's do not contain that. I'm removing it if someone has not already. Gandydancer (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I had given my reasons above. if the consensus wants a removal, so be it. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to state that the name is of Turkish origin, even though that's far from the norm for biographical articles in general, as I understand it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Duplicate. To comment on this discussion go to Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 3#RFC: Should be create a new section about "what is going on between Khashoggi's family and Saudi government?".

---

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) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You put this in the TP of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. Please don't add the same conversation into two places at once. Also, this is not a properly formatted RfC and it isn't true. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Forest90, did you even read what I had already posted directly above this, with the heading "Blood money?" R2 (bleep) 16:22, 8 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.