Jump to content

Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 131: Line 131:


*'''Strongly Oppose''' per sources. Reliables sources use assassination. --[[User:Panam2014|Panam2014]] ([[User talk:Panam2014|talk]]) 21:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Oppose''' per sources. Reliables sources use assassination. --[[User:Panam2014|Panam2014]] ([[User talk:Panam2014|talk]]) 21:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per relevant sources. [[User:Sorabino|Sorabino]] ([[User talk:Sorabino|talk]]) 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


== Reactions split proposal ==
== Reactions split proposal ==

Revision as of 20:28, 5 January 2019


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 28 December 2018

Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi → Killing of Jamal Khashoggi – I am starting this RM after getting permission of the closing admin of the previous RM.[1]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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, [2], [3]),
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)[reply]
Whoever he's talking to, the comment is out of order. Deb (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed because I never made any edits to this page before this RM. Rzvas (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, you don't bring a bone saw to a rendition, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reactions split proposal

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

Sounds fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:04, January 3, 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi&oldid=876987304"