Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi

List of alleged perpetrators

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

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

Requested move 20 October 2018

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

Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi

• Support -- and I advise that this comment section is immediately closed. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/assassination
• Support as an extraterritorial planned killing of a dissident by Saudi Arabia Danski454 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support This was not just a death, Saudi Arabia has already admitted he was killed[1]. A political murder is called Assassination, so this is a clear choice. Reliable sources are also calling it Assassination / assassinated / assassination Squad [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]--DBigXrayᗙ 12:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I went through your sources but did nof find what you said was there. There is always some catch - "apparent assassination", "appears to be an assassination" etc. Even the newspapers cannot say he was assassinated because nobody knows that. What I found is below for anybody to check. But I am afraid this discussion has been tainted by your shallow (I'm sorry) interpretation of the articles. (I mean other editors did not even look into the articles, I suppose, just took your word on it. So, 1 "apparent killing" and "apparent assassination"; 2 "apparent assassination" (same quote used in [1]); 3 "Turkish authorities ... leaked information ... indicating Khashoggi had been assassinated"; 4 "allegedly assassinated" 5 "killing" in the title, cannot access the rest; 6 "assassinated journalist", "what increasingly appears to be an assassination" - this article is not news but labeled "Opinion" = Opinion piece; 7 "Turkish authorities ... narrated the crisis ...attention on what they said was ... assassination", [Turkish] "officials ... Khashoggi was assassinated" Feel free to edit/add to my quotes if anyone finds a mistake or something. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Support This was not a death, Saudi Arabia has already admitted he was killed.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Oh...that's very silly to assume he was accidentally killed. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support for the aforementioned reasons. (talk) user:Al83tito  12.50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support 'Assassination' seems to be the appropriate word here. No-one has yet made a persuasive case for the use of an alternative term. Concordiac (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support: the Saudi government's claims have been evolving over the past few weeks and make it hard to consider it a reliable source on the Khashoggi killing, and it's obviously not a source with a reputation for fact-checking; it's now uncontroversial that Khashoggi was killed extrajudicially (illegally) in the consulate; it's uncontroversial that Khashoggi was a political opponent of the Saudi government and that the Saudi government wanted him to stop his political activities; so wikt:assassination - murder for political reasons is well-sourced. Boud (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Support this since this best fits the current narrative, as well as some of the possible narratives that may emerge based on whatever we know till date. VP101 (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support as RS are describing this as an assassination. We don't necessarily use what those involved(such as Saudi Arabia) call it, it's what independent observers call it. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Unless we know that the Saudis were intentionally planning on killing him, "assassination" is far too strong a word, even if RSes are using it. --Masem (t) 16:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it not Original Research to ban the words used by reliable sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The "assassination" is what the Turkish gov't are calling it, so they are involved, and most sources are repeating that. Neither BBC or NYtimes seem to use "assassination" to describe this situation. --Masem (t) 17:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources said it was an assassination, so it was an assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose there is currently zero evidence for this. Even if there was, it would be provided by someone taking a side, and it would be POV. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support The right descriptive title and as used by reliable sources. He's an international figure and even the Saudis, after all the dithering, they now admit he's "killed" (read: assassinated). They lacked the effrontery to claim "we found him 'dead'" so we cannot just say he's dead.–Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, until we can establish what actually happened. This is Paul (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral, prefer Murder. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support it was an extraterritorial planned killing. The FBI is helping the Turkish LE, the intel was shared. Some, it seems, do not like to read. Please watch this video: "Inside the Turkish newspaper landing some of the most explosive Khashoggi scoops", VICE news, it's only 7 Min. long. It took seven minutes for Jamal Khashoggi to die. --87.170.201.82 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't know yet on who's orders was he assassinated. Until a specific governmental issued report by either Turkey, US, or Saudi Arabia claim that he was assassinated we shouldn't call this assassination yet, wait until official details regarding the death becomes more evident instead of just echos media speculations. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - political killings are called assassinations, and there are a large number of sources calling it this. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support He was killed for political reasons, so this title makes sense. Felicia777 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose There is no logical reason to believe that this was an assassination. It's perfectly normal for 15 people tied to the Saudi Crown Price to engage in casual conversation with a well known dissident, which happens to include use of a bone saw, and accidentally leads to a death without cause. Anything short of a full fledged confession from the Saudi government, we cannot simply conclude the obvious. It's unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C003:9A33:3DB2:3918:2B18:4419 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No indication why he died yet. Even if later absolutely clear that the prince ordered his death to quash a reform campaign, that's just oppression. "Assassination" tends to work best where the victim is the relatively prominent political figure, and the killer doesn't routinely kill his enemies (on purpose and by accident) to maintain an already-strong position in command of armed forces. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

Your statements are patently false. It is entirely clear that he was dismembered alive with a bone saw. Furthermore, Khashoggi WAS a prominent individual. He was well known as a former Royal Court insider and advisor to the Royal Family. His prominence is what led him to be targeted by the government even while he was in exile in the United States. Assassination is the killing of a prominent individual, often (but not necessarily) for political reasons. There is nothing in its definition that precludes direct or indirect perpetrators being even more prominent than the prominent victim. Nor does the definition preclude an actor engaging in many assassinations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C003:9A33:A100:D014:24C7:5133 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

He's prominent, no doubt, just not relative to his (supposed) assassin. Anyway, my statements are just my opinions on where the word works best. For my prefered dictionary definition, we still lack the "murder" and "political reasons" bits. The article only has opinions on those. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I do not think this is intended as a discussion. Unsigned IP, it is by no means clear "that he was dismembered alive with a bone saw." Such info is not confirmed by any side. Also do you think that if you push the mayor of your town in the pub, he trips and dies, you assassinated him? According to Oxford English Dictionry, it is "The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack, typically with a political or ideological motive, sometimes carried out by a hired or professional killer." WikiHannibal (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support: A political murder is an assassination. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 13:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Agreed, a political murder is an assassination.--75.162.34.152 (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If you want to have that in the title, and claim reliable sources say it was assassination, perhaps it would be wise to add that word into the article first, including the sources. It will no doubt be a useful addition to the lead of the article as well. Just to make thing clear, "alleged assassination", citing anonymous sources which say he was assassinated, or assassination written in quotation marks, is journalese unfit for the title. But we can use Alleged assassination in the title, if you wish ;-) BTW Even the killing is frequently described as "alleged". WikiHannibal (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Looking around on wp, I see that "Assassination of" is usually used when the victim is a prominent figure, and when it was premeditated, both of which were the case here, Huldra (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support A killing done for political reasons is clearly an assassination. Kashoggi's position as a journalist and a dissident makes his death highly political. Our articles shouldn't dance around issues with euphemistic titles; sources call it an assassination, and thus we should follow suit.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support as the most specific portrayal of event in question. It is clear that Death of Jamal Khashoggi occurred, that such death can be described, at the very least, as Killing of Jamal Khashoggi, that such killing rose to the level of Murder of Jamal Khashoggi and that, due to the victim's prominence, such murder should be properly characterized as an assassination.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support it was certainly an assassination not just a killing --SharabSalam (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support He was ambushed and killed while attempting to do a fairly mundane task of receiving a marriage license. This is clearly an assassination, especially because he was a politically outspoken journalist critical of the regime. Assassination doesn't point fingers, it just states what happened. Air♠Combat_Talk! 07:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. I believe we should follow the sources when a title turns out to be this controversial, not our personal interpretations of what happened. Statements like "political murder = assassination" should be avoided in RM discussions. Wikipedians should be trend followers, not trend makers. A Google News search, in my case, generates 23,600,000 results for khashoggi "death", 18,700,000 results for khashoggi "murder", 12,800,000 results for khashoggi "killing", 4,870,000 results for khashoggi "affair", and only 863,000 results for khashoggi "assassination". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The above is a completely bogus argument. And appears to me from your quotes above that you have a weak understanding of WP:GOOGLEHITS and how search engine works. Please note that a vast majority of the "23,600,000 pages as results" for khashoggi "death" will have only death mentioned and "Khashoggi" missing i.e, they are irrelevant. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I clearly said "in my case", but you are welcome to conduct your own Google survey. And here's the last paragraph in WP:GOOGLEHITS:

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.

I relied on Google News for my results, in case you haven't noticed.

Please note that a vast majority of the "23,600,000 pages [...] will have only death mentioned and "Khashoggi" missing - Highly doubt it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray, I share Fitzcarmalan doubts but more importantly, if you search in news for "khashoggi death", you get 1 million hits, for "khashoggi killing" some 862 thousand, while for "khashoggi assassination" only 19 thousand. I think you are jumping to conclusions far too quickly. Have you done a seach yourself? And I would welcome your comment to the analysis of your sources at the beginning of this discussion. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read this primer and [9] on how to use Quuotes properly with google search. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And be aware that the big numbers that magically always end in zeroes mean absolutely nothing worth knowing. "khashoggi death" gives "about 1,690,000 results" to me, but actually looking at the results finds 77. These include such relevant and timely information as a mass cull of rabbits, an unwitting killer drug dealer and Chester Bennington's suicide. Nobody knows why. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, October 22, 2018 (UTC)

Google Search for "Jamal Khashoggi" gives "About 33,700,000" results. I thought I could start checking them off now, and I might get to about 250 by Friday. Could someone else check the other 33,699,750? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I am sure you wil find more bunnies and dogs than what InedibleHulk could find.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, my investigation uncovered bunnies and drugs, not dogs. And I barely tried; they were hiding in plain sight on page eight. Giving "saudi dogs" the old college try, I find a whopping 180 results (of "about 6,950"). Many suggest Khashoggi died while being killed by murderous assassins, if that does us any good. There are also tales of literal Saudi dogs, but these raise more questions than answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, October 22, 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Premature. Saudis are still claiming a "fistfight" or some other story. No charges or convictions. Most MSM outlets are using death/killing-of at this point. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  As far as the Saudis, "or some other story" is right. That more credible sources use death or killing is a better argument. Jonathunder (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There's actually been some breaking developments in this regard in the last 24 hours: the Saudi foreign minister himself said the killing was a "murder" and that it was directed by highly-positioned officials working directly for the crown or security services, though who exactly they are is unclear: two of the crown prince's aides have been sacked and there's been at least 18 arrests: [10]. The Saudi narrative has now changed to reflect that Khashoggi was murdered, but now insisting that the crown prince played no role in ordering or sanctioning the killing. Before this most recent development, I think I would have been !voting as you did above, but at this stage, I think the move is now warranted. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And Reuters is still using Killing in their reporting of the Saudi foreign minister's comments - [11]. It's not that the article won't probably move eventually elsewhere - it's just still premature. Note that assassination vs. murder is also variable per the final outcome - if this was a sanctioned state action - assassination would be correct, not murder. However if we are to believe Saudi stories of things getting out of hand and personnel taking their own initiative in the consulate - then it would be murder. For now - killing simply covers all of the above possibilities. Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely get where you are coming from: even if this does clearly fit the definition of an assassination, we still should not be moving faster towards that description than the sources. That's why I almost !voted "neutral" on this, pending further developments in the sources, per WP:CRYSTAL. But at the end of the day, I decided WP:IAR may apply here: I very, very rarely use that policy as a predicate for my editorial decisions because I believe it is lazy and can lead to serious issues. But ultimately I just can't imagine this article is going to end up anywhere else than either "assassination of..." or "murder of..."; it's just too big a story at this point and there are too many stakeholders who will not want to allow a euphemistic or vague description in the way the event is publicly discussed, especially with the details the Saudi government has now disclosed.

On a side note, just to give you a head's up, Saudi officials have now stopped using the "fight that got out of hand" narrative and are now describing the murder in terms of a "rogue operation". Reports remain confused and inconsistent on the particulars, but many sources are now reporting that the audio recordings that the Turkish government says are in their possession came from a skype call originating from the office of a Saudi minster and aide to the crown prince--which minister apparently exchanged tense words with Khashoggi and then ordered his death directly. We'll have to see if this stabilizes as the story, but it is consistent with all previous information released by Turkey and would explain the origins of the recording (if not how Turkey intercepted it). Unfortunately, the truth is we may never know all of the details. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'm less concerned about how the assassins try to cover up the assassination than the fact it happened. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Though it seems probable that this was an occurrence of premeditated assassination (killing for a political motive), it would be premature to affirm this before either the Saudis admit it (thereby renouncing their version of accidental death) or an independently set up inquiry into the event establishes it, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as premeditated and deliberate. Burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and it is important for WP's credibility as an independent information platform that it not be susceptible to being seen as taking a political position before any of these scenarios occur. Lansonyte (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support: "Assassination" is generally used for prominent public figures. I'm not entirely sure the victim fits that criterium. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm entirely sure Michael Jackson fits that criteria, and since his killer raised sufficient doubt about intent to kill him, we generally call it the Death of Michael Jackson. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, October 22, 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think it necessary to explain assassinations obviously only apply to murders done to silence an influential political or religious figure... Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

He was the King of Pop. Far, far more people have been moved by his stances on various moral and civic issues ("Beat It", "Black or White", "Heal the World") than had ever read a Khashoggi article or attended a Khashoggi conference, especially while they were alive. Could have easily won election someday if he wanted, had he not been poisoned. Some say Obama couldn't have done it without him. The Saudi people are still rallying behind him in 2018, and they are not alone. He has often been called bigger than Jesus. I'd be surprised if half the people rooting for Khashoggi today even remember his name nine months from now; his online impression is already quickly fading from Trump-related stories, as all things must. Still, most importantly, no evidence of an assassination plot has surfaced, much less proof. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, October 23, 2018 (UTC)

• Support. There is no any doubt he was intentionally killed for political reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support. As of yesterday, even the Saudi government acknowledges that this was a targeted slaying carried out with the coordination of highly positioned crown and security officials: [12]. That tips the scales for me, as a pragmatic matter. The sources have not as yet caught up to begin uniformly describing this act as an assassination, and I will admit that raises WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL concerns for me with regard to leaping towards judging "Assassination of..." as the WP:COMMONNAME for this article (hence the "weak" in my !vote). Nevertheless, as I expect this discussion will run for a couple of weeks, I'm bringing my perspective into conformity with where I think the sources are absolutely likely to go, as a pragmatic matter. I may have to re-visit that perspective as the sources develop, but all things considered, I think this would serve as the most factually accurate and editorially responsible option, now that even the state apparatus from which this violence emanated admits that the killing was a targeted murder. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although we may be sure this is what happened, we need to wait for the full facts to come out, or at least for enough time to pass for independent sources to be able to draw a convincing conclusion as to what happened. Deb (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It can only be called an assassination if it is proved to be premeditated, but the jury is still out on that one, even though many sources are saying it was premeditated.Boardhead (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Boardhead, Deb it looks like you are looking for truth here, although we can guess the truth, but we really aren't concerned about it, please see WP:NOTTRUTH--DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No - I'm looking for referenceable facts (as opposed to popular opinion). Deb (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, what Deb said. Boardhead (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strongest support of the century. When you look at the meaning of "assassination", it clearly fits in with this context. (Anonymous user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.115.157 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support and speedy close because of the overwhelming support. JE98 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Given the recent coverage and the basic interpretation of the incident in mainstream media, there is just no doubt now. Capitals00 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm getting the feeling that a partial reason for a lot of the viewpoints here is based on whether the person voting thinks Khashoggi was actually killed or not. Personally, I'm on the side that it was a murder, but whatever. I haven't even read the article that thoroughly, so I might be wrong... Pie3141527182 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Death of Jamal Khashoggi

• Oppose This was not just a death, Saudi Arabia has already admitted he was killed. Also note WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Even Saudi official sources, no longer call this incident as death. see Saudi foreign minister says killing of Khashoggi was 'tremendous mistake', BBC: Khashoggi death: Saudi Arabia says journalist was murdered--DBigXrayᗙ 13:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose per euphemism. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  "Death" is not a WP:euphemism; "passing away" would be. Jonathunder (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support Until we have a exact picture of what happened, we have no idea if the Saudis planned to have killed him, intended to kill him, or the like. "Assassination" is far too strong at this point, and without knowing intent, "murder" is also the same. We now know he died, so "Death" is the most conservative choice at this time. --Masem (t) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  No. If the Saudis have conceded it, it is not a death. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  He died, by some means. We don't know if the death was planned or intentional, yet. Certainly there was some physical altercation that ended in his death. --Masem (t) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  A physical altercation is a murder. Also, there are proof that is was an assassination. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  Death caused because of a physical altercation does not necessarily mean it was a murder. It depends on the circumstances of that altercation, and that's something we don't know at present. This is Paul (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact that he was killed has been much more significant to world politics than his legacy (at least for now). wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Even the Saudis themselves they didn't call it 'mere death'. He was "killed". Death is plainly wrong. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find that murder necessarily involves a death, so it can't be "plainly wrong". I think you might argue that the term is inadequate in accurately reflecting what the Saudi government has claimed. Although there is still precious little evidence that he is actually even dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately all cessation of living functions by living thing is "death" no matter what method was employed or how people refer it, be it natural death, suicide, euthanasia, killed by sword, killed by 15 murder squad or whatnot. I mean plainly wrong in the sense that this is whitewashing it for Saudis and downplaying the murder which is now beyond doubt to any reasonable person. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose non-neutral whitewashing. Murder is murder, plain and simple. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - like DBigXray, Panam2014, Ribbet32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.201.82 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)‎
• Oppose as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I've said below, we can be more specific than "death" and call it a homicide, which is consistent with the official version of events (at least the Saudis aren't using that old "he fell down the stairs a few hundred times" excuse) without implying any evil intent on anyone's part. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Saudi Arabia only says he died during a fight (so all main parties now agree the "death of Jamal Khashoggi" occured). This could be a homicide, accident or natural stress reaction. Even presuming homicide, based on arrests, the accused have a trial upcoming before murder is decided or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

• "[A]ccident or natural stress reaction."?! It can also be "suicide." I think. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

Sure, if we want to cover all bases, for some reason. Personally, I can't imagine someone feeling lonely or depressed enough while buzzing on adrenaline. Call me closed-minded, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROPORTION. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, he didn't just die of "natural causes": he was killed, and it was planned, Huldra (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Are there any reliable secondary sources saying that it was "planned"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support (2nd choice to killing). Factually accurate and not in dispute (i.e. even if murdered - he died). Most MSM outlets are using death/killing-of at this point. Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: This was most common in sources before the admissions and evidence, but has become obsolete. It's already known that he was killed. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support: even the Saudi current story admits he died (perhaps in a fistfight with a bone saw). "Death" does not preclude assassination, killing, murder, or any other form of homicide. Let's let readers draw their own conclusions from the article, not from the title, which should be as NPOV as possible. Jonathunder (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Jamal Khashoggi

• Support while he could have been assassinated, no official yet (Turkey, US, Saudi Arabia) has claimed that it was an assassination apart from journalism. Murder describes the situation now the best instead of "Death" which implies he died randomly or "Assassination" which implies he was politically assassinated. We may included an "alleged assassination" in the article and show all the details which supports it, just not confirm it as the pure truth on the name of the article since there are conflicting stories and we should be neutral and not take sides. Wikiemirati (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Support, as per Wikiemirati. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support but assassination is better. Source said it was an assassination, with a planning. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No convictions. I oppose this title unless Saudi Arabia itself admits to murdering Khashoggi. We should absolutely not rely on partisan courts like the ICJ, which ordered the U.S. to lift its Iran sanctions on the same day that Khashoggi was killed. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia heard you and did what you asked them to do. Khashoggi death: Saudi Arabia says journalist was murdered--DBigXrayᗙ 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: It has been established that he was killed, but as yet we do not know the circumstances in which that happened. This is Paul (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not much used by sources like assassination . –Ammarpad (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support Concise and neutrally factual.Supported by sources [13] [14] Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There was an Order to kill. Therefore it is not a murder. When the crown prince and minister of defense gives orders, you obey or you are die. Insubordination is not an option. The commander, Gen Assiri, who trained at Sandhurst, had only recently taken up the number two position in the Saudi intelligence community. ... It is not clear if he would face any judicial proceedings. --87.170.201.82 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Where's your source for this "Order to kill"? I'm sure that would be welcomed in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support Although this may be an assassination, it is definitely a murder. Most media seem to be using the word 'murder'. Changing to assassination would just make the page harder to get to to for most users. Darkonc (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as I do this naming on principle when no one has been convicted. If the Saudis charge anyone they've arrested for this, we can, I suppose, call it Jamal Khashoggi murder case. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support as it matches other Wikipedia pages such as Murder of James Bulger, Murder of John Lennon, and Murder of Laquan McDonald. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Those articles contain murder convictions. This one doesn't. Not a match. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

Those are not political murders. A political motivated murder is an assassination. @PlanetDeadwing:--87.170.193.158 (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, it was a planned assassination; a "murder" can be spontaneous (more or less), an assassination implies planning...with 15 men flown in to Istanbul for the job, that was surely the case here, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It is more accurately an assassination. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 03:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Most of the sources I'm reading describe Khashoggi's death as a murder, and it seems even Saudi Arabia is tepidly admitting it was a murder. Whether this murder rises to the level of assassination in its execution is to be determined by impending investigations. ^Falling_Gravity 04:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose not having enough numbers in the mainstream media which WP:COMMONNAME requires. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature. Saudis are still claiming a "fistfight" or some other story. No charges or convictions. Most MSM outlets are using death/killing-of at this point. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support: Appears to now be the most used term in reliable sources following the recent revelations. He WAS killed and, apart from the Saudi government, few sources appear to promote the claim that it was entirely accidental. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons I opposed "assassination" at this stage of the enquiry. Deb (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support: It is confirmed that he was killed, and the vast majority of evidence states he was murdered. Few claim it was an accident, mainly the Saudi regime, which frankly have no credibility. He word 'murder' better depicts the nature of this gruesome event. LissanX (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Assassination is a word that is used by people who oppose the other side, so it violates WP:NPOV. Therefore, Murder is more accurate as a word to use for this article.

Killing of Jamal Khashoggi

• Another possibility to consider. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - All parties seem to agree that he was "killed", one way or another, for whatever reason. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a neutral title. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support since it has been established that he was killed. This is Paul (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support as it was clear that he was killed, just whether it was planned or intentional remains in question. --Masem (t) 17:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Although I believe assassination is better word here and is used by sources, I can't deny the fact this one is correct too. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• 'Weak Support more better than death. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as per Masem Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • But now Steadily weakening in the light of the latest Reuters report on the audio. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose non-neutral whitewashing. Murder is murder, plain and simple. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha. So you don't need any time-wasting legal formalities like a trial or a verdict? And I think that User:Boud might also wish to take issue with you that "assassination" (if that is what it actually turns out to be) is actually technically something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL. No trials or verdicts in the Whitechapel murders and Jack the Ripper cases either. I guess in your mind Mary Ann Nichols, who is ID'd as a murder victim in her lede, was not actually murdered. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't try to guess what's in my mind. This is the 21st century, isn't it, not Victorian London (even in Riyadh)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as giving WP:UNDUE weight to the KSA POV, in comparison to the Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi title - the most recent KSA POV is a small minority POV in the sources. In other words, this title is a euphemism denying the overwhelming opinion of the sources that the killing was political. (See Discussion section below.) Boud (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support as the best of these title options. But I would prefer Jamal Khashoggi homicide as the least POV yet most accurate title possible at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

While homicide does appear to be the admitted-to least common denominator right now, do we really want to rename the article every day, as more details emerge? Killing does not preclude homicide (or murder or assassination.) Let the article evolve until everyone has released all their evidence and made all their denials and accusations, and once the dust has settle, then we can rename it to Murder of, Assassination of or whatever. It seems extremely unlikely that Homicide of would be the final title, so why go through the additional iteration? I don’t think that’s how WP article names are supposed to work. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Better than "Murder" or "Assassination", just precludes the (slight) possibilities of a cardiopulmonary issue or fall while fleeing. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

Which RS state that is a possibility? Do the Saudis typically dismember someone who has a cardiopulmonary issue or falls in their consulates? 331dot (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about Saudis, but getting rid of a body when an attempted kidnapping, robbery, rape, beating or extortion goes south is only human. As is claiming they left alive and you have no idea where they went next, if anyone asks. Of course, the same goes for premeditated murder. Disposal alone doesn't prove anything, but it can hinder your prosecutor's attempts to prove anything, too. It might indicate the disposers didn't have impunity, as someone carrying out state orders might, but it also might not. When in doubt, vaguer is generally better. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

That is a patently absurd rationale. If you attack someone with a deadly weapon and with the intent to kill them, and they fall in flight and die from being impaled by accident, you have still murdered them. If you attack someone with intent to kill them, and they have a heart attack before you can suffocate them, you have still murdered them. Your reasoning is unbecoming of even a 10 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:c003:9a33:a100:d014:24c7:5133 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2018‎ (UTC)

That first thing is more like attempted murder and criminal negligence causing death. At least in Canada; the unlawful blow needs to do the actual killing for murder to stick, regardless of intent (see Death of Sammy Yatim). The second is more like a (normally) reasonable use of force to maintain control and gain compliance during an arrest. The intent (and action) of a carotid choke isn't to suffocate at all. Typical worst case scenario, the victim goes to sleep and wakes up soon after, a bit confused and tingly. In strange cases with unhealthy people, the stress of fighting the position itself can exacerbate existing conditions and kill without a murder (see Death of Eric Garner). Those cases aside, in this article there's nothing resembling a proven intent to kill, or even a charge of such, so a murder title isn't suitable. Maybe later. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

That was an unnecessarily cruel comment @InedibleHulk:! No RS ever stated that as a possibility. I hope some calls 9-1-1/medical emergency when you have a cardiopulmonary issue! And takes care of you.--87.170.198.80 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not my intent to be cruel or suggest I read it somewhere. Just saying the guy was almost sixty and did spend more time at a desk than a gym. There might be something to the idea that "If you put someone of Jamal's age in this position, he would probably die." Anyway, I hope paramedics reach you in time, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

• May I request all above, to utilize the section titled "Discussion" below for threaded debate. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Euphemism! (Like User:Boud) It was a premeditated murder! With a political motive. Khashoggi was a very prominent man, from a very prominent family - on a global level prominent. The Khashoggis are a well-known and affluent family in Saudi Arabia, since well before the times of Adnan Khashoggi. WP-category "Category:Khashoggi family". A planned, premeditated, killing = murder. With a political motive = an assassination.--87.170.198.80 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Please provide your source(s) that this was "premeditated murder!" You might also want to let Donald Trump, and a few other world leaders know, while you're at it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not sources. We in WP do not do OR :-) It's references. Of which I have plenty. And so you, Martinevans123, do! With "bonesaw" and "Salah Mohammed Tubaigy" it's logic. But what you are now doing, Martinevans123, it's called politics. World leaders, will have to find a modus vivendi after that period of barbarism in the Middle East. I (we?) just want to write an encyclopedic article. --87.170.198.80 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Sources, references, citations, basic material, published accounts, whatever you want to call them, ok? No, I don't believe I'm "doing politics". Tubaigy may have carried a bone-saw, but we don't yet know if he ever used it. Pretending that we do know he did is not "logic" And please don't try to connect me with defending "barbarism in the Middle East." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I tried to connect the hard work of diplomats, politicians and other representatives to a period of barbarism/ war - do not try to turn my words around in my mouth ;-) !!! Pretending we (en:WP) do not know certain facts is abominable. We know Tubaigy was in that consulat. We know Jamal is dead. We know a cleaning crew with three boxes of bleach entered that consulate just before the Turkish authorities went in to investigate. A bizarre and ridicule move, appreciated globally. Take care! --87.170.198.80 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Very sorry if you feel your efforts are wasted. Sorry also if I have misinterpreted your previous scolding. Feel free to add the three boxes of bleach to the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly support (for now) — Killing precludes neither murder nor assassination. Keep in mind that this is still a somewhat fluid situation. However plausible, the assassination hypothesis so far is based on nothing beyond anonymous (mostly Turkish) government sources. We can still rename the article once the Turks (and perhaps U.S. intelligence) have released all their evidence, the Saudis have made their (however implausible) denials, and world media has sifted through all of that. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Killing is not POV pushing, nor a euphemism for murder or assassination, it is rather inclusive of the aforementioned terms, and thus the title most resistant to capricious changes as new details emerge. It is uncontroversial that Khashoggi was killed. As far as we know, he didn't slip and fall, commit suicide, or die from disease, precluding other types of "deaths". He may well have been murdered and/or assassinated, but per WP:PRECISION, "killing" is sufficient to identify the context of the article. The text can explain (probably in excruciating, pedantic detail, if I know Wikipedians) the exact context and legal definitions of the manner of the killing. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While he was killed, it is more accurately an assassination. It was planned and 15 men were flown in for the job. Then Saudi Arabia lied to cover up by saying he had left the embassy from the back door. It is an assassination and the title should reflect that. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in support of Assassination which better clarifies a political killing. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. No factual dispute (the Saudis admitted he was killed (in a "fistfight" or some other story). Most MSM outlets are using death/killing-of at this point. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support for now --As other people have said this makes sense for now. Calicodragon (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Effectively picks the side of the Saudi government (that he was accidentally killed) over the multitude of reliable sources dismissing or doubting the claim. Most sources I see now appear to use "murder". Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Describes the topic perfectly under NPOV. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:BLPCRIME. While the evidence does point toward this being a politically motivated premeditated murder, this is still a developing situation, and I've not seen sources calling this an assassination enough to justify that title. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No doubt, he was assassinated. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Do reliable sources describe this as an assassination? 331dot (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• 331dot earlier the reliable sources were calling this disappearance. But since yesterday when the confirmation from Saudi Arabia about his killing came, assassination and killing are the 2 commonly used word. And Ever since the story first broke out 10 days ago, The killing squad was almost always called out as "assassination squad", so I believe we are well covered here. here are some of the sources. using Assassination [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]--DBigXrayᗙ 13:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikiemirati What independent sources like journalists call it is exactly what we are looking for, not terminology used by those involved, who have an interest in how the event is described. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliables sources sait it was an assassintion.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

331dot I understand your point, however journalists are not criminal investigators and we should follow what the official criminal investigation report states not journalist speculations, regardless if they are right or not. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

• Have changed my mind. No convictions, not even any charges. Can easily change in future if needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think charges or convictions are relevant here. Comparing the Wikipedia articles murder to assassination, there doesn't seem to be a strong legal aspect to the meaning of "assassination" - it seems to me that it doesn't mean that a court has decided the reason for a killing. Could a national level or international court case against any of the suspects (including the political leader presumed to have ordered the operation) change the "knowledge" of whether or not Khashoggi was killed for political reasons in the judgment of historians and political scientists who study the KSA? The only source giving an alternative point of view is the KSA government, which in this situation has shown itself to be extremely unreliable as an information source - it can't have not known that a major political opponent was killed in its consulate and then suddenly discover what happened. Boud (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT seem relevant: is "assassination" non-NPOV? The KSA, as of its most recent claim (conflicting with earlier claims), has the POV that the killing was accidental, not political. Is the KSA POV a WP:FRINGE POV? or a significant minority POV? Would "killing" be giving undue weight to the KSA POV that no journalistic sources take seriously? Boud (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NAME - for a descriptive name: NYT: lending credence to reports that the writer's assassination was planned. - NYT says it was an assassination, and probably planned; Independent Online (South Africa) title - "Khashoggi assassination: How safe are South African critics of Saudi Arabia?" - IOL says it was an assassination. Boud (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Those charged with murder usually get a trial in a court of law, not in IOL. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't see how a title of Assassination implies that any of the suspects are legally guilty. The political nature of the killing is a separate question than that of who is legally responsible. Boud (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree there is an important distinction. But currently we seem very long on press opinions and very short on actual facts. By the way, IOL also says this: "They'd also be mindful of the long reach of Saudi Mokhabarat (security forces) as the willful murder of Khashoggi demonstrates." So I'm not too convinced they even see that nice distinction here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Needing to have someone convicted for murder in court before we can describe it as such is an unrealistic standard. What about Murder of Junko Furuta? She died during torture and so the legal verdict was "committing bodily injury that resulted in death", but does that make it any less of a murder? The torture was planned and the likelihood of killing them was understood. For most people and, apparently, Wikipedians, that was enough. Wikipedia is not a legal document. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I have moved it to Killing of Jamal Khashoggi for now. This is not intended to confer preferential treatment on this title in the eventual conclusion of this RM, just that in the absence of any other stable title or agreement (and "Murder of..." certainly doesn't have agreement, looking in its section above), "Killing of..." is clearly the most neutral and least controversial title. There is no dispute that he was killed, whatever form that took. It should remain there until the RM is closed and a permanent name chosen. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• I have to wonder why Wikipedia even exists. It seems like most people discussing this view Wikipedia as existing only for the purpose of collating every ignorant or meaningless claim and counting them to see who wins Homecoming Queen. Or that Wikipedia only exists to repeat what other people have already said. There is absolutely no reason why it should be necessary for anyone to be charged and convicted before this is called a murder. That's patently absurd. Fortunately, justice systems don't rely on that kind of nonsensical reasoning, or it would be impossible to ever prosecute a murder before a conviction has been rendered. There is no reason to build "consensus", either. If one person says it's raining outside, and another person says it's dry outside, should we take a vote, or should we acknowledge the true facts? Nothing is accomplished by deferring to ignorance or absurdity. It does not matter whether other sources are using a particular vocabulary choice. The issue is not whether one or another title is neutral, it's whether the title is an accurate depiction of the facts. And the accurate depiction of the facts is that Jamal Khashoggi was assassinated. He was a prominent individual killed for political purposes. That is an indisputable fact, and it is also the very definition of an assassination. If you don't have the fortitude to state accurate facts, then stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia and start calling it a plagiarism platform for popularity contests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:c003:9a33:a100:d014:24c7:5133 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)‎

Um, yes. Wikipedia only exists to repeat what other people have already said in reliable sources. Well spotted. If the assassination is an indisputable fact, you ought to be able to provide the sources for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Khashoggi was dismembered alive with a bone saw has been widely reported by reputable news sources across the world. These news outlets have cited Turkish and other intelligence officials pointing to, among other evidence, audio recordings of the attack Khashoggi was able to make from his Apple watch, and were uploaded from there. If that is not good enough for you, then you need to go back to school with all the other angsty teenagers who want to argue a priori knowledge into a nihilist style excuse for why they refuse to follow the rules against smoking in the bathrooms. Seriously. You are demanding an absurd and unreasonable level of "proof". Is Wikipedia supposed to pretend that without access to classified information we cannot be sure that truth is truth?2601:140:C003:9A33:A100:D014:24C7:5133 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

“… has been widely reported by reputable news sources across the world” — and it looks like all of these many reports are based on a single (unnamed) Turkish government source. The fact that many RS around the world are repeating the source is not the same as having multiple sources. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And? You are demonstrating my point. You are demanding an irrational level of "proof". In any other instance, the fact that widespread international news agencies afford enough credibility to a single government source would be adequate. You are simply inventing excuses to ignore plain facts. But just to be clear, there is nothing that indicates all these many new reports all relate back to a single government official. All these news reports cite Turkish government officials for their information, but there is no indication that they all are using the same source, or that any of these news outlets know who the source was that gave info to their competitor outlets. You are doing nothing more than evading, and laughably so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C003:9A33:F0A1:DF10:7BB9:3631 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It depends with whom you wish to dispute. Thanks 2601 ;-) . --87.170.198.80 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Or even just a "fact" in the legal sense of that word. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable sources - please see my analysis of the sources at the beginning of "Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi" section. (I believe thy are the same as those in this Discussion section.) Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• #Tiger Squad = the brand new Assassination Squad for Mister bone Saw — "The Saudi leadership have the belief that arresting critics will mount pressure on them, so that's why they started assassinating them quietly." → methods vary: dismembering a life in only seven minute, helicopter crash, car crash, housefire, injections morphine ... or with deadly viruses. --87.170.201.105 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• My opposition to any move or change is due to the lack of conclusion to the appropriate investigation(s) and subsequent trial(s) and disposal(s), including "sanctions"; assassinations,murders,manslaughters,etc, result in death, often referred to as "unsanctioned killings" or "extrajudicial killings". The best course is to await the conclusions of justice, whilst working on perfecting the article as best possible. Silicon Wadi126.3.20.194 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Current template on top of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

InedibleHulk, Saudi is a commonly used term for the country by the mainstream media, go ahead, use it confidently. e.g. [22]--DBigXrayᗙ 06:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this qualify in terms of the Trump administration?

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

This is a US-Saudi-Turkey incident and not just Saudi-Turkey. After the news of the murder broke out, It was reported that how Trump responds will be the most important decision he takes that will have future ramifications. (I will skip the link as I can't find the link and forgot where and who said that, probably from CNN). Some papers have already criticized him for giving a "free pass", Joe and Mika calling it "Pathetic and a complete embarrassment" [23], John Oliver making some interesting observations. I am sure this incident will have a place on Trumps admin wiki page. How long will that section be, will depend on how Congress responds to his acts. It was reported that If Trump will not respond to Khashoggi killing, Congress might so clearly, it will be interesting to see how things proceed. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC) 

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

"Fistfight"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think these 2 sources [24][25] nail the source of the "fist fight" (saudi press statement)"The discussions between Jamal Khashoggi and those he met at the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul... devolved into a fistfight, leading to his death," the Saudi Press Agency said, citing the public prosecutor. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not just "cut the fingers", but actually "chop off the fingers", yes? The term "fist fight" now sounds a bit too ironic. Sky News said his head and other body parts were hidden in the Consul's garden with a "disfigured face": [26]. But later reports have added that the parts were in a well in that garden, e.g. RT - [27] Not a very well-thought out disposal plan, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Move to killing

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venn diagram

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

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

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

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

Body

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

The article currently says this:

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

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

References

Saudi Arabia transfers $100m to US State Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since all the major newspapers in the world (NYT, WaPo, FOX, CNN etc in US) are reporting this,[28] it merits a mention in the article. As editors its not our role to investigate why, but just to add the reported facts to the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Subsection for this

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

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

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

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

You may have "questions" I do not! That's a $100 million bribe. Trump officials will for ever insist the timing was pure coincidence. But Middle Eastern experts say something different. Has Saudi Arabia ever not paid up? = are specialists in corruption, blackmail and bribery. Brett McGurk is as disgusting, nauseating, repulsive, obnoxious, sickening and repugnant as Ahmad Asiri. McGurk as envoy to the coalition "fighting" the "Islamic State", organizes and pays the "moderate rebels". Read: [29]. "whom, and why" What do you want to know more: Joshua Landis: “In all probability, the Saudis want Trump to know that his cooperation in covering for the Khashoggi affair is important to the Saudi monarch”. And clown price Mohammed bone Saw wants that ‘Pulp Fiction’ video of the murder from Erdogan. --87.170.192.74 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Flags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Saudi King Salman, Crown Prince Mohammed meet Jamal Khashoggi family the expression when you know the killers. there is video too. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Saudis: We only planned to drug him Wow. this keeps getting interesting. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Who are the 15 men?

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

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

Sorting out Investigation and Killing sections

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

Pegasus Spyware on his Iphone or Android

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

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

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

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