Talk:Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Saudi propaganda needs to stop. Jamal Khashoggi was murdered.

This article must be updated to reflect this. He's dead and the Saudi government is responsible. That's a fact.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainBemused (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I consider what you say to be by far the most likely explanation for his disappearance, but no body has been found and no government agency of any country has yet come to that official conclusion. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot yet report this as fact. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, CaptainBemused, as Cullen328 puts it, we are waiting for the investigation reports to come out that confirms his death and once we have that information out in reliable sources, we can have that info on the article. Until then we can only write missing and presumed dead. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Surely you would agree that, on the basis of the statements reported so far, although still all anonymous, it's somewhat unlikely that "a body" will ever be found? Did the consul have a large incinerator in the basement of his residence? Else what exactly was on that barbeque? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you mean by "a body" (any biological material?) but speculations about the probability of finding anything turns this more intto the direction of (nota)forum. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant an intact corpse. I agree we may be veering towards WP:FORUM here. The reports of DNA testing suggest that the investigators are seeking some kind of biological residue, even if this is just charred flesh or ashes. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done CaptainBemused, based on the Saudi confirmation here--DBigXrayᗙ 22:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Simple grammar correction

I revised "During that period, he was employed by Saudi Arabian intelligence agencies to try and influence..." to "During that period, he was employed by Saudi Arabian intelligence agencies to try to influence..." to correct the grammar flaw. Please advise if any concerns arise. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Great! H Bruce Campbell no concerns. Thanks for doing this minor WP:COPYEDIT, for such trivial and non controversial edits you do not need to start a talk page thread to explain your edit. That is an unnecessary overhead. Just make a change and explain why in the WP:EDITSUMMARY normally that is sufficient, if you are reverted back by someone then you can start a talk page discussion to further explain your point. Good luck. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As'ad AbuKhalil

As'ad AbuKhalil, (mentioned above, under "Muslim Brotherhood") a Lebanes American professor who has written several books on Saudi Arabia, has written about Khashoggi here:

• Khashoggi Was No Critic of Saudi Regime, by As'ad AbuKhalil, October 15, 2018, Consortiumnews.com

I suggest we add much of that to the article. (Basically: Khashoggi's "crime" was that he was aligned with the "wrong" Saudi prince), Huldra (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's another article in the same vein: https://www.yahoo.com/news/khashoggi-case-battle-leadership-islamic-world-141709338.html David O. Johnson (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: And the "Qatar angle"! Quote from As'ad AbuKhalil: "The real crime was that Khashoggi was backed alone by Ikhwan supporters, namely the Qatari regime and the Turkish government." → "Qatar angle" explained: "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." --87.170.205.223 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Khashoggi 'died after fight' - Saudis"

"Journalist Jamal Khashoggi died after a fight in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the country's state TV reported quoting an initial probe. A fight?? Hardly convincing, some 17 days later? But enough at least to put the article into past tense, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 true, lets see who calls out this BS. The recording that Turks have should clarify this. But I do believe, Khasoggi must have tried to make a dash for dear life, once it would have been clear to him that the 15 member squad had ulterior motives. Perhaps Saudis are referring to his struggle for survival as fight and an excuse to kill him. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes a 15-to-1 "fight". Lucky Salah Muhammed al-Tubaigy was on hand to perform an instant autopsy, just confirm the cause of death. It has to be added to the article, but I suspect the reader will immediately ask "so where's the body"? Why wasn't it produced the same day? Where is it now? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Saudis have asked a months time to let things cool down while they would try and appear as though they are searching for answers to the Q's by Martinevans123. I think the article already states about Barbecue in the killing section based on this Turk source [1], So I think that is covered. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"A month", yes? Where did they ask that? Yes. I guess that should be enough time for the barbecue to have cooled down properly. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The new investigation committee created by saudis need to give report in a month see the video at 0:58 seconnds regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we need a secondary source for that? It should certainly be added somehow, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. now that his death has been officially confirmed should he get a blurb at Recent Deaths on the Main Page instead of being in Ongoing in ITN?

ABC News (10/19/2018): Khashoggi is dead

Hello. I have been recently following the news regarding Jamal Khashoggi's disappearance and supposed death. I am currently watching ABC World News and they are saying that the Saudi Arabian government has officially acknowledged that Khashoggi is indeed dead. I have not heard what they have said regarding his cause of death. I have heard from others that some say he was sawed to death, some say he was killed in a fistfight. There are many conflicting accounts of what happened but I suggest that some of you watch the ABC World News or check official news websites to find out what really happened, in order to keep the information on this Wikipedia article up to date and factual. Thanks. WIKIswagmaster842^t@lk 22:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yeah fists. That's just too utterly ridiculous for words, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Stripping the article of the death section

CONSENSUS as discussed above Talk:Jamal_Khashoggi#Dedicated_article_for_disappearance/assassination? is to create a separate article, there is no consensus to strip this article of all the death related information, as being done here repeatedly [2][3] by User:Ammarpad. Don't misconstrue consensus. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, the mentioned consensus does not mean the material regarding his death should be taken out. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• You earlier opposed the split proposal and went on to editwar because the consensus was against what you liked. In the discussion, it was made clear, the reason of the bloc of the opposition was the size not being enough, now it's and heading to territory of 100kb where it must be split. At 80kb it is beyond recommended size and two articles can't be kept with exactly similar content but you're claiming they must be because you did't agree with the consensus wich didn't follow what your preference. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

moved here to prevent fragmentation of the thread at multiple locations. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Learn to agree with consensus which goes against you. You are aware that you earlier opposed this split proposal and when the consensus was reached you thought you can't take it. You went on to editwar to maintain your preferred version against the consensus and claimed that the consensus was not split. In the discussion supported by over 24 and opposed by 8, it was made clear, the reason of the bloc of the opposition was the size not being enough, now it's, and at more than 79kb and even heading to territory of 100kb where it must be split, also the increasing expansion made at least two opposes to change their views, making the oppose even weaker. At 80kb it is beyond recommended size and two articles can't be kept with exactly similar content but you're claiming they must be because you did't agree with the consensus which didn't follow what your preferred. If you don't agree with the close, I urge to appeal it at the appropriate place otherwise learn to live with consensus that goes against you. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ammarpad, You are again misrepresenting my !vote above, I had clearly stated that the WP:CFORK was pre-mature.
• "100kb where it must be split" where is this new rule coming from, ? please guide me to this WikiPolicy.
• I have clearly stated above, why your edits were reverted, your justification for stripping out the Death section from this article is nothing more than ad hominem and WP:ILIKEIT. Provide something relevant to this thread topic. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do you agree with the closure of the split discussion above or not? –Ammarpad (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes agree with the closure, but that discussion nowhere states that this article has to be stripped off the "Death Section", thereby making this article handicapped. I would like to understand what makes you think that stripping [4] the death section from here is a good idea ?
• And as I asked you above, I am still waiting for you to present the Wikipedia rules about KB limits on articles. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• @WikiHannibal: and @Reywas92: have also expressed[5] their concerns with your cut paste moves. I hope you understand the problem now. Pinging them to bring all hands to this ongoing discussion, instead of discussion via edit summaries. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do with regards to keeping a summary-style section in this article, DO NOT just have two identical pages, copied and pasted from here to there! There are already different edits being made to each respective article, creating inconsistencies. If you cut and paste whole sections to the subarticle, it should immediately be removed from the main article otherwise there is no point of splitting it in the first place. If you want the content in the subarticle, do this right the first time or it will miss out on the changes being continuously made to the main article. Reywas92^Talk 10:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I tried to re-do the split. I think now there is the basic structure to start with. News about his death should be added first to Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. The lead of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi will then serve as the content of the Death section of this article. The thing is to avoid confusing additions to either of the articles. The steps now should be (I think) 1) to expand the lead of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, especially with content from the section Reactions, 2) and copy that info into the Death section here. Do you "all" agree? WikiHannibal (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiHannibal Thanks a lot for taking the matter in your hands and doing the work that should have been done in the first place while splitting. Giving us something to start. While I do agree that everything that goes into the lead of the article Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, Must be present in the death section here. But I do believe that that's not all, I mean The Death Section in this article deserves more than just a para or 2 summarizing his death. I am not saying that the Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Jamal Khashoggi#Death should be clones of each other but something in between. There will be some amount of double content in both these articles and it is expected. The Assassination article will obviously have detailed info on everything. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure it can be expanded later but first a proper summary of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi needs to be done to expand that lead. We will see how long it turns out, and what details to add directly from the Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi article. I believe that if the summary is done properly, not much else would be needed. The biggest problem will be to stop everybody posting any piece of news about the investigation directly into the lead of Jamal Khashoggi. (Taking a break now, good luck ;-) WikiHannibal (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You now see how paradoxical your actions were. When you were editwarring to keep the content against the consensus you don't like you absurdly claimed the consensus was to "Create new article".and that "they should develop independently". Now that the content was divvied up by another editor you lack what to say except to grandstand and claim that it's now OK. When I implemented the consensus, I made it clear explicitly that a "concise summary" will be written in the section and point to the new split article, but you're eager to counter what you don't like except when it downed to you no way out like now.. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is blatant and shocking display of WP:ABF on your part. As far as I can remember I never had any previous interaction with you, and I am shocked to see that all this drama and accusations, just because I had to revert[6] your "bad Cut paste move". The thread above is clear for anyone in good faith to decipher. The very fact that you did not create a proper summary for the articles before proceeding was enough reason to not go ahead for a split. but even then you went ahead and did a Lazy cut paste and left both articles in a bad shape, and when you were reverted you started accusing me of all these things. This is my last response to you on these silly accusations, you can continue with your tirade, good luck.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to just go forward with the article. I'm not sure any personal recriminations here, from either side, are going to help anyone. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)i

Martinevans123 ignore the recrimination, Any comments/opinion on the Actual topic i.e. the plan ahead for this article ? --DBigXrayᗙ 16:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any major issues. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN Recent Deaths or blurb?

Khashoggi is currently featured at Ongoing in ITN on the Main page. Now that his death has been officially "confirmed" should he be nominated to be moved to Recent Deaths or even go into ITN with a blurb? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Has now been nominated for a blurb, e.g. "Saudi Arabia admits that Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on October 2, and detains 18 suspects in the death." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Partner

Hi Do you have a source that Hatice Cengiz was his partner? She was his fiance. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that those are mutually exclusive terms? Do you have a source that she was his fiance? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

see here. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. And wasn't that the only reason he was visiting the consulate in the first place? I think fiancée would be a better choice. But he only place she is currently mentioned in the article is in the info-box? And I'm not sure that ever uses the word fiancée. Don't we need a section on Personal life to make this all clear? If we are to use "fiancée", also with a date, I think we need to give a source for each. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Have now started a section. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation unclear

The pronunciation of “Arabic: (ج م ا ل     خ ا ش ق ج ي) جمال خاشقجي” is given as “Hejazi: [ʒaˈmaːl χaːˈʃoɡʒi]”. I see at least these problems:

• The IPA links to Help:IPA/Arabic, although there is also a page Help:IPA/Hejazi_Arabic, which sounds more appropriate in the light of the “Hejazi:”-link.
  • Help:IPA/Arabic, gives q for “ق” while Help:IPA/Hejazi_Arabic gives ɡ.
• Neither Help:IPA page gives “ʒ” for “ج”, but rather “dʒ”. This gives the impression the IPA might mean “j” as in French “jamais”.
• Neither Help:IPA page gives “χ” for “خ”; but rather “x”.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

Khashoggi was killed 11 days before what would have been his 60th birthday. 2600:8801:B001:2700:CC23:F63F:2112:901B (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Already done--B dash (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Jamal Khashoggi and Wahhabism

There is no doubt that Jamal Khashoggi had sympathy with Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood in various ways.

In one of his own blogs he argued for Muslim Brotherhood, and wrote that “there can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it.”

In order to how Saudi Arabia should confront Iran, Khashoggi stated that Saudi Arabia “must re-embrace its proper religious identity as a Wahhabi Islamic revivalist state and build alliances with organisations rooted in political Islam such as the Muslim Brotherhood”, and that it is a “big mistake” if Saudi Arabia and Muslim Brotherhood cannot be friendly.

He has admitted that: “Yes, I joined the Muslim Brotherhood organization when I was at university. And, I was not alone. Some of the current ministers and deputies did but later every one of us developed their own political tendencies and views.”

References

The sources are provided, both primary and secondary ones.

Why do Midgetman433 delete this sourced text?

En historiker (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that we were also having a similar discussion above at Talk:Jamal_Khashoggi#Muslim_Brotherhood that you can refer to while User:Midgetman433 replies below. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I dont know about the Al Jazeera interview, its in arabic, but his washington post column he writes.

"I agree with MBS that the nation should return to its pre-1979 climate, when the government restricted hard-line Wahhabi traditions. Women today should have the same rights as men. And all citizens should have the right to speak their minds without fear of imprisonment. But replacing old tactics of intolerance with new ways of repression is not the answer."

This does not sound like an endorsement of Wahhabism, it sounds quite contrary to that. In addition If you follow the record of the Al Watan publication which he was the editor for, it has a reputation of being a very liberal publication in Saudi Arabia, in fact it was where he was fired multiple times for approving articles criticizing the Wahhabi clergy of Saudi Arabia. Here is the source to the Washington Post article, it actually also cited in this very same page, by another user. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/10/06/read-jamal-khashoggis-columns-for-the-washington-post/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b592f885c652

I feel like that element at the very least, as its multiple contradicting elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition CNN is reporting on a smear campaign effort, suspected on part of the saudi govt, perhaps there are some elements that should be discussed more extensively before a consensus is reached. Midgetman433 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

But that Jamal think women should have same rights as men or that citizens should have the right to speak without fear of imprisonment doesn't mean he has no sympathy for Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism. All the text was sourced, even from his own mouth. En historiker (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

this article is from 2017, and its difficult to figure out the exact words he said, as its in arabic, it would be nice to get a transcript of the arabic. also this was from a time, when he was seen as loyal to the saudi state, and im a bit suspicious of Al Jazeera's characterization of him, given the conflict between saudi and Qatar, and Khashoggi at the time being seen as loyal to Saudi. it would be nice to receive a transcript of the interview so we can put his exact words in. the Washington post article is from 2018, and written in english, and he seems to be endorsing the reversion back to pre 1979 norms, and supporting the agenda of the crown prince, just disagreeing with the ways its brought about. In addition I have a difficult time subscribing to the narrative, b/c he used to be the editor for Al Watan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Watan_(Saudi_Arabia) which is known in saudi arabia as one of its most liberal papers, and he was fired multiple times from his job as editor there for approving article critical of the Wahhabi clergy and establishment there.

Here is some quote from the wikipedia article for the paper.

"Al Watan became a forum for reformist issues in the early 2003. Columnists initiated a discussion regarding whether the teachings of strict Muslim scholars were granted too much credence within Saudi society. They also began to challenge the authority of the mutaween, the religious police force. "

"May 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia led to the liberals' attack against Wahhabi ideas that financially support salafism. Such criticisms were openly expressed through articles published in Al Watan. Specifically, after a week of intense debate following the bombings of three Riyadh housing complexes in May 2003, an Al Watan journalist asked the minister of interior, Nayef, if the attacks meant that the mutaween would be restructured. Prince Nayef replied, “As a Saudi, you should be ashamed to be asking this question.” One week later, the government fired the editor-in-chief of the paper, Jamal Khashoggi."

this was the first time he was fired.

the second time.

"Khashoggi resigned from his post for a second time in May 2010.[27] Al Watan announced that Khashoggi resigned "to focus on his personal projects". This statement was published on the website of the paper and in its Sunday edition. His resignation came three days after a column by poet Ibrahim al Almaee criticising Salafism was published. The column by al Almaee challenged the Salafists' rejection of popular religious traditions such as patronising shrines and graves of important Islamic figures. It is speculated that his resignation was related to official displeasure with articles critical of the state's harsh Islamic rules." Midgetman433 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Midgetman433:, you have written in the "edit summary" "Complete Slander, and twisting of facts, Khashoggi was forced to resign as editor for publishing Ibrahim al-Almaee's article challenging the basic Salafi premises in Al Watan Please remember, or read up. Khashoggi did not publishing Ibrahim al-Almaee. Khashoggi said he was abroad when the decision was made to publish the article, and he did not agree with the points made by Mr Almaee. ... "the censor was not in tha house" ... as As'ad AbuKhalil explained: "Khashoggi admitted... that in Saudi Arabia he had been both editor and censor. Editors of Saudi regime papers... enforce government rules and eliminate objectionable material.". And again: "He was close to Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was chief of foreign intelligence and the sponsor patron of bin Laden and the fanatical Islamists around the world. ... he spoke about how his role was not only as an editor, but he was a censor. He was enforcer of the rigid dogmas of the Saudi government in the paper... He never wrote a word, never spoke a word against the wishes of the Saudi government. He got in trouble because some people in the paper were courageous, unlike him, and dared to challenge the orthodoxy of the government. That was the career of Jamal Khashoggi." That episode was then explained as follows: "Saudi Arabia: Misunderstanders of Islam force Understander of Islam to resign for publishing correct understanding of Islam" ;-) --87.170.205.223 (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

User 87.170.205.223 kindly avoid copy posting long para of Copyrighted materials from other sites. It is a WP:COPYVIO and a serious violation that can lead to blocking, you can post the link and mention the para if you so desire. A line or quote may be allowed but not walls of text. Also everyone please sign your posts by typing this "--~~~~" regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That Khashoggi had another interpretation of Wahhabism and disagreed with the Saud house do not mean that he did not have sympathy for Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism. Even Leon Trotsky disagreed with Stalin, but that doesn’t imply that Trotsky did not have sympathy with a communistic society.

And no, it is not smear campaign that Khashoggi had sympathy with Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism. It is even confirmed from his own mouth in that blogs in Washington Post.

I will return the text with the 3 sources in the Wikipedia-page sooner or later. En historiker (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

To say that he is sympathetic to a politically-charged group is to immediately bias his views without explaining why! And this is further amplified when it is put into the summary, as En historiker did. I also read through the three citations in the summary sentence and couldn't find anything to indicate he was sympathetic towards Wahhabism. So I retained the summary sentence made by En historiker, moved it out of the summary and into its proper section, omitted any claims of Wahhabism support, and changed it from "sympathetic" to "support of .... as an exercise in democracy". Fshafique (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

His views were in direct contrast to Wahhabism. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, this is already mentioned in the article, the same quotes, the same sources, see diff. I wrote it to En historiker yesterday - diff, but he ignored it and continues the edit war. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Khashoggi stated that Saudi Arabia “must re-embrace its proper religious identity as a Wahhabi Islamic revivalist state and build alliances with organisations rooted in political Islam such as the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/jamal-khashoggi-saudis-religious-roots-171123161746247.html

Khashoggi's view is NOT "in direct contrast to Wahhabism".

En historiker (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Jamal Khashoggi was a journalist, not a jihadist

• Jamal Khashoggi was a journalist, not a jihadist

This deserves a mention since there are efforts from the right wing and Saudis to paint him as a Jihadist. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Pompeo's smiling photo

What is wrong with this edit? It was reverted twice alleging that it's "unsourced". --Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You might have noticed that the guy smiles non-stop. He is just happy to be serving the United States of America and its greatest leader, ever.Axxxion (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

Hi Is Khashoggi member of the Muslim Brotherhood or he is only close to them? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

He had stated in his interview on a Podcast that he is not a member of Muslim Brotherhood. hope this helps. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 17:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: + @DBigXray: Yeah, is the Muslim Brotherhood a club with monthly contributions? Is "Political Islam" as bad as "Political Christianism", like Angela Merkel from Germany? And her Christian Democratic Union? She is more moderate than those crazy Bavarian Separatists from the Christian Social Union, right? Or are those "fundamentalist" political Christianists like Mike Pence more dangerous? Members of his group even attended weekly meetings, right? When will the security apparatuses come up with a more reliable estimate of the group's membership!? Because they now are having an Evangelical Prayer Group in the Oval Office watch! They have a Christian Broadcasting Network and invoked the more-than-$100-billion arms deal for MBS. (a.k.a. "Mohammed bone Saw"), truly crazy and irrational radicals. ... Imagine an Occupied America.

Khashoggi is beeing whitewashed and painted wildly over-simplistic in this article! I tried to bring some balance and added some of that: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/death-of-a-dissident-saudi-arabia-and-the-rise-of-the-mobster-state →Quote: "Most of the Islamic clerics in Saudi Arabia who have been imprisoned over the past two years — Khashoggi’s friends — have historic ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Khashoggi had therefore emerged as a de facto leader of the Saudi branch." −−− but it was deleted since then *cherry-picking-editing* He reported from war zones, interviewed Bin Laden and was suspected as a secret service agent for both KSA and the USA. Wait, Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post, who employed Khashoggi, who joint Pentagon Defense Advisory Board, who builds cloud-computing for the CIA and all the rest, is he still silent?

Khashoggi’s position against the religious authorities in Saudi Arabia seems to be the common ground with Al-Waleed bin Talal and the reason he put him at the top of his news channel. Ergodan called him a friend. Ergodan's party AKP is "Political Islam" 101. And the US has dozens of nuclear weapons stockpiled in a Turkey. It's a nominal ally in NATO. Like Germany were those crazy "Political Christianists" rule ;-)

More here: "He was also one of the most connected journalists to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and one with ties to a web of various Muslim Brotherhood operatives and activists. ... But Mr Melhem says he’s seen his friend’s gradual political transformation. “We saw him become fully committed to the worldview of the Muslim Brotherhood and found solace in the Turkey of the AKP... he was too Islamist for me, and I am sure I was too secularist for him” Mr Melhem, adding that he hoped the Saudi writer would return."

That mobster State is ran as absolute monarchy and theocracy and gerontocracy atop a social powder keg. The royal family numbers about 20,000 people - they are united into about 7 or 8 key branches. Now representatives of one of the families, the Sudairi Seven, headed by King Salman, promote his son Mohammed bone Saw to the throne... After MbS's crackdown against his rivals within the Saudi ruling elite, detaining princes, former government ministers and businessmen, torturing them and extracting 100 billions of dollars in exchange for their release, all in the name of combating corruption, Khashoggi realized that he was among those being targeted, he fled to the US and became a public critic of Mohammed bone Saw. He has backed US act of military aggression, including the wars for regime-change in Syria and near-genocidal war in Yemen, that has already killed upwards of 50,000 people and threatens another 14.1 million with starvation, turned millions more into homeless refugees, and transformed the entire region into a killing field.

Here his last Interview: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2018/10/8/q-a-jamal-khashoggis-last-interview-before-saudi-consulate-disappearance --87.170.197.132 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Being a journalist and having connections with Brotherhood does not mean he is a member of this political party. Strong claims would require strong sources, and at present I dont see any so far. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Admins - why are you not warning the above IP that this is not a forum, nor a place to soapbox, but only to be used to discuss reliable sources for the improvement of the article? That long rant is nothing but the IP's personal opinions about several things - mostly off-topic; it's useless for the Talk Page. It's very easy for a controversial article like this to submerge into forum like activity on the TP's. Thanks. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

D'accord! I think, everyone completely agrees with you ("strong sources" & "journalistic connections with MB ≠ membership of a political party), @DBigXray:! And I do not have an elegant and neat phrase, I could suggest.

And have questions. Is the MB a political party or more a movement? Is there a "黨證" / a "Parteibuch"? Are there monthly contributions or weekly dues? Is there such thing as a membership of the MB? The upraising in January 2011 against the Mubarak in Egypt was a nonreligious youth protest movement. The Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt) was a party, yes, founded late April 2011 and banned 2013. I never know what people are talking about when they say "Muslim Brotherhood", "Brotherhood" or Ikhwan.

Let us gather "strong sources":

1.) - John R. Bradley who wrote that piece the for British weekly magazine The Spectator is is a former longtime colleague of Jamal Khashoggi.

2.) Salameh Nematt who is above-cited in the The National (Abu Dhabi)-interview, was the former bureau chief for Al Hayat in Washington, has known and worked with Jamal since early the 1990s. According en:WP "is a Jordanian journalist and analyst with over 25 years of experience in economic and political reporting, research and analysis of developments in the broader Middle East, Europe and the United States. He has worked extensively on Arab-Israeli political, economic, security and human rights issues, and has done in-depth reporting on conflicts throughout the Middle East, the Gulf, and North Africa." And he is (was) "longtime friend of Khashoggi" [here].

3.) And please, please take the time to read As'ad Abu Khalil, a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University. A source rather from the academia, than from journalism → "It’s been odd to read about Khashoggi in Western media. ... Khashoggi was a loyal member of the Saudi propaganda apparatus. There is no journalism allowed in the kingdom: there have been courageous Saudi women and men who attempted to crack the wall of rigid political conformity and were persecuted and punished for their views. Khashoggi was not among them. ... Khashoggi was a reactionary: he supported all monarchies and sultanates in the region and contended they were “reformable.” To him, only the secular republics, in tense relations with the Saudis, such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, defied reform and needed to be overthrown. He favored Islamization of Arab politics along Muslim Brotherhood lines. ... Khashoggi’s vision was an “Arab uprising” led by the Saudi regime." Cheers. --87.170.195.175 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed these sources.

1.) does say he had joined MB in 1970s.

2.) does not make any claims of membership.

3.) does not make any claims of membership.

Regarding ref #2 and #3 You are trying to make WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ANALYSIS, something that is we as wikipedia editors are not supposed to do. we leave that to the reliable mainstream sources and when they publish that, we can use that as a ref and add that info in the article. Since this is a highly contentious claim, I believe we would need more than #1 because if that is a fact we should be having multiple reliable sources saying that. Lets also wait to see what other editors have to say on this. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe that there has to be a section in the article for his political views,but for a Muslim Brotherhood membership,i doubt it,he was very close to the Saudi Monarchy.Alhanuty (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to answer the question from Panam2014, not WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ANALYSIS. There is no such think as a of "literally" membership in a school of thoughts.

4.) "He covered the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the rise of Osama bin Laden, whom he had known earlier, interviewing him both there and in Sudan. Like many of his countrymen, Khashoggi sympathised with the Saudi and CIA-backed mujahideen fighting the Red Army forces. Otherwise his own views were moderately Islamist – of the Muslim Brotherhood school. That was part of his ambivalent status within Saudi society and vis-a-vis the regime: he was too Islamist for secular-minded liberals but too liberal for traditional conservative Wahhabis."

5.) "There princes he bet on fell out of favor, Prince Turki, as well as Prince Al-Waleed, later who wound up in Ritz in Riyadh last year. And for that reason, he had no prince. According to his own testimony, in an article that was written by David Ignatius who was close to him, he tried to be an advisor to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but he wouldn’t take him as an advisor because he always was suspicious about his Islamist past, the fact that he was a member and later close to the Muslim Brotherhood. So, he became – spoke the language of democracy upon leaving the country." That's a statement from a professor of political science at California State University, in the progressive, award-winning news outlet Truthdig. --87.170.193.10 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

6.) “Yes, I joined the Muslim Brotherhood organization when I was at university. And, I was not alone. Some of the current ministers and deputies did but later every one of us developed their own political tendencies and views.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.205.223 (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

7.) "Muslim Brotherhood provided the answer for King Faisal ... Mohammed bin Salman needs to free himself from this paranoia of the Muslim Brotherhood, needs to form a alliance to counter Iran" (Shake up in Riyadh: Regional and International Implication, Arab Center Washington DC, Nov. 17, 2017 --87.170.199.163 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

8.) A Middle East Monitor report from February 2018 on Khashoggi: he's endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood and promotes the vile Jew-hater Yusuf Qaradawi as a paragon of "moderate Islam". And here's Qaradawi's "moderate Islam": Allah Imposed Hitler upon the Jews to Punish Them - "Allah Willing, the Next Time Will Be at the Hand of the Believers" --87.170.199.163 (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

One big mystery persists:

Who fathered him? Some sources expressly say it is kind of a family secret. Perhaps the article should say as much. For it is mind-boggling that a well-known contemporary Middle-Eastern personality′s male parent is unknown. One source (arguably non-RS) says this: ″His [Dodi Fayed′s] mother was Samira Khashoggi, the sister of the Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi. Adnan was Jamal’s father" ([7]). For what it′s worth. Anyhow, something ought to be said on his father.Axxxion (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So his grandfather is known but his father is not? That seems a bit odd. Also the article doesn't identify his mother. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect his so called "uncle" is indeed his father. They look very much alike.Axxxion (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No mystery to my knowledge ;-) Please, "free" the article and I will give you that information.--87.170.194.14 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Provide refs here, i.e. publicly available reliable sources.Axxxion (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Until when will the article be "semi-protected"?--87.170.206.21 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

His birth date is disputed, source: https://www.metabunk.org/when-was-jamal-khashoggi-born-and-when-was-his-birthday.t10047/ 219.79.96.206 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Please see threads headed "Birthdate?" and "Why was his birth date updated without a confirmation?" above. Add there if necessary Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please protect the following info, it is not intended for discussion on a speculative killing page or talkpage, ; further reading

• Israeli IT Espionage and Sabotage
  • Pegasus (spyware)
  • Amdocs Global Telephony concern
  • Facebook`s global backbone, localized — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.20.194 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 detention

Hello @Huldra:

Can you explain why you deleted the official view of the Saudi government? -- صالح (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Because nobody outside SA believes it. I can accept the views in the article, but I don't accept the absurd Saudi lies in the lead, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra:

Both views should be mentioned in the lead or in the center/rear. This is the rule in the Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You have a right to believe whatever you want, but you cannot delete the other point of views. Please fix it. -- صالح (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, pr WP:UNDUE there is no need, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. We can add something along the lines of "Saudi government denied all allegations", but no more than that. Look at the recent scandals surrounding Russia, we didn't put their conspiracy theories in the ledes either. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, as well. However, I am struck by the apparent imbalance suggested by these two sentences:

Khashoggi was detained in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018.
According to Turkish sources, they believe that Khashoggi was then brutally tortured […]

So Khashoggi’s detention inside the consulate is presented as fact, but his subsequent torture and murder is presented merely as a Turkish allegation. I had prefaced the first sentence with “According to his wife and a friend,”, but that was later reverted without explanation. So why do we present one allegation as fact and another as an allegation? For what it’s worth, I haven’t read any mainstream (Western) media accounts presenting his detention as fact, not even the NY Times article given as the source for the claim. (The headline talks about detention, but the text makes it’s clear that this is an allegation first made by K’s fiancee and his friend, and then embraced by Turkish authorities.) —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the second sentence is poorly written. How about simply “Turkish sources believe Khashoggi was …”? —ThorstenNY (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We have been criticized for the murder of a Saudi-born Saudi man who was abducted in the country on 2/8/2018 Suggest an edit See also an, edit waxaan canbaareynaynaa falkii lagu la kacay warihiyii weynaa ee u dhashay dalka sacuudiga ee lagu afduubtay dalka turki maalintii bishu aheyd 2/10/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.72.27.18 (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We suspect that the Saudi government was seeking a diplomatic post because he wanted to get married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.72.27.18 (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the banner at the top of this page carefully

Hi all, I know this page has been full protected on ar.wiki: I'm just noting at on en.wiki, living and recently deceased people fall under special rules. If these rules are broken, the page here can be locked and sanctions can be applied to individuals. There haven't been issues on this page yet on en.wiki, but in case we get users coming over from ar.wiki, I wanted to leave a note about our conduct expectations. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

almost all ar.wiki articles are protected. This is why I mostly edit in en.wiki even though I would love to edit in ar.wiki SharabSalam (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How about mentioning what these rules are, TonyBallioni? So as to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see the biographies of living persons policy, which applies equally to the recently deceased. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Past perfect (or pluperfect) tense

Is this tense form banned from this article? Throughout Wikipedia mainspace? What does MoS say? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. to which variety of English should this article conform?

Still waiting to hear any opinions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a specific edit you are referring to? Otherwise, instead of saying "Joe was tired because he had ran all day", we would say "Joe ran all day and so was tired at the day's end" so it reads as a narrative. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this one. Your example also changes the sentence construction, which would be is a separate issue? It seems my latest edit on tense here remained unchallenged for a while. But then we had this unexplained edit, which is why I asked again. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

To be technical, his death occurred in a moment and was not a continuous thing although you could strangle someone for a while. Where simple past verb form will do I see no reason to use any other. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

So you object to "he had been killed" because it makes it makes it sound as if his death was "a continuous thing"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"He was killed" is simpler. You asked for an opinion and you got it. If you just want to argue you'll have to find someone else. Please help yourself to the last word if you wish. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I didn't "just want to argue", thanks. I hope this is not the last word, as anyone else is very welcome to address my original three questions. But I think I may have got the wrong tense - it's the pluperfect. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, your welcome. I am trying to be helpful, not make you wrong. I am sure the people who changed the tense thought they were being helpful. This conversation is helpful to me as well. I like sorting these things out.

Regarding the tense, that was why I brought up the point about "not a continuous thing". Past perfect seems correct.

Regarding my opinion on your four questions at the top: no, no, probably nothing (but I do not have time to search right now), and some nebulous variety of English called "Encyclopedic". "Encyclopedic" is a formal type of writing. Like we shouldn't should not use contractions in formal writing. It may or may not be mentioned in the MOS, but that was how I was taught. If you read older texts for early modern English, you will find they seem to seek the most wordy, verbose way of expressing themselves. I was taught that in modern writing to be concise. So, where simple past verb form will do I see no reason to use any other as the simple past verb form is less verbose.

I guess this brings us to when should we use past perfect or past perfect continuous. It concerns the time frame of the sentence. It should not change from sentence to sentence. We seem to strive for the time frame of anything said in Wikipedia's voice to be in the "now" time frame. But it does seem to need more thought. What do you think? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right, four not three. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, there were three original questions and then you added one. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Are we both just too nitpicky? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Update on question three: I could not leave it alone and get on with my day. I searched the Wikipedia namespace and got just over 200 results. A quick look finds nothing in direct policy about it, but quite a bit in critiques like the reference desk, peer review and featured article candidates. Worth a look. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

... not sure I'm sufficiently nitpicky, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

• Please change in "Personal life":

At the time of his death, Khashoggi was planning to marry Hatice Cengiz, a 36-year-old PhD candidate at a university in Istanbul. The two had met in May 2018, during a conference in the city. Khashoggi, a Saudi national, visited the Saudi consulate on 2 October to get paperwork that would allow him to marry Cengiz.[70] Khashoggi was married and divorced three times. His first marriage was to Rawia al-Tunisi by whom he had two sons and two daughters.

• To:

Khashoggi was married and divorced three times. His first marriage was to Rawia al-Tunisi by whom he had two sons and two daughters. By 2017, Khashoggi met Hatice Cengiz, a Turkish political scientist and researcher, at a conference hosted by the Al Sharq Forum in London. Hatice Cengiz wrote analysis on the crisis at Gulf Cooperation Council, and some of her papers were published by the Humanitarian and Social Research Center (INSAMER), the think tank of IHH, a Turkish NGO active in more than 100 countries, close to the Muslim Brothers. The IHH is known for coordinating the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in 2010. Khashoggi and Cengiz became engaged in 2018. He had bought an apartment in Istanbul and the furniture had already been ordered when Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate on 2 October 2018 to retrieve his divorce papers - a prerequisite for their wedding planned for 3 October 2018 in Istanbul.

87.170.206.21 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the supporting sources. But there is quite a bit of political commentary there? Is that really "Personal life"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concerns, Martin. Yes, Jamal was a political animal! And yes, it's really "personal life", "he had chosen to take a calculated risk by moving back to the region, closer to his home country, in order to work toward a more democratic Middle East. Khashoggi knew what reporters and activists still resisting state suppression in the region know: The status quo is untenable." Please, read: "Missing Saudi writer had big plans for his troubled region" → Quote: "Part of Khashoggi’s approach was to include political Islamists in what he saw as democracy building. ... He had the wisdom of a 60-year-old. He had the energy and a creativity of a 20-something, ... had incorporated his democracy advocacy group, DAWN, in January in Delaware ... The group was still in the planning stages, and Khashoggi was working on it quietly, likely concerned it could cause trouble for associates, including activists in the Gulf ... The project was expected to reach out to journalists and lobby for change, representing both Islamists and liberals." So that lucky guy had found himself another "political animal" to live happily ever after. So sad... --87.170.195.30 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you watch the "In remembrance of Jamal Khashoggi" video listed in "External links"? With Wadah Khanfar, former Al Jazeera chief, and co-founder and President of Al Sharq Forum. There Jamal met Hatice.--87.170.202.113 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The article's topic is Mr. Khashoggi, and not the various accomplishments of Ms. Cengiz.  Spintendo  19:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Edward Snowdon about Malicious Israeli Software

This was discussed (prior to Snowdon`s comments), diverted, disrupted, and eventually included in the `see also` of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Jamal_Khashoggi&action&section=29 . This should be included in Jamal Khasoggi`s article most certainly, please do. Replacing previous talk, see below;126.3.54.112 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I-Watch or Israeli Spyware

Early reports in the news when Khashoggi was reported missing, and commentary by news "experts", made mention of third-parties listening in on his fate by way of his Apple I-Watch (connects to his I-Phone), but those lines fizzled out after a week or so. There were at least 10 reports mentioning the I-Watch. Doubtful that the average reader of wikipedia knows the technical aspects of "smartphone sensor arrays", but perhaps do grasp the cybercrime of spyware, should the article be mentioning and linking to widespread illegal phonetapping by the Israelis, including inside embassies and consulates?126.3.20.194 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

As of Tuesday the 23rd, there has been mention of a third cyber-related system, bringing it to I-Phone, Skype, and Israeli bugging of both.126.3.20.194 (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/10/15/saudi-dissident-says-riyadh-tapped-calls-with-khashoggi
• https://citizenlab.ca/2018/10/the-kingdom-came-to-canada-how-saudi-linked-digital-espionage-reached-canadian-soil/
• https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/1/223/pdf - --87.170.201.139 (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/7754
• https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/19/the-kingdoms-hackers-and-bots-saudi-dissident-khashoggi
• https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/exclusive-twitter-pulls-down-bot-network-pushing-pro-saudi-talking-n921871
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX-rCcX1tQg Reported hacking of Saudi activist in Quebec may be linked to Khashoggi disappearance | The Weekly, CBC News, Oct 14, 2018

It might be better to raise this question at Talk:Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I's about NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware, a surveillance tool, user before the assassination.--87.170.193.174 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. But might it be better to raise this topic at Talk:Killing of Jamal Khashoggi? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it`s not. It`s a question of whether the Apple-Watch or the Israeli Bugs operating within should be mentioned. Update y/n btw, now media is saying Turkey intercepted and recorded a Skype Videocall at the time of the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.20.194 (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that "I-Phone, Skype, and Israeli bugging of both" is a scenario that is relevant to Khashoggi's entire career? I'm suggesting that it night warrant a brief mention here but that it is primarily relevant only to his killing, and so should be discussed at that dedicated article to determine its weight/ relative importance. I've also heard speculation in the press that the consulate may have been separately (and more conventionally) bugged by Turkey, which is far more plausible of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Media/political career, yes. Conventional "Smartphone"(+IoT+nearfield) Sensor Arrays ARE NOT clearly understood by most casual readers, whether skype was installed on the illegally Israeli-operated jailbreak smartphone as plausible as that sounds. About being warranted, Embassies and Consulates may not be bugged in most law-abiding countries (or by treaty), and warrants may not be executed outside the jurisdiction of the issuing court, so has nothing to do with Skype USA, it has to do with Israeli widespread disregard and impunity for Nations; Spyware is cyber-CRIMINAL.126.3.20.194 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarifying. Sounds like you a have a bit of a grudge against the Israelis there. Did you mean "as implausible as that sounds"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Spyware directed at journalists (sometimes by other "journalists") have been going on long before Pegasus was detected trying to install on a non-iphone set up to run as a virtual iphone (the Illegal Israeli Software Pegasus (spyware; they were at it 15 years ago in England when they were (at least some of `em) busted after the schoolgirl was killed. Milly Dowler telephony was illegally accessed, not as pervasive as the Saudis employed by Pegasus. It`s akin to the `they know we know they know we don`t know` shpiel. Journalism is a tricky business, and editing is yet trickier, and so on and so forth. One would suppose you think I is a policeman, or you heard something (or read something by an errant wikipedian recently) about grudges, so to dispel the myths and answer you; "it would be implausible to suggest that insider activity involving Unit 8200/Silicon Wadi contracted parties,proxies, and agents, anywhere in the world, within the contexts of targeted journalism, recreational drug use, diplomacy, politics, grass-roots activism, or any other connected downstream user(s) of Amdocs or Facebook (akamai tech) cannot violate the human rights of the target." Nobody wants to talk about IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.20.194 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How does all this help us to improve this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A link to the Pegasus article allows the reader to find context; that would be improvement. No worries.

A question about using middleeastmonitor pegasus article of April 2018 in Khasoggi-linked wikipedia articles; there shouldn`t be any objections to referring to it? 6 months before the killing they knew, and the timesofisrael newspaper article published on 2 October about pegasus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.54.112 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)