Talk:Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Addition of propagandist

Hi User:8675309, you have been reverted already by 3 other editors, Clearly you are edit warring against consensus. I encourage you to self revert and kindly respond here and generate consensus first before adding the contentious claim into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 02:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that apparently some editors have a negative perception of the word propagandist.

Propagandist:
1. a person involved in producing or spreading propaganda.  

Propaganda: 
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to HELP or HARM a person, group, movement, institution, NATION, etc.
2. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

Kashoggi was a Saudi Arabian propagandist. Why would anyone expect different from a country without a free press? How would you describe his occupation prior to his WaPo stint? 8675309 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

There is no conflict between what the BBC reported and what CN reported, obviously. Propagandist is a neutral term (see any dictionary) that is historically applied to government employees, especially in nations lacking a free press. It was his job. 8675309 (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

please post reliable mainstream sources that call him propagandist. Meanwhile I will also search for the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've already posted one that meets the requirements of NPOV and WP:IRS. I'll see if I can find more. 8675309 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to an interview Kashoggi did in Istanbul about being a government censor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOnYqGvQCaw&t=37s

8675309 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The video is in Arabic, which I cannot understand. This Biography in Irishtimes, doesnt mention such words. Nor does this remembrance video. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• The notion that the word "propagandist" is a neutral term is absurd. Just read Propaganda#Public perceptions, and the references. In contemporary English speaking countries, this word carries deeply negative connotations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I consider Michael Moore a skilled propagandist. His films are thought-provoking and entertaining AND he's a propagandist.8675309 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you prefer government censor instead? It's not quite the same but I'm willing to compromise.8675309 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite properly, our article Michael Moore does not call him a propagandist, because that is not a neutral term and reliable sources do not commonly refer to Moore that way. As for "government censor", provide evidence that reliable sources commonly call Khashoggi that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to an interview Kashoggi did in Istanbul where he claims he is/was a government censor. 8675309 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOnYqGvQCaw&t=37s

Jamal Khashoggi's wives and marriages

The Wikipedia article describes Rawia al-Tunisi as his first wife and the mother of his children. That is the name given in obituaries in The Guardian and Irish Times, but I can't find any other mention of her: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/19/jamal-khashoggi-obituary (The Guardian article also says he was married and divorced 3 times.)

But there are other articles that state that his first wife and mother of his four children was Dr. Alaa Nassif. She is quoted in several articles since his death. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/05/strangest-moment-cnn-interview-khashoggis-sons-explained/?utm_term=.c33691c49d13

If anyone can sort this out, please do.

For what it's worth, it seems he had a rather complicated love life. It's been widely reported that he was engaged to Hatice (Khadija) Cengiz, although ex-wife Nassif and his children say they knew nothing about her: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2018/10/14/Khashoggi-ex-wife-I-do-not-know-Khadijah-why-handling-his-social-media-.html And now another woman has recently popped up, claiming she was secretly married to Khashoggi in June: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/woman-says-she-married-khashoggi-in-ceremony-kept-secret-from-his-fiancee-and-some-in-his-family/2018/11/16/8cde0a6c-e9cc-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.4e1746a7dfe7 11 Arlington (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal life

I removed the reference to Khashoggi's children being barred from leaving Saudi Arabia, as the travel ban was lifted in October - at least for his son, Salah, who holds dual Saudi and U.S. citizenship. Not clear where the other children live or what their status is.11 Arlington (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Relationship with the Kashoggi family

Hello,

This is a relatively minor point. However, article currently states in infobox that Jamal Kashoggi's father was Ahmad Kashoggi, his mother Esaaf Daftar and that his grandfather was Muhammad Khashoggi. However, article Muhammad Khashoggi states that Muhammad "had six children, Adnan Khashoggi, Samira Khashoggi, Essam Khashoggi, Adil Khashoggi, Assia Khashoggi, and Soheir Khashoggi" but no son named Ahmad. So there's obviously a problem.

What the stated sources say:

• The source given for Jamal's father and mother is:

Born in Medina, Jamal came from a well-known family of Turkish origin that had migrated to the western Hijaz region of the Arabian peninsula in Ottoman times. He was the son of Ahmad Khashoggi, the owner of a fabric shop, and his wife Esaaf (nee Daftar). The arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi was a relative.

— Ian Black, "Jamal Khashoggi obituary", The Guardian (19 October 2018)

• The sentence starting with "His grandfather, Muhammad Khashoggi..." is sourced by an article which does not contain such a statement:

[the Khashoggi family’s] most famous member until now was Adnan Khashoggi, the billionaire arms dealer whose biography is called “The Richest Man in the World,” and who in the 1980s sold his yacht, the Nabila, to Donald Trump. Adnan Khashoggi’s father was Turkish, a doctor who married a Saudi woman and became court physician to King Abdulaziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia.

— Donna Abu-Nasr, "Who Is Jamal Khashoggi? A Saudi Insider Who Became an Exiled Critic", Bloomberg (10 October 2018)

• The source for listing Jamal Khashoggi as a nephew in article Adnan Khashoggi does not explicitely name Jamal's father or grandfather:

Jamal Khashoggi was the nephew of Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi businessman and arms dealer known for his part in the Iran-Contra scandal. Adnan Khashoggi was the middleman in the arms-for-hostages deal. In the 1980s, Adnan Khashoggi was estimated to have a net worth of $4 billion. Jamal Khashoggi's cousin, Dodi Fayed was dating Britain's Princess Diana when the two were killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

— "Jamal Khashoggi: A Profile", VOANews (19 October 2018)

Alternatively, there seem to be quotes citing Saudi official statements calling him Jamal bin Ahmad or Jamal ben Ahmad Khashoggi, which would indicate that his father's given name is Ahmad:

“Preliminary investigations carried out by the Public Prosecution Office into the disappearance of Saudi citizen Jamal bin Ahmad Khashoggi revealed that the discussions that took place between him and the persons who met him during his presence at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul (leading) to a brawl and a fist fight with the citizen, Jamal Khashoggi, which led to his death, may his soul rest in peace,” the Saudi prosecutors’ statement read.

— "Saudi Arabia State Media Confirms Jamal Khashoggi Is Dead", Time (19 October 2018)

This was the official translation of the full statement read on Saudi state television: "The case of the disappearance of the citizen Jamal bin Ahmed Khashoggi drew the attention of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the highest levels..."

— "Saudi Arabia's full statement on the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, CNN (20 October 2018)

Note: a similar issue was briefly raised in this previous discussion, without much answer. OP posted what is IMHO an unreliable ad-laden tabloid piece stating that "It’s now been revealed Princess Diana’s lover, Dodi Fayed is first cousin to the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. [...] His mother was Samira Khashoggi, the sister of the Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi. Adnan was Jamal’s father.

All in all, I'm inclined to give credit to the Guardian's obituary which seems to have done the job in terms of research. I'm sceptical about sources which call him a nephew of Adnan Khashoggi or a grandson of Muhammad Khashoggi but are unable to name through which brother and sister that would be. I'm ruling out for now that Muhammad Khashoggi would be his maternal grandfather, as this does not seem to be claimed anywhere. He can still be considered a relative of the other Khashoggis until we know better, that part is clearly sourced.

I suggest removing specific mentions of Jamal Khashoggi as "grandson", "nephew" or "cousin" that have burgeoned in all Khashoggi articles, and calling him just a "relative" instead, until we know better.

Does someone have more information or better reliable sources? Place Clichy (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible Trump - Khashoggi connection?

FWIW - not sure - but is an apparent connection between Donald Trump and a Khashoggi - relevant to the article? - or not? - seems Donald Trump bought his Super Yacht from Adnan Khashoggi, uncle of Jamal Khashoggi, in the 1980s - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Drbogdan His uncle was rich, this is just a trivia not related to Jamal. unless there is a clear link [of the sale]^{updated --DBigXrayᗙ 13:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)} with Jamal, none of it can be added into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This does not have much relevance. BTW as mentioned in the section above, unless proven otherwise I'm not even sure that Adnan Khashoggi is Jamal Khashoggi's uncle.

If you want more funny irrelevant trivia, after Trump was bankrupt and sold this very same yacht, it was bought by another Saudi billionaire, Al-Waleed bin Talal, who happens to be Jamal Khashoggi's previous boss at Al-Arab News. The Saudi business world seems to be really small.

Lastly, according to the yacht's article, original owner Adnan Khashoggi did not even sell her to Donald Trump: "After Khashoggi ran into financial problems, he sold the yacht in 1988 to the Sultan of Brunei, who in turn sold her to Donald Trump". So your trivia is very very irrelevant. Place Clichy (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - according to the "Kingdom 5KR" article, Trump may have bought the yacht, originally owned by Adnan, from another instead - also - seems, however, that Adnan was the "uncle" of Jamal after all, according to news accounts - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: As explained in the section above, there are reasonable doubts about the imprecise assertion in the VOANews article that Adnan Khashoggi is Jamal Khashoggi's uncle. Uncle is an indirect relationship, you have to be an uncle through someone, whom VOANews does not name. Until we have a clear source stating that Adnan Khashoggi had a brother named Ahmad, or that Muhammad Khashoggi had a son named Ahmad, I prefer calling them relatives only, as do the Guardian obituary and Bloomberg. Place Clichy (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: Thanks for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - the relationship seems unclear at the moment - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Khashoggi was a former Saudi intelligence agent

Alexander Downer (Australian foreign minister (1996 -2007) and high commissioner to the UK): "So Jamal Khashoggi – a former Saudi intelligence agent, a man who was close to the Muslim Brotherhood and a sworn opponent of MBS' reform program– was in the process of setting up a centre to promote the ideology of the MB. He was setting it up in Turkey with Qatari money. The Saudis wanted to stop him. In September they offered him $9 million to return to Saudi Arabia and to live there unhindered. They wanted him out of play. Khashoggi refused and the rest you know. The Saudis killed him." Source: https://www.afr.com/news/economy/jamal-khashoggi-was-a-player-not-a-bleeding-heart-liberal-alexander-downer-20181104-h17h9k - I would like to make some additions for the article based on Downer's statement. Is someone here opposed? --93.211.215.117 (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would consider discussing this at WP:RSN. Even if the Australian Financial Review is a WP:RS for what Downer has WP:SAID about Khashoggi, is Downer a WP:RS about Khashoggi?

(Downer had a reputation for duplicity and bullying in foreign policy, but more recently he has form in tracking others' machinations.) Zazpot (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Rapid Intervention Group

NYT reports today that Khashoggi's murder was one of a series of operations conducted by the Saudi Rapid Intervention Group. The existence of that group, and the fact that Khashoggi's murderers were among its members, should probably be mentioned in the article. Zazpot (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Political cartoons

I'm starting this discussion to seek general consensus on the inclusion of political cartoons, namely File:Jamal Khashoggi1.jpg, in Jamal Khashoggi, Mohammed bin Salman, or Saudi related articles. Political cartoons such as this has previously been added to Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi article and was actively removed by multiple users and admins on the basis of violation of WP:BLP. I am pinging user @Mr.User200: who has reverted the removal of the image in this article with the explanation "NOTCENSORED". There is currently an active discussion on the use of political cartoons which display living subjects in a negative light in BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jamal_Khashoggi and any comments are welcome. In my opinion, the usage of such images violates WP:BLP as it does portrays a living subject in a negative manner, which is not the rationale of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not an editorial political cartoon contest. Images solely provided to portray controversial figures should not include a political cartoon (which is by itself the artists opinion on the subject) and removing them is not censorship. Per WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE material in BLP articles should be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Material should not be given disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. Material should be provided in a neutral point of view and images should be provided to explain particular information, not give undue weight to opinions. Since I am not a BLP expert, I have enlisted the opinion of people who are in the BLP noticeboard. With that said, any opinions are welcome Wikiemirati (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Coming here via the aforementioned WP:BLPN discussion, I agree with the above post as well as the comments made at BLPN. Something similar was discussed at Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi/Archive 2#Cartoon of killing of Khashoggi, and even though that particular discussion was technically about a different cartoon and a different article, I think the consensus reached could also be applied to this cartoon and this article. Content which is deemed to be a BLP violation in one article shouldn't really be added to other related articles; otherwise, BLP would kind of be meaningless as a community-wide policy. The way I could possibly see using something like this would if there was a Wikipedia article specifically written about this cartoon because the cartoon itself received significant coverage in reliable sources discussing the assassination, or may in an article about the person who drew the cartoon if they received signifcant coverage as the artist who drew it. The file may have been released under a free license, but I don't think that automatically means it's OK to use regardless per WP:IUP#Image content, WP:MUG or even WP:UNDUE. I also think that dismissing the serious concerns expressed in this edit summary as "NONCENSOR" was a bit hasty. No matter how you try and shake things, the cartoon is MOS:OPED type of material which was specifically intended to depict one particular living person rather negatively; as political commentary, that might be a perfectly fine thing to do; I don't think, however, that's really the purpose or should be the purpose of this Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

"Propagandist"

This word jumps-out in the Lede, but it's never mentioned again in the Article. And it's difficult to reconcile "Saudi Arabian Dissident" with "government propagandist". Seems like he could either be paid by the Saudi government, or "dissident" to the Saudi government, but not both. This is real interesting stuff, and should be in the Lede, but it looks illogical and makes for confusion. So IMO explaining this seeming contradiction would be a good thing.Tym Whittier (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed it per our BLP policy. If there's reliable sourcing for this, it certainly isn't made clear by the article. R2 (bleep) 20:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

While it would need better sourcing, it's actually far from inherently contradictory. Remember that Khashoggi was 59 years old when he was murdered. From what sources said around the time of the murder, he was fairly close to the government for quite a while. Per our article, he was managing editor for Al Madina (newspaper) for quite a while, and our article even says there are claims he worked for the Saudi intelligence service. As I understand it, he began to fall out with the Saudi government mostly after the rise of MbS. So while I don't know if he was a Saudi government propagandist, it's inherently possible he was one. By the same token, Dilma Rousseff was both a dissident involved in guerrilla activity against the Brazilian government, and the President of Brazil, at different times. That said, since the phrase used was simply government propagandist, I can't help wondering if it was added by someone supporting the Saudi government POV who was alleging he was a propagandist for Qatar or Iran or something. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Our article also mentions a falling out with the government in 2003 but semi worked himself back into their good graces. It also says he was a media advisor to Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, the same person who later said the CIA conclusion MbS was involved in his death was wrong. From what I understand from comments around the time of his death, it's quite likely he was still in contact with some people in the government even after he went into exile again, maybe up to his death. I recall many sources saying it's complicated to simply call him a dissident. Our article also mentions how he received assistance from a Qatari funded organisation so again maybe that's what whoever added it is trying to refer to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a subject matter expert but I found the Washington Post's recent mini-documentary quite interesting and informative. It's clear the guy had a nuanced relationship with the Saudi government. My understanding is that he aimed to be a reformer from within, but he became more and more alienated by MBS's authoritarianism. By the time of his murder he was writing some pretty caustic stuff, though it seems his goal was always to reform, not to topple. R2 (bleep) 16:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Peter Bergen's authenticity

All sources that claim Khashoggi reformed to a more liberal position point to an excerpt from Peter Bergen's 2005 interview he had with Khashoggi for a book he was writing "The Osama bin Laden I know". All of his books are depicting Islam in a negative light, using "Us vs them" strategy. Bergen has also been sugarcoating Khashoggi's words and misleading readers into believing he wasn't a jihadist. Khashoggi said "Right now I don't believe that we must create an Islamic state." and his reason was that because it might fail and shake beliefs. He's "more liberal" than bin Laden but that only means "less extreme." And then Bergen, deliberately leaving out parts of the interview, included an additional quote "I think we must find a way where we can accommodate secularism and Islam, something like what they have in Turkey." which goes against his belief in the previous quote. I believe that this last sentence was forged by Peter Bergen in order to prove Trump supporters wrong. In the article, He emphasizes in both the introduction and conclusion that Trump supporters are trying to smear Khashoggi.

Due to this, the "Opinions on Khashoggi's views" section needs to be rewritten. CNN's Bergen shouldn't be the starter of the paragraph. I have taken action to include the tag "Unreliable Source" next to it for now.

If anyone has any objections, discuss it here. --Sultanic (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please DO NOT remove a tag without an explanation. Egypttoday is a biased source. CNN is considered as a reliable source.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I have given reason for removing the tag, but you ironically haven't. Egypt Today is as biased as CNN. Even if CNN was reliable, Peter Bergen has a questionable background. Please take the time to research the topic instead of forcing your anti-Saudi agenda into Wikipedia. There's already more than enough of it. There's a reason you were blocked in the past. --Sultanic (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sultanic: You didn't give any reason for removing the tag that was next to EGYPTTODAY source. You removed the tag next to Egypttoday source and put a tag next to CNN!!! which is considered as a reliable source. I have anti-Saudi aganda? WTF?!!. Stop accusing me with baseless accusations. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There is widespread longstanding consensus that CNN is a reliable source, and all you've offered here to the contrary is your own original research to say otherwise. If you continue to edit war on the article over this tag you will be blocked from editing. GMG^talk 15:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

So why was Egypt Today tagged as unreliable for such a long time? Take a look at the talk page section "Khashoggi was a former Saudi intelligence agent", user Zazpot suggests that although the Australian Financial Review might be a WP:RS, is Downer a WP:RS about what Khashoggi WP:SAID? The same can be applied to CNN's Peter Bergen. --Sultanic (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The reliability of unrelated sources has nothing to do with the reliability of this source. If you want to argue against Bergen, then you need to cite more than your own incredulity. GMG^talk 17:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Blood money

Any content saying Khashoggi's family received blood money must be excluded without at least one source saying that Khashoggi's family received blood money. Any content saying Khashoggi's family received $X in blood money must be excluded without at least one source saying that Khashoggi's family received $X in blood money. R2 (bleep) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What happens with the saudis that kill this guy?

Dear, There are no entries to show what happens with the Saudis that kill Khashoggi ??

Milton (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You can find more details in Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. Nevertheless, there have not been many recent developments on that issue.--Gorpik (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Date of birth

It’s mentioned in the book “The killing In the consulate “,that Mr Khashoggi himself had told that the correct birthday is on 23 March. Angunnu (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Bone saw

After Jamai died in a fist fight, did the Saudis borrow a bone saw from the Turks or had they brought their own saw? 2601:181:8301:4510:1D6B:747B:8A22:351B (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Richard-of-Earth what in God's name is a forum here?!!!--SharabSalam (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is not for questions about the subject of the article. We do not do original research here. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM. If the IP has something that will contribute to the article the IP can state it flat out and provide a WP:RS to support it. If the IP wants to start a discussion about where the saw came from he can go to a discussion website like Reddit. If he just wants a short answer to a question he should post in the Wikipedia:Reference desk. It does not go here. Most editors find it is best to just delete such questions and leave a note on the user talk page, which I did. I actually did not notice the it had been removed already and that you put it back. If you really insist, we can just leave it, but it looks to me that it will not result in a discussion that will improve the article. As to the actual question, see Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi#Assassination, 4th paragraph. According to Middle East Eye, an anonymous Turkish source says they brought a bone saw with them. But that does not go in this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that the IP intention was to add to the article information about where the bone saw came from.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Political Party

The info box had, "Political Party: Muslim Brotherhood." Reliable sources [1] report that Muslim Brotherhood is an organization, not a political party. Also, the RS say that Khashoggi was a member of the brotherhood in the late 1970s [2] while covering the Russia-Afghanistan war and then left the brotherhood sometime in the early 1990s [3]. Since the Muslim Brotherhood was not a political party when Khashoggi was involved with it, and it's still not a political party, I removed that from the information box. I have pinged editors Huldra Fshafique Alhanuty who appear to have worked on this page in case they want to give feedback. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Its not a political party and he wasnt part of it. You need to bring multiple reliable sources for this claim in order to add it to the article as this is someone who recently died and therefore is covered by BLP policies as his family are still going to be affected.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - From your reply to me, it's clear you either did not read my comment, or you misread my comment, & as a result you misquoted me. Please re-read my comment & get back to me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I read your comment and I didnt even quote you let alone misquote you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - Apparently you did not read my original comment & yes, you did misquote me. In my original comment I write that I "removed" (opposite of adding) the part of the info box that had (past tense not me adding) "Political Party: Muslim Brotherhood." because, I wrote, "Muslim Brotherhood is an organization, not a political party." So, yes, you falsely quoted me when you falsely implied that I wanted to "add" (your word, not mine) MB being a political party. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I didnt say you added it and when I said "you" I meant a generic you, not you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - In the future, it would probably be a good idea for you to be more clear and use the words "if anyone" as opposed to "if you." That will help you avoid giving people the false impression that you are falsely accusing someone else of attempting to add something when, in fact, the opposite is true. Words do matter. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I honestly thought no one would misunderstand what I said. I clearly read your comment and I was supporting what you are saying and also saying that the sources are not reliable enough for to meet BLPSOURCES which still applies as his family are still affected by what we write here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"after they had allegedly used Israeli spyware to hack his friend's cell phone" in the lead

I removed the sentence "after they had allegedly used Israeli spyware to hack his friend's cell phone" from the lead, simply per WP:LEAD. Not importnant enough, also not covered in the article per se, also "allegedly". Feel free to place somewhere else in the article. Was reverted by SharʿabSalam, and bcs no specific comment to my reasons above was offered, I removed again, and am waiting for other opinions of other editors. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, I disagree, it is important enough to be in the lead. You need to establish consensus in the talk page. You are simply reverting and not allowing the long-standing version. Clearly you have shown little interest in working collaboratively with other editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ - Can you please explain how an "alleged" hacking of a cell phone contributed to his assassination? And how does "alleged" make it important enough to be in the lead of his bio page? And since it's not covered within the article, why should it be covered in the lead? BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To SharʿabSalam▼ I have already read in your edit summary that you disagree (which is quite self-evident when you revert) but so far you have provided no reasons, and no comment on why my reasons do not apply. Also as someone who was blocked four times in the last 2 years, including for personal attacks, please be more careful with the wording of your opinions about other editors, such as " Clearly you have shown little interest in working collaboratively" above. Some might take even that as a personal attack. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, your reasoning is subjective. You said Not importnant enough. This is your opinion and I dont need to reason why I disagree because you havent said why it is "Not important enough". The ouns is on you to make your case, not me. Yes, it is important in the lead as it is one of the main factors that caused his death. If it wasnt the Israelis, the Saudis wouldnt have been able to know when that Jamal was going to be in the embassy. It will be mentioned in the lead (sooner or later) and the body. Instead of seeking consensus, you have chosen to editwar and to enforce your version of the lead over the long-standing version despite having not established consensus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss politics with you or what "the Saudis" would or would not know. I made some specific points: 1) not a summary per WP:LEAD, 2) not covered in the article per se, 3) vague "allegedly". All of that was mentioned by BetsyRMadison as well, +the relation to his death (your explanation of that relation seems based on your beliefs/opinions.) I will let other editors decide, discussing with you is a waste of time. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal,

How is not being in the body justify removing it, instead of adding the content to the body? Clearly your argument is flawed.

I have said it is important and what I said is reported in the mainstream media such as The New York Times and even the ToI.

You have made a bold edit, it should be you who should seek consensus, not me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SharʿabSalam▼ - if there is a subheading that covers the alleged cell phone being hacked in order to track him, then it should be in the lead. But, I don't think it should be in the lead if it's not covered within the article. Maybe SharabSalam can write a subheading up for that? BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)