The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus on the final target. There were two options, Killing of Jamal Khashoggi and Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, that have reasonably strong support and good arguments. About twice as many people !voted in the latter, but it could simply be because that section was first. With about 2/1 support for each option I am closing this RM and suggesting that a new one be started to pick one of the two options (i.e. "choose either A or B") as a firm(er) consensus. Primefac ( talk) 19:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification - I do understand that there were many moves before (and after) this RM started, but consider this close a temporary measure because "Choose A, B, C, D, or other" had no result - I will start a procedural RM to decide "A or B". Primefac ( talk) 20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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 the word killing does not fully compensate what has actually happened. It is already clear that the planning was conducted with the participation of the highest members of the Saudi crown. What happened to Jamal Khashoggi was politically motivated assassination. User: Alihsanakbas —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• 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]-- DBig Xrayᗙ 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)

If reliable sources found the Turkish claim to be suspicious and inaccurate, that is what the reliable sources would say. As shady as the Erdogan government may be, reliable sources do not become null and void when they find the Turkish claim credible Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:41, 26 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, 21 October 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, 21 October 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. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 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:

{{ quote frame|quote=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. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 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, 22 October 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.-- DBig Xrayᗙ 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, 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)

  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, 22 October 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, 23 October 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-- DBig Xrayᗙ 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)
• Support The formal role of the Saudi government seems to be the main point of contention for people regarding this semantic change, which I believe isn't relevant. Classifying this as an assassination does not require the perpetrator to be a government, or even be sanctioned by one. Many of the most famous assassinations in history were orchestrated by perpetrators acting in support (perceived or otherwise) of a political entity either without being sanctioned in any way by said entity, or acting as a "rogue" faction of it, including John Wilkes Booth, who was part of a private conspiracy to revive the Confederate government, and Gavrilo Princip, assassin of Franz Ferdinand, who was operating at the behest of a clandestine group made up of Serbian military officials, a group which the Serbian government famously denied any involvement with or responsibility for, despite widespread suspicion that the assassination has Serbian Intelligence support (not an unsimilar situation to this one). Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 16:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The word 'murder' is more appropriate for the gruesome nature of this death. Other similar events, such as the Chain murders of Iran, also use the word 'murder' to describe the event. LissanX ( talk) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• But surely the "gruesome nature" of the method doesn't really matter? If he was killed, for political reasons, on the orders of others, it is "assassination" and the exact method is irrelevant, regardless of how gruesome? Alternatively, perhaps the method was also ordered. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Politically motivated, premeditated murder of an influential person. Come on. Close this already.-- Snowgrouse ( talk) 00:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- and I advise that this comment section is immediately closed. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/assassination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.110.157 ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC) [13]
• Strongly Support - Saudi Arabia has already admitted that Khashoggi killing was, in fact, premeditated. IProud81 ( talk) 17:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - This is the textbook definition of assassination. He walked into the building, he never walked out, a guy pretending to be him walked out, and after news of the murder spread, the Saudi Arabian government actively tried to cover it up. (indicating it was political). They now also admit it was premeditated. Howpper ( talk) 19:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support it was an extraterritorial planned killing. The FBI is helping the Turkish LE, the intel was shared. -- Degen Earthfast ( talk) 22:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Degen, I'm sure I've seen a very similar comment somewhere before. What actual evidence do you have for that? Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Too early to say it was an assassination. Many sources believe the Saudi explanation that he died in a fight. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 09:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@ AlessandroTiandelli333: actually many sources have doubts about the Saudi explanation. That does not change the fact he was killed for a political reason. Moreover, Saudi Arabia has changed it's story and it has admitted that the killing was premeditated. [14] SharabSalam ( talk) 09:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's neither Saudi Arabia, an admission nor a changed story. It's the top prosecutor, who simply says Turkish evidence now indicates the suspects committed their act with premeditation. Not necessarilly "killing" nor a "murder", simply the act they are suspected of carrying out. Maybe more people wouldn't think "the Saudis" are changing "their" story if more people realized different Saudis say these different things, and different media play up different words in painting them all with the same brush. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@ AlessandroTiandelli333: a premeditated murder is an asasination. Reliables sources said it is an assassination. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 13:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the definition of an assassination. Even if we give Saudi Arabia the benefit of the doubt to an absurd degree, this is still by definition an example of an assassination. Continued undue weight to the Saudi position would not be encyclopedic. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support A politically motivated murder is an assassination. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 23:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose until most RS use it Many arguments above weak, we go by WP:RS not dictionary definitions. Some sources uses assassination but unless one is cherry-picking I'd say vast majority don't. Currently, BBC and The Times use murder and Reuters, Associated Press, The Grauniad, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Sydney Morning Herald use killing. Most common is killing as of now, next murder, and I'm hardly able to find assassination. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC

• Although I do note that the Guardian uses "believed to be handpicked for Khashoggi’s assassination". But the dominant and common term - as of now - is still killing, and so we should stick with that; and the NYtimes attributes "as part of a premeditated assassination" to Turkish officials rather than stating it as fact. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This was a lengthily planned, demonic, 15-man kill-team assassination, complete with dismemberment with a bone saw. See the similarly titled Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, another journalist critical of a repressive regime, assassinated on Putin's birthday. Softlavender ( talk) 17:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Death of Jamal Khashoggi

Murder of Jamal Khashoggi

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)

• Allow me to bring you up to speed on the "Premediated" part Saudi Arabia, in Reversal, Suggests Khashoggi's Killing Was Premeditated -- DBig Xrayᗙ 11:07, 28 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, 21 October 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, 21 October 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, 21 October 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, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• May I request all above, to utilize the section titled "Discussion" below for threaded debate. regards. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 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)

• Allow me to bring you up to speed on the "Premediated" part NYT: Saudi Arabia, in Reversal, Suggests Khashoggi's Killing Was Premeditated-- DBig Xrayᗙ 11:10, 28 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. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 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 [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]-- DBig Xrayᗙ 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, 21 October 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 Wadi 126.3.20.194 ( talk) 12:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• There never was a logically valid reason to call this anything other than an assassination. Now, there is not even a simpleton's reason left. The Saudi government is now acknowledging that it was a premeditated murder. The director of the CIA has confirmed that she has listened to the recording in the possession of the Turks. And the idiotic "maybe he died from natural causes in the course of being strangled" are put to bed when we compare to the recent pipe bomb terrorist attack in the US (that none of the bombs exploded does not diminish the fact that it was a terrorist attack; similarly the incompetence of a choke hold failing to kill him and instead causing "nothing more" an enormous amount of fear that leads to a heart attack does not create a logical exemption to calling a duck a duck). 2601:140:C003:9A33:B165:9F7:DC5F:B363 ( talk) 12:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• It seems somewhat unlikely that an exact cause of death will ever be established, as a post-mortem examination may not realistically be performed? Even if the body it actually found. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Because we want to keep it unbiased, we may want to keep it as "death". Although I personally agree that this was an assassination (planned by the Saudis), this is an encyclopedia, and because of that, we should try to keep everything unbiased. We can all agree that Khashoggi is dead, and we should leave it there. This article already contains some bias because this is an intensely political topic, we should do our best to prevent more. And again, I myself believe it to be the Saudis' fault, but there is a small percentage of the world that thinks it was not. To keep bias away, we should make it "Death Shibe08 ( talk)" or at least "Killing Shibe08 ( talk)". Thanks. -shibe

@ Shibe08: What!? You are completely wrong. Since the 25 October 2018 even Saudi's public prosecutor says - based on evidence - that the murder was premeditated. A with a political motive = assassination. There is a small percentage of the world believe in the tooth fairy. So what. -- 87.170.197.31 ( talk) 18:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A small percentage of us believe in due process and a right to a fair trial. The prosecutor didn't mention murder. Even if he later does, the next step would be charging someone with murder. Then trying and finally convicting someone. During that process, things like motive would emerge. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Why this page has not been moved back to Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi?!?!? The Saudis have retracted their initial denials that Khashoggi was murder inside their consulate and acknowledge that his death was intentional and premeditated, and given that Khashoggi was a public figure killed for political issues by an assassin squad, regardless of who may have planned the murder, this event was clearly a textbook assassination. This move request is stalled for no reason when any doubt that this event was an assassination has vanished in the past seven days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.186.175 ( talk • contribs) 01:08 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If this was a "textbook assassination", I think someone may have already returned that textbook to Amazon for a refund. Do we know who ordered an assassination? There seems to be only one person who's name is in the frame for that order. But, as far as I know, no-one yet has any proof of that. It may be that we have to wait until the outcome of he prosecution, that the Saudi government has now promised, before we will ever know who was ultimately responsible, or even what the motives of the killer, or killers, were. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the latest reports Saudi Arabia has admitted that he was killed by Saudi assassins. Now, who ordered these assassins, is a matter of investigation, but it does not change the fact, that Khashoggi was killed for his critical journalism and political leanings. It still is a political killing, no matter how you see it. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The lead section currently just says this: "A Saudi-Turkish joint investigation found evidence indicating the suspects acted with premeditated intent and had murdered Khashoggi." If, as you say, "Saudi Arabia has admitted that he was killed by Saudi assassins", I would expect to see a clear statement to that effect in the lead section, supported by several secondary sources that all use "the a-word." Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Just look at the Media coverage of "assassination"+jamal+khashoggi -- DBig Xrayᗙ 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to select some sources and amend the article accordingly? That might help precipitate a closure of the WP:RM, although I have to agree that any consensus does not seem very clear. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.