Talk:Jamal Khashoggi

message: I added "He was a sympathizer and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood." to the lead but was reverted (without explanation, by SharʿabSalam. So, let's discuss. I think it is important enough to be in the lead, and it is, more or less, a summary of what is in the article. More sources can be found in the archives of the talk page (search Muslim Brotherhood) but I have not checked any sources. Perhaps a better wording can be found. There are several quotes in the article about him being in the brotherhood, in the Political views subsection. The lead should be balanced; perhpas the Muslim Brotherhood membership is too "shocking" - that is why I did not add it directly to the first sentence (that would be too much given his subsequent work). Some of Khashoggi' opinions are in the lead so it should be incorporated somehow. So, 1) what would be a proper short summary of his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and 2) how (where) in the lead is hould be incorporated? WikiHannibal (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I clearly explained in the talk page. No sources say that he was a "sympathizer of the Muslim brotherhood". Clearly you are violating BLP (still affects his family) by adding unsourced content to the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean, no sources? The article reads, for example: "Khashoggi stated that Saudi Arabia ...  must ... build alliances with organisations rooted in political Islam such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and that it would be a "big mistake" if Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be friendly.", quotes him as saying: "yes, I joined the Muslim Brotherhood organization when I was at university; and I was not alone" Other opinions have it: Khashoggi was supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood ...  In one of his own blogs he argued for the Muslim Brotherhood. Sources at he respective places in the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , that no way means he "was a sympathizer of the Muslim brotherhood". You are clearly violating one of the most sacred principles on Wikipedia which is WP:BLP. You are making original research to an article that affects BLP.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

text: To WikiHannibal - RS do not say Jamal "is a sympathizer" to Muslim Brotherhood. SharʿabSalam▼ is correct, that should be removed</U> from the article completely & especially removed from the lead. Also, the RS say that Khashoogi was a member of the brotherhood in the late 1970s  when he was a student at Indiana University in America, up through his time covering the Soviet(Russia)-Afghanistan War, and then left the brotherhood sometime in the early 1990s . (I will note here for historical purposes, that during the Russia-Afghanistan War, the United Stated trained, funded, and helped the Afghanistan mujahideen whose members included the Muslim Brotherhood against the Soviets. ) Since any membership he had with the MB ended almost 30 years before he was assassinated, it does not belong in the lead so it should be removed because it is not important at all to his bio. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I added he "was", based on the coverage of this topic article. I the article is not neutral or lacks important info, it would be best to change the article, perhaps using your sources. Also, this article is about the persoange, not the assassination, so it should cover his life in its (encyclopedic) entirety. More historical context is needed to explain his relations with the Muslim Brotherhood but to say that is "shloud be removed</U> from the article completely" is a little too far-fetched, in my opinion. Cheers, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

text: To WikiHannibal - Reliable sources do not support your claims.  For example, RS do not say Jamal "is a sympathizer" to Muslim Brotherhood so yes, it should be removed completely from the article. I know you're working hard, but you should stop adding things that RS do not support, otherwise, you risk starting an unnecessary edit war. SharʿabSalam▼ is correct, you are violating WP:BLP.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat: I just used info in the article. RS are not needed for the lead (per WP:LEAD. RS should be in the article. If some sources in the article are not reliable, please tag them. When sources say he was a member, and "argued for the Muslim Brotherhood", is "sympatizer" a correct/safe hyperonym or not? How would you summarize his relation with the Muslim brotherhood? The topic is covered in the article but, as I said, perhaps not with enough context. Also, as you can see, I did not add it to the article again, so not sure what you mean by "should stop adding things that RS do not support". Also, when you claim I violate WP:BLP, please be more specific what exactly I violated (there are several subsections); I find MOS:BLPLEAD more to the point: "make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article", and "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject ...  should be kept in historical perspective. ...new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." WikiHannibal (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "He was a sympathizer and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood" to the lead 

message: The Biden administration recently released a report on Khashoggi’s death; is can be read (on Wikisource) here. It should be added to this article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: TE(æ)A,ea. Did you mean this page? It's quite heavily redacted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

text: *Yes, that is the page; but it is almost entirely unredacted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The 31 solid black rectangles sort of caught my eye. What do they cover up, or are they just for decoration? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

text: *They cover the security codes. Unredacted, they would show (U/SECRET), or some other code in place of “SECRET.” The only actual redactions are of the names on the title page. For more thorough redactions, note this report. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: New report