Talk:Mohammed bin Salman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC on top subsection in Controversies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See above for a prior discussion on this – the question is whether there should be this subsection in Controversies when there is already a full section on this event (2017 purge). Tarafa15 (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep both for the sake of clarity. (Summoned by bot) It may seem duplicative and is, but you have a controversies section and that is one of the controversies. The alternative is to rework the whole article to eliminate the Controversies section. Everything he does is controversial, so having one is questionable. Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Eliminate the subsection, or at least replace it with a link to the section. Eventually, rewrite the article to no longer need a controversy section.. (Summoned by bot) -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Eliminate the subsection,(Summoned by bot) or at least reduce it to a single sentence with a link to the section where it is covered fully.Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Reduce to a cross-reference sentence and thus eliminate the redundant subsection. I agree with some above commenters that this can probably be rewritten to do away with a Controversy section at all. We don't need one in cases where "everything he does is controversial", as Coretheapple put it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Generate a proposal for restructuring 3 Political, economic, and social changes, 4 Philanthropy and 5 Controversies into some sections that are sociologically more meaningful and NPOV and not advertising, along the lines of other historically important national political leaders. The policies and actions of almost any national gigarich political leader are controversial for some local and international critics, so "controversies" is not really an encyclopedically useful section. For example, something like:
  • Politics [vision 2030]
  • Human rights [women driving, 2017 purge, 2018 crackdown on women's rights activists and islamic clerics]
  • Foreign policy [would include the Yemen war and crime against humanity by starvation]
  • Economics [vision 2030]
  • Social policy [movies]
  • Public relations [philanthropy, employment of an openly declared Wikipedia editor for looking after the MBS page - though the latter is not WP-notable according to external sources]
• Boud (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tarafa15, are you affiliated with Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud? It is highly problematic for a PR agency to conduct sub rasa operations on Wikipedia, as you appear to be doing. You need to disclose your affiliation in the RFC introduction. Jehochman Talk 12:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC) @Jehochman: I work at the Ministry of Media in Saudi Arabia (see my user page) and my COI is disclosed on this page. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Could you just note that at the top of this section and then you can delete both of my comments and yours here (to keep the conversation on topic)? That will satisfy my concern. Thank you so much and best wishes. Jehochman Talk 23:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC) In my judgment, though I'm only an occasional editor on this article, Tarafa15 has been quite fair in following COI guidelines. I'm not sure if we should ask him/her to add a disclaimer in every new section. Maybe, given that there are so many boxes at the top of the talk page, we could shift the COI box to a more prominent position. How about shifting it up to be between {{Living person}} and {{controversial}}? It's not as critical as the fact that this is a BLP article, but in some sense it's more important than "be bold, but not reckless", since "be bold, but not reckless" is more obvious, and an overt Ministry-funded COI is unusual (but preferable that the COI is declared than hidden). And I would suggest strike rather than removing comments. That preserves the record and makes it easy to skip over the struck text. Boud (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Eliminate the subsection. Not only does a section duplicate, but so does a whole other article. Why confuse readers?--Rpclod (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Result

The consensus is to eliminate the redundant subsection. Boud's opinion is the most convincing, and has the best basis in Wikipedia policy. I read Boud to suggest eliminating this subsection and move the rest of Controversies into relevant areas of the article. I recommend starting a discussion on the article subsection to discuss whether to do that, and if so how to do that. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mohammad bin Salman article needs information on the Jeff Bezos phone hacking incident. Probably should be in a new section.

It has been widely asserted that Mohammad bin Salman passed a file (phone to phone) to Jeff Bezos containing malware that compromised the information in Bezos' phone. This needs to be verified and if true added to the article. Fmanci (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Already done by now. starship.paint (exalt) 03:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Epstein Scandal

Bin Salman has been implicated by the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-interview.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8401:C86:B51B:79D7:51F4:BD6E (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Epstein alleged no crime by bin Salman. He pointed to a full-length shot of a man in traditional Arab dress. “That’s M.B.S.,” he said, referring to Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. The crown prince had visited him many times, and they spoke often, Mr. Epstein said ... He said he’d spoken to the Saudis about possibly investing in Tesla, but he wouldn’t provide any specifics or names. There is no implication. starship.paint (exalt) 03:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

Constant vandalism is occurring in this article, disturbing the reading experience. Please read the "View History" section for reference. Some type of protection must be enforced to ensure that this does not happen again. Semi protection should be enforced, but if it does not work, extended confirmed protection must be put in place.

Xpërt3 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wife and family.

@Векочел: What you doing and why is difficult to discern, when you don't write edit summaries. And please before reverting take it to this talk section. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

Hamdannabbas (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian politician - Israeli politician

Israeli politician Hamdannabbas (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

Why is "Relations with Donald Trump" listed under controversies? I don't see how working with a western leader and Israelis towards peace in the middle east is controversial. So much for wikipedias "political neutrality". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:146F:F400:2C92:40D0:DDF2:938F (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"In August 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with an envoy representing Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi. The envoy offered help to the Trump presidential campaign"- helping a presidential campaign of a foreign candidate sounds controversial... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpieDS95 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Source Provided Does not Support Claim

The source provided for the following statement does not contain the information reported and should either be deleted or properly sourced. "In 2021, bin Salman signed a military cooperation agreement with Russia.[79]" The source referenced as citation #79 does not contain any reference to MBS signing a deal with the Russians [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:102:5800:70BB:C242:2E5D:AF9A (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Naming

Do you guys think it would be good to call him "Mohammed" rather than "bin Salman" in the article? On the one hand the media seems to mostly call him bin Salman, but royalty are usually known by their first names. Векочел (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible influence by Saudi Arabia on Administrators - Neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After the reports from NGOs and the press, I'm of the opinion that articles on Saudi Arabia, including the representatives, should urgently be: {{neutrality}} marked.

Context: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/01/06/saudi-arabia-government-infiltrates-wikipedia-and-jails-two-staff-to-control-narrative Bildersindtoll (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, per my comment here. Considering the long controversies section here, the "infiltrators" have done a particularly incompent job on this article. DeCausa (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Who says your personal view is decisive? How do you want to know for sure whether there has been and is being manipulated here? This is a serious issue and also determines the credibility of Wikipedia. --Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide some sort of example Moxy- 14:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nice job

I just wanted to say good job. I'm sure this is a contentious article and I came here expecting it to be slanted very hard against him. But it actually reads very balanced. Encyclopedic. If you want to learn bad things about him, that appears to all be here. But all of the other elements of his life appear to be written objectively. I learned a lot just now. Thank you. Keep it up! JaHolo (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Fallacious, Low-Quality Article

Reading this article, I get the impression that it is written by activists instead of actual writers.

Bin Salman rules an authoritarian regime, there are no democratic institutions in Saudi Arabia, and elements of repression are still evident. Human rights activists, women's rights activists, journalists, former insiders, and dissidents are systematically repressed through tactics including torture, jailing, and killings, and bin Salman is said to use a group of assassins known as the Tiger Squad to carry out extrajudicial killings.

The article uses a guilt-by-association tactic. It mostly talks about what Saudi Arabia is like instead of what the Prince is like. This would have been better organized in the Saudi Arabia article instead, unless the article has definitive evidence that widespread systematic repression is a policy of the Prince, and not the ruling monarch. What's funny is that this kind of language used is not as present in King Salman's article, despite his status as the supreme ruler.

It also pushes a claim that he is personally linked to a group of assassins, which would be fine if it weren't in the top paragraph of the article where facts are to be expected, not allegations.

There is also a conflict of interest where there are parts in the article where it explicitly describes the Prince as populist and economically and socially liberal and that he introduced liberal reforms to his country, while in other parts some editors wrote allegations associating this man to widespread repression in Saudi Arabia which is the exact opposite of what was just described.

This article needs some serious reforms if Wikipedia wants to present itself in an objective manner. Bryanscion (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I find there's an effort to wedge whatever negative political content about Saudi Arabia we can think of in this article and as a result we now have a fallacious article. The "controversy" section, which is mainly based on recent geopolitical events, is literally larger than the rest of the article. Certainly fails WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in my opinion. Gorebath (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bryanscion: The idea is that the ruler sets the climate of the country that he rules, and if X conditions are in the country, those conditions would be attributable to him. Now there is a way to deal with this "guilt-by-association tactic": if published, reliable sources link the conditions to MBS himself, then cite the journalists who link them and cite their linkages and justifications for how this has to do with MBS himself. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to determine the motives of editors and don't think there are "activist" editors, but I agree that this article should focus on what MbS does, rather than a general overview of the SA regime. Also, the lede text seems overly POV pushing, rather than just trying to give an overview. Ashmoo (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

The first thing you’re greeted with seems to be a vent off by what I’d assume to be the “western narration” of Mohammed bin Salman. Instead of mentioning significant economic and political reforms, the article rather pushes for conspiracy theories regarding the Khashojji killing, and “feminist torture”. Referring to the Saudi-Houthi conflict as the “Saudi bombing campaign” and how Saudi Arabia isn’t democratic. All these claims being citation-free is the cherry on top. 5.41.252.229 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The "western narration" and "conspiracy theories" you're referring to happen to be well supported by high quality reliable sources in the article itself. They're not "citation-free" -- the lead conforms to WP:LEADCITE. Sure, if enough editors insist, we can repeat the relevant citations in the lead. But it's unlikely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

By all means, add sourced text for anything that you think is missing from the article. (Although SA not being democratic is not a controversial claim, and is well sources. So I don't think you will succeed in getting that removed from the article). Ashmoo (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I ask for non western citations if this isn’t nothing but a western narration. All of these claims have been equally challenged and refuted, effectively making them conflictual. SwairIsRight (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability in the personal life section

I see this long paragraph in the Personal life section. It seems to suffer from a lack of WP:Verifiability to me. Since it is a back and forth both ways, I feel like the whole paragraph should just be removed. WP articles should focus on verifiable claims and not engage in debates. Especially when it is about such a trivial topic of whether he owns a specific painting or not (however expensive). Please respond here if you object to the removal).Ashmoo (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In December 2017, a number of sources reported that Mohammed, using his close associate Prince Badr bin Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Farhan as an intermediary, had bought Salvator Mundi by Leonardo da Vinci; the sale in November at $450.3 million set a new record price for a work of art.[304][305][306][307] This report has been denied by the auctioneer Christie's, the Saudi Arabian embassy,[308] and the UAE government, which has announced that it is the actual owner of the painting.[309] The exact current location of the painting is unknown,[310][311] as it has not been seen publicly since the auction. However, it has been suggested that Mohammed's yacht Serene houses Salvator Mundi.[312]

@Ashmoo: Just to add to this, there is conflicting information in the Personal life section regarding MBS's net worth. ISON (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In 2018, he was ranked by Forbes as the eighth most powerful person in the world,[308] with a personal wealth of at least $25 billion.[309]

Later in the Personal life section:

In 2018, Mohammed's personal net worth was estimated at US$3.0 billion.[324]

Lead too long

I came to this page having read the Neom article. I can see there are competing views about the subject; I have no strong opinion either way. I simply note that the lead is very long and the content after the second paragraph would seem better suited to the main body. If there are no comments here, I will edit in due course. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Some edits

Following my comment above, and having waited for other comments, I have started editing this article. I have edited only the lead so far. I have made little edits and one bigger one in order to strike a balance between ease of reading and the avoidance of it becoming too cumbersome. I've made a few grammar and style changes, and been quite bold with some of the content. I've removed relevant content which is included in the main body and left some indicative comment in the lead. I intend to use a little of the content I've removed in the main body in my next edits. Can I ask other editors to be parsimonious with each individual edit and to discuss here too? The subject of this article is potentially contentious I appreciate how important it is to reach conclusions around edits on the basis of constructive consensus. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Reverts

Hi @Thenightaway:, I noticed you reverted my edits. I want to discuss why you did so and what we could do about it to reach consensus. You deleted the 2024 IMF reports comments regarding Saudi Arabia's progress to diversify the economy in turn for an older report thats states it's still dependent on oil. Furthermore, if something is going to have to be "too in-the-weeds" in order to be neutral, it shouldn't be in the intro in the first place. I recommend that we mention that the 2024 IMF report states that there's been significant progress to diversify the economy and that older reports state that Saudi Arabia was or is oil dependent., I noticed you reverted my edits. I want to discuss why you did so and what we could do about it to reach consensus. You deleted the 2024 IMF reports comments regarding Saudi Arabia's progress to diversify the economy in turn for an older report thats states it's still dependent on oil. Furthermore, if something is going to have to be "too in-the-weeds" in order to be neutral, it shouldn't be in the intro in the first place. I recommend that we mention that the 2024 IMF report states that there's been significant progress to diversify the economy and that older reports state that Saudi Arabia was or is oil dependent. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 IMF source you added describes itself as a "preliminary" analysis that has not yet been vetted by the IMF. The existing IMF source is a formal staff report which has been published formally by the IMF. Furthermore, the 2024 source you added does not conflict with the existing source in the article because it says absolutely nothing about the Saudi economy's dependence on oil. Lastly, the 2024 source you added provides a snapshot for one year, which is the wrong way to assess the Saudi economy because as the formal staff report[2] makes clear, all indicators for the Saudi economy fluctuate wildly from year to year due to shifts in oil prices and demand for oil. Which is why a more holistic and comprehensive assessment should be used rather than a cherrypicked snapshot for one year. thena (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The diversification of the oil sector mentioned in the report is a reiteration of points made in previous year reports, such as the 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release which states in its abstract, 'The continuation of Vision 2030 reforms has helped advance the country’s economic diversification agenda, including through reduced reliance on oil.' I did not comment on the issue of it conflicting, but these statements can allude to contrasting narratives. To ensure neutrality, it is important to present both perspectives. This extends to the issue of Khashoggi in the last paragraph of the intro. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The intro incorporates both views, noting that the Vision 2030 seeks to diversify the economy while also noting that the economy is still dependent on oil. thena (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The intro states Vision 2030 goals', including diversifying the economy, then proceeds to mention one outcome: that it is still oil dependent - in total contrast to other outcomes that the IMF have stated, such as the following: "Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation is advancing rapidly. Since the onset of the Vision 2030 reform agenda in 2016, and despite the slowdown associated with COVID-19, Saudi Arabia advanced in its diversification through a reduction of the oil sector’s contribution across revenue, export, and output." DrunkenBedouin (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thenightaway:, still awaiting your response DrunkenBedouin (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thenightaway:, If you don't respond within 12 hours, I'm going to proceed with the edits, mentioning the progress made in regard to diversifying oil as well as the dependency of oil to ensure inclusivity of outcomes, along with removing the issue of Khashoggi from the intro since it's conflictual. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with saying that Vision 2030 has contributed to a diversification of the economy while the economy is still dependent on oil. The views of Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo, two politicians, on the Khashoggi murder do not belong in the intro. thena (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

So that's that and done in regards to oil. However, Pompeo is a former CIA director and allegedly had access to all intelligience regarding Khashoggi's assasination- his comment on the CIA's report is relevant. As for Donald Trump, I haven't mentioned him. There should be inclusivity among opposing narratives in order to achieve neutrality. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)