Talk:Alleged Saudi role in the September 11 attacks

New Evidence

An article published yesterday might be an interesting source: http://nypost.com/2017/09/09/saudi-government-allegedly-funded-a-dry-run-for-911/ 2602:306:3810:540:CC36:2425:AC8E:68EB (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Questionable statement in the lead

The lead of this article quotes a Democratic senator, Bob Graham, as saying "the hijackers received active support and guidance from rich Saudis, Saudi charities and top members of the Saudi government." The source is a highly partisan right-wing Washington newspaper. I searched for that quote and found that it does not appear in any reliable sources, only NewsMax and other partisan news sites of questionable accuracy.

I'm going to remove it now pending a reliable source.Msalt (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you had to carry out the search more carefully. "In sworn statements in the two cases, Mr. Graham has said there was evidence of support from the Saudi government for the terrorists." NYTimes. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Threat

"Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir threatened to sell US$750 billion worth of American assets owned ..." Did this happen?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.84.25 (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes per the source [1] and actually it says that the Saudi kingdom itself threatened the Obama administration and Adil Al-Jubeir just delivered the threat.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No Evidence ( Label as Conspiracy Theory)

This is a conspiracy theory and should be noted as such. The CIA director in 2026 has made it explicit that there was no involvement from the Saudi Government in funding or planning 9/11 Terrorist Attack. This should be labelled as a conspiracy theory.

Of course I’m being facetious, but I’m making a point about when do we not believe the “official story”. 2001:8003:E804:C700:BD1B:EF06:5545:73D5 (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

CIA director spoke from future (2026)? Btw, the title reads "Alleged". There should be reliable sources saying it is a conspiracy. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

paragraph two

paragraph two is completely uncited, and it's experiencing POV creep.

we are removing uncited material today, probably best to use inline citations with non pov sourcing, before re-adding. thanks everyone and happy editing, Saintstephen000 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to ask the IP explain their edit plz. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Title.

This title should read "Saudi government" not "Saudi" in general. The term "saudi" alone is vague and not properly indicative of the article. The 2016 "consensus" is to include the term "alleged" in the title, the actual change voted on. Consensus for adding "alleged" in the title does not mean consensus for "saudi" instead of "saudi government". Googleguy007 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you insist on using "government"? Do you have reliable sources supporting your desired title? See WP:TITLE for more info. Just look at the sources used in this page. A dozens of them use "Saudi" ([2], [3], [4], [5]) while some others uses "Saudi Arabia". Your suggestion is not supported by none, AFAIK.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Because "saudi" is an unspecific and imprecise term which could mean anything from governmental support to individiual citizens of saudi arabia. Actually reading the article makes it clear that it is about the saudi arabian government. I would mention that TITLE includes WP:UCRN and WP:PRECISE which seem to support my belief. I would also like to ask, if I may, why you seem to feel so strongly on not using "government" in the title? Googleguy007 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to stress, once again, that your suggestion is not supported by the reliable sources. Maybe you can show its other way. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

read the policies I cited. Titles are meant to concisely convey information. I would like to once again ask why you support the title you do? I have conveyed my reasoning quite clearly Googleguy007 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As I told you, YOUR suggestion is NOT supported by the reliable sources. You need to change the wording in media before coming here. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the policies I cited? Titles are meant to be informative, accurate and precise. If you can’t provide any actual reasoning for your point of view than i think the weight of evidence is firmly on my side. Googleguy007 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be still backed by reliable sources. Of those found repeatedly in reliable sources, we go by the one which is "informative, accurate and precise". --Mhhossein ^talk 08:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The article is about the saudi governments role in 9/11, it is imprecise to use "Saudi" instead of "Saudi Government". Also, it should be clear that articles saying "saudi" are refering to the government. The point of TITLE is to establish that things should generally be called what they are called by RS (IE: a place or persons common name, or a governmental bills common name), not that you must adhere fanatically to the exact wording in sources. And for the love of all that is good would you please just explain why you want the article title to say "saudi" instead of "saudi government" .Googleguy007 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What YOU believe the title should be, is quite different from the WP:TITLE criteria. You can go on with a WP:RM. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question. I have explained in-depth why my title works better and meets TITLE, yet you simply screech "TITLE" without any concern for what TITLE actually says or if my title meets it. Can you please explain why you are so strongly opposed to using "saudi government" Googleguy007 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposing what's not in line with WP:TITLE and your suggestion is not apparently used by the reliable sources. If you think otherwise, please simply start an RM. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

TITLE clearly means that the name of something, not the exact wording, should defer to RS. I also dont believe for a moment that your opposition to "government" is based entirely off of your devout dedication to upholding a fringe interpretation of TITLE. Ill go to RM after an exam I have today. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." --Mhhossein ^talk 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Funding source or location

@Googleguy007: Can you explain your revert despite my explanation provided in the edit summary? In the case you have not observed the edit summary, the BBC source is not supporting your version. Also, your second revert can be counted as an edit warring since you were supposed to engage TP discussion instead of implementing your own version. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The BBC source is clearly stating that most of al-qaedas funding occurs within saudi arabia, however the reverted wording implies that the most of al-qaedas funding comes from the saudi government. My changes (which I do hope to reinstate) in 2020 file release were mostly copyedits, including the inclusion of unneccesary detail for readability. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Googleguy007: So you believe the source wording is not correct? Because the BBC source reads as such:"The report identifies Saudi Arabia as the primary source of al-Qaeda funding." Mhhossein ^talk 08:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You are purposefully misinterpreting the source, it goes on to clarify that Al-Qaeda fundraised in Saudi Arabia, not that Saudi Arabia funded it. The phrasing you are arguing for is blatantly trying to imply that the Saudi government funded al-Qaeda. Why are you so desperate to imply that Saudi Arabia holds responsibility for 9/11 Googleguy007 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Googleguy007, both "You are purposefully misinterpreting the source" and "Why are you so desperate to imply that Saudi Arabia holds responsibility for 9/11" are personal attacks against me. You really need to avoid them plz. Also, the quotation in green in my last comment is totally from the BBC source. So, neither the phrasing nor the argument is mine. Mhhossein ^talk 06:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You just ignored everything i said. The source clearly goes on to clarify that the funding occurs within Saudi Arabia, not from the country itself. Googleguy007 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Then you present your suggestion here based on the source wording. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of paraphrasing information? I find it highly unlikely that you could be an experienced editor and not grasp that articles do not have to base their wording on the wording of a source. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

They have to portray the source wording. See WP:COPO please. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

ctrl-f search of COPO for wording shows nothing. If you legitimately believe that paraphrasing information is not allowed on wikipedia we have WP:CIR issue here, not just a dissagreement. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes

Just assessed the article history and found a handful of trimmings. I think some of the changes should really substantiated before being fully implemented. For instance, This one, for instance, involves removal of a well-sourced portion of the page, also found in the body, from the lead on a wrong basis. Also, this edit removes a noteworthy quote. I will revert these two changes and am fully open to discussion over it. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"Alleged role of Saudi officials in the September 11 attacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alleged role of Saudi officials in the September 11 attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 15 § Alleged role of Saudi officials in the September 11 attacks until a consensus is reached. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus after extended discussion (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Alleged Saudi role in the September 11 attacks → Alleged role of Saudi officials in the September 11 attacks – The current title is inaccurate, obviously biased & partisan, but also a stereotypical generalisation. When did citizens and/or officials (alleged or not) acting in a private or unofficial capacity become tantamount to an entire state or a nation?

The phrasing "Saudi role" in the current title, implies directly that the Saudi Arabian state or the Saudi Arabian nation allegedly conspired with al-Qaeda hijackers in facilitating the September 11 attacks. This is a REDFLAG claim, since AQ was banned by Saudis in 1990s and Bin Laden had declared war to overthrow Saudi government in 1996 and his organization had launched attacks against Saudi targets. By May 2003, AQ had been waging a full-fledged armed insurgency against the Saudi government.

When somebody says "German invasion": it implies that German state or German nation attacked another country. If non-state militias based in Germany attack another country, the event is not described as "German invasion" (This is simply a hypothetical example). Also, the German intelligence had contacts with Al-Qaeda's Hamburg cell before 9/11 (source) and members of this cell were key operatives in 9/11 attacks. Does this translate to an "alleged German role in 9/11 attacks"?

None of the allegations have acccused the Saudi King Fahd or his inner circle of any role or contacts with the hijackers. Therefore, there is no "Saudi role" and the current title is incorrect and original research.
"article title precisely identifies the subject" WP:AT

Even though 3rd level or 4th level officials were accused, it doesnt mean accusing the government of some role, since they were acting in their private capacities. There is a casual display of American centrism throughout this article as well, giving undue weight to accusations by US politicians who have their own issues and Anglo-centric conspiracy theories. The one who is mentioned throughout this page, Omar al-Bayoumi, is not even a confirmed Saudi official which means that all these accusations are against an "alleged Saudi official".

In summary, its clear that the current descriptive title is strongly biased. WP:POVNAME
The only reason why it remained for a few years since 2016 is due to the systemic bias prevelant in this encyclopaedia. Similar accusations against a Western country have never been inserted as a title in any wikipedia page.

Arguments of concision cant be used in favour of the current title.
"The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" WP:CONCISE
The current title with the phrase "Saudi role", as has been demonstrated above, is inaccurate and misleading to readers.

Also, the current title is not consistent with other allegations pages. For example, the pages "Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal" and "Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden" are not titled "Alleged US involvement in the Whitlam dismissal", or "Allegations of US assistance to Osama bin Laden"; despite CIA being a branch of US government.

Additionally, the title of the page is a descriptive title. "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles." WP:TITLEDAB

The current descriptive title in the page is not non-judgmental.
"Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." WP:NDESC

It is obvious that the phrase "Alleged Saudi role" is judgmental as well as biased and conspiratorial.

The phrase "Alleged role of Saudi officials" is precise, consistent as well as non-judgmental. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: The title of the article makes us think that the article is about the involvement of the entire Saudi government with the approval of the king. Parham wiki (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. The nom's rationale aligns with my understanding, but I am open to counterarguments. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec: Hi, you may take a look at the following comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: The current consensus for this title was built in this discussion which was closed 7 years ago by Spirit of Eagle (courtesy ping). Aside from that, most of the OP's argument are Original Research; Although he tries to use the guidelines (arguments!), the application of guidelines seems flawed to me. The original research by the OP is that he states that we should use 'official' in the title to avoid the associating the attack with the people of Saudi Arabia. No, this is never implied by the current title. United States involvement in regime change does not mean the people of US were involved in a regime change!!!

Anyway, the current title is good since per Wikipedia:Article titles:

Y It is a "commonly recognizable name". I searched through some of the Google books, which the guideline suggests, and found a couple of reliable scholarly books using quite the same or very similar title as the current one. Let's take a look at some of them:

• "Attacks of September 11, 2001 also brought attention to the alleged role of Saudi Arabia in supporting terrorism..." TERRORISM: Commentary on Security Documents Volume 106, Oxford University Press, 2012, P.166
• "Saudi Role on September 11 (August 5, 2016) Part I.." Essays Reflecting the Art of Political and Social Analysis, Springer International Publishing, 2018, P.102
• "The committee, moreover, demanded a further investigation of the possible Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks." The Central Intelligence Agency, ABC-CLIO, 2005, P.223
• "This curiosity and wonder about the Saudi role in the attack came up once more with the release of the September 11 report by the U.S Congress..." United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs · 2004, P.77
• "Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks and now in supporting fighters as part of the insurgency in Iraq, the American..." Nonviolent Activism in Islam, Lexington Books, 2021, P.105
• "Saudi role in funding the September 9/11 attack in the United States terrorists is still being debated in April 2016..." Globalization Reappraised, Lexington Books, 2017, P.18
• "Bush censored 27 pages that discussed the Saudi role in the attacks..." Energy and US Foreign Policy, 2012, P.236

I think one can add more sources, if we consider the News sources, too.

Y It is WP:CONCISE and does not need addition information to be identified.

Y The current title is also consistent with the a dozens of other articles like Alleged Pakistani support for Osama bin Laden, United States involvement in regime change, German involvement in the Spanish Civil War, Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), and many other titles in English Wikipedia.

Y It is also Precise enough, since it "unambiguously define[s] the topical scope of the article" and does not need more words to make it more precise.

--Mhhossein ^talk 19:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change

Mhhossein: "The original research by the OP is that he states that we should use 'official' in the title to avoid the associating the attack with the people of Saudi Arabia."

No, I clearly said: "Saudi Arabian state or the Saudi Arabian nation". Original research is not from me. If there are no reliable sources which accuse the then-Saudi King or his inner-circle of conspiring with the 9/11 hijackers, then the phrase "Alleged Saudi role" should not stay.

• The sources listed here havent made any allegation against the then-Saudi King or his inner-circle and as far as I know, none of the sources ever had. Onus is on the editor who wants to insert content.
• The header of this page is a descriptive title and common-name doesnt even apply here. "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." WP:NDESC

So the proposed title with the phrase "Alleged role of Saudi officials" aligns with a neutral, non-judgmental descriptive title.

• Concision argument for the current title has already been refuted.
• Current title is not consistent . The examples you brought forth, except one, were unrelated to "Alleged" or "Allegations".
  

As for the title "Alleged Pakistani support for Osama bin Laden", that is not a redflag allegation against the Pakistani government, since Bin Laden was living in a compound in Abottabad (very close to the Pakistani capital of Islamabad). That is clearly different from claiming that accusations against an alleged 4th-level Saudi official of helping 2 hijackers are tantamount to allegation against the whole Saudi govt in 9/11 attacks. Simply misleading.

• As explained in the nomination, the phrase "Alleged role of Saudi officials" is also the precise wording.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the current title matches the wordings adopted by reliable sources like Oxford University Press, Springer International Publishing, and ABC--CLIO (as I mentioned in my pervious comment) is more than enough to show the current title is already suitable. The major point by Shadowwarrior8 is that "if there are no reliable sources which accuse the then-Saudi King or his inner-circle of conspiring with the 9/11 hijackers, then the phrase "Alleged Saudi role" should not stay"; No, this is not how Wikipedia works for the determining the article titles. Rather the reliable sources, scholarly books in this case, should be considered when deciding the title 'wording' as per WP:COMMONNAME. Whether or not Saudi kingdom had links to the event, is something to be discussed in the body, not in the title.

As for the consistency, Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598) does not mean 'Japanese nation invasions of Korea (1592-1598)'. It is clearly know that Alleged Pakistani support for Osama bin Laden is not on Alleged Pakistani nation support of OBL. Moreover, please do not use your own Original Research to conclude which is what. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: that Japanese invasion of Korea could have been taken as a nation invading another given that the invasion was launched by the defacto leader of Japan back then. – robertsky (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend refraining from making unfounded allegations against other editors of engaging in "original research". Your assertion that the current title is a "common name" seems to be in contradiction with Wikipedia policies, as well as your interpretation of "how Wikipedia works". (which sounded like a lecture) For example:

"Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered ..." WP:COMMONNAME

Furthermore, the current title is a descriptive one and it has a different notation style, as has been repeatedly pointed out before. WP:NDESC

Additionally, as robertsky pointed out, the official actions of the government of a nation are often attributed to the name of that nation in English linguistics (as well as in wikipedia titles), which is why those titles are named in such a way. This is entirely different from the topic of this particular page, which discusses allegations against two or three (whether alleged or not) 4th-level Saudi officials who were working in the US. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. As Mhhossein demonstrates, mainstream academic and journalistic sources use some variation of "Saudi role" to describe Saudi Arabia's alleged involvement in the September 11 attacks (and al Qaeda financing more broadly). Therefore, Shadowwarrior8's argument that "None of the allegations have acccused (sic) the Saudi King Fahd or his inner circle of any role or contacts with the hijackers. Therefore, there is no 'Saudi role' and the current title is incorrect" is an example of original research. According to both reliable sources and common sense, "Saudi role" has a broader meaning than King Fahd personally sitting down with bin Laden and planning out the attacks.

Additionally, Shadowwarrior8's comparison of this article to articles on German invasions ("When somebody says 'German invasion': it implies that German state or German nation attacked another country. If non-state militias based in Germany attack another country, the event is not described as 'German invasion'") misses the mark, because this article is about a "Saudi role," not a "Saudi invasion". If non-state militias based in Germany with ties to German intelligence and/or select German officials attacked another country, then it might well justify an article on the "alleged German role" in the attack (depending on coverage in reliable sources, of course).

Finally, Shadowwarrior8 is begging the question by insisting that "Even though 3rd level or 4th level officials were accused  ... they were acting in their private capacities." Although I am not necessarily a proponent of such theories, many of the journalists and activists who have investigated this topic believe that what has been publicly reported about the Saudi role in the attacks is only the tip of the iceberg, given the contemporaneous efforts undertaken by both the U.S. and Saudi governments to avoid a diplomatic incident.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging

If the point made here is sources, then the issue of sources with respect to titles has already been addressed in my previous comment. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NDESC

Regarding the title in question: "Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks" clearly means that Saudi government allegedly conspired in the planning and/or execution of the 9/11 attacks. There is no way around this.

But this is not what the article discusses. Throughout the article, 3 Saudi Arabian nationals who were then based in the US, are accused of "assisting the hijackers" during 1999-2000 period. They are Omar al-Bayoumi, Fahad al-Thumairi and Mussaed Ahmed Al-Jarrah. Of these, Omar al-Bayoumi is not a confirmed Saudi official. Keep in mind that there is no solid allegation beyond that and these allegations and controversies surrounding it are the subject of the article.

It then follows that the current title is a complete original research. There is no allegation that Saudi government subsidized the attacks. The proper title should be the proposed one or something like "Alleged collaboration of Saudi officials with 9/11 hijackers". Instead, the current title clearly gives the impression that Saudi govt allegedly subsidized/financed/assisted the attacks.

As for the opinions of some activists who allege that the public releases of US government are "only the tip of the iceberg", that doesnt imply an "Alleged Saudi role in 9/11 attacks". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:FUTUREEVENT, WP:ANTICIPATION

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." WP:CRYSTALBALL Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think if one is going to avoid seeing 'Saudi role' or its derivatives in the title, then he/she should first change the content of reliable sources, some of which I listed here. By the way, neither WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:FUTUREEVENT, WP:ANTICIPATION are relevant here in this discussion on what to name an article, nor should the Original Researches put forward be taken into account for WP:Title. If there is a dispute over the content then one can engage in discussion with other editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mhhossein: "By the way, neither WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:FUTUREEVENT, WP:ANTICIPATION are relevant here in this discussion on what to name an article"

Thats not what WP:CRYSTALBALL says.

"Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." WP:CRYSTALBALL

WP:ANTICIPATION literally has an entire sub-section titled "Don't rush to create articles". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly there were Saudi people involved in the attacks, including 15 of the 19 hijackers, according to September 11 attacks#Origins. But that's not what this article is about, and the current title does not make that clear. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus Reading Beans (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Reading Beans (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the nominator's rationale, but as others have pointed out above it's important that the title accord with common usage — and it does seem that "Saudi role" is quite common, whatever our feelings about it might be. Further, the term "Saudi role" doesn't necessarily imply the involvement of the king, so I don't agree with that objection. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Common usage of this sort is a bad guide for descriptive titles. Per WP:UCRN: inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As already noted, I don't agree with the objection that it's inaccurate. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "Saudi role" does necessarily imply the involvement of the Saudi government. WP:REDFLAG

As explained in the nomination and my previous comments, allegations are not against the Saudi govt but against three 4th level Saudi officials (one among them is not a confirmed official) based in the US during 1999-2000. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

And I would say that such involvement can reasonably be referred to as a "Saudi role", as seems to be affirmed by many sources. I understand that's not your opinion. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:22, 7 December 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.

Alleged

@TheTimesAreAChanging: hope you're fine. I was thinking if we may suggest removing "alleged" from the title since the previous discussion on title dates back to 2016 and there are sources published after that [6] supporting such a version. Let me know your thoughts please. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Mhhossein, thank you for reaching out to elicit other views and help gauge consensus. I don't personally think that the information about Saudi involvement is substantiated to the point that dropping the "Alleged" from our title would be a net improvement; however, as you know well, you are perfectly entitled to initiate a requested move of your own (and present your sources) if this is something that you feel strongly about.

As an aside, some Wikipedians consider "Alleged" to be a WP:WEASEL word that should never be used in wikivoice (except in a purely legal/criminal context, if I'm understanding their argument correctly), but there is ample on-wiki precedent for its use in relation to similar disputed content (e.g., Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden, Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge, Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War, etc.). Additionally, the guideline WP:ALLEGED clarifies that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial"; notably, the latter example does not imply that "a criminal trial" is the only context in which such language would be appropriate.

As a final caveat, bear in mind that news headlines are deprecated per WP:HEADLINES, so the question is not if a headline specifically refers to the Saudi role/involvement as "Alleged," but rather how the information is presented/framed in the news article itself (this caveat does not apply if your sources are primarily academic rather than journalistic in nature, as the former are held in higher regard within Wikipedia's sourcing hierarchy). Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome @TheTimesAreAChanging. Also thanks for such a comprhensive response. I have to consult the sources more accurately. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)