Talk:Mohammed bin Salman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Censorship

I notice that every attempt to do a decent biography of Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been censored and replaced with bare-bones propaganda. This is BadEricl (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It is unbelievable that the reverts are regarded as censorship. On the contary, your edits seem to promote or present him in a certain way. Before your work here, each sentence was backed by ref, but now the article includes sentences without refs and involves subjective views. --Egeymi (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, Alarabiya gives his birth year as 1985. But you deleted this source. So now the article has a factually incorrect info as a result of your interventions.--Egeymi (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Egeymi, you keep on deleting a well-sourced allegation about Salman's very notable involvement in the Mina Stampede. This is also bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.240.98 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove the falsely claimed Mina allegation

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I attempted to correct many of the negative biases against the prince. In particular, the Mina fabrication originated from a report in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Diyar, which is closely linked to the Syrian regime (which considers Saudi Arabia its enemy). Other news outlets relayed with no due diligence. Wikipedia should be a reliable source of factual information, not rumors or conspiracy theories. Please help make this page, and Wikipedia by extension, away from gossip and unsubstantiated rumors. Thank you and I look forward to your replies. H. K. Himura Kenshin (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The following links are reports in Arabic debunking the false rumors:

Himura Kenshin (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Please, don't take my edit as a propaganda effort...

The number of the Mina stampede casualties was noted as 223. I've corrected it to "over 2,000". This number is in accordance with all the estimates except for the Saudis'. But even the Saudis' estimate is not 223, it's 769! Where does the 223 number come from? It's the name of the street!

I'm at a loss about how such a ridiculous mistake could go through, but please, don't revert it. You might change it to something more inclusive such as "from 769 to 2,431", however.

Considering that there are no discussions going on on this talk page, I don't dare to think about how much disinformation and propaganda there is in this article.--Adûnâi (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What is this?

To quote from the article, "These ambitious plans, including inept, ill-conceived reforms [50], remind the economists of similar top-down reforms undertaken by the Shah of Iran which eventually lead to great disruptions in the Iranian society and Shah's own downfall. He is too young to remember that, of course, since he was not even born then."

What the actual hell is this? Did wiki turn into a blog? At first I thought this was supposed to be a quote, but I see no indication that this is the case. How is this acceptable writing for an encyclopedia? 217.28.7.53 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, an anonymous stranger! I might add, you shouldn't be surprised. Smaller Wikipedias based on non-English cultures are not encyclopedic at all. From my experience, for example, the Ukrainian one is an utter joke. I'm surprised English Wikipedians don't pay more attention to articles such as this (and it's now on the front page!).--Adûnâi (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it only caught my attention because it was on the front page, and it didn't seem to have been a recent edit (or I would have just reverted it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.7.53 (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Religion "Sunni Islam"?

This person's religion is actually Salafism (Wahhabism) which is considered by Sunni Islam Mullahs a heresy according to regularly held worldwide councils they hold. Even though this sect is a part of Sunni Islam, the difference is so fundamental that it is blatantly misleading when Saudi, Qatari and Bahraini leaders' religion is states as "Sunni Islam". Is The field "religion" has to contain correct information. 95.27.45.48 (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Editors edit, not quote

Please stop shoveling quotes from professional reporters into Wikipedia articles, and learn to paraphrase instead. You are supposed to be editors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problems with quotes, but the section on the purge seems to relay too much on speculations, and is larger than the primary article, 2017 Saudi Arabian anti-corruption arrests. prokaryotes (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Controversies"

Under Controversies, he is referred to as "Prince bin Salman". That's not how princely names work. Change to Prince Mohammad.89.242.37.168 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Purge" maybe not objective enough of a term?

Given the need to maintain a neutral point of view, I wonder if the use of the term "purge" with its negative connotations might be a little bit too strong for the current events. Granted, it may be the most concise term to indicate what is being referred to as the "purge"... 209.201.72.22 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Persecution of Human Rights Activists" Section

The "Persecution of Human Rights Activists" section has been deleted and restored repeatedly.

This section is very well sourced. Some mentioned that it is not pertinent to MBS, human rights organizations disagree. The persecution pf political activist, who are organizing under an absolute monarchy, is rising under MBS. The Gulf Centre for Human Rights says: "The human rights situation in Saudi Arabia has markedly deteriorated and there has been a renewed crackdown against human rights defenders, since the accession of Mohammad bin Salman as Crown Prince in June 2017. The environment for human rights defenders has become increasingly dangerous and they face targeting by authorities on a daily basis." It's not a surprise that those who delete this section are the same folks who are writing on his "reforms" and "philanthropy".

If you have an objection to the HR section, please comment here before deleting.

Tamagochita (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The so called "2017 Purge"

The section titled "2017 Purge" is dubiously included in the "political and economic change". The so called "purge" proved to be extrajudicial with torture involved. Averroes82 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mohammad bin Salman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Averroes82 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Human Rights violations listed as political accomplishments!

Listed among his accomplishments is the so called "purge", although it is an extrajudicial power grab with use of torture. Averroes82 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Averroes82: What are you on about? Daily Mail is not a RS as per WP:DAILYMAIL. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Use of torture is additionally reported by David Hearst in MME. Also, nearly all media outlets as well as Amnisty and Human Rights Watch have confirmed extrajudicial detention at the Ritz hotel in Riyadh: which is a human rights violation. -- Averroes82 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Averroes82: If reliable sources say that we should include it, but this is not usually how a GAR goes. You can ask for another editor to help you if you don't know how a GAN goes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I researched this further and found more human rights crimes and War Crimes serious enough to not be undermined by whitewashing throughout the article in rush for GA. @Emir of Wikipedia: Since it's an article about a controversial living person, more care should be applied to neutrality standards. Averroes82 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not a rush, it just that this an usual way of doing a GA. Not sure exactly what you are saying. We should add that information or something else? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Restarting review

I'll take over this review, as it has been effectively abandoned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not an issue for GA, but [1] is a dead link; you may want to fix it.
• The lead is a little short for the length of the article; I think you could add three or four more sentences.
• The second paragraph of the lead is cited only to human rights organizations. Human Rights Watch is reliable for information on the facts and figures of human rights, but I don't think it should be treated as sufficient to establish that this is lead-worthy information. Surely news organizations have reported this?
• What makes gc4hr.org a reliable source? I also see that the linked page is datelined 2016, but bin Salman took power in June 2017, so is this even relevant?
• Footnotes 17 and 18 are to different sources but are the same text, by the same author.
• The Daily Mirror is an odd choice as a source; it's reliable for some things, but it's not necessary here as footnotes 13-15 all say he was appointed as Crown Prince too. And why cite that three times? It's not controversial.
• There is a note saying he has no birthdate, and a birthdate is given; if these are not contradictory the reader should be given an explanation.
• There's an excessively long direct quote from [2] per Earwig: "were Ali Sa’eed al-Ribh, whose trial judgment indicates that he was under 18 at the time of some of the crimes for which he was sentenced to death. As a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Saudi Arabia is legally obliged to ensure that no one under 18 at the time of a crime is sentenced to death or to life in prison without the possibility of release".
• Both citations for the above are actually to the same press release, given by two different organizations.
• Thomas Friedman is an op-ed columnist; he is not a good source to describe bin Salman as a "lawyer by training". I think you could just cut this; you have his law degree, and the reader doesn't need to be spoonfed the deduction that bin Salman knows law.
• At this time, Mohammad bin Salman began to rise from one position to another such as secretary-general of the Riyadh Competitive Council, special advisor to the chairman of the board for the King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives, and a member of the board of trustees for Albir Society in the Riyadh region: The source doesn't say this; it just lists these positions. I'm a bit doubtful about the reliability of the source, to be honest; it's essentially self-published, since it's his foundation, but for the simple facts about positions he held it's probably OK.
• n October 2011, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz died, and the current King Salman began his ascent to power by becoming second deputy prime minister and defense minister in November 2011 and making Mohammad bin Salman his private advisor. The source does not say this.

This is an alarming list of issues, given how little of the article I've gone through to find them. I picked another source, more or less at random: footnote 43, [3], is used to cite "In Yemen, the political unrest (which began escalating in 2011) rapidly became a major issue for the newly appointed Minister of Defense, with rebel Houthis taking control of northern Yemen in late 2014, followed by President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and his cabinet’s resignation. Mohammad bin Salman’s first move as minister was to mobilize a pan-GCC coalition to intervene following a series of suicide bombings in Sanaa via air strikes against Houthis, and impose a naval blockade". Mohammad bin Salman is not mentioned on this page.

I'm afraid I'm going to fail this immediately. The article needs to be thoroughly gone through to find and fix problems like this, and GA is not the place to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth

According to this source, which is the most official I could find, Mohammad bin Salman was born on the 31st of August 1985. Other sources such as the book by Fatiha Dazi-Héni, the BBC, Al Jazeera and the Guardian, seem to agree.

@NeilN: What do you think ?

References

M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Looks like solid sourcing to me! Thanks for chasing this down. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you. I have added the DOB to the article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Our IP friend is back. Semi-protected for a week as the range has too much other activity to block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth and number of children

Hi, there are a couple of inaccuracies that could be corrected – firstly the Crown Prince was born in Riyadh, not Jeddah - see here on Sky News Arabia (in Arabic). And secondly, he has four children, not three - see here on Deutsche Welle. If someone could review these sources and give their thoughts that would be much appreciated. I have a conflict of interest – I am an employee at the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information. Please see my user page for more information. Thank you. MOCI KSA (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@MOCI KSA: Is your request here part of your work for Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information, or your own interest? If it is paid then I need to add a tag. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have made the specified changes. Thanks for your request. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Hi, thanks for updating his birth place. Are you also happy with changing the number of children from 3 to 4? That’s both in the Personal life section and in the info box. Yes this is part of my work with MOCI, thank you. MOCI KSA (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added the reference you provided and changed the number. Thanks for clarifying about your work I have added a tag at the top of this article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad bin Salman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://abutalhazahack.com/current-issues/middle-east/10-middle-east/106-profile-of-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-defense-minister-of-saudi-arabia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202013800/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Rise-of-Prince-Mohammed-bin-Salman-rattles-Saudi-Arabia/articleshow/54890310.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Rise-of-Prince-Mohammed-bin-Salman-rattles-Saudi-Arabia/articleshow/54890310.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for Vision 2030 and Domestic reforms sections

Hello, I've drafted two possible additional paragraphs each for the Vision 2030 and Domestic reforms subsections - please see them here in my sandbox. These cover initiatives begun by the Crown Prince including Neom and the Red Sea project, as well as recent developments in culture and entertainment. If someone has time to take a look that would be great. Just to remind editors of my COI - as stated above and on my user page, I am an employee at the Ministry of Culture and Information in Saudi Arabia. Thank you. MOCI KSA (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the proposed edits. They are well sourced, and, while they do put a positive light on the KSA, they're not WP:UNDUE. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: thanks for reviewing. Would you mind adding them where I've suggested? I have a COI so shouldn't edit the main article. The Vision 2030 paragraph is just intended as a second paragraph in that section, and then in the Domestic reforms section the existing first paragraph could end with the sentence ending "...monster truck rallies", then the two new paragraphs after that, and then the sentence on green cards added to the end of the second new paragraph. Thanks. MOCI KSA (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@MOCI KSA: if you put <!--comments--> in the article, it would help me greatly, as I'm not quite clear on what exactly you want where. Comments shouldn't be contraversial. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: sorry for the confusion. My first paragraph “At the inaugural Future Investment Initiative…” is to go after the first paragraph of the Vision 2030 section (which ends with “…sustainable development”). Then my other two paragraphs are to go after the first paragraph of the Domestic reforms section (which ends with ‘"Green cards" for non-Saudi foreigners’ – ignore my comments above on moving that sentence, no need). Strictly I’d rather not leave comments either. Thanks very much. MOCI KSA (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@MOCI KSA: Done, is that how you envisioned? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: yes exactly, thank you very much for taking a look, much appreciated. MOCI KSA (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and autobiography tags

Hi – I’ve got a couple of points to raise on the two tags:

• The neutrality tag was added to the ‘Political and economic changes’ section by Averroes82 with only the post above as an explanation. There was no discussion then or since – perhaps it’s time to revisit as per Template:POV.
• There was no explanation for the autobiography tag at the top of the article, which was added by the same user. The edit summary says “see talk page for more details” but there was ever anything on the talk page about this tag. Neither does the tag itself seem appropriate when comparing this article against WP:AB.

There should be two specific, clearly headed discussions for two tags like this and that was never the case. All there have been are the two sections above (here and here). Would appreciate views on this.

Please note also that I’ve changed my username since the discussion immediately above. The connected contributor tag has been updated. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed as per WP:HIT&RUNTAG. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Persecution of human rights activists

There are some issues with this section, principally:

• That most of it is of questionable relevance to the article subject given that a) most of the events predate his appointment as Crown Prince, and b) only two of the fifteen sources cited actually mention him (www.gc4hr.org and www.amnesty.org).
• That there is already an article on Human rights in Saudi Arabia.
• That with the exception of Democracy Now and the UN Human Rights High Commissioner, all the sources cited are articles on NGO/charity websites (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Gulf Center for Human Rights, and Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain), and are arguably therefore self-published as per WP:USESPS. Regardless of whether or not these are questionable, WP:BLPSPS and WP:USESPS are very clear about not using such sources in a BLP.

Looking at the section in more detail:

• Paragraphs 1–3: The first and second paragraphs are the only ones in the whole section which cite sources mentioning the article subject, and the second and third paragraphs are the only ones which discuss individuals who were arrested or sentenced after he became Crown Prince.
• Paragraph 4: None of the three sources cited in this paragraph mention the article subject, and all three date from before he became Crown Prince (Feb 6 2017, Jan 11 2017, Jan 29 2016). The upholding of Shubaily’s sentence in July 2017 (penultimate sentence) is therefore not mentioned in any of them. The first sentence of this paragraph is the editor’s account of a general line of criticism from Amnesty (not cited in this paragraph) and HRW – criticism which would be more appropriate in Human rights in Saudi Arabia.
• Executing peaceful protesters: Again none of the sources mention him, and the only event in this subsection that occurred after his appointment as Crown Prince is the upholding of Abdulkareem al-Hawaj’s sentence.
• Use of counterterrorism laws to prosecute human rights: This is again a general line of criticism that belongs in the human rights article. The source (which is quoted from at length) doesn’t mention him and predates his appointment as Crown Prince.

In light of all this, it needs to be asked whether it’s appropriate for a large section of a BLP a) to be based almost entirely on articles published by NGOs on their own websites, nearly all of which contain no mention of the article subject, and b) to consist largely of accounts of other individuals, most of which predate the only period that would give them any relevance and for which in any case a more appropriate article already exists. Tarafa15 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Croskyit: thanks for your recent edits – quotes and namedropping were indeed problematic (however namedropping is surely still an issue in the first and second of the three new paragraphs in Controversies).

I just want to check you saw my post above, as there are serious issues with the actual relevance of this material to the article subject – particularly in the second and third of the three new paragraphs.

None of the sources for those two paragraphs contain any mention of Mohammad bin Salman. The four men named in the second of the three paragraphs were all sentenced in 2012, five years before he became Crown Prince. As for the third paragraph, the report from the UN Special Rapporteur criticised the Saudi authorities as a whole on a number of issues, but did not mention Mohammad bin Salman, who again was not yet Crown Prince.

I’d be grateful if you could review my original post above and give some consideration to these points. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edits by kb217

I have reverted his reversion of my edits on the following grounds: The property is not "known" as the Chateau Louis XIV, it IS the Chateau Louis XIV. There is no reason for "confided," as term does not appear in the cited article. M is lower-case in "million," and a newspaper title is italicized.PaulCHebert (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User @Kb217: is reverting my attempts to clarify the NYT's reporting on the French chateau. The article clearly states that the claim is based on more than anonymous sources. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you arguing about the choice using of a colloquial phrase and a single word. The fact that the NYT has provided NO sources and also, the fact that they were sent information by anonymous sources (there is NO name given for who EXACTLY sent them the information), is the reason why it said several anonymous sources. Also, there have been several articles written by them about this subject where they in fact state that the people wish to remain anonymous. This is petty bickering on your part. I am leaving anonymous sources, because they are in fact ANONYMOUS. You cannot specify a specific person. However, as I said previously on your talk page, I have left your other edits. The Times has not provided any documents and is still liable to a lawsuit, if in fact this is considered defamatory.

My point is the following: The article CLEARLY states that they are using more than anonymous sources -- they also mention documentary evidence. You cannot choose to cite a source and then selectively pick which parts of the source you want to refer to. That is intellectually dishonest. Note also that in your original, you put quotation marks around the term "anonymous sources." As the phrase does not appear verbatim as such in the article, you cannot make up a quotation that isn't there. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on human rights section

Not one of the sources for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in this subsection even mentions the article subject. The individuals named in the 2nd paragraph were all sentenced in 2012, 5 years before he became Crown Prince. The UN Special Rapporteur's findings mentioned in the 3rd paragraph also do not mention him – again he was not yet Crown Prince. Surely detailed accounts of individual activists belong in Human rights in Saudi Arabia, not here. Tarafa15 (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify what your request/suggestion is here? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Moving at least paragraphs 2 and 3 to Human rights in Saudi Arabia, since they’re based on sources that don’t mention him and cover events that predate his appointment as Crown Prince. Tarafa15 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Seems reasonable based on sources cited. MPS1992 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support moving paragraphs 2 and 3 per nom. Paragraph 1 should remain, as those happened several months into his tenure, especially because he seems to be the driving force behind Saudi government at this point. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: @MPS1992: Perhaps paragraph 2 could go at the end of the Detentions section in Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, and paragraph 3 could go at the end of the International conventions section in Human rights in Saudi Arabia. What do you think? Tarafa15 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ack, sorry for forgetting to reply on my talk page. I would integrate paragraph 3 into the last paragraph of Human rights in Saudi Arabia#International conventions. Paragraph 2 can probably be moved to Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, although because the paragraph discusses primarily the death penalty, it may be better placed somewhere else on the page (perhaps a new section). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: That sounds reasonable, are you happy to do that? My COI prevents me from editing directly (see my user page). Thanks.Tarafa15 (talk)

@Tarafa15: Sure. Or at least, I can try. I'll just need to work on it when I actually have a few minutes to sit down and focus, so not right this second; I'll try to get to it tonight. Ping me if it hasn't happened in two days, because that means I forgot. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright,  Done. The second paragraph can be found at Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia#Death penalty, the third at Human rights in Saudi Arabia#Responses and criticisms. I tried to copyedit them a little, but didn't pay a ton of attention to the final product, so there still may be room for improvement in that regard (let me know if there is). Thank you for your constructive contributions, and especially for disclosing your employment status (cleaning up after undisclosed paid editors regularly causes me headaches). Please let me know if there's anything else you need! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Thank you very much – I fully agree with the placement and wording. Thanks for all your help on this. Tarafa15 (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Birth date

@Compassionate727: Just noticed that the early life and infobox give Jeddah as his birthplace - this was corrected a while ago (see old talk page discussion here) as he was born in Riyadh. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tarafa15: Duly noted. I have done some research: Sky News Arabia claims he was born in Riyadh, while The Guardian and a couple of sources of no particular importance list it as Jeddah. Do you know the reason for this discrepancy? I consider both of the sources I named to be reliable (I can, of course, ask for more input on this); without any more information, I feel the best course of action would be to list the birthplace as disputed with a note to the relevant info. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: this was misreporting on the part of one or two sources that mistakenly gave Jeddah as his birthplace. I fully appreciate the requirements of WP:NOR, however I wonder if for a routine detail like this it might be acceptable to have it in good faith from me as a representative that he was born in Riyadh? Many thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you get the Saudi Press Agency or some other official organization to release something with it in? That would be accepted by all editors. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tarafa15: Ack. This is a more complicated issue than it seems it should be. Consensus is that any website that can be freely edited by anyone is never reliable. That includes Wikipedia, in any capacity. On the other hand, a government employee acting in his official capacity as a spokesperson can be considered a reliable source. However, such a source would also be considered primary, and policy generally isn't too fond of them. And all that is assuming you actually are who you claim to be; I personally don't doubt it, but our inability to prove that you are is a consideration.

In theory, I could just invoke WP:IAR here. If I did this, I would list the birthplace as Riyadh and add a note saying that the reliable secondary sources have disputed the location, adding that "an employee of the Ministry of Culture and Information has informed Wikipedia's editors that the actual location is Riyadh", or some similar phrasing that would hopefully sound formal and official enough that everyday readers don't question it. But this would at the bare minimum raise quite a few eyebrows among other editors, both because the entire affair is quite sketchy anyway and because I would be required to disclose in the edit summary that I was making the change on behalf of a paid editor (you), which is also frowned upon.

Hopefully you can understand my reluctance. As Emir of Wikipedia suggested, the best course of action would be for the Ministry to release some official document (such as a birth certificate, if possible) or statement clearly listing the birthplace as Riyadh. Or perhaps publish the information somewhere on a government website (I'd think there'd be a biography of Mohammad bin Salman maintained by the government somewhere). Then we could simply update the location without all of this fuss and hiding in the shadows. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: thanks for the reply and I understand the difficulties. Views seem to vary on primary sources but I’m guessing for me to be one in this case would probably fall outside the definition of careful use? If so then the relevant info on a government site is an option. Thanks again. Tarafa15 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the primary source would be okay. Do you have a government site with the correct information? No need to ping me I'm watching this page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

As there have continued to be some inappropriate edits from IPs (such as here and here) since 10 January, is there an argument for ongoing semi-protection? Tarafa15 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If it carries on then I'll put in a request at WP:RPP. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks Tarafa15 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess this de facto censorship applies to present and ongoing speculation about this guy's death, after the apparent coup attempt last month 2018-04...Pazouzou (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not censorship. If somebody can provide a reliable source proving his death, we'll put it in the article. To this point, no such proof has been given. Therefore, under BLP, it can't be allowed in the article. Strikerforce^Talk 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nickname: MBS or MbS

@X1\:the 3 refs in the article use all caps. zzz (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Both MbS and MBS are used in articles about him. All caps looks like initials (which in this case are not really), and "bin" as lower case "b" serves as both upper and lower case well. See the title of this article M. b. S. X1\ (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Relations with other nations subsection

I have a couple of questions on the second and third paragraphs of this subsection:

• Second paragraph – isn’t this synthesis? And in any case why is it in the Controversies section?
• Third paragraph – surely it’s the editor’s opinion that this amounts to a controversy?

I’d appreciate it if someone could answer these points. I don’t think the third paragraph should be in the Controversies section and I don’t think the second paragraph should be in the article at all. Tarafa15 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I can agree with those points. I've removed both paragraphs. Strikerforce^Talk 19:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Saudi crown prince has not made any public appearance since 21st April firing on Riyadh royal palace. International media in particular Iranian media claims of Mohammad bin Salman injury and a possible coup attempt to topple the government. Saudi Arabia has released some pictures and videos to put an end to rumors but those proofs cannot be verified. 101.53.249.156 (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No neutral sources have reported the events on April 21 as a “firing on” the royal palace. On April 21 several sources (including Al Jazeera, the New York Times and Reuters) reported Riyadh police’s statement that security forces had shot down a recreational drone which had strayed too close to the residence.

The first appearance online of these rumours of a coup attempt seems to be this article on the Iranian Tasnim News on May 16. Other Iranian outlets then picked it up on May 17: Fars, PressTV and ABNA. Also on May 17 it appeared on the Russian site Sputnik. The Fars article refers to an earlier editorial, which doesn’t seem to be online, in the Iranian newspaper Kayhan. None of these articles present any evidence or name the sources they’re reporting as having made these claims.

On May 22 the Spectator (UK) published an article titled ‘Why has Mohammad bin Salman gone so quiet?’, which was updated later that day with a new picture of him chairing a cabinet meeting in Jeddah.

On May 29 the Washington Times published this article titled ‘Fake news: Iranian propaganda reports of death of Saudi crown prince spark conspiracy theories’, which highlighted the fact that these reports “all stemmed from dubious sources linked to Iran”.

On May 31 Newsweek published this story, which featured the new video footage of him released by the Saudi authorities, and also noted that “media agencies in Iran – Saudi Arabia’s archrival – took the lead on the conspiracy theories”.

Bearing all this in mind, the initial allegations look like badly sourced reporting or fake news. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Suggested additions to Domestic reforms and 2017 purge

Hi, I’ve drafted two new sentences (one is an update of an existing sentence) to reflect the fact that a) the first public cinema screening has now happened following the January announcement and b) the recent Arab Youth Survey found that nine out of ten young people in MENA support the campaign against corruption. They’re here in my sandbox, sourced and in bold in the existing paragraphs where they could go. If someone has a moment to take a look that would be much appreciated. Thank you. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph in human rights subsection

In what way do Eric Garcetti’s views amount to a controversy? Tarafa15 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"known colloquially as MbS"

What? I've never heard this once in my life. Sounds like something a few people said online. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It is what is in said in the three give sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

MbS has also been a redirect since Nov of Last year ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

November of 2017 was the time that I first saw MBS used at a discussion forum. The guy was using the MBS abbreviation and linking to a news site that needs a paid subscription, so I don't know if Financial Times used the term MBS or not. https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235053951-saudi-arabia-arrests-11-princes/?do=findComment&comment=3094316 Later on people at the forum started using MbS when referring to Mohammad bin Salman. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It was not invented on that discussion forum. Usage dates back to at least 2015 https://www.businessinsider.com/this-saudi-prince-is-mastermind-of-war-in-yemen-2015-4 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Emir of Wikipedia. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues with recent edit to intro, suggested reworking of intro

The recent edit (diff) to the first sentence of the third paragraph of the intro has created some issues:

1. It is inaccurate to say “his detention and torture of human rights activists”, as it implies that orders have come from him. Detentions in Saudi Arabia are on the orders of the judiciary, not the Crown Prince.
2. The phrase at the end of the first sentence, “…as [sic.] failure to perform pledged reforms”, is not clear and is unsourced.
3. “Liberalisation of Saudi domestic issues” isn’t clear or reflective of what follows in the article – more accurately the liberalisation is social and economic.

Looking at the introduction as a whole, there are two main points to make:

1. Some mention of the economic aspects of Vision 2030 would be appropriate to include at the end of the second paragraph. A mention of Saudi Aramco (currently in the third paragraph) would also be more appropriate in this paragraph.
2. ’Human rights’ is mentioned three times in the third paragraph, which seems disproportionate. What’s verifiable, relevant to the subject, and consistent with the rest of the article is that detentions of activists have risen under his leadership – as stated in the third sentence of the third paragraph (beginning “Despite promised reforms…”). In my view this is what should be mentioned in the first sentence of this paragraph, with that third sentence then removed.

Two further minor points are:

1. The plan to list Aramco isn’t actually formally part of Vision 2030 (planned diversification of the company itself is however, see here). He did however announce the plan to list in 2016.
2. He’s no longer ‘First’ Deputy Prime Minister, as there’s no longer a ‘Second’ Deputy Prime Minister. The position is now simply Deputy Prime Minister (as named in this recent release for example).

I have prepared a possible reworked intro along these lines in my sandbox (also there is a suggested paragraph on the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC), referred to above). If anyone has time to take a look and post their thoughts here that would be much appreciated. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to Personal life section

The Gulf Institute article used for the recent edit to the Personal life section is self-published as per WP:USESPS. WP:BLPSPS and WP:USESPS are very clear about not using self-published sources in a BLP. This allegation is not made in any reliable source on the article subject. For these reasons this edit should be reverted. Tarafa15 (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Defense Minister, Domestic reforms, Philanthropy, Controversies

Some of these sections could do with some further attention. I’ve tried to keep the following points as concise as possible.

Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince

• 2nd paragraph, sentences 4–6 (“According to the New York Times…” to “…days after the first strikes”: These sentences rely on lengthy quotes, which shouldn’t replace concise text as per WP:LONGQUOTE. A more concise version would be: “While there was agreement on the necessity of a response to the Houthis' seizure of Sana'a, which had forced the Yemeni government into exile, Prince Mohammad launched the intervention without full coordination across security services. Saudi National Guard Minister Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah, who was out of the country, was left out of the loop of operations.”
• There should be a brief mention in this subsection of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, which was set up in 2015. A suggested paragraph, which would probably be best placed at the end of the section, is here in my sandbox.

Domestic reforms

• First sentence: The source doesn’t say he has “lobbied”. It would be more accurate to say: “Prince Mohammad bin Salman has significantly restricted the powers of the religious police.”
• Sixth paragraph, first sentence:"Followed in December 2018..." implies Dec. 2018 has occurred. As of this addition it is Sept. 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.76 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Philanthropy

• First paragraph: The last sentence is not relevant to philanthropy and should be removed.
• Second paragraph: Again the last sentence is not relevant to philanthropy and should be removed.

Controversies

• Relations with other nations - in my view this subsection doesn’t add anything and should be removed.
  • Obama meeting: I'm not convinced that breaking White House protocol in a single meeting in 2015 counts as a controversy.
  • Anti-terrorist alliance: I’m not sure that this is a controversy either. As with the first sentence, this is based on this New York Times article, which is from October 2016 and seems to be the only such report of this. The fact that the first meeting of the IMCTC included more countries than the 34 originally reported suggests this was at most a passing issue.

• Military interventions:
  • Second paragraph: This paragraph is about the actions of the coalition and doesn’t mention the article subject. It was against the coalition that the accusations of war crimes were made but that's not clear. Is this the kind of material which should be in a Controversies section in a BLP? I’d be interested to hear others’ views.

• Human rights:
  • First paragraph: Surely the names and details of these individual activists belong in Human rights in Saudi Arabia. In my view the middle two sentences of this paragraph, which cite this Amnesty article, stray off topic as per WP:TOPIC and should be removed.
  • Second paragraph: In what way do Eric Garcetti’s views amount to a controversy? I don't see why this particular meeting needs a mention. This sentence should be removed or at least moved elsewhere.

• Israel:
  • Surely including this paragraph in Controversies is POV? It should be moved to somewhere in the ‘Political and economic changes’ section.

If anyone is able to review these points and discuss them here that would be very much appreciated. I realise this is a lot and will post at BLPN as well. Thank you. Tarafa15 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Human rights subsection

The consensus is:

1. The names and sentences of individual activists should be retained in the "Human rights" section this article.
2. The second paragraph of the section is not a controversy and is undue weight so should be removed.

Cunard (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Close clarified per request. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

• First paragraph: Do the names and sentences of individual activists belong in this article or in Human rights in Saudi Arabia? Surely the middle two sentences of this paragraph stray off topic as per WP:TOPIC?
• Second paragraph: Is this really a controversy? Tarafa15 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment (Summoned by bot) Yes the names of the individual activists should be in the first paragraph. I can't think of any valid reason to remove, and it seems like useful and non-disproportionate detail. As for the second paragraph: when you say "this" what do you mean? If you mean Garcetti, then I would say no, it's just typical political posturing and not deserving to be mentioned. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) per Core, No per Core, but it is fine to remain for the time being. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) Agree with rational above Yes keep the activists, and No if/when if consensus is met on the second paragraph and the RFC is closed. Comatmebro (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• As to the first question: The names of individual activists in question seem WP:DUE for inclusion here, in addition to the Human rights in Saudi Arabia article (this is not an either/or situation as the inquiry seems to imply). These episodes, including the arrests and prosecutions of particular individuals, represent a not-insignificant feature of coverage of the subject in reliable sources.

As to the second question: No, the matter described in that sentence is not in itself a controversy, but certainly they are exclusively about the controversies which are the subject of this subsection, so if the question being asked is whether this is the appropriate place in the article to locate this content, I'd say the answer is yes. On the other hand, there may be a WP:WEIGHT argument to be made here with regard to whether this factoid is WP:Due for inclusion in the article in general. Garcietta can hardly be the only politician from somewhere in the world that we can source as having so urged bin Salman, even in face-to-face meetings; as an encyclopedic matter, what makes this boiler plate statement by the mayor of Los Angeles particularly relevant to the rights record of the crown prince is not particularly clear. Given the primacy the topic plays in regard if reliable sources (regarding both Saudi Arabia generally and its governance in particular) developments in the human rights atmosphere of the country is of vital importance to any highly positioned member of the royal family and our summary of these topics in their articles should contain a fair degree of detail. But "a mayor from the other side of the world made it known, in the most generic possible terms, that he supports reforms in Saudi Arabia during a brief, incidental meeting, reports his spokesperson" is not what I would call particularly germane or essential information. Honestly, it seems like the sort of thing more likely to have been added by an editor with an interest in Garcietti than one trying to make the coverage of Bin Salman's human rights record complete. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

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.

New paragraph in Human rights section

The second part (sentences 2–4) of the recently added third paragraph in the Human rights section, citing this CNN article, misrepresents what that source says.

Second sentence

"The airstrikes carried out by the coalition have led to violence and destruction, as a result of which, torture, sexual violence, and forceful involvement of young children as soldiers increased in the region."

The source says:

Their report, which comes after multiple recent civilian deaths, points to thousands of civilian casualties caused by Saudi-led coalition airstrikes, widespread arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence and the conscription of children as young as 8 into Yemen's armed forces, all of which are crimes under international law.

i.e. the source says only that airstrikes have caused thousands of civilian casualties; it clearly doesn't suggest a line of causation from coalition airstrikes, to “violence and destruction”, to an increase in “torture, sexual violence, and forceful involvement of young children as soldiers”. Civilian casualties and accusations of war crimes are already mentioned in the Military interventions section above this section (2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence).

Fourth sentence

"The UN also holds Saudi Arabia along with other coalition affiliates "responsible for a violation of human rights"."

The source says:

All sides are "responsible for a violation of human rights" and crimes "continue to be perpetrated," the report says.

i.e. the UN does hold the coalition responsible for human rights violations, but not exclusively the coalition, and that should be made clear.

However, the first sentence, "Mohammed leads the desert kingdom’s coalition against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels that ousted the government of Yemen", while journalistic, does add information about the conflict which is currently missing.

The UN report should of course be mentioned, but in the appropriate section, i.e. Military interventions. There has already been a survey above on the 1st sentence, 2nd paragraph of that section ("Mohammad bin Salman is considered the architect of the war in Yemen"), which is a repetition from further up in the article.

I suggest that this new paragraph in the Human rights section is removed altogether, and then the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the Military interventions section are replaced with:

Mohammad bin Salman leads the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, who in 2015 seized Sana’a and ousted the government, ending multilateral efforts towards a political settlement following the 2011 Yemeni uprising. Coalition airstrikes during the intervention have resulted in thousands of civilians killed or injured. In August 2018, the UN reported that all parties in the conflict are responsible for human rights violations and for actions which could be considered war crimes.

In my view that would provide context to the intervention that's currently missing; would reflect the official and up-to-date view of the UN rather than the three year-old report from Amnesty cited for the current mention of war crimes; and would be a much more accurate reflection, in the appropriate place, of what these sources are actually saying. Tarafa15 (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Responding to a request from Tarafa for further input here, as discussion seems to have dried up: As regards the statements labelled "second sentence" and "forth sentence" here, I agree with Tarafa that each could be worded to track a little more directly with regard to the source which is currently used to reference the claim. As to the reworking of the human rights and military interventions sections, I believe I basically understand the changes Tarafa15 is suggesting, but since there are a lot of moving points, Tarafa, could I trouble you to supply a draft versions which implements your proposed changes so I can compare the two options side-by-side and without an question as to the specifics of the changes? I will note that, at a minimum, the current wording of those sections needs improvement, and that they are currently written in broken English with some turns of phrase that are so nonsensical and incongruous that they almost seem to be machine translated. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Kanye?

The reference that is pointing to a Kanye West concert is the Post article about women being allowed in stadiums, and it doesn't mention Kanye. I've put a CN tag on this, but if a ref isn't provided soon, I'd suggest we delete it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Military interventions, third paragraph

Wouldn’t we want to see this reported in more neutral sources before including it here? These claims were originally made in this Intercept article, the key sources for which are all unnamed. That was then picked up by RT, Al Jazeera, the Express, PressTV, Sputnik and others. Even if we consider The Intercept to be reliable I think it’s probably fair to say it’s generally anti-Saudi (we could also say the same about Al Jazeera at least when it comes to Saudi-Qatar relations). At the very least the current wording – “In June 2017, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman planned to invade Qatar” – is much too definitive given the available sources and the way they reported this. Tarafa15 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Intecept and Al Jazeera are both absolutely reliable sources. Alone I wouldn't trust Sputnik or RT as far as I could throw them, but I will remind you that WP:NPOV does not require a source to be neutral; just reliable. And those two outlets are unquestionably reliable journalistic outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I didn’t say they weren’t. Well unless there’s a source that’s both neutral and reliable shouldn’t there at least be some attribution? Tarafa15 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that some attribution and more carefully crafted prose is warranted here. Even the sources in question here are clear that this narrative comes as an alternative to other explanations for Tillerson's sacking--and some of them, RT in particular, clearly have a vested interest in presenting an explanation that varies from the most popular one vetted in sources (that he was too critical of Russia) and if it puts Saui Arabia in a bad light, so much the better. Clearly these are WP:RS not withstanding, and I support the inclusion of the claims that a major military action was aborted, but we need to make efforts to make it clear that the sources, on the balance of their WP:WEIGHT, treat this a report, not a set of facts that are concretely established, and that other perspectives exist. Attribution and a tiny bit of alteration to the language should achieve that end, without excising the claim altogether (which would be the most unacceptable result, of course).

Similar issues exist with the second sentence of the following paragraph. The part about the dozens of dead children should be attributed, especially given the fact that it is an op-ed with a purposefully subjective voice. A direct partial quote should be employed and it should most definitely include the fact that the children harmed were among a much larger group of civilians injured in the bombing; otherwise the sentence, as it reads now, seems to suggest that the bombings killed exclusively children; the current statement just does not map very closely to what the source says (though there can be no mistake, the source condemns Saudi Arabian and bin Salman in very strident terms). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I will support what Snow Rise said. Even if the sources are not nuetral, they are considered reliable. According to policy, even a non-nuetral claim from a RS can be included. Knightrises10 talk 21:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on 2nd paragraph of Political and economic changes section

Closing this RfC after one relist. Only three editors participated in the discussion and only one expressed a position on whether to change the content. That editor wrote "It seems fine the way it is." There is no consensus to make any changes.

Cunard (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Second paragraph in the section (support for a Jewish homeland): Should something that happened in June 2018 be mentioned here, in between an event in April 2015 and one in April 2016? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC). Tarafa15 (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Q (Summoned by bot) and what is said event? ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't seem to be between two events. The section currently reads:

In 2018 he voiced his support for a Jewish homeland. Saudi Arabia does not recognize Israel. This is the first time that a senior Saudi royal has expressed such sentiments publicly.

It seems fine the way it is. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

---

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.

RfC on 1st sentence, 2nd paragraph of Military interventions subsection

There is a weak consensus to retain the phrase and put it in quotes since the phrase appears in reliable sources.

Cunard (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

This is the second instance in the article of the phrase "the architect of the war in Yemen", which also appears further up in the last paragraph of the Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince subsection. Should this phrase really appear twice in the article? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC). Tarafa15 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the entire sentence (Summoned by bot) as needing more citations, or flat out useless. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Put the phrase in quotes (Summoned by bot) The first use is a quote from The Economist (which, by the way, should be in quotes, not in italics and which I've just fixed), whereas the second seems to be in wikivoice, with the phrase appropriated in order to summarize the RSes. Except of course, the phrase actually appears in RSes. So I would put the second use in quotes. As for removing it: With at least three different RSes assigning that title to him, it's difficult to argue that it doesn't bear repeating. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Put the phrase in quotes summoned by unsourced Kanye West reference We don't want to white-wash his military interventionist stance, but when a statement like that is in Wikipedia's voice, it runs afoul of WP:PEACOCK Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 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.

New subsections in Controversies

It is unclear to me what two of the three new subsections included by Loginnigol in Controversies are adding to that section. "The jailing of 200 businessmen and princes" is already covered in 2017 purge; and "Blockade of Qatar" is blank. The new section on the forced resignation of Hariri is reasonable to add, but the other two are not in my opinion. Tarafa15 (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

First of all thank you for your reply. But I respectfully disagree with you. I specifically provided links to show you the very controversial nature of these acts and how they are specifically linked to MBS~AND each other. The Qatar thing for example is directly related another sub-section in the list: Trump (the blockade occurred only one week after Trump visited SA -- so if you mention one then it's logical you mention the other. Likewise I respectfully object to your assertion about the 2017 purge (that is the wider activity but I wanted to specifically highlight the very narrow extraodinary incident that happened at the Ritz-Carton hotel (because that is by itself a very unique and controversial act even if there had not been a wider crackdown across the whole country in the weeks and months after).

So perhaps the whole seciton needs improvement in editing but the each of the issues themselves are very critical (in their nature of being controversial). And so it would be intellectually and factually dishonest not to mention them specifically there in that section of the article. --Loginnigol 18:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That short, one reference, sketchy section should probably just be incorporated into the thoroughly-researched, well-put-together section that discusses the exact same event in proper context and detail. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing "sketchy" about anything here. If you are questioning the veracity of anything or the source then say so. Something being "short" is neither here nor there. Bloated giant paragraphs aren't required necessities that serve all purposes, and in fact will cause page loading issues in an exponentially growing article like this one. --Loginnigol 03:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really say anything that shouldn't just be incorporated into the already well-done section on the exact same question. PaulCHebert (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with PaulCHebert on this. @Loginnigol: I don’t see why you’ve added this when there’s already a full section on it. If there’s something specific missing from the 2017 purge section then surely it would make more sense just to add it to that section. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)