Talk:Public Investment Fund

User draft – expanded version

Hi, I have drawn up a user draft which builds on the current version and includes more reliable sources where possible, as well as addressing some issues. I’ve set out a full explanation of what I’ve done on the talk page of that draft. If anyone has time to review and get back to me that would be great. I’m an employee at the Public Investment Fund as I’ve disclosed on my user page. Thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I’ve updated this user draft, with an updated explanation on the talk page of how and why it differs from the main article. Suggested new sentences/paragraphs are in italics and anything I’m proposing to be removed is in strikethrough. If anyone has time to review these proposed changes I’d be very grateful. Thank you. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've updated this draft and talk page further - there's also a non-marked up version of the draft here. Thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move April 18, 2021

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: moved to Public Investment Fund. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia → Public Investment Fund – Almost all media articles refer to “Public Investment Fund” or simply “PIF”, e.g. [1], Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and Arab News. There is no other Public Investment Fund which it needs to be differentiated from. The company’s logo and titles on its website refer only to “Public Investment Fund”. The company’s governor (leader) is officially titled as the “Governor of the Public Investment Fund, or PIF” (source). The first sentence in the article makes clear that PIF is the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I believe that PIF cannot be used alongside long-form name in the article title. I rather suggests it to be moved as Public Investment Fund or Public Investment Fund (Saudi Arabia). 36.77.95.2 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Public Investment Fund, which already redirects here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hi – I've changed the request to reflect the comments above, which I agree with. Thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2021 (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.

Edit request – Introduction

The introduction is very out-of-date and – particularly the second paragraph – written from the perspective of c. 2018. I’m therefore requesting the following updates to the introduction based on much more recent reliable source material.

1. Change 2nd sentence, 1st paragraph from:

It is among the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world with total estimated assets of $430 billion.

to:

It is among the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, managing a portfolio worth $400 billion.

Rationale: $400 billion is the most recent figure and refers to the Fund’s portfolio as per the Reuters article cited.

2. Replace the whole second paragraph with:

Established in 1971, PIF’s role has expanded to invest in a range of non-oil sectors and companies within and outside Saudi Arabia, with the aim of encouraging to increase domestic private sector development and economic diversification in support of the Saudi Vision 2030 program.

Rationale: The current second paragraph is written from the perspective of several years ago, e.g. “aims at transferring the PIF from a mere local authority to the largest sovereign fund in the world”, “working on managing assets worth $400 billion by 2020”. Similarly, the last line regarding “200 investments, 20 of which are listed on Tadawul” is very much out of date.

3. Add a new 3rd paragraph:

Initiatives financed by PIF within Saudi Arabia include projects to develop tourist destinations on the Red Sea coast; the development of the Kingdom’s entertainment sector including the megaproject Qiddiya; and NEOM, a $500 billion economic zone focused on high-tech industries.

Rationale: These are three of the most prominent projects within KSA being financed by PIF, and the most obvious examples of its diversification program to include in the introduction.

Any questions please get in touch here on or on my talk page, thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I cannot accept this request, especially since the fund is chaired by MBS. Quetstar (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: Could you provide your reasons for declining each of the above requests? Thank you. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: The above requests are neutral, the sources for them are reliable and their rationales are clear. You have not stated your reasons for declining them and seem instead to have dismissed them wholesale based on a personal view. Please give your reasons for declining these requests on their merits. Thank you. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I denied them because they sounded like PR to me and the fund's lack of transparency. Quetstar (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you please be specific about what "sounded like PR"? Transparency is irrelevant here. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The tone of the request seemed like PR to me, so it is denied and that's final. Quetstar (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've suggested edits to the proposed second paragraph and requested a third opinion. I don't think there's any puff in what I've proposed here and furthermore this is actually in contrast to the existing second paragraph, which includes the phrase: "aims at transferring the PIF from a mere local authority to the largest sovereign fund in the world" Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

References

July 18 edit should not be in the lead

The edit on July 18 by Snooganssnoogans is reliably sourced but shouldn't be in the lead. The fund's transparency is not a prominent line of commentary.

As per MOS:LEAD, lead sections should summarize the article's most important contents. A sentence, somewhere in the body of the article, would stand. Two sentences in the introduction, based on an article from 2016, does not. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The fund is known for being one of the least transparent ones in the world, so it is relevant no matter the case and therefore should be in the lead. Quetstar (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Have requested a 3O on this as well. Thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion request. This should not be in the lead unless the lead is expanded and it is also addressed somewhere else in the article. Right now it looks like undue weight and non-NPOV. This isn't a widely covered statement, that I can see, either. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Thanks for taking a look, agree also re weight and NPOV. I have a COI so prefer not to edit the article directly – would you be willing to remove the two sentences for now given current length of the lead? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've made the edit. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait a sec; presently the fact that this is "among the least transparent sovereign wealth funds in the world" (sourced to Wall Street Journal, no less) is totally removed from the article.

I think that the sentence "It has been characterized as among the least transparent sovereign wealth funds in the world. In 2016, the Wall Street Journal noted that none of the fund's investments were named" (sourced to WSJ) defintely belongs in the article, perhaps under its own paragraph. So far two editors have indicated it belong in the lead, while two do not want it in the lead; no-one (AFAIK) has argued for removing it completely from the article, still, that is the result? User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Riyadhcafe87, User:Pyrrho the Skeptic, User:Quetstar: what do you think? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm the editor that removed it, after I provided a third opinion. Because the edit was added to the lead, while not appearing in the rest of the article, it was ignoring clear guidelines from MOS:Lead: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". It was not added to the body, nor was it discussed on the Talk Page, which is bare minimum etiquette for a controversial statement being added to the lead. No one seems to object to it being added somewhere in the article, so I suggest someone do that before adding it to the lead (though I still don't think it belongs in the lead). Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fine; if nobody objects; I'll add it as a separate paragraph in the article, in a day or two; cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The text in question should obviously both be in the lead and the body of the article. The text is basic information about the organization. I strongly disagree that we should take our marching orders from employees of an organization who are trying to hide well-sourced content about the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a blatant neutrality violation in removing this extremely well-sourced content while the lead and the main body uses poorly sourced content to make definitive statements about the organization doing X, Y and X, and serving goals A, B and C when the RS content that was removed clearly indicates that the organization is not at all transparent about its investments and that we shouldn't mindlessly repeat the organization's own claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Firstly, as Pyrrho the Skeptic says above, no one objects to it being added somewhere in the article. It is well sourced. It is not however, and as Pyrrho also agrees, a major line of commentary about the fund. You mention neutrality – as per WP:WEIGHT, "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The prominence of this viewpoint in reliable sources is very low. According to NPOV it should therefore be in the article only, not in the lead.

Secondly, you mention poor sources. This is exactly one of the issues I’ve been trying to address, initially in my user space and then with the edit request above, which uses two Reuters articles and one from AlArabiya. That was an effort to update what was there (which was several years out of date) with up-to-date, lead-appropriate information based on reliable sources.

Thirdly, to the extent that it's guiding your editing decisions, the argument in your last edit summary – that we should essentially disregard information in numerous reliable sources based on what's in one reliable source – I think at least strays into WP:OR territory, i.e. "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Sure you're not making that claim in the article, but it does seem to be guiding your editing.

No one's issuing "marching orders". I'd like a fair discussion and to stick to policy and what's in reliable sources as best we can. Keen to hear from you and any others on these points. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with conventions in the English language Wikipedia, so please excuse my comment. I would strongly argue that the July 18 edit should not be in the introduction. You came up with a 5 year old article in 2021. I haven't read any such characterization of the PIF in a very long time. You must have dug deep to come up with this characterization in 2021. It is not neutral but seems politically motivated. Actually, PIF is making a lot of fuzz about their investments, they are holding their annual investment conference etc. In the spirit of neutrality, I would actually remove it not only from the introduction but from the main article, too. The article's credibility would greatly benefit.

Also, reference 3 needs a fix. I wanted to check relevance and context of the Hertog quote but the article is paywalled and you cannot even see title and date of publication in the reference text.--Alte Kanzlei (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Alte Kanzlei is right, it shouldn't be in the article at all. It wasn't a widespread view 5 years ago let alone now.

PIF registers its investments with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Here's a page with 25 investments filed.

There are plenty of reliable sources about those investments, e.g.:

• Uber (2016)
• Tesla
• Canadian Natural, Suncor
• Facebook, Bank of America, Citigroup, Walt Disney, Marriott, Pfizer, Starbucks

It is not useful information and should be removed altogether. Interested to hear from Snooganssnoogans and Pyrrho the Skeptic. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Original research by a PR employee of the company does not supersede reporting by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources are above. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Those sources do not contradict the RS that characterize the PIF as non-transparent. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course they do. Sense has to prevail here. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This is simply not a characterization of the Fund worth mentioning now. Things have moved on, and as Alte Kanzlei says you've obviously dug it up. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Still haven't seen why this paragraph would be relevant or would summarize a main point. It is sourced, yes, but that is not the purpose of the lead.--Alte Kanzlei (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty relevant to the organization and as it is well sourced and a major aspect of the organization the lead is a great place for it.VViking_TalkEdits 13:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is a singular five-year old observation. I couldn't find any confirmation that this was particularly characteristic of the fund. I do guess the world of finance isn't very transparent but this does not seem to be a relevant characterization of the fund in 2021. --Alte Kanzlei (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not a major aspect of the organization. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Riyadhcafe87: It seems like the obvious next course of action is a Request for Comment with a clear explanation of why it shouldn't be included, to get independent editors' thoughts and come to a consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Yes agree, thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The references are in a very poor state.

2 placed by snoogans, not in good faith.

3 paywalled, no title.

5 Chicago Tribune while saying Bloomberg.

I guess the list goes on. Will fix on a rainy day if no one else bothers.--Alte Kanzlei (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What a weird comment. I literally cleaned up this WP:COI-PR propaganda project by removing rubbish sources and adding actual reliable sources – and you're whining about this? When you're whining about the sources, you're referring to the peer-reviewed studies that I added to the article? What Wikipedia's RS guidelines describes as "usually the most reliable sources." It's completely immaterial whether you can personally access these sources or not (WP:PAYWALL). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Snooganssnoogans let's get back to whether or not this description of PIF as non-transparent belongs in the lead. MOS:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT are there for a reason. It was never a prevalent characterization, and not only the sources I've linked above but actually a fair portion of the article shows how misleading it is to have it there. If it was a 2 or 3 on the SWFI Linaburg-Maduell Transparency Index then sources would reflect that, but it isn't and they don't. To insist on this based on so little, from so long ago and when so much since tells such a different story makes no sense. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Per PIIE's 2021 ranking (which the WSJ reports on), PIF was among the ten least transparent SWFs in the world.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a 2019 ranking. Quite a bit's happened since. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Lead - transparency

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Due to the requesting editor's battleground mentality, as well as several convincing opinions on the lead, I have decided to speedily close this RfC. The consensus is to keep the transparency sentence in the lead, but in a shortened form. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

The two sentences on transparency should not be in the lead. It is not a prominent enough line of commentary about PIF. They're based on one article from five years ago. There are many reliable sources about its investments (Uber, Tesla, Canadian Natural, Suncor, Facebook, Bank of America, Citigroup, Walt Disney, Marriott, Pfizer, Starbucks to name a few). Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove from lead or expand lead. I was involved in the earlier discussion, responding to the Third Opinion request. As it is now, one article's criticism is taking up about 40% of the lead. If there are widely-covered criticisms, they can be included in the body, either a criticism section or throughout, and then those criticisms could be added to the lead in more general terms. But as it is now, it's WP:UNDUE in the lead, in my opinion. NOTE: Since writing this, another involved editor has now expanded the lead to include more criticisms, but these additions are copy/pasted and are now the majority of the lead, which I still believe is WP:UNDUE and non-neutral. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• This comment incorrectly claims that this content is a "criticism". It's not. It's basic and uncontroversial information about the organization. If numerous scholarly sources say that this is a uniquely non-transparent sovereign wealth fund and that it barely qualifies as a "sovereign wealth fund", then the content clearly meets WP:DUE and it's not "criticisms". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What does it have to do with whether or not it's a criticism? WP:DUE keeps this out of the lead. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support shortening per above. It should be at most one sentence if it is not extensively covered in the body. Note as well that the lead text about transparency is a copy of the body text about transparency. Nonetheless the PIF has historically been much less reliably audited: as cited by an expert:

• "Some holdings lacked Western governance standards, says a person briefed on a PIF audit by Ernst & Young. “Although they do have audited financial statements, they’re not necessarily the right figures,” this person says."per FT.

• Okay Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A former senior PIF employee says there was an “unspoken understanding” that Mr Son would be a “fundraiser” for PIF’s mega-projects, particularly Neom, Prince Mohammed’s flagship development."from another FT article

• Looks like the same article (about 'Saudi Arabia’s shopping spree') Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Historical criticism of corruption within Saudi ministries, "sovereign wealth vs. sovereign's wealth". 2009 journal article

• Which includes: “While critics decry the lack of transparency of SWFs, the Saudi launch of a new SWF could represent a move toward greater transparency” Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Use of the PIF to buy the airplanes used by the assassins of Khashoggi CNN

• How is that relevant? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hiring of US PR firms on behalf of the Saudi Government in 2019 as well as corrupt promotions/contracts to pro-Saudi individuals/companies per journal article.

• Looks like a dead link and is it relevant to this? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Use of the PIF for political purposes both within SA (to consolidate crown prince's power base) and outside (to gain support), indicating the fund is not result-oriented and thus, in my opinion, of an importantly distinct character to average SWFs 2019 journal.

• Again this is another point. 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Non-membership of the IFSWF and non-signing of the Santiago Principles mean there are no guidelines which the PIF must be accountable to.

• Where's your source? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thus, I believe information about transparency and alleged corruption must be in the lead, but in a shorter mention due to MOS:LEAD. The information, however, should prominently feature in the body. Snooganssnoogans I thank you for your continued efforts to deal with COI and NPOV, but would like to link Wikipedia:Creating_controversial_content#Uphold_standards as a friendly gesture. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep in lead. 'Riyadhcafe87' is an employee of the PIF. The editor is falsely claiming that only one source in the article has remarked on the company's lack of transparency. The body very clearly includes other sources, including peer-reviewed studies and expert assessments, that point to the PIF's lack of transparency, as well as its dubious status as a "sovereign wealth fund". The body, for example, quotes a recognized expert (cited by the Financial Times in 2018) who says that the PIF "is seen as opaque, a black box. Few know what’s going on there, including sometimes other government ministries." I find it disturbing that a PR employee of the company is permitted to start a RfC and to make false claims in the RfC itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• 2018. Do I need to make this point again? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• We need quite a few sources for this to stand. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please remember that the employee has stated their COI numerous times. The point of an RfC is to get independent opinions, which is the correct thing to do, to prevent edit warring and establish consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(1) The RfC does not clarify that the editor has a COI. (2) Is this a neutrally worded RfC? Obviously no. (3) The employee is also engaging in WP:BLUDGEON. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• WP:BLUDGEON No. I've said quite a lot on this page. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Points raised by Riyadhcafe87 can still be valuable contributions to the article even if there is a COI. The editor has made an effort to establish community consensus, provided ample sources in good faith, and most importantly while the text of the RfC is not particularly neutral if one takes up the RfC from the perspective of MOS:LEAD it should be considered worthwhile discussing. Nonetheless, I do believe that mentions of lack of transparency are important, per my comment above. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I also have concerns that the push to whitewash the page (which includes ceaseless advocacy by the company's employees, as well as edit-warring from newly created editors) may be motivated by a desire to obscure the organization's structure due to the PIF's current negotiations to purchase a Premier League football club. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, they should disclose their COI on the RfC, but I don't believe it's required, and should make no real difference to any editors jumping in to comment. It either belongs in the lead or it doesn't. I also saw the newly-created account in the edit history, and that should be brought up in a sock investigation, and not influence this particular point. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. And I happen to agree with Alte Kanzlei but it seems that you Snooganssnoogans are convinced we're connected. We've discussed it. We're not. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. The lead has no issues and is descriptive of the PIF, so I think it should stay as is no matter the cicumstances. Quetstar (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Remove The lead as it is is hugely weighted as per WP:DUE. We need more sources surely. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that the lead is unduly weighted, so i think that it should stay as is. (FYI, I was the one who readded the transparency sentence back into the lead, before Snoogan expanded it.) Quetstar (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's on you and Snoogans to show us that there are enough sources for WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEAD to allow it a place in the lead. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep besides its wealth, it is really its non-transparency which is most notable about this fund, so yeah: this belongs in the lead. (Want ot away from the lead: increase the transparency of the Fund is how to do that) Huldra (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, demonstrate how non-transparency is the most notable aspect of PIF. Give us the sources. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We already have the WSJ source, which is one of the most reliable out there. Quetstar (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but can I just say this again (WP:DUE): "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Let's see the sufficient prominence of this viewpoint for it to be in the lead. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You have already made this point, no need to repeat it for every editor that raises the criticism Riyadhcafe87. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: I'm actually asking a question, which hasn't yet been answered. Are there, per WP:DUE, proportionally, enough reliable sources to warrant what Snooganssnoogans has added to the lead? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Riyadhcafe87 Yes. See my comment above.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz Yes, demonstrate the required proportion. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Riyadhcafe87 Due to your attitude in this RfC, I am seriously considering speedily closing it. Quetstar (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Riyadhcafe87 it seems we both were writing edits at the same time and so my revision of my text above does not make sense anymore. I have pasted it below:

Yes (to your question about there being enough sources). Perhaps not the exact wording, but most definitely the characterization of the PIF as obscure (see my comment above). The line calling it a "quasi-sovereign wealth fund" is also extensively cited in the lead. HOWEVER note that WP:DUE is best described as "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.". The view that the PIF is obscure is overwhelmingly documented, per my sources above as well as those already cited in the article. Thus, statements supporting this view must be given the due weight that inclusion in the lead entails. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on". Readers should receive information about the PIF's nontransparency and corruption as part of their basic understanding of the fund — with additional detailing on the topic in the body.

In fact, I think that you might be falling into a false dilemma. The fact that some acquisitions made by the fund (of very notable companies, such as Tesla) are known publicly does not mean that the company is very transparent. Claiming that because it is known that the PIF invested in Tesla we know all about the investments made by the fund and thus the claims made of non-transparency are false is a false dilemma. Both statements can be true, seeing as we do not really know the number of investments it has made through shell companies (which Saudi investors with connections to the PIF and the monarchy have made such as in this case) or in nations where it is not necessary to disclose investments (note, for example, that Tesla must disclose investments into the company per NASDAQ/USA/SEC rules to its shareholders). In addition, the fact that sources such as FT could only quote a range of 3-5% rather than an exact amount puts in doubt exactly how transparent that deal was. Reports on the PIF's deals in the US cite security filings (meaning legally obliged disclosures) when writing about deals made by the PIF. One could safely assume that in countries such as Russia, China, or LEDCs these disclosures would not be as detailed or made at all. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR. Last word for now. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Quetstar I support speedy close. Between Riyadhcafe87's COI, bludgeoning, and multiple fallacies (false dilemma, nut-picking, attempts at argument from ignorance) I think the RfC is worth speedy closing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I've made straightforward arguments and asked straightforward questions. I'll let others decide if I've been more bludgeoning here than anyone else. We can be straight and civil and I have been civil. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2021 (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.

Where's the appropriate discussion page? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This talk page. Quetstar (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Could you comment on each of my answers to A. C. Santacruz's points above please? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No comment, as that would only fuel the fire. Quetstar (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What fire? Stop trying to make one. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

By fire, I meant the lead dispute which is now settled for good. Quetstar (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's really settle it with a comment on each of my responses to A. C. Santacruz's points above. Thank you. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will not comment on your responses and that's final. Quetstar (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Riyadhcafe87, please if you are so inclined to continue the discussion and feel it is truly truly necessary to improve the article create a new section outlining, once again, your responses explicitly. Continuing this section is redundant, as the RfC is closed. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay Riyadhcafe87 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Transparency

A. C. Santacruz Please show us how "the view that the PIF is obscure is overwhelmingly documented". Thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Riyadhcafe87 This has been discussed multiple times already, so there is no need to prove anything. Quetstar (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have already done that. Riyadhcafe87, you are being disruptive. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 05:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not. I know you think that because the RfC is closed I'm now refusing to drop the stick but we simply don't have enough sources saying it do we? You link to an FT article in your first point above, and then to the same one in your second point, saying it's another article. You then make a number of unrelated points. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point, you are basically harassing editors. Stop this right now and get out of Wikipedia. Quetstar (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll let others decide. You closed this a little speedily. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I closed it because you were disruptive by repeatedly asking for proof – Yes which I don't think I got Riyadhcafe87 The lead will stay as is and that's final whether you like it or not. Quetstar (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"It has been characterized as among the least transparent sovereign wealth funds in the world. In 2016, the Wall Street Journal noted that none of the fund's investments were named." Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Absurd. It's middle of the pack. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, it gets 6/10, alas, I woudn't give 2 cents for a list which gives 10/10 to the Azerbaijan fund, seriously...Huldra (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

But the fund does not release quarterly reports, which makes it non-transparent as we can't know the entirety of the fund's investments. Quetstar (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Does that make it "among the least transparent sovereign wealth funds in the world"? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I will not comment any further because you have been reported to ANI. Quetstar (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Another poor reason not to comment but let's let it lie for now. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

List of investments

Earlier this year (from January to Special:Diff/1216754329, a new section § List of investments was added by User:Cergun62. I recognize the good (and, I know, hard!) work, but I have a few concerns about it:

1. The section is divided into three sections/tables: "Giga-projects", "International" and "Middle East and North Africa". This struck me immediately, causing me to wonder where we'd list an international giga-project located somewhere in the Middle East. I can divide "apples", "pears" and "oranges", but I'm lost when I try to separate "apples", "fruit" and "foods I like to eat". Can we come up with a more logical grouping?
2. It's nice the tables are sortable, but what's the initial order being used? It makes it harder (at least for me) to understand information when I can't see the pattern in which it's ordered.
3. What's the definition of a giga project? It sounds too colloquial for an encyclopedic term to me, like, "Dude, that's totally a giga-project". What criteria are we using for this definition? Can we share it with the reader?
4. The entire section is sourced to PIF's own "Our Investments" web page, with one additional extra cite to a press release for Heathrow (and, as of June 2024 that sale still hadn't been completed). But the PIF page doesn't actually mention any of these companies (or maybe a few are, but I stopped searching after six straight misses). Do we have any actual sources for this information? Especially, some independent, reliable ones?

My (whiny) complaint, then, is that we have a huge bunch of companies which may or may not have any connection to the PIF, grouped in an opaquely orthogonal way, with the main benefits to the reader being wikilinks to our articles, where we have them (it looks like about a third of these entities have no Wikipedia article), plus links to the companies' respective websites. That may help convey the scope of the PIF's reach (in case the $925 billion didn't suffice), and readers can click to the WP articles where they exist, but I'd rather do without the whole section than have (yet another) Wikipedia page with a huge unsourced list of stuff, just because tables are fun and easy.

Counter-whining and ideas for improvement are welcome. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I support getting rid off any unsourced / poorly sourced content. Thenightaway (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

1. At the time of me making the list, the website had the companies dividied into these three categories. Now, they appear to have updated the website and added a new filter feature to categorize the companies differently. I’ll definitely update it when I have the time.

2. I’m not gonna lie, making the tables was extremely time-consuming. So I just slapped the companies listed on the website without any specific order and made them chronologically sortable.

3. The scale of the projects listed as giga-project is noticeably larger than any of the other MENA investments. But again, these 5 companies were listed as “giga-project” at the time of making the list.

4. Some of the investments, such as Heathrow, weren’t added by me. I mainly used the following link as my source:

https://www.pif.gov.sa/en/our-investments/our-portfolio/

Adding individual sources for each and every investment will take more time than I currently have. Cergun62 (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)