Talk:Mohammed bin Salman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mister Bone Saw - notable enough for the lead?

In this edit, the reference to "Mister Bone Saw" as an interpretation of MBS was removed from the lead, with the edit summary "Not sure this is necessary in very first sentence of the article–while funny, no sign that this nickname is very widely used (yet). It's mentioned in the Khashoggi section, which ought to be enough.". Whether it's funny or not is not really relevant, but whether or not it's notable enough for the lead is a valid question. How can we judge this notability? Keeping in mind the warnings on Google hits (WP:GNUM), what do they give? My google hits on "mister bone saw" for "all" get 145,000 hits; and "news" gives 706 hits, with the first few in English (as in the main body of the article - New York Times and South China Morning Post), in Polish by a Polish journalist Maciej Michałek, clearly on this topic [Google's choice of photo is off-topic, because there are multiple photos cramming the page and lots of unnecessary external javascript], and in German (1) (2). The Google "all" list gives a Danish article. On the other hand, page 10 of the results of "all" or "news" seem to be indirect links to articles I've already found, not new links. Should MBS = "Mister Bone Saw" be in the lead? Boud (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This article might need semi-protection - it looks to me like it's mostly IP editors who are restoring "Mister Bone Saw" (some with refs, some without) to the lead rather than discussing. My judgment is that it's justified in the lead - it's used internationally in the literal English version "Mister Bone Saw" in newspapers in Poland, Germany and Denmark, but an edit war is not the way to come to consensus. Boud (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Mister Bone Saw" or "Mr. Bone Saw" in the popular media:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/14/business/media/reality-saudi-prince-media-narrative.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/saudis-plan-to-pin-khashoggi-slaying-on-rogue-general

http://www.ensonhaber.com/prince-salmans-new-moniker-mister-bone-saw.html

https://theweek.com/speedreads/802539/stephen-colbert-thinks-kavanaugh-may-not-love-trump-linking-saudi-crown-prince-mr-bone-saw

https://www.berlingske.dk/internationalt/derfor-forsvarer-trump-mister-bone-saw

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/17/mister-bone-saw.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.189.77 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection would be overkill in this context: that remedy is reserved for long-term, persistent disruption, and what we have here a brief edit war with parties who can be easily referred to WP:ANEW and blocked if it becomes necessary. That's not to say that I can't imagine this particular article needing to come under protection at some point, but an admin is going to want to see a lot more in terms of systemic issues before contemplating page protection. Nevertheless, I for one appreciate your effort to forestall further edit warring, here and in the edit summaries.

Addressing the content issue, I don't think this new nickname is at all appropriate for the lead--at least, not at this time. Yes, you have found sources replicating the use of the term, but the WP:WEIGHT of such descriptors is judged as a factor of the total sources in existence for the subject, not a non-relative, raw figure that, once reached, guaruntees any name of inclusion in the lead. If that were the case, imagine the litany of monikers and invectives that would head the lead of the article for any head of state of any nation ever. Could this term eventually receive such weight in coverage such that it truly would be appropriate for inclusion in the lead? I suppose anything is possible, but I'd be surprised; I doubt it will catch on even with the prince's critics, since many will undoubtedly find the name to be a flippant reference to a brutal murder. But what is certain is that it would be pure WP:CRYSTAL to assume its definitely going to stick well enough to predict the future weight of sources on the topic. Frankly, it's a borderline question whether it even belongs in the article at all at this point, and I say that as someone who believes the discussion of khashoggi's death ought to be quite broad in this article, and not shy away from the unpleasant details. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Iron Lady became a well-established nickname for Maggie Thatcher. But WP:CRYSTAL is a fair argument for the lead: a bunch of newspapers in different languages/countries (and the political critic/comedian Colbert in the US) have grabbed onto this, but time is needed for judging if this will stick in the long term. Boud (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That is essentially my perspective too: its not that I am uniformly against including this term just because it is inflammatory; WP:LABEL must always give way to WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT where a given title, however invective, gains enough usage. I just don't think we're there yet. As you note, 'Iron Lady' is a great example of a nickname that did arise out of political fallout from particular events and did in fact stick around, though I will also note that it underscores exactly why I am skeptical that 'Bone Saw' will catch on in a similar fashion: Thatcher's nickname had appeal to both sides (it signaled her indomitable will and ideological perseverance for her supporters, while her opponents saw it as reflecting indifference and inflexibility), whereas the opposite mental calculus is at work with Bin Salman's new nickname (his supporters will see it only as an attack on his moral authority to lead, and his critics will likely not be in a rush to adopt using a label which could be seen as a flippant reference to state terrorism). I'd be surprised if it sticks around in common usage, but certainly we should continue to analyze the issue in the weeks and months ahead. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Google and Google Trends especially are good tools for doing an analysis of a name’s use. In the last six days there has been heavy search volume on Mister Bone Saw. I recommend keeping it in the article. There are many references to this nickname. Google “Mister bone saw” and you’ll see them all. We aren’t leading they way; we are following the sources. Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• No question that it belongs in the article, but I think it's inappropriate to include it in the first sentence. Blythwood (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

His critics started to mock him as Mr Bone Saw and it belongs in the infobox, really. --Saqib (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've put it at the end of the lede. This fact is much more than mere trivia, but it's probably not yet prominent enough to go in the first sentence, as Blythwood perceptively noted. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been removed by another editor now; actually, after you re-ignited the edit war by re-adding it, it was deleted and re-added, in increasingly inappropriate ways, several times. Respectfully, you're a veteran editor and should have known it was not appropriate or helpful to jump into an edit war to re-add a detail to the lead that has already been challenged (and removed more than once), while a talk page discussion about the matter is ongoing. Please follow WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR scrupulously, especially given the controversial nature of this article and this topic, and wait until a consensus to add the challenged content has been firmly adopted before implementing the addition; this topic is likely to attract a number of SPAs and IPs (from both "sides") and if we don't set an example of approaching this through discussion rather than edit warring ourselves, we will have no chance of controlling them, short of the page protection that Boud proposed, which would still be less than ideal.

My take on the content is that it is inappropriate for inclusion in the article at this time, as a matter of WP:WEIGHT; yes, there is currently a glut of some sources using the name incidentally, but when we are talking about a head of state, that's not at all surprising and you must weigh those references against all reliable sources covering the subject in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the inclusion is appropriate. To say nothing of all of the other important editorial principles found in WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and other relevant content policies which must be considered. Donald Trump is routinely called a "horror clown" in mainland Europe--in fact, the term was so prevalent around his entry into office that not only can you find hundreds of sources using it (particularly if you want to dig into the non-American press), there were also numerous secondary sources talking exclusively about the term.[1][2] So do we include that (or any one of a dozen other similar names) in Trump's article? No of course not. And it's not just because the usage turned out to be mostly transient (although that would have been a good reason in itself); there are many reasons why it would run afoul of policy and principles of community consensus regarding neutral point of view.

Personally, I am (for the moment) against including this term in the article at all, until such time that continuing and broad usage establishes the WP:WEIGHT argument; just assuming the invective is going to stick and predominate discussion of the man is pure WP:CRYSTAL (by way of WP:RECENTISM) and the sources which currently use it incidentally are a drop of water in the ocean of aggregate reliable sources discussing the BLP subject in total. That analysis of relative depth of coverage is the basis of comparison that we need to use for resolving this sort of content question (as opposed to the proposed "Well, there are X number of sources saying it now: it's relevant!" argument, which does not reflect policy or community consensus on such matters). And I think I can say with some confidence that this perspective will be the outcome of an WP:RfC pulling experienced and non-involved editors into the matter, which is where this seems likely to go. It may ultimately prove to be a reasonable middle ground solution to include a quick reference to the term in the body of the article, but I doubt the handle will gain the kind of currency in sources needed to ever include it in the lead, especially given the intersection of controversial WP:LABEL and BLP. Regardless, let's please have no more edit warring and instead follow Boud's example and engage in discussion--including efforts to solicit the wider views of the community through appropriate processes if necessary. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, let's try to remember there is WP:NORUSH to get this right; we can (and, under policy, should) wait to see what happens with regard to this detail before leaping to implement. And for those who are here because the underlying story of Khashoggi's murder has (understandably) provoked your instinct to make sure the world's condemnation of such behaviour is reflected in our articles, let me say that I can appreciate where you are coming from. However, I believe it is far less important that we include this or that smarmy nickname (which at the end of the day really adds very little to value and utility of the article) and far more important that we approach our discussion of the underlying human rights topics in detail and with candor. The article will be more effective in educating more readers (including especially those who have conflicting feelings over the matter) if it is written in scrupulously neutral tone and focuses on the facts, rather than the emotional rhetoric that abounds on this topic at present--again, reasonable as those strong feelings may be. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please consolidate your thoughts to a few concise sentences. Nobody reads walls of text, and they disrupt the discussion by determing participation. Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I and others had already laid out a concise explanation for why this content is inappropriate at this time, which you could have read before commenting at all. The depth of my analysis above in my last post is in large part consequence of explaining the multiple important policies (WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LABEL, WP:BLP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RECENT) you ignored when suggesting your proposed course of action under the rationale you suggested--and frankly, it usually takes a lot more time to explain why a bad idea is against numerous policies than it does to just throw the bad idea out there in the first place. This is a highly controversial topic on an article that is going to attract a lot of POV editors and I don't think three paragraphs counts as a "wall of text" when discussing the nuances involved, especially if it saves us trouble down the line. But if you can't be bothered to stretch your attention span to that extent, I'll try to reduce it to the cliffnotes for you: A) Don't edit war; it doesn't help the situation and you are likely to be blocked. And B) As one of the oldest and most broadly held principles of community consensus, content is not validated for inclusion based on X number of sources mentioning it; you judge the WP:WEIGHT and depth of coverage relative to all sources on the topic. And if this message was also "TLDR", at the end of the day, I really don't care. You can choose to engage with it or make another hip-fire dismissive comment and ignore the substance of it, but you're not going to prevail in any consensus discussion with your current editorial argument, because it runs largely counter to consensus norms on WP:LABELS in BLPS. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it belongs in the lead section, but definitely below. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection. IP editors keep blanking text on this issue without discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Core. And here I was just telling Boud I thought PP would not be necessary--but I agree we've now crossed the disruption threshold where it is called for. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for six months, which will help. Coretheapple (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to put the text back in since it's been blanked by IPs without any explanation. The discussion here seems to favor retaining the text, but not making it excessively prominent. I have no doubt that the House of Saud employs publicists and information warfare specialists who are going to work to remove anything objectionable to them from this article. Let's see what established editors have to say. Please comment succinctly Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved with this disruption by reverting you, but someone is bound to do so and when they do, you need to let it go and stop this blatant WP:EDITWARRING. You have been on this project for more than 12 years, so I can safely presume that you know how WP:BRD works in our editorial process. The content has been challenged and the WP:ONUS is now upon you to establish a consensus for inclusion before the content comes in. It doesn't matter one whit that the editor who reverted immediately before you left a blank edit summary; you know that the edit is contentious, you know you are participating in a string of more than a dozen edit war reverts over this exact issue in the last 36 hours, and you know that there is an ongoing talk page discussion debating the appropriateness of the content--all of which preclude you from reverting under WP:EW. Do we really have to go through the trouble of opening a report at WP:ANEW to stop this back and forth? Snow ^{let's rap} 02:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Good. You need to step away entirely because you've lost perspective. I put things back the way they were before my recent edits. It can hardly be edit warring to restore the content as it was before attempting a change. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no--that's not remotely what you did and you know it. You edit warred the disputed content back into the article, despite knowing that there was an ongoing discussion and that we had just page protected the article to stop the same kind of behaviour on the part of the IPs you were edit warring with. The fact that you added the content to the main body as opposed to the lead (and used a misleading edit summary to suggest you were reverting yourself rather than someone else) does not change the fact that you were edit warring to reintroduce the content back in, and not for the first time. Basically, as soon as the page was semi-protected and you knew the IP's could no longer re-revert you, you exploited the situation to immediately re-instate the disputed content, even though you knew that said content had been challenged, that WP:BRD and WP:ONUS require you to wait to gain consensus before re-adding, and that WP:EW forbid you from making the change in these circumstances in any event. And even though Oshwah page protected the article specifically to stop IP editors from engaging in exactly the same behaviour.

I don't see how I've "lost perspective" by pointing out to you that this behaviour blatantly violates every behavioural rule we have concerning edit warring and the re-introduction of disputed content and asking you to stop it, but if you truly feel that I lack objectivity here, then the simplest solution (short of you just not edit warring further) is to remove discussion of the conduct in question to the appropriate community space, WP:ANEW, and you can explain to the admins there why you feel your reverts were justified and non-disruptive. But the volunteers there are used to analyzing this kind of behaviour, so I wouldn't expect a more receptive audience to your "the edits aren't a perfect match, so I wasn't really edit warring" reasoning. In any event, I don't know why you would choose to push things that far rather than just recognize that your behaviour violated policy and cease edit warring while discussion takes place (the standard expected behaviour of editors in these circumstances and literally the sum total of what anyone has asked from you here) but ultimately that's your call. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I've made a request at WP:BLPN requesting additional perspectives on this matter. If someone also wants to RfC the dispute, that would not necessarily be the worst idea in the world. In any event, the additional eyes will hopefully help resolve the deadlock and move resolution towards discussion and away from edit warring. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• In body, not in lede - for now. This is a case of WP:RECENTISM - covered in the context of Khashoggi. In as much as we see continued use of the nickname in few months/years (outside of the context of the Khashoggi affair) - there might be merit for the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (body, not lead) - I withdraw my earlier claim that it's justified for the lead. Boud (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that a dark pun has emerged from one particular act committed by a man who has ("allegedly") committed any number of heinous acts is in no way noteworthy enough for the introductory paragraph of any encyclopedia article. It's worth what puns/nicknames are grnerally worth -- a throwaway line in the relevant section. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Murder or killing ?

This got reverted. Most MSM sources are referring to this as "death of" or "killing" - while some are using "murder", it would seem this wording is in a minotiry. The legalities involved in a killing in a consulate with inviolability of its premises and diplomatic immunity for its staff are complex, and in any case there have been no charges or convictions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Note the concurrent discussion at Talk:Killing of Jamal Khashoggi/Archives/ 2#Requested move 20 October 2018 - per BLP we should be more conservative regarding use of titles here, not more aggressive (at the moment the article on the killing is titled as a killing). Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

My (admittedly impressionistic) sense from the articles I have read in the last few days has been that "murder" predominates in headlines an in source content as of the last few days, following the most recent revisions of the Saudi narrative, and admissions to a cover up. Even the Saudi foreign minister has described the slaying as a "murder", as of yesterday ([3]), so honestly there seems to be no more controversy as to the description of the act, if even the Saudi government says the killing was a planned and intentional murder, and crown represenatives have shifted to insisting that it was a directed assasination, just not one that was ordered or sanctioned by the prince--which claim will now become the new battleground, of course. I expect that sources will only become more uniform in their wording as a result, so I think it makes sense to accept "murder" as the appropriate descriptor at this juncture. However, there is always the matter of needing to hue closely to the sources, so the matter can (as regards this article anyway) always be shelved for a few days so we can see how they react, so we can shape our description accordingly. Honestly though, I don't think the new label of "murder" is going away. Once the state in question has used that description themselves to describe an act of state violence, you can bet most other parties are not going to be in a hurry to use a more forgiving label. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

Please add in "2.2 Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince":

In December 2015 Germany's foreign intelligence agency Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) was the first intelligence agency to highlight bin Salman's unstable nature. The BND took the unusual step of publishing an assessment entitled "Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation"[4] warning of the dangers the then 29-year-old prince posed. According to the BND, "the careful diplomatic stance of older members of the Saudi royal family has been replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention".[5]

Cheers,--87.170.207.30 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC) 87.170.207.30 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think this source is too speculative. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• There may very well be utility to this source, but if you wish to add it to the article, you are going to have to propose an edit that is a little more careful of our policies on WP:Neutral point of view; some people (indeed, some people who will engage with you here) may privately be of the belief that bin Salman has an "unstable nature"; however, for purposes of a Wikipedia article, we cannot make statements like that in Wikipedia's objective voice when describing the subject. Such potentially inflammatory descriptions must be fully attributed to sources, and the sources in question must make exactly the claim you want to add; paraphrasing a collection of sources which seem to an individual editor to converge on an "obvious" conclusion of instability is WP:original research and WP:synthesis, unless the sources themselves use that language. And even then, there may be policy reasons for not including a sourced description (relevant policies which you may want to review on such editorial decisions are WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and WP:LABEL). Still, the source itself is interesting and qualifies as an WP:RS, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it could be utilized in the article, especially as it has turned out to prescient with regard to later criticism of the crown prince; it may have a possible application early in the section you reference. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: You should establish a consensus for the addition before requesting a not-uncontroversial edit like this. Obtaining consensus for this particular request isn't likely, per the reply by Snow Rise. --Pipetricker (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post October 30:

In doing so, Mohammed has replaced “cautious” royal leadership with “impulsive interventionist politics,” as one Western intelligence agency predicted in late 2015, warning that his rapid ascent would lead to trouble at home and abroad.

The prescience of that three-year-old analysis, by Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, appears borne out by events as Mohammed’s command has grown — an endless and seemingly futile war in Yemen, stubborn disputes and peremptory behavior toward neighbors and allies, and crackdowns on even the mildest forms of internal dissent. --87.170.201.93 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination

This just broke an hour ago in the Washington Post. I'm reverting the addition of this claim and Washington Post article until we hear more, preferably from the CIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trysten (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

do you need another source? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46245167 Eck (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No point in "waiting to hear from the CIA" -- we'll go with what appears in highly reputable secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it to the relevant section from the lede, but the reference is all fucked up and I can't figure out why. Can someone with better wiki-fu please give it a look? PaulCHebert (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, note that I changed the text to the CIA's opinion being reported, not stated. The CIA has made no statement on the matter. PaulCHebert (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The CIA never confirm nor deny the findings in such high profile cases that may or may not have political consequences according to federal policy, however they will always leak it to the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckstasy (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeated information

In Section 5.2 Military interventions in Syria and Yemen.

First instance

Following a Houthi missile attack against Riyadh in December 2017, which was intercepted by Saudi air defense, airstrikes killed 136 Yemeni civilians and injured 87 others in eleven days.

Second Instance

Following the Houthi missile attack against Riyadh in December 2017, which was intercepted by Saudi air defense, Mohammed Bin Salman retaliated with a ten day barrage of indiscriminate airstrikes against civilian areas in Yemen held by Houthi forces, killing dozens of children.

These two quote appear in the third and fourth paragraphs respectively. I think that the repetition in the fourth paragraph should be deleted and comobined into the first reference as follows.

Suggested Revision

Following a Houthi missile attack against Riyadh in December 2017, which was intercepted by Saudi air defense, Mohammed Bin Salman retaliated with a ten day barrage of indiscriminate airstrikes against civilian areas in Yemen held by Houthi forces, killing dozens of children

TSpot-SF (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Revised TSpot-SF (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as the bit about children and "indiscriminate" verges on Wikipedia editorially condemning the acts in its own voice. The first single sentence is quite sufficient. https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/rex-tillerson-qatar-saudi-uae/ has clear opinions and is misused here. Collect (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Collect – the first sentence is sufficient and provides information from the UN, the second sentence is lifted straight from an opinion article. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Do not Welcome the Killer Mohammad bin Salman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Naming individual activists

This follows on from the survey above, but as there has been another edit with similar issues it’s probably better to start a new thread.

Since that survey, another subsection (2018 activists arrests) has been added on the arrests of female activists this year, naming seven of them. A total of twelve activists are now named in the article overall. While the coverage of these arrests, as Snow Rise has pointed out above, isn’t insignificant, I can't see how it can be WP:DUE to include the names of every activist arrested since he became Crown Prince.

Only two of the five sources for this new section mention the article subject (Independent and Newsweek), and neither of those make any direct connection between him and the arrests (the Independent only mentions the anti-corruption arrests last year), let alone between him and any of the individuals named. In the Israa al-Ghomgham case, the sources make clear that the decision lies with the public prosecutor.

Of the eleven sources for the 2018 activists’ arrests and Human rights subsections, three mention him and link him only to a general increase in arrests of activists (Gulf Center for Human Rights, Amnesty and another Independent article); a further three mention him without even making that link (the Independent and Newsweek articles above, and Human Rights Watch); and the other five don’t mention him at all.

The point is that of all the reliable sources naming individual activists and mentioning the article subject, none have suggested any personal involvement by him in any individual case, and only a few have reported those cases within the wider context of a rise in arrests of activists during his rule. Isn’t that wider context therefore the appropriate level of detail for this article? The notability of some of those named shouldn’t have any bearing on this. Tarafa15 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

For my part, despite having supported the inclusion of some names in the RfC in question, I nevertheless find I have to agree with Tarafa15 here: twelve names of individual activists in that one section is starting to tip things towards unwieldy and WP:UNDUE. We do have other articles regarding these subjects. This isn't a matter of sanitization either; I broadly support an exhaustive discussion of the human rights record for states and individuals heading those states, Saudi Arabia definetly not excluded. But what should appear here should be a cogent summary of events (with internal links to other appropriate articles used generously where particular topics are referenced) so as to keep the overall picture clear without getting lost in the weeds. A select group of the most preeminent activists is useful for this task, but there does come a point where the names are too many. I can't say as I have an opinion yet as to how many in this case--or better put, which names are necessary. I'd have to look closer at the diffs and refs first.

In the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind hearing the impressions of Tarafa15, the position of the editor who first added the new content, and anyone else interested. It may be worth RfCing the matter for that purpose. That would normally be complicated with an open RfC on an overlapping topic running, but that RfC has been up for over a month (the usual default minimum usually required before a close), no one has commented in weeks, and the !votes all run in one direction. Even the proposer, the only one supporting the alternative conclusion, seems to have accepted the outcome. So I would say it would be acceptable to close the discussion as resolved accordingly and then reframe the issues discussed in this thread (and the one immediately below) as a new discussion with a new RfC tag. Noting for the record here that Tarafa15 is not beating the dead horse/refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in renewing the discussion in this was--rather it would be more accurate to say that they have conceded some ground in acknowledging the consensus outcome regarding the content that was in question at the time that the rest of us !voted in the first RfC, but they are now requesting a discussion about similar but nevertheless newer and additional content. That said, Tarafa, if you want to be super above-board here, you could always request an immediate close to the first RfC via WP:AN; if so, I advise that you mention this new thread in the request, so the closing admin takes it into account, and will probably mention it in their close, so there is obvious continuity between the two discussions and no implication of WP:disruption for anyone who arrives later. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snow Rise and thanks for replying. Just to clarify, there’s a total of twelve activists named in the article as a whole now, not one section. However I still think the new 2018 activists’ arrests section overdoes it in this aspect. Another RfC is an option, but I also have a suggestion, which is to keep the mention of individuals to two who are prominent in particular areas – that is Aisha al-Mana as a women driving campaigner, and Hatoon al-Fassi as an academic.

That first sentence could therefore read: "The 2017 purge of the Saudi political and business elite was followed in 2018 by the arrests of 17 women's rights activists, including the women driving and anti male-guardianship campaigner Aisha al-Mana, and Hatoon al-Fassi, an associate professor of women's history at King Saud University.”

Regarding the second sentence of that section, on Israa al-Ghomgham, I get your point about exhaustive discussion of human rights issues however the precise relevance to the article subject has to be weighed. As the sentence says, al-Ghomgham and her husband have been in prison since December 2015, well before he became Crown Prince. I don’t think this new development in their case has enough relevance to him to warrant inclusion – a judicial decision that makes international headlines is still a judicial decision, not his.

On the RfC above, while I’m not convinced that every name in that first paragraph is warranted, they were arrests that took place after his appointment as CP and I respect the consensus outcome. I’ll request a close as you suggested. Tarafa15 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a two activist per rights arena default approach is not an altogether bad idea, but there are two possible editorial objections I think you should expect: 1) some editors may find that this mechanistic, one-size-fits-all approach to determining relevance is inappropriate, and that WP:WEIGHT alone should determine which names feature in this article and which don't, and 2) the proposed approach could just shift the debate to the question of what constitutes a discrete area of human rights issues. As to 1, I think you can win people over with a pragmatic argument, saying this is just a baseline assumption for getting the article into shape, and that the editors of the article can always make exceptions where a topic or a group of names are particular weighty in the sources. 2 is probably more difficult though, as there is always a great deal of overlap between various areas in the stories and advocacy of individual activists (and in human rights topics broadly), so if you do convince people to adopt this framework, be prepared for some continuing debate on how many different rights issues are implicated in the sources and who is an advocate for what. I expect it would be a little bit like what happens when editors "genre war" over the definition and categorization of a particular musical artist's sound, complete with (probably reasonable) implications of original research. Which is why we usually use a more straight forward WP:Weight test in those circumstances.

But I don't necesarily mean to discourage you; I agree that we need to pare things down a a little and that at the same time we need to make sure there is a broad overview of the rights issues involved, and if that means removing some names that are redundant on certain topics to make sure discussion of another rights subject does not get buried or omitted entirely, that's a reasonable editorial objective. I would just be careful not to make it feel like firm rules are being established. Continue giving concrete examples of what you think is the more essential information and what is superfluous and I think you can convince respondents that a slightly streamlined approach to these topics is suitable--though it may take a little longer than usual to arrive at the exact wording. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we do need to pare things down and your point above about presenting issues as cogent summaries with relevant internal links is a really important one. As to your point 1), I wouldn’t call this a one-size-fits-all approach – I’m more suggesting a solution to this current issue, although it’s fair to say there have been instances in the history of this page where large numbers of names were included in ways that were clearly undue and off-topic, and were removed as such, and it would be in the interests of the article to move beyond that kind of editing. So I think some sort of baseline assumption would be useful, but of course allowing for exceptions. Another point on this is that I’m not entirely sure that WP:WEIGHT fully covers all the issues at hand, which to my mind also include to what extent reliable sources make these cases clearly relevant to him. As I say, sources are used in both the 2018 activists’ arrests section and paragraph 1 of the Human rights section which don’t even mention him, which is at least unusual. Again, the most you’ll find in reliable sources is the commentary that arrests of activists in general have continued or increased during his rule. On your point above about exhaustive discussion of human rights records, my immediate thought is surely there’s a difference between an exhaustive discussion in an article on a state and one in an article on a leader. I don’t think there are many articles for national leaders which individually name large numbers of people arrested during their rule. To my mind naming people in a BLP that the subject has no personal connection to, in the context of controversies, is quite a big deal and should be weighed very carefully before it happens. As for how many people are named, of course this won’t be hard-and-fast but I don’t see why one name, pre-eminent as you suggest, per area (as per my suggested sentence above) wouldn’t be enough to give readers appropriate detail and an opportunity to read more via an internal link.

That brings me to your point 2), and yes that could be difficult and not least because sources don’t always attach a specific cause to a particular activist but just refer to human rights in general and report his or her background, e.g. academic, novelist, etc. But I think again the average reader would expect some information on what specific causes are prominent – women’s rights is a clear one, freedom of speech is another one – along with some information on what kinds of people are championing these causes. So for the sake of argument the most-reported discrete backgrounds/causes of activists arrested since the start of his rule might be academia, freedom of speech, female driving and male guardianship.

I haven’t yet requested a close to the RfC on the Human rights section, as it does still seem very much part of this discussion as it’s progressing. I’m of course ready to accept a consensus if we think it’s definitely closed, but for example I haven’t yet mentioned that the first paragraph in that section looks like an effort to manufacture notability in individuals which aren’t notable – e.g. the link from Mustafa al-Hassan goes to an article on Sudanese detainees at Guantanamo, containing the name of clearly a different Mustafa al-Hassan. While that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t warrant inclusion (as I mentioned above notability isn’t justification in and of itself for inclusion, and conversely of course non-notability shouldn’t mean exclusion), we do need to be absolutely sure they’re 100% relevant and provide useful information to the reader. For example, and returning to your point 2) on discrete areas, an economist and entrepreneur – Essam al-Zamil – is mentioned in that paragraph, but the reader doesn’t know that as he’s simply listed along with other names which, again, in my view, don’t necessarily give the reader anything useful. Let me know if you think I’m being slow to drop a stick, but in light of our discussion here I’m not sure we’re completely done with that paragraph yet either. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"surely there’s a difference between an exhaustive discussion in an article on a state and one in an article on a leader. I don’t think there are many articles for national leaders which individually name large numbers of people arrested during their rule. To my mind naming people in a BLP that the subject has no personal connection to, in the context of controversies, is quite a big deal and should be weighed very carefully before it happens."

I'm afraid I can't agree with all of that. There are plenty of occasions when it is appropriate for the article of a national leader will contain more discussion of human rights issues than will the article for the relevant nation, either in absolute or relative terms. The nation-state article must account for a lot of information, even with a relatively young state. WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy here (though note that the policy does take into account the sourcing directness of the sources issue you raise above), so the matter must be decided within that framework. So long as sources identify human rights issues (be the interpretation positive, negative, or nuanced) as features of his nascent reign, we must give those matters a depth of coverage that corresponds and scales accordingly. To say that "Only X amount of topic Y is appropriate here, because of this man's position as part of a larger government" would be outright WP:Original research. What appears in other articles in related topics (which should also be determined by weight) is only of incidental relevance to what is covered here, as a matter of NPOV.

"So for the sake of argument the most-reported discrete backgrounds/causes of activists arrested since the start of his rule might be academia, freedom of speech, female driving and male guardianship."

That seems about right to me: I think, given the lack of engagement of others here with defining to critical areas, you may be able to proceed with simplifying the information accordingly. However, it may be prudent to have multiple activists noted with regard to women's rights, as that seems to be the most prominent issue attracting discussion in the sources. If you want a second pair of eyes on a proposed rewording of the content involving the identification of specific activists before you put it live in the article, please feel free to draft it and ping me. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: thanks for returning to this.

"There are plenty of occasions when it is appropriate for the article of a national leader will contain more discussion of human rights issues than will the article for the relevant nation, either in absolute or relative terms.”

Yes that’s a fair point, and it comes back to WP:WEIGHT as you say.

What I’ve done here is to copy across everything as it currently is from 2017 purge down to the end of Controversies, and then I’ve done two edits – the first for what I propose for Military interventions, and the second for what I propose for Human rights.

For the first edit (diff) to Military interventions, I’ve replaced the first two sentences of the second paragraph with the suggested sentences below, which are based on the current third paragraph of Human rights. I’ve also removed the paragraph on the supposed planned invasion of Qatar, which was not reported in high quality sources, and I’ve edited and incorporated the sentence on the response to the Houthi missile attack in 2017 into this new second paragraph – the best source I can find for that is this UN News article. This suggested edit also addresses the issue in the thread below of course.

For the second edit (diff) to Human rights, I’ve a) edited the first paragraph, b) edited the 2018 activists’ arrests section and moved it there as a second paragraph, and c) removed the current second paragraph on Eric Garcetti (as per the consensus). That gives us a total of six activists named: Abdulaziz al-Shubaily (ACPRA founder), Mustafa al-Hassan (academic and novelist) and Essam al-Zamel (entrepreneur); and three women activists – Loujain al-Hathloul (women driving campaigner), Hatoon al-Fassi (university professor), and Israa al-Ghomgham.

I’ve tried to use better sources where possible.

Also, a while back I drafted a paragraph in my sandbox on the formation of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, which could potentially go at the end of Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince.

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again. Tarafa15 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide a sounding board. These edits seem to to me to generally improve the sections in question. As someone summoned here as a neutral third opinion, I will say that I was initially concerned that a nominal reduction in overall content would probably represent a less detailed account and a minimization of the sense of scope for the human rights matters. However, seeing your edits now, I am not so concerned; I believe you've mostly just simplified the content and removed some non-neutral language, while mostly preserving the important factual details themselves. Indeed, while it's important to make sure there is a full summary of all of the issues discussed in reliable sources with regard to the crown prince's rule, including criticisms, it must be presented in encyclopedic tone, and some of the language there was problematically POV and/or just poorly written. Given the lack of further engagement here by the editors with whom you were first in disagreement, I think you are good to implement these changes--though you should respect WP:BRD and attempt a new round of discussion here if you are reverted. Feel free to ping me back again, if that proves to be what happens and I will again provide what input I can. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: thanks for the response – I’m very much aware you’ve done a lot already but are you okay to make those edits if you have a moment? I know I can always refer to this thread but I guess as a paid editor I’d just rather avoid editing an affected article if possible. And if you’re okay with it, the paragraph on the IMCTC might go in as well, but your call.

And I know it’s a whole other discussion, but there are also these thoughts on the intro. See a diff here of what I’m suggesting. What I’m aiming for with this is for the second and third paragraphs to serve distinct purposes, i.e. the second paragraph to be a more complete overview of his reform agenda including Vision 2030 and its economic aims, and the third paragraph solely for criticisms. At the moment there’s no mention in either paragraph of economic aims, there’s a sentence on Vision 2030 stuck in the middle of the third paragraph, and there’s repetition between the first and third sentences of the third paragraph.

But I completely get that discussion might be another time and you may well want to get more eyes on it as well. Many thanks again for all the time you’ve put in here so far. Tarafa15 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarafa15 Hi again, Tarafa--sorry I missed this at first. Regarding adding the content to the article, even if I did place the edits for you, and someone felt they were not appropriate, it wouldn't necessarily insulate you from accusations of an inappropriate edit because you had someone else place the changes rather than doing it yourself. (Not that you should be accused; as far as I can tell, you've shown due diligence within our relevant policies and done everything above-board, and though you are coming at this topic with some professional bias, you are working within our processes). All of that said, I am willing to place the edits for you, if you remain anxious to be as pro forma as possible and to demonstrate that your proposed changes did go through evaluation by neutral parties. But first, if you could link me to specific diff in your draft version which presents the article as you would like it updated, with all proposed edits (so I am certain I am not missing anything), I will review one additional time to make sure there are no major WP:WEIGHT issues and then make the edit.

However, before we do so, I would like to suggest there is a pressing matter which intersects with these sections which this may be an appropriate opportunity to address: Jamal Khashoggi. Given the high level of coverage his disappearance/suspected death is getting throughout the global press, the rather shocking but confident public accusation by Turkey that they are convinced he was murdered inside the Saudi consulate, and Khashoggi's prominence as a critic of the crown prince, I think it is inevitable that someone will want his name added into one of the sections relating to the crackdown on dissent. Given that probability, I'd rather that we manage the discussion of this story in a neutral manner from the start, rather than wait for the otherwise likely edit war that could kick off between those wanting to excise mention of the suspected killing and those who will want it presented as grisly established fact.

Given your role here, I suspect you will want to weigh in on this matter and so I'd like to invite you do so; normally I would not specifically solicit the input of a COI editor in this fashion, but you have demonstrated an understanding of the limitations imposed on COIs, the primacy of consensus over the objectives of any one editor/perspective, and the ability to contribute transparently and non-disruptively, so this seems an appropriate way to proceed, especially given the dearth of other active editors here. So do you have thoughts on the matter, let me know. I'm not presently planning to add any such content myself, but as I said before, I think it's inevitable someone will. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: and thanks for the above. Yes you’re right I’m not necessarily insulated if you or anyone else makes the edits, however I’d prefer to stay strictly within the guidelines if possible.

On your second point, I don’t have information beyond the public statements that have been made by the parties involved (these include the statement by the Saudi Ambassador in Washington). I notice that a paragraph on this has already been added, and I’ve updated the proposed human rights section in my user space accordingly. I still propose we reposition what’s in the 2018 activists’ arrests section despite this recent edit, as I still think it should be part of the human rights section, and I also think WP:LONGQUOTE applies here – I’ve added another sentence to the second paragraph of the human rights section which I think conveys HRW’s view adequately. I’ve also removed the final sentence of the Philanthropy section, which I don't think is relevant there.

To make things easier (hopefully) here’s a full page draft and diff for all the edits I’m proposing, namely to the Controversies section, the intro, and the suggestions for the Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince (and Philanthropy) sections which I first proposed here. There’s also an extra paragraph in the Vision 2030 section on his recent announcements on the Public Investment Fund’s assets. If you’ve got time to review it all, take a view, and make whatever edits to the main article you’re happy to make, that would be much appreciated. Tarafa15 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarafa15 I reviewed the full edit a couple of days ago, and I continue to feel your proposed changes are constructive and beneficial to the article; some things I expect may be challenged, but I'm comfortable adding the edits for you. I actually looked into adding them en masse in a series of edits yesterday, but there are too many moving parts now that a few days have passed and there are intervening changes to the article's content. So I would like to propose we do the following now to get the ball moving. Please present your proposed changes in a series of edits, one at a time. Try to keep each one between 1kb-5kb each and constrained to two sections of the article if possible (I know you'll be proposing the movement of some content across sections, and that's fine). Wait until I have implemented the change (I will notate enough here) before laying out the next one. I'll be doing this between work of my own off-project, so it may take time between edits, but over the next couple of days, all your changes should go live. Sorry to make you jump through one more set of hoops after all the rest, but this does seem to be the easiest way to implement the changes if you do not wish to add them yourself. Thanks! Snow ^{let's rap} 18:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

One last note: I see you have changed "Mohammed" to "Mohammad" throughout the article--which is fine, I'm sure you would know which transcription is considered most commonplace, so we can make the change and see if there are any objections. However, it looks like you might have done a find and replace that changed the name even in some of the references. Are we sure that these references use "Mohammad"? If not, "Mohammed" should be preserved in the link syntax, even if we use ""Mohammad" in the actual content of the statement the source supports. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Snow Rise. That makes sense – see here for the proposed Military Interventions and Human rights sections (diff). I’ve redrafted the paragraph regarding Qatar that’s been discussed below, attributing the report and including the other main aspects of it, namely possible influence in Tillerson’s removal, as well as UAE involvement. It strikes me that as it’s an Intercept story that’s the best source to use. To keep this to two sections I haven’t included anything above the Controversies section, but as I've said previously the new paragraph in Human rights on the arrest of women activists is intended to replace the 2018 activists’ arrests subsection at the bottom of 2017 purge. I’ve included that Loujain al-Hathloul is an anti-male guardianship campaigner as well as a women to drive campaigner, and I've linked to Saudi anti male-guardianship campaign. I’ve restored "Iranian-backed" as a description of the Houthis after this edit, as since May this year the Houthis have been reported in this way by major outlets including the BBC, WSJ, Foreign Policy and the Telegraph.

Regarding the spelling of his name, that was actually this edit, which was obviously a find and replace. The most common transcription is Mohammed, but as it’s not universal some of the titles and URLs are indeed wrong now. It’s probably best just to undo that edit for now and then think about a potential move and copyedit later. I’ve been using Mohammad in my drafts to be consistent.

I'll wait until you've had a chance to review these two sections before doing any more as you suggest. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I'll wait until all other changes are in place before normalizing the Mohammad/Mohammed issue. Next edit? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: thanks very much although part of that edit was also to remove the 2018 activists’ arrests section, as the new second paragraph in human rights is meant to replace it (it’s currently duplicating it). The 2018 activists’ arrests section was what I was originally talking about at the top of this thread.

Meanwhile, three new sections have been added to the Controversies section (diff) two of which I think should be removed, which are The jailing of 200 businessmen and princes, which obviously is already covered in 2017 purge; and Blockade of Qatar, which has nothing in it except a link to the main article (it’s also POV to put it in Controversies in my view – it’s a multilateral diplomatic crisis). Also there doesn’t seem to be much of a case for renaming Military interventions 'Military interventions in Syria and Yemen'. But I think the section on the forced resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister is reasonable to include. So see here for what I would propose as a fair version of the Controversies section now (diff).

And as I had intended to lay out the redrafted intro next, see here for that (diff). Thanks again. Tarafa15 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have corrected the error in my first implementation edit, and removed the now redundant 2018 activist arrests subsection. I did retain one comment that would have been otherwise removed, the attributed quote from Human Rights Watch; I hadn't noticed that removal previously and I didn't feel certain enough the removal was appropriate under relevant content policies, and therefore was prohibited from doing so by WP:COIRESPONSE. However, I presumed you would prefer to have the rest of the proposed edit made before discussing that point further, so I moved the quote down to the new section created in your proposal draft. I then implemented your changes to the lead, which seemed acceptable to me in their entirety. Regarding the new content being added by other parties, I propose you invite the editors who added the content here for a discussion; I am not prepared to revert those edits unilaterally without some effort towards generating a consensus. If the editors in question do not respond to the invite, we can discuss how to proceed from there. In the meantime, you can continue to propose edits as planned, adjusting if necessary to account for these new sections. But proposed removal of any content added in the last few days should proceed by engaging the relevant editors first. Drop me your next proposal draft when ready and feel free to continue to ping. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I may remove that Qatar "section" under my own initiative; I actually believe there is a piece of policy that forbids blank section, though I can't for the life of me remember which page it resides on. That's a problem regardless: we do not utilize place-saver section headers in the live version of an article. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: thank you. On the new changes in Controversies, yes that’s fair, I guess I just saw those two sections as obviously bad edits. I’ve posted below and on the editor’s talk page to invite discussion. Regards the quotes from HRW, that second one is quite long. The point about a dangerous precedent for other women activists is important, which is why I included it, but I can’t see how Sarah Leah Whitson’s view on executions in general adds much, or even her view on this case in particular. She does however then mention the monarchy. Perhaps those two final sentences could be combined as:

Human Rights Watch commented that the al-Ghomgham case set a "dangerous precedent" for other women activists currently detained, and that the Saudi monarchy’s "unrestrained despotism" undermined its message of reform.

The next proposed edit is to Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince, see here and (diff). I've tried to paraphrase the NYT quote in the current version, which is very long (this is also an issue in 2017 purge in my view, which could be a much better section in several ways and perhaps you could look at some suggestions for that at some point). And there’s a short paragraph on the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition. Let me know what you think, thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I made a slight change to the wording of the statement regarding the prince's control of the Yemen campaign, in order to identify who was involved in the "agreeing", as described by the source. As to why I did not feel comfortable removing the HRW quote, I'll present my take on that editorial considerations as soon as I can find time. I'll also try to lend my opinion to matter of the new sections, being discussed below. In the meantime, feel free to present further proposals. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: thanks for making the edit above. See also here for a possible addition to Vision 2030 and here for a suggested edit to Philanthropy - the sentence in Philanthropy could be moved somewhere else of course but it doesn't seem to belong here at any rate. Let me know what you think. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: hi again - I’ve updated the above suggestions for the Vision 2030 section a touch to include a recent nuclear plant announcement in the context of plans for energy in general, plus on reflection inclusion of the further SoftBank investment should probably wait until it’s a little more concrete. See here for what I proposed now (and diff). My proposed edit to Philanthropy is the same as above. Let me know what you think, thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Tarafa15 sorry for the insane wait! I've been virtually absent from the project the last few weeks and racing around playing catch-up when I am. In any event, I have added the Vision 2030 content--they were minor additions that I do not think are likely to be controversial, the sources were perfectly valid, the statements were consistent with the sources, and those details seem relevant enough to be worth mention where you put them.

The change to the philanthropy section are a bit more complicated, however. If I read the proposed edit correctly, you wish to remove the statement that is kind of vague in its purpose in that section, but which seems to be implying that MBS is buying positive coverage. While I have mixed feelings about the neutrality of the statement and its placement and think it probably could stand to be re-written or removed (or at least relocated), this is a change that I think is likely to be somewhat more controversial, and my advice is that you seek a consensus regarding it--or at least broach it closer to the bottom of the talk page where it will get more scrutiny. If you attempt discussion on this and no one responds, then after a week or two I will be more receptive to adopting the change and we can discuss how we might improve the neutrality, short of just omitting, or if there is a valid argument to remove it altogether.

Those two done, can you remind if there were any other outstanding changes you were hoping to have considered? Snow ^{let's rap} 20:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snow Rise, no worries and thanks for taking a look and implementing the Vision 2030 edit. Regarding the Philanthropy edit, yes that’s reasonable and a good suggestion.

As for other changes for consideration, there are three points which it would be great to get your view on if possible:

1. In Military interventions in Syria and Yemen, the sentence at the end of the 4th paragraph (“Following the Houthi missile attack against Riyadh in December 2017, which was intercepted by Saudi air defense, Mohammed Bin Salman retaliated with a ten day barrage of indiscriminate airstrikes against civilian areas in Yemen held by Houthi forces, killing dozens of children”), which is more or less lifted straight from an opinion article, was added back soon after you made this edit, which included the replacement of that sentence with the one now at the start of the 3rd paragraph with stats from a UN News article (“Following a Houthi missile attack against Riyadh in December 2017, which was intercepted by Saudi air defense, airstrikes killed 136 Yemeni civilians and injured 87 others in eleven days”). I’ve contributed to this thread further down about this. My view is that second sentence should go but I’d welcome yours.
2. There’s currently nothing in the same section on the recent talks and ceasefire, which I’d argue is a development worth including particularly given the ceasefire is aimed at securing aid and imports. See here (diff) for a proposed additional paragraph at the end of that section.
3. In the intro, “his intervention in Yemen” (diff) subsequently became “his bombing of Yemen in which war-induced famine could in 2018/2019 cause 13 million civilians to starve” (diff). Is that verging on WP:CRYSTAL? While it may be verifiable as a warning from the UN, it’s a possible future outcome of the war as a whole, not a direct present outcome of the actions of the article subject.

Let me know what you make of the suggestions in 1 and 2 and the question in 3. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snow Rise, just replying under your responses below:

Regarding issue 1: My suspicion is that perhaps people are uncomfortable with your rephrasing because it seems to remove pretty of the tone of the observation in the underlying source and because it seems to remove the responsive relationship between the RPG attacks and the bombing that followed, which is a fair concern. That said, I agree with you that the wording in that iteration (that is, the one which is now the second reference statement in the present version of the article) could use some refinement to avoid stating such explicit condemnation in Wikipedia's own voice, which does strike me as problematic under our policies. I would suggest that should the sentence stay, a reasonable compromise on it's wording might be to keep the "retaliation" wording (since I think both supporters and critics of MBS, and the world of more or less disinterested parties) would all agree that it was a retaliatory strike, but remove the use of "indiscriminate", since that's much more of a "in the eye of the beholder" kind of description. At the very least, I do believe that even an editor who is deeply critical of Saudi Arabia's conduct in regard to the Yemen campaign would have to concede that the word indiscriminate (if not a larger portion of that statement" ought to appear WP:SCAREQUOTES to make it clear that the description can be attributed to a particular source, since obviously not all sources are going to agree on the degree to which the bombing was justified. I will say that I'm sure a majority are deeply critical of that particular segment of the bombing campaign, but attribution would still be appropriate here. Basically, I think there's a reasonable middleground between the legacy version of that sentence and your updated version.

I guess the main point is we've currently got this particular action mentioned twice. To my mind the first mention is neutral and informative but the second isn't. You make a good point regarding the responsive nature – perhaps the first mention could be rephrased to "Following a Houthi missile attack against Riyadh in December 2017, which was intercepted by Saudi air defense, coalition airstrikes in response killed 136 Yemeni civilians and injured 87 others in eleven days."

Regarding issue 2: I believe you are correct here: the talks and tenuous ceasefire have been the subject of a lot of RS coverage and probably bear mentioning. I'll review your wording, give myself a little time to consider it properly, and then add it if I see no major issues with the phrasing, but I wouldn't expect it until tomorrow at the earliest.

No problem thanks.

Regarding issue 3: It appears that the wording has already been removed from the present version of the article, but I'll give you my impressions in case the debate resurfaces. It's definetly not WP:CRYSTAL as we use that term here, precisely for the reason you identify: it is a source speculating about the likely future consequences of a state of affairs, rather than our editors: the first is perfectly allowable (and indeed, a major component of a vast number of articles on the encyclopedia which concern projected events), while the second is not, as it is a form of WP:Original research. That said, any such statements need to be fully attributed and for this reason are less than ideal for the lead. If anywhere, they should appear in the Yemen campaign section. However, I see no problem with mentioning these facts here in MBS's article; sources broadly regard him as the primary figure when it comes to Saudi Arabia's decision to engage in the campaign and the manner in which it has been conducted to date.

Okay got it re WP:CRYSTAL. It is still there in the lead though and I'd agree it's not ideal there and that the Military interventions section (with attribution) would be a better place for it.

I hope some of that is of help to you. You can feel free to reference these perspectives in the discussions below (in that event, please ping me and link to this discussion so others can readily jump to and review my comments in context here), but I may be slow to respond myself in that case, do to limited project time for the remainder of the year. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll do that and thanks again. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

help

Assalamualaikum wa rehmatullahi wa Barakaathu.sir i need your help if possible.Allaha Bless you and your family always... 132.154.23.143 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Henry II and Thomas Becket

I'm late to this thing on Wikipedia, though of course I've followed coverage in the news and am aware of the paucity of evidence shoring up claims that MbS is the key bad actor behind the Khashoggi murder. It reminds me of Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? and how Henry was forced to accept the blame for the murder of Thomas Becket. An issue much obscured there was that Becket was pushing the papal position that church clergy should be immune from prosecution under civil laws (whether the crimes be murder, rape, thievery, etc.) and the conflict between them about this is often nevertheless painted differently. (My apologies if an exploration and exhaustion of this skeptical angle is buried in the talk archives here.) – Athaenara ✉ 15:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As you imply, giving a malevolent monarch a bad name doesn't do him much harm. But that isn't how you deal with Prince Joffrey! NRPanikker (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 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: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 00:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia → Mohammed bin Salman – I strongly believe that "Mohammed bin Salman" is the common name and that "Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia" is unnecessary. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 20:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCROY ("Royals with a substantive title" section). Perhaps surprisingly, while we don't include the title "King" in article titles, we do include "Crown Prince". 75.162.124.147 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Some1 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, yes, I imagine this is what we used to have, not sure why we would not use this concise name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support For reasons stated above NSR97 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. DrKay (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There are other Arabian royals with the name Mohammad bin Salman, so perhaps for clarification we should use the title Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. Векочел (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• If nobody cares what WP:NCROY says, perhaps we should change it. 75.162.124.147 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NCROY does not apply well to Arabic names, as it discourages surnames and does not address Nasabs. A strict interpretation might actually suggest a title of "Mohammed, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia," which seems less correct than the suggested move. LinkTiger (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion that we should include his surname in the new title, since this is the format used for other Saudi royals. Векочел (talk) 23:32, 10 February 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.

Requested move 11 February 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: Consensus to not move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Mohammed bin Salman → Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud – Saudi royals are generally referred to by their last names. In addition, there is the fairly powerful Bahraini royal Mohammed bin Salman Al Khalifa. So to distinguish we should use the surname. Векочел (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest potentially adding a hatnote. Per WP:UCRN, "Mohammed bin Salman" is widely used to refer to this specific Mohammed bin Salman, and I believe that this one is the primary topic. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 18:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the Saudi royal is clearly the primary topic of "Mohammed bin Salman" in reliable sources, see Google Scholar results. (t · c) buidhe 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 'Mohammed bin Salman' is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per the above. Some1 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name and primary topic. Referred to as MBS, not MBSAS, for a reason! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose His name is even abbreviated as MBS. There's no need to add "Al Saud" there. Keivan.f^Talk 22:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually even in it's official site or public site it is mentioned in the same name Please Checkout https://houseofsaud.com/ This will have the information about it. It specifies the same name and there is no needs to transfer Barthdry (talk) 16:54, 23 February 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.

Title spelled "Mohammad"

Why is there a spelling discrepancy between title and text, as "Mohammed" with an "e" is the interior spelling, and the official one? Mason.Jones (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems the article was created under this spelling but "Mohammed bin Salman" appears to be the far more common spelling. Will anyone object to boldly moving it to that spelling? Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Both Muhammad and Muhammed are correct. But if Muhammed bin Salman is the most common name then I think it can be moved, boldly.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Here is a link to a photo of him attending the Future Investment Initiative conference. I believe he knows the spelling of his own name and it would have been an easy change considering it is on a tablet if it was incorrect. The Tablet shows the spelling as Muhammad.

 https://www.cips.org/supply-management/news/2017/october/saudi-to-build-500bn-high-tech-city/

I have written to request the photo be released to Wikipedia Commons so that it may be added to this article to eliminate any confusion.

• That is extremely rude of you Julietdeltalima to assume he does not know how to spell his own name and undo all my revisions.

Possible new images

Some possible new images if anyone wants to use them instead of the current infobox image. The current one is good but it is in low resolution Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• 
  with Mike Pompeo, 2019
• 
  at 2019 G20 Osaka summit