Talk:Mohammed bin Salman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC on top subsection in Controversies

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

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

• Keep both for the sake of clarity. (Summoned by bot) It may seem duplicative and is, but you have a controversies section and that is one of the controversies. The alternative is to rework the whole article to eliminate the Controversies section. Everything he does is controversial, so having one is questionable. Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Eliminate the subsection, or at least replace it with a link to the section. Eventually, rewrite the article to no longer need a controversy section.. (Summoned by bot) -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Eliminate the subsection,(Summoned by bot) or at least reduce it to a single sentence with a link to the section where it is covered fully.Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Reduce to a cross-reference sentence and thus eliminate the redundant subsection. I agree with some above commenters that this can probably be rewritten to do away with a Controversy section at all. We don't need one in cases where "everything he does is controversial", as Coretheapple put it.  — SMcCandlish ☏

¢ 😼  14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Generate a proposal for restructuring 3 Political, economic, and social changes, 4 Philanthropy and 5 Controversies into some sections that are sociologically more meaningful and NPOV and not advertising, along the lines of other historically important national political leaders. The policies and actions of almost any national gigarich political leader are controversial for some local and international critics, so "controversies" is not really an encyclopedically useful section. For example, something like:
  • Politics [vision 2030]
  • Human rights [women driving, 2017 purge, 2018 crackdown on women's rights activists and islamic clerics]
  • Foreign policy [would include the Yemen war and crime against humanity by starvation]
  • Economics [vision 2030]
  • Social policy [movies]
  • Public relations [philanthropy, employment of an openly declared Wikipedia editor for looking after the MBS page - though the latter is not WP-notable according to external sources]
• Boud (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Result

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

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

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

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

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

Epstein Scandal

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

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

Constant Vandalism

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

Wife and family.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

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

Saudi Arabian politician - Israeli politician

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

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

Controversies

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

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

Source Provided Does not Support Claim

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

Naming

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

Possible influence by Saudi Arabia on Administrators - Neutrality

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice job

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