Talk:Mohammed bin Salman

Naming convention

Why is he being referred to as "bin Salman". "Salman" is his father's name in Arabic naming conventions. "Bin Salman" is not his surname, "Bin" simply means "son of..."

Can it be edited to just "Mohammed"?

Fallacious, Low-Quality Article

Reading this article, I get the impression that it is written by activists instead of actual writers.

Bin Salman rules an authoritarian regime, there are no democratic institutions in Saudi Arabia, and elements of repression are still evident. Human rights activists, women's rights activists, journalists, former insiders, and dissidents are systematically repressed through tactics including torture, jailing, and killings, and bin Salman is said to use a group of assassins known as the Tiger Squad to carry out extrajudicial killings.

The article uses a guilt-by-association tactic. It mostly talks about what Saudi Arabia is like instead of what the Prince is like. This would have been better organized in the Saudi Arabia article instead, unless the article has definitive evidence that widespread systematic repression is a policy of the Prince, and not the ruling monarch. What's funny is that this kind of language used is not as present in King Salman's article, despite his status as the supreme ruler.

It also pushes a claim that he is personally linked to a group of assassins, which would be fine if it weren't in the top paragraph of the article where facts are to be expected, not allegations.

There is also a conflict of interest where there are parts in the article where it explicitly describes the Prince as populist and economically and socially liberal and that he introduced liberal reforms to his country, while in other parts some editors wrote allegations associating this man to widespread repression in Saudi Arabia which is the exact opposite of what was just described.

This article needs some serious reforms if Wikipedia wants to present itself in an objective manner. Bryanscion (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I find there's an effort to wedge whatever negative political content about Saudi Arabia we can think of in this article and as a result we now have a fallacious article. The "controversy" section, which is mainly based on recent geopolitical events, is literally larger than the rest of the article. Certainly fails WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in my opinion. Gorebath (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bryanscion: The idea is that the ruler sets the climate of the country that he rules, and if X conditions are in the country, those conditions would be attributable to him. Now there is a way to deal with this "guilt-by-association tactic": if published, reliable sources link the conditions to MBS himself, then cite the journalists who link them and cite their linkages and justifications for how this has to do with MBS himself. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

The first thing you’re greeted with seems to be a vent off by what I’d assume to be the “western narration” of Mohammed bin Salman. Instead of mentioning significant economic and political reforms, the article rather pushes for conspiracy theories regarding the Khashojji killing, and “feminist torture”. Referring to the Saudi-Houthi conflict as the “Saudi bombing campaign” and how Saudi Arabia isn’t democratic. All these claims being citation-free is the cherry on top. 5.41.252.229 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The "western narration" and "conspiracy theories" you're referring to happen to be well supported by high quality reliable sources in the article itself. They're not "citation-free" -- the lead conforms to WP:LEADCITE. Sure, if enough editors insist, we can repeat the relevant citations in the lead. But it's unlikely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I ask for non western citations if this isn’t nothing but a western narration. All of these claims have been equally challenged and refuted, effectively making them conflictual. SwairIsRight (talk) 04:16, 24 August 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)