Talk:Mohammed bin Salman

Neutrality and autobiography tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protection

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

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

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

I guess this de facto censorship applies to present and ongoing speculation about this guy's death, after the apparent coup attempt last month 2018-04...

Pazouzou (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Persecution of human rights activists

There are some issues with this section, principally:

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

Looking at the section in more detail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting edits by kb217

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

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

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

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

RfC on human rights section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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