Talk:Future Investment Initiative Institute

POV

The main reason that the Future Investment Initiative has been in the news recently are the withdrawals related to the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. This article was created around the time that news emerged, but makes no mention of it. See for example [1], [2] and [3] --Vexations (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this should be mentioned in the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Frayæ, thank you for making the update. If you are satisfied that all major views are now included would you be able to remove the first tag? Also now that the connected contributor tag has been added here will it be possible to remove the other tag? Thank you. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Technically I could, but I think it would be best to let Vexations decide if due weight has be given to the controversies, and the article is yet to be copyedited to deal with the inevitable tone issues from being too close to the subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Frayæ and thank you for doing some copyediting. Have the page issues been improved enough now to remove the tag? Vexations has semi-retired. Also the third paragraph of the introduction is not entirely fair as the phrase “Davos in the desert” was coined by the media and has never been used by the organizers of FII in any announcements or materials, and WEF’s objection was about general misuse of the Davos brand and did not mention FII. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Riyadhcafe87 asked today on my user talk page about the COI tag. I tend to agree that the article is now more neutral than promotional and that the connected contributor tag on this talk page covers that aspect sufficiently. – Athaenara ✉ 09:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Athaenara, thanks for posting here. It looks like Frayæ has actually now been blocked. If you think the issues are sufficiently resolved, would you be able to remove the tag?

Also the logo has been approved on Wikimedia Commons so maybe that could be added to the infobox?

Also I wonder if the third paragraph of the intro needs to read the way it does. I definitely don’t recall seeing the phrase "Davos on desert" anywhere. And I still believe the reference to WEF’s objection is a little unfair given their press release didn’t mention FII. It’s one of those things that began exclusively in the media and kept doing the rounds until WEF objected, and then that got reported as well, with that coverage simply putting two and two together ("...the objection comes before a conference in Saudi Arabia…" etc). The Quartz article even quotes WEF as saying "this is not specific to any particular country or organization". FII and PIF have never used the word Davos to describe anything. A widely used nickname is fair to include (although I wonder if media outlets will keep using it now), but is the second sentence in the third paragraph really warranted? Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Riyadhcafe87: I think you'd find more people who had heard the "Davos in the Desert" byname than know the official name, it just is what it is and there's no need to make a big deal about it either way, regardless of how anyone in Davos, Switzerland, feels about it.

When I cited Bloomberg News in my mid-October edit, the first sentence read, "The Future Investment Initiative (FII), also known as "Davos in the Desert"[1], is an annual investment forum held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss trends in the world economy and investment environment." That's very straightforward and does not make overmuch of the nickname, it just parks it there where it would logically be noted, i.e., in the line that says what the thing is called. That same citation also supported a line in a later paragraph about some participants withdrawing. (By the way, "Davos on Desert" would not be good English.)

There have been many edits since then. Now the nickname isn't mentioned until the third paragraph where there are now four citations supporting the claim that Davos complains about it. This is not an official matter, it just happens to be known by that nickname and that's not what the article is about. For comparison, do you think the article about the World Economic Forum, widely known by the nickname "Davos", should have four citations to support a complaint about that nickname too? This is just out of proportion.

If it were not for things like this, I'd think perhaps the COI tag should go, but as long as you're wrangling about what can fairly be termed trivialities, it should stay. – Athaenara ✉ 11:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Athaenara: there might be wires crossed here – I wasn’t talking about the inclusion of the nickname, I just posed an open question about whether Davos’ general complaint is fair to include if their initial statement didn’t mention this specific event. I’m assuming you think it is and if so I accept that (but yes “Davos on desert” isn’t good English and hasn’t been used anywhere). Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I did some more cleanup (diff), I still think four citations for a line about the WEF objecting to the nickname is excessive, but at least it doesn't overshadow everything else in the intro now. What do you think? – Athaenara ✉ 03:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I then returned to it and checked those four citations. Of the four, Bloomberg's was the most comprehensive and included a link to the WEF's own press release, so I removed the other three (diff). – Athaenara ✉ 04:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the article has achieved enough neutrality that the {{COI}} tag can fairly be removed. I'll wait another day in case there are objections to that here. – Athaenara ✉ 06:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Athaenara: that all makes sense to me, thanks. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done (diff). – Athaenara ✉ 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Athaenara: thanks a lot. Any chance of adding the logo to the infobox as well? I could do it but as a paid editor I’d prefer to avoid editing the mainspace if I can. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 forum

A couple of months have passed since the October 2018 forum, some reliable sources should be found describing how the meetings went, who participated, etc. – Athaenara ✉ 12:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hasn't there been any coverage of the 2018 forum? – Athaenara ✉ 10:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I found the following articles linked in https://datatrekresearch.com/davos-in-the-desert-recap/ (October 26, 2018):

• Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/article/riyadh-touts-50-bn-in-deals-at-davos-in-the-desert/ (404) other link:
• Fortune: http://fortune.com/2018/10/24/saudi-arabia-future-investment-initiative/
• Recode: https://www.recode.net/2018/10/24/18020282/saudi-arabia-silicon-valley-investors-venture-capital-money

I haven't read them yet, just posting them here for review. – Athaenara ✉ 20:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Plus this:

• The Muslim Times: https://themuslimtimes.info/2018/10/24/deals-worth-more-than-50bn-signed-at-ksa-future-investment-initiative/

(Found in another search.) – Athaenara ✉ 20:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

@Athaenara: Long time - I hope you are well. I’ve drafted some possible new paragraphs on the 2018 conference, let me know what you make of these. Thanks very much. Riyadhcafe87 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Among the attendees at the 2018 event were executives from Citigroup, Raytheon, Mubadala Investment Company, Investcorp, McKinsey, Roland Berger and Oliver Wyman; along with local representatives from JP Morgan, HSBC, Morgan Stanley and Standard Chartered. Deals totaling $50 billion were signed in the energy and infrastructure sectors, involving companies including Trafigura, Total, Hyundai, Norinco, Schlumberger, Halliburton and Baker Hughes.

Energy projects announced included a maritime facility to be developed by Hyundai, and a partnership between Total and Saudi Aramco to develop a retail gas station network. A joint venture was also announced between Trafigura and an affiliate of Riyadh-based Modern Industrial Investment Holding Group (MIG) to develop a smelter and refining complex.

Transport infrastructure initiatives involved included the Saudi Landbridge Project – a rail line connecting the Red Sea coast with Riyadh – and the second phase of the Haramain high-speed railway between Medina and Mecca. In construction and real estate, the Saudi Ministry of Housing signed agreements worth $4.4 billion with PowerChina International Group, US-based Katerra and SANY-Alameriah – a Saudi-Chinese partnership – to build a total of 76,500 housing units.

In the technology sector, Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), German engineering firm Schmid Group and Saudi-based Riwaq announced a joint venture in advanced silicon materials and energy storage; and an MOU was signed with SAP SE to develop cloud-based digital services for Hajj and Umrah pilgrims.

In health and education, Hassana Investment Company – the investment arm of the Saudi General Organization for Social Insurance (GoSI) – signed an agreement with NMC Health to develop a network of healthcare facilities, and agreed a partnership with GEMS Education to build and upgrade schools across the kingdom.

References

@Riyadhcafe87: I'm not overseeing this. – Athaenara ✉ 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)