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"?

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)

By all means, add sourced text for anything that you think is missing from the article. (Although SA not being democratic is not a controversial claim, and is well sources. So I don't think you will succeed in getting that removed from the article). Ashmoo (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2023 (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)

Verifiability in the personal life section

I see this long paragraph in the Personal life section. It seems to suffer from a lack of WP:Verifiability to me. Since it is a back and forth both ways, I feel like the whole paragraph should just be removed. WP articles should focus on verifiable claims and not engage in debates. Especially when it is about such a trivial topic of whether he owns a specific painting or not (however expensive). Please respond here if you object to the removal).Ashmoo (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In December 2017, a number of sources reported that Mohammed, using his close associate Prince Badr bin Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Farhan as an intermediary, had bought Salvator Mundi by Leonardo da Vinci; the sale in November at $450.3 million set a new record price for a work of art.[304][305][306][307] This report has been denied by the auctioneer Christie's, the Saudi Arabian embassy,[308] and the UAE government, which has announced that it is the actual owner of the painting.[309] The exact current location of the painting is unknown,[310][311] as it has not been seen publicly since the auction. However, it has been suggested that Mohammed's yacht Serene houses Salvator Mundi.[312]

@Ashmoo: Just to add to this, there is conflicting information in the Personal life section regarding MBS's net worth. ISON (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In 2018, he was ranked by Forbes as the eighth most powerful person in the world,[308] with a personal wealth of at least $25 billion.[309]

Later in the Personal life section:

In 2018, Mohammed's personal net worth was estimated at US$3.0 billion.[324]

Lead too long

I came to this page having read the Neom article. I can see there are competing views about the subject; I have no strong opinion either way. I simply note that the lead is very long and the content after the second paragraph would seem better suited to the main body. If there are no comments here, I will edit in due course. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Some edits

Following my comment above, and having waited for other comments, I have started editing this article. I have edited only the lead so far. I have made little edits and one bigger one in order to strike a balance between ease of reading and the avoidance of it becoming too cumbersome. I've made a few grammar and style changes, and been quite bold with some of the content. I've removed relevant content which is included in the main body and left some indicative comment in the lead. I intend to use a little of the content I've removed in the main body in my next edits. Can I ask other editors to be parsimonious with each individual edit and to discuss here too? The subject of this article is potentially contentious I appreciate how important it is to reach conclusions around edits on the basis of constructive consensus. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Reverts

Hi @Thenightaway:, I noticed you reverted my edits. I want to discuss why you did so and what we could do about it to reach consensus. You deleted the 2024 IMF reports comments regarding Saudi Arabia's progress to diversify the economy in turn for an older report thats states it's still dependent on oil. Furthermore, if something is going to have to be "too in-the-weeds" in order to be neutral, it shouldn't be in the intro in the first place. I recommend that we mention that the 2024 IMF report states that there's been significant progress to diversify the economy and that older reports state that Saudi Arabia was or is oil dependent., I noticed you reverted my edits. I want to discuss why you did so and what we could do about it to reach consensus. You deleted the 2024 IMF reports comments regarding Saudi Arabia's progress to diversify the economy in turn for an older report thats states it's still dependent on oil. Furthermore, if something is going to have to be "too in-the-weeds" in order to be neutral, it shouldn't be in the intro in the first place. I recommend that we mention that the 2024 IMF report states that there's been significant progress to diversify the economy and that older reports state that Saudi Arabia was or is oil dependent. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 IMF source you added describes itself as a "preliminary" analysis that has not yet been vetted by the IMF. The existing IMF source is a formal staff report which has been published formally by the IMF. Furthermore, the 2024 source you added does not conflict with the existing source in the article because it says absolutely nothing about the Saudi economy's dependence on oil. Lastly, the 2024 source you added provides a snapshot for one year, which is the wrong way to assess the Saudi economy because as the formal staff report[1] makes clear, all indicators for the Saudi economy fluctuate wildly from year to year due to shifts in oil prices and demand for oil. Which is why a more holistic and comprehensive assessment should be used rather than a cherrypicked snapshot for one year. thena (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The diversification of the oil sector mentioned in the report is a reiteration of points made in previous year reports, such as the 2023 Article IV Consultation-Press Release which states in its abstract, 'The continuation of Vision 2030 reforms has helped advance the country’s economic diversification agenda, including through reduced reliance on oil.' I did not comment on the issue of it conflicting, but these statements can allude to contrasting narratives. To ensure neutrality, it is important to present both perspectives. This extends to the issue of Khashoggi in the last paragraph of the intro. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The intro incorporates both views, noting that the Vision 2030 seeks to diversify the economy while also noting that the economy is still dependent on oil. thena (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The intro states Vision 2030 goals', including diversifying the economy, then proceeds to mention one outcome: that it is still oil dependent - in total contrast to other outcomes that the IMF have stated, such as the following: "Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation is advancing rapidly. Since the onset of the Vision 2030 reform agenda in 2016, and despite the slowdown associated with COVID-19, Saudi Arabia advanced in its diversification through a reduction of the oil sector’s contribution across revenue, export, and output." DrunkenBedouin (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thenightaway:, still awaiting your response DrunkenBedouin (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thenightaway:, If you don't respond within 12 hours, I'm going to proceed with the edits, mentioning the progress made in regard to diversifying oil as well as the dependency of oil to ensure inclusivity of outcomes, along with removing the issue of Khashoggi from the intro since it's conflictual. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with saying that Vision 2030 has contributed to a diversification of the economy while the economy is still dependent on oil. The views of Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo, two politicians, on the Khashoggi murder do not belong in the intro. thena (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

So that's that and done in regards to oil. However, Pompeo is a former CIA director and allegedly had access to all intelligience regarding Khashoggi's assasination- his comment on the CIA's report is relevant. As for Donald Trump, I haven't mentioned him. There should be inclusivity among opposing narratives in order to achieve neutrality. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)