Talk:2017–2019 Saudi Arabian purge

2017 Saudi Arabian alleged anti-corruption arrests?
Is there any chance we could move this article to 2017 Saudi Arabian alleged anti-corruption arrests?

Sigh. It is just that after following African politicks, on and off, for about half a century, I must have seen this about a 100 times before: New guy on the block, arrests all his predecessors on "corruption" charges (which might, or might not, be real) ...confiscate all their assets, and then move on, as corrupt as ever.

An "anti-corruption drive" by a 32 year old....who just bought a €500 million yacht.... now, that stinks all the way from Saudi Arabia to here where I am sitting (which is thankfully a very long way away from Saudi Arabia), Huldra (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

With the latest deaths, perhaps 2017 Saudi Arabian purge? Huldra (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The title reflects the nature of the accusation, obviously the article will include the outcome of any trials, detentions etc. We must always keep a neutral stance as editors and writers when dealing with biographical articles. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "alleged anti-corruption arrests" would be confusing, as it could be read to suggest that the arrests themselves only allegedly occurred. I think your intent is to express that the targets are only alleged to be corrupt.  To better express that, a possible title could be 2017 Saudi Arabian corruption allegations.  I'm actually not sure why the current title is "anti-corruption arrests."  Arrests are for a crime, not anti- the crime.  If no other change is made, the title should probably be 2017 Saudi Arabian corruption arrests.  What are the titles for articles on similar events?  --DavidK93 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Something else, but some change is needed. The committee was apparently formed just hours before the arrests, and the sources I've seen seem at least very skeptical of the rationale.  I mean, per WP:BLP we can't say someone was arrested for corruption unless sources actually present as true that he was arrested for corruption. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Present title unacceptable. The accusation is moot (and suspect, and one-sided) when the entire balance of government is changed with the abruptness (if not the scope) of the Night of the Long Knives.
 * For my own notes, I'm going with 2017 Saudi Arabian VIP ouster. Works for me. Slightly less pre-judging than 2017 Saudi Arabian anti-corruption putsch, though I do love the delicious irony.
 * The only thing I can presently suggest for this page is the ugly 2017 Saudi Arabian putative anti-corruption arrests. This is at least mildly less confusing than 'alleged' (because 'putative' can't reasonably bind to 'arrest'—it's just not idiomatic).
 * Finally, in some proposed formulations one might consider trimming anti- on the grounds that a corruption arrest is an arrest for corruption; an anti-corruption arrest is an arrest by the designated[by whom?] opponents of corruption. Seems to me to work either way. Abstract negations always carry a high cognitive burden in the presence of anything else that demands withholding judgement. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Present title unacceptable As creator I started the article with the initial understanding that sources had attribute these moves to corruption, but informed commentary is descrbing this as a purge of the old guard/coup/consolidation of power by MBS etc. 2017 Saudi Arabian purge? "VIP ouster" is far too tabloidy and imprecise. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment yeah, 2017 Saudi Arabian purge seems about right. The thing is, from the start there were are couple of the most notorious corrupt princes missing from the arrest list, alas, those princes have shown themselves 100% behind MbS....so they walk scot free. If nobody protest, I will move it to 2017 Saudi Arabian purge tomorrow. Huldra (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, Mansour bin Muqrin should perhaps be added to the princes list...there are sources saying he was killed, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Article is too short
I don't understand why there is an article for this topic. The section at Mohammad bin Salman is way larger. Also there is a lot of speculations. On the one hand the MBS article reads a Trump critic was detained, and then his agenda is the complete opposite of what Trump stands for (building a renewable powered city). prokaryotes (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT. Obviously you can transfer relevant material and build this up, and there is more data all the time to add.  The event is highly notable, while keeping it at the MbS article is problematic since various aspects will stray away from his personal biography. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also argue that the article is too short and needs to be completed. Its relevance is out of the question since it is a critical part of the Saudi Arabia political history but the lack of clarity and of content could be argued to be biased as readers do not get an accurate picture of the situation, especially because there is barely any mention of the current Saudi Arabian successions issues (how does it work? Why would he do that?) and of its position for the current international landscape (where does MBS fits). That is especially because this issue has been linked to the resignation of the Lebanese PM Hariri. Mj.tolboom (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Add “Related deaths” section?
I suggest to add a section about “Related deaths”. How about the draft below? I tried to clarify which person are alledged dead and confirmed dead.



Francewhoa (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The source on the death of AbdulAziz bin Fahd is a fake news page, it alleges that the royal court confirmed the death whilst the SPA (Saudi Press Agency) mentions no such news. All the sources are linked to Iranian or Hezbollah run newspapers known for publishing fake news on Saudi Arabia. I find that this article lacks the normal Wikipedia standards on vetting the sources and full of errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.226.147 (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So we are to believe that the sudden  increase in the mortality rate for Saudi princes is completely unrelated to the present purge? Huldra (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about what you believe its about representing facts, the article claims (this was later confirmed by the royal court) whilst nothing is mentioned on the Saudi Press Agency website. The death of Prince Mansour bin Muqrin was ruled out as an accident and on record the brother of the prince, Prince Faisal bin Muqrin stated that using his brother death has the same credibility as a conspiracy theory, Wikipedia is only responsible for presenting the facts, not pushing opinions of what you think, if you can provide a source from a reliable of an alleged cover up, you should present that as such, but for now, I cant find any official source on the web confirming the death of AbdulAziz bin Fahd, or link the death of Prince Mansour bin Muqrin to the anti corruption purge, not the NYT, WSJ, BBC, CNN or any other number of reliable sources. A side note, Abdul Aziz bin Fahd was detained allegedly in September (by a source previously linked in this article. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170914-controversial-saudi-prince-detained/
 * For Prince Mansour bin Muqrin, see e.g. Saudi Arabia's crown prince is making a lot of enemies, CNN: ."Prince Mansour bin Muqrin, died in an aircraft crash on Sunday, adding to the sense that there's much more happening in Saudi Arabia than meets the eye." To me, it looks as if at least CNN open for the possibility that this is related. And I agree, at the moment none of us can know for sure....after all, it is not as if MbS, or anyone else in Saudi Arabia would admit killing anyone, nor would they allow independent investigations of the deaths. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2017

Again you are pushing personal opinions not a fact and the fact is stated ¨adding sense that there´s more happing in Saudi Arabia than meets the eye¨ this is not CNN claiming that his death is related to this article. This is about presenting facts, I am astonished by how this article lacks any reliable sources. Especially since I couldn't find anything on the alleged death of Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, in fact everything surrounding him or his alleged arrest wasn't reported along side of the published lists. This source http://www.alithadnews.com/news/2141 alleges that the Saudi Press Agency issued a public statement on the death of Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, yet there isn't any statements on the press agency website. This source also has a lot of false headlines, one from 6th of of March of last year claimed that Abdul Malik Al-Houthi was killed in an Air raid http://www.alithadnews.com/news/1784, the only page online that has such a news item, yet Abdul Malik Al Houthi is still alive and did numerous interviews after that date, also on the same date they published a news item that claims he was killed by the hands of his of his nephew, the same day http://www.alithadnews.com/news/1801! Whilst he is still on this earth. alithadnews only posted on that day, a few articles on the 30 of January this year, the claim that Mansour bin Muqrin was shot down, and the Abdul Aziz bin Fahd news item, hardly a reliable source I don't understand how can you keep the part of the article that says ¨His death was confirmed by the Saudi royal court.[21]¨ when its from a bot generated webpage and with all that's said above, you don't need to talk my word for it, just visit the main page yourself and read all the absurd news items, On Mansour bin Muqrin here you have a relative confirming that it was an accident and had nothing to do with the purge http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-prince-mansour-s-helicopter-crash-was-accidental-brother-1.2122005 a verified news source in fact I managed to find various videos of the Helicopter taking off after an official visit to a small coastal town, and him inside of the helicopter looking at development plans for area, the entry says ¨private helicopter¨ the videos clearly show a Black Hawk with a full press crew around it. (UTC)
 * Ok now that I am registered, its time to present my argument in a Wikipedia friendly manner.
 * Oppose using the title Related Deaths, because of the weakness of the sources, a more appropriate title would be Alleged Related Deaths.
 * Oppose using the In Arabic: Saudi Royal court confirms death of Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd due to multiple fake items on the news site, and ending the point with saying The Saudi government has denied he was killed, saying he is alive and well.
 * Oppose Using the source as its an biased news source linked to the Iranian Revolution Guard, an entity with known hostility towards Saudi related events. MansourG (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Alleged Related Deaths is ok for me. My view is that at the moment it is just impossible to know. But that family members in Saudi Arabia denies it to local press counts for exactly Zero in my view: any opposition to the official line is simply not accepted in SA at the moment. As for cutting out hostile sources: it is much better to mark them as such, say, link to Tasnim News Agency. Also, Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd is known to have had a close relationship with Al-Waleed bin Talal: enough for him to be in deep trouble now....not to mention his (in)famous twitter account. I believe he is live and well....when I see it. Huldra (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

TODO: body vs lead
Much of the lead should be shifted to the body of the article, and then the lead should become, as per WP:LEAD, a summary of the key points of what's in the body. Boud (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Lemma not consistent with definition
Why is the article called "2017–2019 Saudi Arabian purge" if it is defined (in its first sentence) as "the mass arrest ... on 4 November 2017 and the following few weeks"? Either the article covers the entire activities until the committee finished their work in 2019 (then the definition must be changed) or only the mass arrest in 2017 (in which case the lemma must be changed). -- H005 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)