Talk:Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Listing major charitable gifts looks nice, but is it really worth 50% of the text? That could be reduced to one or two lines. Hobga 16:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

""He has amassed an enormous fortune through illegal arms dealing,...""

I think it is necessary to provide some evidence for these accusations

NPOV[edit]

I am going to have to dispute the NPOV of his investments, it doesn't say what bad investments he made. 220.233.48.200 15:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One example, "Rotana"? - Eagleamn 16:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
in Germany he lost about 350 million dollar @ de:KirchMedia, due to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 26. 2006, p55-- Cherubino 21:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did he attend military school in riad? when? -- 172.176.31.36 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth:

There seems to be a dispute regarding HRH's year of birth. The Arabic version of his book states it as 1955, while the accompanying DVD interview states it was 1957. On the internet, both dates are used on a variety of websites. (July 7th is also mentioned as another date of birth on several websites!) For the historical accuracy of this article, the "real" date needs to be uncovered. Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this? -- anonymous (a details-accuracy freak)

Name of current wife?

was listed as "princess" plus last name. I added Amira (arabic for princess) since that is the name AP is calling her (princess amira whatever), but just to be sure, i am putting this note here so that someone who cares would verify her first name.

  • The names of the two current wives: Ameera (2006) and Deborah (2009).

-Can anyone provide legitimate source information about his marriage to Deborah, the second of his current wives?

Rafik Hariri[edit]

Wasn't he Lebanese, not Saudi? --Peter Robinett 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by birth and nationality. But like many enterprising Arabs, he made his fortune in Saudi Arabia. Nathanm mn 19:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"He made his fortune in Saudi Arabia" - when I was there, it was common knowledge that Hariri was a front for King Fahd - he made his money in construction and he got all his sweetheart contracts because Fahd ordered them. Like Al-Waleed, Hariri is ("was", now that he is dead) a front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His mother is Lebanese, and his father was Saudi. --Marla Olmstead (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her first name is Amerah which means princese in Arabic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.175.68 (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOS koul_bah@hotmail.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.195.134 (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship?[edit]

In the politcal involvement section of the article it says: "Prince Al-Waleed is a Lebanese citizen through his mother". Saudi Arabia does not allow you to have dual citizenship with other countries. This must be incorrect.

(1) Most rules apllied on normal Saudi citizens are not apllied on members of the royal family or people with strong relations with them.

(2) The Saudi government is not clear about its policy when it comes to dual citizenship! It is usually said to be forbidden to have a 2nd citizenship and that you may be striped out of your Saudi citizenship if they find out you have another nationality, but its no secret to them that the thousands of Saudi's born in other countries (such as the US) have those countries citizenships and carry their passports. In fact, the Saudi King offers government scholarships for Saudi college students to the US. To get the scholarship, typical Saudi students are required to show their US Visas to the Saudi government's (Ministry of Higher Education) as proof of being able to enter the US, while Saudi's born in the US are officially required to show their US passports!

Actually the Saudi government does not care about whether you have dual citizenship or not. The example you gave about Saudi students clearly shows that the Saudi government doesn't enforce its own law. Arabiainfo 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a source which says he has lebense citzenship?--Aa2-2004 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy check[edit]

I have put the disputed template on this article as it appears to be suffering from considerable vandalism from anonymous editors, e.g.

Prince Al-Waleed is founder of the Clutz Gunzel Movement For the Overthrow of the RS Tyranny
Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal would never stand for someone looking for another job on his watch. He'd bin him right off.
The Prince nevers backs any horse that isn't a working man's price.

I've not been able to confirm his interest in Everton F.C. either. Could someone more informed about the subject please review the article? -- Arwel (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly informed about subject, but am about Everton and I have never heard of this (outside of references to this page). It may be true, it may not, but without a source I suspect it is vandalism. --Murmeltier 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Prince Al-waleed is founder of the Clutz Gunzel to the end of the reference about working man's price is spurious nonsense and has been deleted

Quote: "including a diamond-covered Mercedes SL600 worth an estimated US$4.8 million" - the "source" on this seems pretty slim too: A photo on a blog with a comment on how high the price of gas is. Also: According to the reports on D.A.D. (Mercedes customizer) the car is crusted with Swarovski crystals - not diamonds.

Kingdom City and other investments[edit]

It would be helpful to have more detail regarding the Prince's businesses. One I noticed today that is surely notable is his announced plan[1] to build the world's tallest building in a mega-development in Jeddah. Not only is the building not mentioned, I could not find anything in Wikipedia about the development, "Kingdom City".[2][3][[4] I would try to create and expand the articles but I do not know much about the subject and I am afraid I would get it wrong. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC) ن —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.229.246 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telethon Donation[edit]

Please do not remove sourced material without coming to discussion page (especially from an anonymous editor). In this case, the donation to the families of suicide bombers was sourced with an article from one of the U.K.'s top newspaper. If you think it is "untrue", then please provide something other than your own opinion. As for libel, the U.K. is famous for the ability of people to sue. If there is any evidence of a retraction, please provide. Sgmiller (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote this to make it more balanced; now both sides are presentedSgmiller (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undid delete; two mainstream 3rd party media sources were cited (Times of London and Sp Times/CNN); whats the problem???Sgmiller (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The original charity reference did specifically focus on a terrorist link. It omitted most of the context, namely the Israel house demolition policy. Also failure to mention any other telethon donations of Al-Waleed bin Talal makes the reference seriously biased. Never mind that the telethon was organized by the local US-backed tyrant.

Finally I would remind you that it's not because a "fact" is printed in an "article" of the Times of London, it bears any truth. There seems to be no other article by "Nick Day" or "Scott Parkes". Curiously enough there is one "Nick Day" former agent of MI5 specialized in Middle-Eastern terrorism. Could the Times piece have only been an opinion piece? Pure speculation on my part, but no more than that unique off-line Times article, written by a pair of unknown journalists.

The second reference (Saint Petersburg Times) does not tell much. Just remember that next time you will give to a charity (Tsunamis, earthquakes, local church), it will end up helping a relative of a rapist, a relative of a drug addict, a relative of a murderer, a relative of a molester. Shame on you!

I still think it's defamatory. If you wish to stress the Palestinian "support" of Al-Waleed, mention the Giuliani refusal. Nothing new. It seems quite mainstream in the muslim world. 77.101.148.153 (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and I would remind you that it is not untrue because you don't like it or is "negative" about a person you admire. The fact remains that the information was printed in one of the U.K's most prestigious papers (cited by WP as a premium source by the way), was never retracted or the subject of litigation, and was confirmed by a second third-party source which reported essentially the same information.
Furthermore, Al-Waleed did not just donate to an ordinary charity but to a charity that was described in such a way (funds going to "martyrs") as to at least suggest that due diligence was necessary unless the donor had no problem with the funds ending up in the hands of the families of suicide bombers. As for Israeli house demolition policy, I am not sure what that would add here since it already said that the intent, according to the Saudi government, was to help Palestinians who were the victims of Israeli actions. There is no suggestion in the 3rd party reporting that this had anything to do with house demolitions. Also, I fail to see the relevance of who or who is not a "tyrant."
As for "defamation", what part of all this meets that definition?
Also, please sign your contributions here.Sgmiller (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even worth signing. I don't admire the guy, I don't give a damn about him, I just stumbled on the article and the slant was too obvious. Saddam had wmd, right. As long it's printed in the Times and "corroborated" in that beacon of international journalism, the Saint Petersburg Times. My opinion: This was some kind of op-ed, and Nick Day is the ex-MI5 founder of the security firm Diligence (they did a bit of mercenary work in Iraq <- Just to show how easy it is to slant a fact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.148.153 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "not worth signing means" nor what the reference to WMD means. If you would bother to look at the dates on the sources, the St. Petersburg piece was from April 13 and says it was taken from the news wires. The London Times story was from April 23 so it is more likely that they also got the information from the wire services. In any event, the Times clearly was not the original source of the info, but even if one of the authors had a security service background (and it is your assumption that it is the same person), I don't see the problem if the U.K "paper of record" printed the information or do you think the Times was in on the plot? Also, I have added a third reference from CNN but I suppose you will find something wrong with CNN as well? You say you have no admiration for the guy but you do seem unusually resistant and sensitive to something. Even Al-Waleed himself has not contested these stories with all his resources so I am not sure what is up with you. So, I am not sure what else to do here to satisfy you but three reliable 3rd party source is more than enough to satisfy WP guidelines. Once again, I assume that if one of the world's richest men had erroneous information printed about him, especially in the U.K, , he would have sued but there is no evidence of that.Sgmiller (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I even added a reference from the Saudi media from April 13, 2002 which was the same day the SP Times ran the wire service story. Now you can tell me that the Saudis were in on the plot along with MI5, the London Times, and CNN. Don't forget to sign.Sgmiller (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Delete Sourced Material[edit]

It is against WP policy to delete material that has been properly sourced without coming to the discussion page and explaining. Therefore, please do not delete the material on the telethon without explanation here.Sgmiller (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been rewritten and sourced material removed with no discussion. Also, it was badly written with needless identification of sources (i.e The St. Petersburg time said...." I have reverted to an older version. If this is to be changed, please come to discussion and explain.Sgmiller (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message573367/pg1. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media ownership[edit]

There is practically nothing on Al-Waleed bin Talal's media interests. I am led to believe he owns or has owned MBC, helped establish ART with Saleh Kamel and also established Rotanna? Can anyone help me write a section on this? UKWiki (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business interests[edit]

This text " Fox News has been critical of Park51, a community center sometimes disparagingly referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque." This is despite the fact that Bin Talal, Fox's second largest shareholder, is also helping to fund Park51." does not seem NPOV to me. Further, no citation is given to support three claims implicit in this statement- that Al-Waleed is funding Park51, or that Fox News as a whole has been critical of Park51, or that calling it the "Ground Zero mosque" is disparaging.

  1. The reference goes to an article that states that Fox News _personalities_ have been highly critical of the Park51 project, but does not support the argument that Fox News as a whole has been. I can attest that the one Fox News program I regularly watch does not evince a clear bias against the project in its news product, though commentators have taken positions opposing and supporting the project being built in that location. The reference cited contradicts the statement made on this point. The referenced article merely points out that Al-Waleed owns a large number of shares in Fox and that the significant number of Fox News _personalities_ opposing the project is an "example of the often uneasy relationship and occasionally diverging interests between many of News Corp.'s properties, in this case Fox News and its parent corporation."
  1. Nowhere in the referenced article, or in my searching, other than in a clip from the Daily Show can I find any reference to the Kingdom Foundation funding park51- I presume there is a clip of Dan Senor on some Fox program making this attestation, but I can find no other corroboration. Examining the Kingdom holding companies web site, I can find no reference to a "Kingdom Foundation", and simple searching of the web found no links to such an organization. I am not asserting they do not exist, I am saying I cannot find any citations to support the claim made. So, even if a "Kingdom Foundation" is helping fund Park51, I can't find anything linking Al-Waleed to it.
  1. While I prefer not to describe it as such because I prefer to be precise, I am dubious that "Ground Zero Mosque" is a disparagement. While it may not rise to the definition of a Mosque to some, in common vernacular in the US, an Islamic place of worship is referred to as a Mosque. "Ground Zero" means different things to different people, but many, including myself, take it to mean the entire area encompassed by falling debris as a result of the attacks on the WTC. Some use it to refer to specifically the footprint of the WTC, but this is something reasonable people disagree on. Thus, in popular use, it is reasonable, catchy and marketable to refer to this as the "Ground Zero Mosque". Referring to it in this manner cannot be reasonably taken to be intended to incite a negative connotation, as the logic I trace above demonstrates that a reasonable person with clean hands could well develop this phrase. As such, describing it as a disparaging term is not justified.

These issues with documentation supporting the assertions, as well as the general lack of NPOV of the sentence lead me to believe it should be revised and better documented, or removed. Packetmonger (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is a horror show, with unregistered users regularly removing whole chunks of text and various other NPOV statements scattered throughout. It needs a rewrite. With regards the "Mosque" debacle, if it doesn't have a reliable citation just take it out. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously Fox News is a front for radical islam, but we need reliable sources before we make such claims.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Packetmonger, are you sure you aren`t fibbing about having watched Fox`s coverage of the mosque debate? There are plenty of sources (such as this one cited in the article) that confirm Fox News`s right-wing bias on this (should-be non-)issue. I definitely think this information is pertinent to bin Talal, and it should absolutely be included in this article, as well as the article for News Corp/Fox News. SweetNightmares (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SweetNigthmares, yes I am sure I am not fibbing in my statement- I regularly watch one (1) Fox News program- Special Report. I certainly notice a bias in its news content, but a relatively mild one, actually less in absolute terms than what I hear on All Things Considered and read in the New York Times, the other news sources I regularly consume three or more times a week. The panel editorial content is typically biased to the right, but those representing opposing opinions are given significant if not equivalent time and respect. I find it to be a more fairly moderated panel discussion than most others, certainly any daily ones I have viewed. My personal opinion is that most of Fox's opinion content tilts strongly to the right, just as most opinion shows on all cable news networks tilt strongly in one direction (hint, the others besides Fox are not to the right). I do not have adequate experience with other Fox news programming, or with other cable news programming to draw a firm conclusion, but the anecdotal experience I have is that every cable news program I have watched other than Special Report (on Fox, CNN, MSNBC) is so full of a mix of bias and useless (to me) nonsense, that it is not worth my time. Which is a long way of saying, I stand by precisely what I said and while I am not thin skinned enough to be annoyed, you might consider toning down thinly veiled accusations of "fibbing".
As to your statement that the linked article supports the assertion of "Fox News's right-wing bias on this", I will start by explaining that the article as I read it for content does not do so. The word "right wing" or similar derivative is simply not extant in the article. The closest I can find is "The stridency with which Fox News personalities attack the downtown Islamic center -- red meat for the millions who tune in each night..." merely states that Fox _personalities_ have stridently attacked the downtown Islamic center. It makes no assertion on Fox News or News Corp's political bias. In fact, it quotes a (dubious in my opinion) source that says "This isn't a conspiracy of the right or the left. It's a conspiracy of money." I would like you to explain how this article supports the assertion you make?
I believe this is not the forum to debate whether Fox News should be described as "right wing" or not (and not an argument I feel like getting into as it is extremely difficult to find anyone with an opinion on this subject that does not have bias, or who is willing to declare their bias and thoughtfully try and approach the issue with clean hands rather than as a partisan). There is an article on Fox News, that would be the appropriate place for this discussion.
Further, this would not seem to be the place to debate whether or not opposing Park51/"Ground Zero Mosque" is a "right-wing" issue or not, but I will point out that there is enough polling on this issue to suggest that substantial majorities in the US think negatively about the project being built in that location and a number of leaders who are identified as left-of-center have voiced that opinion. Personally, I may be inclined to believe that the issue got publicity from media sources that lean right, but the resulting public uproar can be reasonably interpreted as either "ginned up" by the right, or information regarding the project being "suppressed" by the left until it was made available by those on the right.
I found this article as I wanted to learn more about something I saw linked on a friends Facebook page. I did some research, and was surprised to find a serious dearth of information about the "Kingdom Foundation" and anything linking Al-Waleed to the Park51 project. I looked pretty hard, and I found the lack of information actually rather odd. Then I reviewed this page and I found some portions of the article that were not well worded and were not supported by the referenced link. Rather than remove it (violating WP:BOLD I presume) I commented on it. Others agreed and removed it. I want to be clear that I am fine with something that adds to the articles content, is well referenced by reliable sources, and does so in a NPOV manner. It would be reasonable to mention that there are suggestions (as yet I see nothing stronger than that) that Al-Waleed directs a foundation that supports the Park51 project, while many commentators on Fox News, of which he is a significant shareholder, have said they believe the project should be built in a different location. It would also be appropriate to mention that these suggestions have not been corroborated by a reliable source and that the article you mention above states that News Corp isn't concerned with left/right bias, its concerned with making money, and so this possible dichotomy is not surprising. But I'm not going to edit to add that yet, because I'm hoping that some clarity will develop on the issue as to whether Al-Waleed indirectly contributed to Park51, and also some perspective will exist as to whether this issue is significant enough to include in this article. If someone wants to edit it, and can do so in a NPOV manner, with well cited content, then I'm not inclined to remove it. I would ask that we all be careful to not allow our personal biases to enter into our edits of this article, whatever they may be.Packetmonger (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, it was not my intention to offend you; my apologies for doing so. Secondly, whether Fox News has a right-wing bias is irrelevant to this discussion, I agree. Given the recent media attention to this issue, however, I would like to revise the facts:
  • Al-Waleed bin Talal is the second largest shareholder of News Corp.
  • bin Talal controls the Kingdom Holding Company, which was incorrectly dubbed "Kingdom Foundation" by Fox News pundits
  • Fox News (which is part of News Corp.) reported that the "Kingdom Foundation" is financing the mosque construction near Ground Zero
Whether or not the last "fact" is actually true, I believe it is still worthy to note (though perhaps not on this article) that Fox News libelously name-drops for the sake of pushing its agenda and gaining more viewers despite the non-alignment of its owners' standpoints. SweetNightmares (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One key point noted by The Daily Show was that Fox News had actually omitted bin Talal's name in the broadcast of their story, which centered around him. According to [5], Fox News:
  • Said that he has ties to terrorist organizations
  • Referred to him as "terror prince"
  • Referred to the project as the "terror mosque"
Considering the popularity of the network, this bizarre behavior on their part must be covered in this article, along with appropriate NPOV deconstruction of why they would think that, as a service to viewers who use Wikipedia to fact-check what they see on TV. Thundermaker (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the point to note is that the man is making money by employing people to denounce him as a terror prince. Hcobb (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an NPR article that discusses the significance of this very issue, complete with responses (or lack thereof) of the parties involved. SweetNightmares (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin?[edit]

He is not a cousin of King Abdullah. He is nephew of him. So just saying a member of House of Saud is enough. So, I deleted the cousin part. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

The content given below is about a rape case he experienced. If anyone wants to mentioned it, it can be briefly given in the article. A separate section for this topic seems unnecessary (Although I myself started the section, it has become unimportant case after recent events). It was deleted a few days ago, but today someone, sertelsiraci, added it again. Since it was explained before, I put it below. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded Allegations[edit]

A panel of Spanish judges has dismissed a rape case against Alwaleed bin Talal, citing a lack of evidence.[1]

[redacted]

The section gives WP:UNDUE weight - the case was dismissed and including two full paragraphs of the contentious info on this talk page is as much of a WP:BLP issue as having the section in the article. Of course discussion can take place here as to what, if any, mention of the case should be included, but the old content does not need to be on display to do so. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Minder, Raphael (March 29, 2012). "Rape Case Against Saudi Is Dismissed". The New York Times. Retrieved April 5, 2012.

Info[edit]

The links given before under external links are put here as the article is already overloaded.Egeymi (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Barack Obama get into Harvard[edit]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/saudi-billionaire-did-help-obama-into-harvard/

"In late March 2008, on a local New York City show called “Inside City Hall,” the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico, Percy Sutton, told host Dominic Carter how he was asked to help smooth Barack Obama’s admission into Harvard Law School 20 years earlier. The octogenarian Sutton calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.” The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about 20 years prior.

Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal... The elusive al-Mansour was a guest on the BlogTalkRadio show, “The National and International Roundtable,” Sept. 19, 2012.

In his introduction, the host openly acknowledged that al-Mansour “made news in 2008 when it was revealed that he had been a patron of President Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School.” The host goes on to describe al-Mansour as “co-founder of the International law firm of al-Waleed, al-Talal and al-Mansour and special adviser to Saudi Arabian prince, his royal highness Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulazziz.”

This meshed completely with what Sutton had said in 2008. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.” Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so."

are the actions of his adviser relevant to the wiki on Al-Waleed bin Talal? I mean is it a fair assumption that the adviser acts on his behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.85.91 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Khalid al-Mansour[edit]

Why no article about Khalid al-Mansour? Not the obscure Saudi footballer. The other one. Regardless of whether the Obama story is true. He is someone people are going to want to know about. Pretty amazing life for one thing. Going from Black Panther to corporate board member is quite rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.150.197 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated info on News Corp ownership[edit]

Hi. I don't know how to add a reference, so if someone could help me out, that would be great. Originally, the article correctly stated that News Corp owned $70m (9%) interest in Rotana group. The most updated information I found from a credible source has them at $175m (19%), and so I changed that text. My source is here http://www.arabianbusiness.com/news-corp-ups-stake-in-alwaleed-s-rotana-458084.html#.UsdzuLRUy31. Thanks for your help. 68.45.176.237 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saudi Arabian people of Lebanese descent[edit]

Why is Category:Saudi Arabian people of Lebanese descent being removed from the article? It seems to me to be an obviously applicable category. His mother was Lebanese, and he is Saudi Arabian, so he is a Saudi Arabian person of Lebanese descent. This doesn't necessarily mean he is a Lebanese citizen—it means he is a Saudi Arabian citizen who has Lebanese ancestors—namely, his mother. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First wife's name -- Dalal or Talal?[edit]

The existing reference states "Princess Dalal Married Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz". A web search brings this photo caption, which also spells her name "Dalal". I also get the impression that Talal is a male name.

The standard for Wikipedia is wp:verifiability, so please do not revert again unless you can provide a reference. Thundermaker (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Political views[edit]

This article says nothing about his political views. Charles Essie (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is he known as a particular political person? If not, why does it matter? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have included this section, but was quickly deleted by Gareth E Kegg, who seems to be the Chief Censor Guardian here. Mazarin07 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an editor like any other. I've always felt encouraged to be bold in my actions. Al-Waleed is a businessman, not a politician, and other than the brief New York donation brouhaha, I'm not aware that he has expressed any particularly controversial views. I believe he is seen as a relatively liberal figure in KSA though. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewsnews[edit]

Prince Talal Bin Waleed has urged all Arab nations to give up their hostility toward the Jewish nation and look for peaceful coexistence.

"All my Muslim brothers and sisters must understand that it became a moral imperative for all inhabitants of war-torn Middle-East, namely Arabs, to desist their absurd hostility toward Jewish people."[1]

The site jewsnews.co.il is an alt-right website that has frequently been criticized by snopes as a fake news website. The quote above, regarding relationships with Israel, which was posted by jewsnews.co.il, was repudiated by the prince himself and should not appear in the Wikipedia article.

Do you have a Snopes article to prove this claim? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list: http://www.snopes.com/tag/jewsnews/ There are also several other articles on other websites discussing the fake content at Jewsnews.co.il... http://iranian-atheist.tumblr.com/post/111784837839/once-again-the-website-jews-news-releases-a-fake http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/05/jews-news-spreads-false-story-about-lynched-mutilated-corpse/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.68.92 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.jewsnews.co.il article (21 August 2015)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Al-Waleed bin Talal. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Waleed bin Talal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Al-Waleed bin Talal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Al-Waleed bin Talal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Waleed bin Talal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm[edit]

Wouldn't it be better if the main picture in the infobox was updated? Surely, camera quality has improved and there's other better potential pictures anyway. 2603:6011:9600:52C0:B491:C006:24EB:CD18 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Waleed_bin_Talal_Al_Saud&oldid=1211358874"