Talk:Saudi Arabia/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Saudi Arabia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This has to be the most wishy-washy sanitised article imaginable. More proof that Wikipedia is utterly worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.139.135 (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 88.105.65.1 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

no one asked you how to avoid a door dummy.

the Population is 27,601,038 not 24,735,000

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.55.144 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by the motto, which is currently given as "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger." To the best of my theological understanding, this is a misleading translation of the common Islamic phrase. I had been under the impression that the meaning was more clearly stated by the translation "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is only his messenger," a statement of religious arianism intended to distinguish it from the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ. In the "there is no God but Allah" version there seems to be an element of religious supremecism involved. Is my understanding correct? Can any Muslims or Saudis help me out here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.200.16 (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, and it did say "God" previously before someone changed it. It should be changed back. Some fundamentalist Christians, however, prefer to use the word "Allah" to add to the mystique of Islam as a "pagan" religion with a "foreign" deity. -- Slacker (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But the literal translation of the phrase is "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His messenger," but you can say it the other way too. It technicaly means the same thing. Allah is "God" in arabic and even the Christians say it as "God." I would like to explain it in a less confusing way but I cannot. Mus640 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

La Ilha ill-allah translates into No God but Allah, NOT No God but God. The Arabic word for generic God is A'rabb, not Allah so the translation should rightly read "No God but Allah; Muhammad is His messenger". AreJay (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AreJay, tell me where you get your arabic, and I will tell you the answer. Al-Rabb vs Al-ilah. you are saying Ilha while it is Ilah. when you pronounce two vowls with a middle vowel, remove the middle vowel, so Al-ilah is (Al-lah) go translate Ilah and not Rabb which im not sure who told you it is translated as such?. of course needless to say, its certain arabs with known goals who came up with this controversy the 1st place. dont learn C# programming from an Amish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, "al-Rabb" means "the Lord", and can be used in Arabic for non-deities. It's the cognate of the word Rabbi. So, "God" is definitely the correct translation. -- Slacker (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The motto's translation in English should absolutely read "God" and not "Allah". "Allah" is simply Arabic for "God". A translation of "one country under God" into Arabic would use the word "Allah"; they would not retain the English word. Using Allah in English is, as someone mentioned above, a way to make Islam seem foreign and incompletely monotheistic--many Westerns like to say that Muslims worship a special god named, "Allah." Muslims absolutely understand the God they worship as identical to the God worshiped by other monotheists. Staplovich (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Change "Saudi Land" to "Saudi Arabia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.118.149 (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

the Population the Population is / 16.529.302/ not / 24,735,000/ 24.735.000 includes 5,360,526 non-nationals /// http://www.saudia-online.com/saudi_arabia.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.73 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very old reference .  A M M A R  01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find some source that says evolution is not taught in Saudi schools. The education article, which I have now linked to, does say this, but it doesn't provide a citation, and the only reference given doesn't seem to back it up. Richard001 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources in Arabic language will be good for you ?  A M M A R  01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources in any language are fine, though because I can't speak or read any Arabic at all it makes it rather difficult for me to research. The same is true for other Arabic speaking countries as well. If you can provide me with a source and tell me what it says that would be great. Richard001 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you cant speak arabic tell me the points you are talking about and i'll try to find you some websources about it. It's very hard to find relible english sources talking about education about saudi arabia.  A M M A R  16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Check this out, (Ministry of Higher Education).  A M M A R  19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a collection of Saudi Arabia related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindkeogh (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This section has some colorful rhetoric in it that clearly suggests an anti-Saudi Arabia bias. The article deserves a more fact-oriented section. Elle (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"However, Saudi women must wear a long cloak (abaya) and veil (niqāb) when they leave the house to protect their modesty." This is not true, veil (niqab) is not enforced (at least not in Jeddah, Makkah, Riyadh, Taif, Madinah, Dammam, Khobar, Yanbu, Jubail). Its true that veil is common among Saudi women, but that's either due to tradition or choice (of women or their guardian). --Hesham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.19.229 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Change it then. Be Bold!. -- Slacker (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The downside for wearing the abaya for women is when the hot season comes in, it does not go along with the whole black outfit. Bustamove34 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a reference for the sentence:

"Some have suggested that Saudi Arabia is greatly exaggerating its reserves and may soon show production declines (see peak oil).[citation needed]"

It is as follows:

Simmons, Matthew. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. Wiley. ISBN 978-0471738763. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

Could someone more privileged than my humble self add it, please?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.73.175 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference added. Though, I would not seriously consider Simmons an expert in the matter. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not an expert (who could claim to be outside of the Saudi authorities? - and they aren't saying), but I think he can count as a member of the 'some' in 'some have suggested' :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.8.158 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

oo i have a good one, "Some have suggested that Saudis eat people for dessert and enjoy playing with balls." <reference: nobody> add it, i just said it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.246.169 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

saudi arabia should recognize kosovo as a state because:

• 90%of people in kosovo are muslim
• kosovan people were discriminate for long time from Serbia(for hundred years)Serbia killed about 12.000 in 1998-1999. still nobody knows where are 1500 people since 1999.serbia burned 60% of houses in kosovo, serbia deported one million people
• kosovan people were not allowed :to speak to write their language , to go to schooll to get education,to have their TV OR RADIO station

These are some of the reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeni.124 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be /i/ as in "heed" instead of /I/ as in "hit". --198.137.17.31 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the link for al-madinah province incorrectly leads to the city page when it should instead lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Madinah_Province

kindly fix, thanks. Umar99 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, unless I screwed it up because of unfamiliarity with Saudi Arabia. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Saudi Arabia in the "Category:Constitutional monarchies"? Most sources I've read list it as an absolute monarchy. Josh (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why it's listed in the "Category:Constitutional monarchies". It says in the infobox that it's an absolute monarchy. I'll change it to another category. --Xevorim (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be useful to cite a supporting source for the government_type parameter info in the infobox. The Factbook SA page says "Government type: monarchy". Wtmitchell (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of this section and its restoration as vandalism revision popped this up on my watchlist. I see that the article currently says government_type = [[Islamic law|Islamic]] [[absolute monarchy]]. Also, I see that the Government page of the Saudi Embassy to the US website says, "Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the beginning of the government section is about the government. The bottom 2/3 is about economics. The economics section is too long, given that it has been spun off into a main article. Noloop (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that "Ahmed Abodehman" a novelist mentioned in the Literature section is not a Saudi . His name should be deleted from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.215.136.100 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

wonderful people like in Dubai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.215.15 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Statement of corruption.

"Saudi Arabia has been the subject of widespread allegations of corruption, for example that BAE Systems bribed government officials and the Saudi Royal Family in order to win the Al Yamamah arms contract."

I would seem almost amazing that we would quote a rag Newspaper, who knowningly lies. Or even just quoting a newpaper would seem, less than intelligent?

Back to the statement. These are allegations. As first stated. However, the following revolves around the second part, which then comes to "state", that these are fact! When these were orginally investigated by British police, no corruption was found. As when the US have interviewed several top BAE system managers, no corruption has been found.

SO i would ask that this be removed. If for nothing more, than honesty.

2nd, Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer int he world. Russia is #3 or 4. As according to the experts. see UN Energy, US Dpt Energy....et cetera...

Sincerely

fenir

(114.76.177.221 (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

• 19:06, 5 October 2007 SouthernNights protected Saudi Arabia ‎ (vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly two years ago. I'd like to review this to see if it's still necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I've contacted SouthernNights, the protecting admin. --TS 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

malos amigos como emiliano fpu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.152.205 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This site: [Saudi] talks about a warlock sent to death for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia.Agre22 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Interesting.This might find a place in the Saudi Arabia#Law or the Saudi Arabia#Human rights section of the article. My understanding from this WP article is that the Qur'an is considered to be the constitution of the country. My understanding from from the item you linked is that Hady Amr, director of the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy said has said, the Qur'an does not accept any other supernatural forces other than the individual and society's relationship with God, that anything that contravenes that is seen as blasphemy and against the will of God, and that blasphemy merits severe punishment. I see that Manzil#As an antidote to witchcraft speaks of Islam and sorcery, but I'm unable to parse what it says. It's a bit clearer Here, in #s 101-104; #105 there says, "And the punishment which awaits unbelievers in painful indeed." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia does not persecute other religion. There are quite a number of Filipinos living in Jeddah without being threatened. For the exact meaning of the word persecution, please refer here. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the wording which mentioned the word "persecution" in this old revision of the article (and some older revisions) has since been changed, and that particular word does not appear in the current revision of the article. The same cited supporting source remains in support of the moderated wording. That source says, in part,

The Government confirmed that, as a matter of public policy, it guarantees and protects the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious services. However, this right was not always respected in practice and is not defined in law. Moreover, the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited, and mutawwa'in (religious police) continued to conduct raids of private non-Muslim religious gatherings. Although the Government also confirmed its policy to protect the right to possess and use personal religious materials, it did not provide for this right in law, and the mutawwa'in sometimes confiscated the personal religious material of non-Muslims.

That cited supporting source is a bit outdated, being a 2008 report, but the 2009 report says the same thing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is not a forum for general discussion of unsupported Ooiginal research or individual opinions re the article topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that the name "Saudi Arabia" reffers to the Saud dynasty, but shouldn't it be mentioned in an Etymology section or atleast one line in the intro for the benefit of readers? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea. --Dhulfiqar 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this was removed and reinstated. Here is the text:

It was reinstated on the basis that it was sourced, and should therefore not be removed.

However, the source is an arabnews.com news article, written in quite a POV fashion, which refers to 2 studies (one in the US - which it does not even specify) and one in KSA for which it gives a Doctor's name and place of work - no other details of the survey. There is no link to the details of either survey, and the US one is not even named.

I can't make the article text balanced by pointing out that the article says the US results were 1 in 6, because the reference isn't good enough - and it's not fair and balanced now because it refers to a source which doesn't elaborate on its own source for the KSA survey.

I believe that in this case this reference is not enough to warrant this section - so I'm removing it.

If anyone can source the actual surveys, and provide balanced text then maybe it can be re-included without looking like POV - but I'm not sure it merits its own section.  Begoon^talk 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in my revert, I'm ok with the sourced facts not having their own section, I'm just against the deletion of the facts.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that - if you read my comment I'm disputing that this is a good enough source to demonstrate notability of this survey, having examined the article - it gives us no idea as to the details of the results of the survey, other than a vague "1 in 4", and no way to examine the survey methodology, date, place, or sample size. If you feel that's good enough as a reference to demonstrate the notability of this survey, then ok - I won't remove it again - but personally I think it's a dreadful reference, and an unbalanced statement in the article as a result. Hopefully some other editors will comment here since we obviously disagree on the suitability of that article as an encyclopedic reference - consensus would be nice, though, since 2 editors have removed (with explanation) what you have now reinserted without waiting for consensus to form in this discussion.  Begoon^talk 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to do this, but under "1891 to present" first para, instead of "Hussein bin Ali" that should surely be "'Abd al-Aziz bin 'Abd ar-Rahman Al-Faisal Al Sa'ud" ('nuff said <G>) previously styled "Sultan of Nejd". Hussein was the Hashemite ruler of Hejaz. Quite a different matter, as they say <G> (and yes, I knew his descendant Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, too).

FWIW I lived in the Kingdom for 15 years and know nearly all the current protagonists personally ... 'Abdallah since 1971 for example ... I am not here to tell stories but there's quite a lot that needs to be said for the sake of, well, reality <G>.

Tepegawra (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC) John E. Burchard saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/

What happened to the links for the flag and coat of arms?? 07:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the infobox, the emblem and flag is not linking properly, could somebody please fix that? Gryffindor (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article read like it was written by the Saudi Embassy. I've tried to cover three glaring omissions: (1) corruption - I've added in a new section under politics; (2) opposition to the regime (and islamism) - again added in a new section under politics; and (3) religious intollerance - added to the 'Religion' section. I don't have time to track down more references so i'ved only included brief particulars on each (but with references). I hope someone can develop these further - I think in particular more should be said on islamism.DeCausa (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Corruption alegations should be mentioned at the articles of the respective heads of state, politicians or administrations. The article about the country is a topic too general to go into this level of detail. The sections should be removed from this article MBelgrano (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a systemic feature of the governmental structure and rule of the Al Saud (the "we" in the quote from Prince Bandar refers to the Al Saud)- too widespread to just be referenced against specific individuals. Cf. the reference to corruption in the Nigeria article.DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean that it isn't a topic that defines a country, just a subsidiary topic of the politics of the country. It may change in relatively very little time. MBelgrano (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, don't see it. I think you'll find that many consider that it does, in part, define the country. You can't not mention it (as you can't not mention it in eg Nigeria. It's not a one off "scandal" - as I said before it's systemic - part of the way the country is run. The origins are that the Al Saud see the country as family property so the distinction between "state" and "personal" is pretty blurred for a senior prince. I accept that the article should go into this (and doesn't) - but I don't have the time right now to dig up the references. Hopefully, someone will follow this up.DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits from the above two unregistered Saudi based IPs over the last couple of days have inserted similar edits, which I have reverted. They are mostly of three types (1) removal of references to support for Islamist terrorism (or in one strange edit to insert the unsourced POV that Saudis are generous and unknowingly give money to cover organisations!!); (2)adding in a list of "famous" female Saudis - the people are not particularly "famous", I believe it is unprecendented in WP to have such a gender based list (there is no male list), and it seems to be POV-pushing with the aim of countering the usual allegations about how Saudi society treats women;(3) deleting sourced material on the Ulema and replacing it with unsourced material. There are elements of these edits which I think can add to the article and I would invite the editor(s) to discuss here before inserting them again. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

this was not mentioned in article

Absolutely--this article is painfully sanitized and free of any discussion of the many highly controversial policies of the Saudi government, including the funding of Islamic fundamentalist movements abroad, in part to stifle dissent at home. Needs BALANCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Groff (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Saudi-Arabia is leading in exporting and funding fundamentalist islamism, and the US government still think they're an ally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.235.226 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! You really think it's THAT simple?! LOL! Jersey John (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

another example of the many shallow slanderers writing on this page... plenty of college wiz-kids.

No background to any of these claims, so far I have seen only stereotypical assumptions of the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've spent the last month or so correcting this (and other sanitized aspects of the Article) - hopefully it is now a little more informative and sourced and less like a brochure issued by the Minsistry of Culture & Information. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is mostly about revenue and economic performance. I personally would like some info on governance , corruption and internal opposition. Any contributors with sources. I don't want to be confrontational or controversial but this is very closed country and English speaking media and governments are very happy to side with the Saudi regime im the best.Saudi Arabia is the number two producer of oil in the world. It is second to russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.216.138.246 (talk) 17:02, melvin is the best.

Exactly. All the economic stuff should be in the economy section, and far more could be added about politics in the kingdom, particularly the delicate situation between the royal family and the religious establishment. 24.87.21.40 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's political POV, we the readers are certainly interested in the basic structure of the Saudi government, like what kind of counsel / assembly it has and which princes hold which post in the government.

Im sure many volunteers would have contributed to elaborate about the closed structure of gov and its slow shift towards certain directions, but when anyone sees the amout of biased shallow info he feels like 'what the heck, its a slander page written by outsiders, look for info in another page'.

I've taken out the economic stuff and re-written the politics section with sourced material which is hopefully more informative. Criticism and improvements welcome, but I'm keeping watch to revert unsourced edits taking out sourced material because the editor thnks it's not positive about KSA. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone should add something about the extent to which the Saudi government indoctrinates their school children against Jews and Christians.

<< yet another example of what creates most of this page, its not a Saudi wiki info page, but a Christ Jew slander newspaper fox news page. get real and dont exaggarate stuff.

Here's a good article on the subject

Excerpts from modern Saudi Textbooks

sample: "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

• • Notice: I have read the link, and followed and questioned about it... it does not refer to any sources, its the source of itself written by a person who knows nothing but blasphemy. to set the record straight, in fact, King Solomon, David, Moses, Abraham, and the bunch, are highly respected in the books, so are mentioned in the stories of the Jewish neighbors of Mohammad and Rabbis and how God favored sons of Israel above all (the ones who didnt scheme to kill him of course like attempts on Jesus). the citations were set straight to point out whats in history, stories like splitting the sea and devils and Jews who were transformed to apes by God for disobeying him. but the misleading excerpt above is an example of the backstabbing which happened then and is still hapeening now by certain people. bring clear examples with references and citations if you want to prove otherwis. —Preceding

Hmmm, having this issue been brought up, why don't you tell me who Israel and Western Textbooks portray Muslims??

[::Oh you're implying two wrongs make a right. Way to go Stalin.Jersey John (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)] << nice go mr.two words. just look at the excerpt and realize how silly and shallow it is. may you have plenty of shallow sympathisers.

I can't speak for Israel, but I can say that in the US, the acheivments of the Muslims are lauded, Islam is treated with respect as a "world religion", terrorism is said to be a perversion of Islam, the Crusades are portrayed as unbridled Christian aggression (while the final conquest of Constantinople, ordered by Muhammed, is treated as just another historical event), and in general Islam is portrayed as a peaceful religion. Anything else?

• You may not know about Israel, but I do; and I am perplexed that notwithstanding Muslem hatred, that appears to be an intrinsic part of Islam, the Children of Israel are taught to respect differences; and respect for other's beliefs; including Muslems who are equal to Jews under the laws of the State of Israel. How about including the fact that Jews are not even permitted to enter this country; even though places like Medina were founded by Jews.

• Medina was not founded by Jews! Arab Pagans lived there long before Jews have.

• I am copying the following text, posted at the next section hereafter, to this section:

Israeli Text books (I am an Israeli Educator) tend to deal with Islam in a staight forward manner, dealing with historical developement, trends and natuarlly interaction with Jewish communities in Muslin countries, and a comparison between Judiaism and Islam. Over 20% of israelis are Muslims, and many Muslims work in the Israeli Ministry of Educationm, so there would be little point, interest nor opportunity to inclide hate literature in official studies or text books. While there are differences in textbboks for Arab and Jewish pupils (firstly becvause of the use of Hebrew or Arabic, secondly because of more emphasis and depth on Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Druse religious aspects, in relation to the specif needs of different pupil groups). Because it is in the interest of the people and the government that all of its citizens be able to live in harmony and mutual respect of others ideas, religeous beliefs and rights, it is only natural to stress the common aspects of our beliefs and history, and downplay the negative disrespective events that have occured. While extremist views are expressed in some situations by both sidesd, these are not part of any officially authorised texts or curricullums (I'm talking about the Israeli school system, as opposed to the Palestinian Authorities texts, some of which are donated by Saudi sources, and reflect those views). In the first years of Islam, it sems that the prophet Muhhamed assumed that the Jewish tribes in what is now Saudi Arabia would convert to Islam. Many Jewish tribes lived on the area of Mekkah and Medinah. When this did not occure Muslim leaders declared war / jihad against them. Eventually almost all Jews in the area were killed or converted. The only exceptions being Jews in Yemen, who were allowed, with certain restrictions to live peacefull and carry out their traditiopns both is religion and craft (Jewlers and traders) Since them, Jews in that area have been rare, and are officially band from entering all of Saudia Arabia, and not just the 2 holy cities. Israeli Muslims are allowed to make the Haj, but cannot carry Israeli Passports. One of the few recognized Jews to enter Saudi Arabia was Henry Kissenger, the US sec. of state at the time. American Jewish soldiers are not officially allowed (by the Saudis) to serve in the country, but the US armed forces do not report soldiers' religion (though there have been problems with the supply of Kosher food to them, especially on the Passover Holiday wjhich has many dietary restrictions).

Israeli teacher, we all know its not particularly religion here, its politics. a Yemeni Jew can enter Saudi, but an Israeli Muslim cannot till now because of the Palestine conflict. The map which determines 'who is who' still needs to be lined. Under all the pressure of the world it would be immoral to just 'let the higher voice take what it wants'. As for all the controversy saying 'look I found an artifact with david's star on it under your house so your house is mine' is not particularly correct. it may point out certain things but not the real world. which is mostly about 'how do I claim a peice of land?'. the whole UN is desperately trying to regulate this. and its not anyone's fault that Adam didnt split the world to his children with deeds saying 'China is for the Chineese and America is for the Americans'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In Britain, a predominanantly Christian country, we learn ONLY about Islam in schools, I was never taught abour Catholicism and had to learn it from my family. We are taught that Islam is a peaceful religion, we learn all about the five pillars, bismallah, halal, the process of hajj etc. We are also taught that terrorism is a corruption of Islam. All in all, we are very much taught to respect and attempt to understand Muslim culture. So to claim that Muslims are portrayed in a negative light in Western education is simply COMPLETELY wrong. I just wish some Muslims I met lived up to the image I was taught, rather than being so unwilling to learn about MY culture as I have theirs.

-- The above unsigned comment is incorrect. I work in the UK education system and secondary school children are taught about a range of religious beliefs as part of the national curriculum. --mgaved (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some clear double-standards here. Let's put aside for a moment the institutional racism in the British education system that existed historically to justify its extensive rule over brown people the world over, racism that persists to this day. The government of Saudi Arabia's record on human rights and tolerance is indefensible. But those from Britain and Israel who post to criticize the ideological treatment of religions other than Islam and people other than Muslims should be more concerned with their own government's treatment of Muslims--which goes far beyond the ideological. Britain is currently involved in the brutal occupation of a Muslim country (Iraq) and Israel, far from promoting "harmony and mutual respect" of rights is waging a decades-long war on the Palestinian people. Israelis or supporters of Israel who are outraged by Saudi Arabia's barring Jews from certain places in the country would do well to turn their attention to the Israeli state itself, which bars millions of Palestinians from returning to the homes from which they were expelled in 1948.Khuryps 05:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference 41 (http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-2006-05-23.htm) is not accessible i.e. it gives a page cannot be found error. Therefore it is invalid and should be removed - Zawar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zawarq (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

discriminating people for their religion is NOT racism, racism is discriminating people for their 'race' (or at least their ethnicity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.235.226 (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I continue this talk with a demand that we question the reliability of the source to indicate, in wikipedia, that Saudi Arabian schools teach children to hate Christianity and Judaism, and other practices of Islam, such as Sunni Islam.

I have not seen any good sources indicating that 'hate' is a good word to use. There is no 'hate' word in the source. Also, the source is conspicuous. The source's text is mostly, as I've read, consumptions. "The United States SHOULD" "The Saudi Arabian schools SHOULD" "So, it SHOULDN'T be.." Do we really want to use the information provided in this source? It doesn't support any outer links. For all we know this could be an anti-islamic text with no background whatsoever. The fact that it has a lot of text doesn't mean it's reliable. I want to see another source, before we can allow the usage of a sentence like "Saudi Arabian schools teach children to hate Christianity, Judaism and other religions." The word "Hate" SHOULD NOT BE USED, AM I RIGHT? I expect a quick answer, for it is unacceptable to tell readers that Saudi Arabians hate christianity, with an unstable and unreliable source such as the one --91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)provided! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"despite the fact that they have shipped over 6.2 trillion barrels of oil between 1980 and 2006"

6.2 trillion barrels is more oil than has been produced in the entire world since oil production began. This cannot possibly be correct. A rough estimate based on current production of about 10 Million barrels per day. 10M x 365 x 26 years = 94.9 Billion barrels.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparsons (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted an edit altering this to "3rd largest", and left a message on the user talk page to discuss here.

I am assuming the statement refers to area - in which case it seems correct to say "largest".

I won't revert again in case anyone here wants to discuss alternative wording (and it's my second revert)  -  Begoon (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is not the largest Arab Country. It is the third largest Arab country after Sudan and Algeria; I mean in area. Just make sure you correct this error in the first sentence of the article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Night flight911 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says "the largest Arab country of the Middle East". I don't think Sudan or Algeria are generally regarded as being in the Middle East, are they? The article Middle East doesn't say they are - although it does discuss a concept called the Greater Middle East, which it says is " is a political term coined by the Bush administration to englobe together various countries, pertaining to the Muslim world". Given that, I think the statement is probably ok as it is - but I'm happy to be corrected if anyone else thinks I'm wrong.  -  Begoon (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, if it's considered confusing, it could be reworded to "the 3rd largest Arab country in the world, and largest in the Middle East" - but that seems a bit unwieldy to me. If it is changed, then we should make sure it's changed accurately. I'm ok with it as it is - but the potential for confusion might need consideration, I suppose.  -  Begoon (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, just "the largest country in the Middle East". The fact that its people are predominantly Arabs is important, but it's only the fourth appearance of the word "arab" in the opening sentence. The wording made me wonder if Iran or Turkey or somewhere might be larger, but they're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoeuidhtns (talk • contribs) 14:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "the third largest Arab country and the largest country in the Middle East" which I think is the most unambiguous way to put it. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

From reading the article, one would assume that the country was not occupied by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of WW1, nor does it detail the key part the country played in the Ottoman Empire's defeat. I will thank you not to edit my comment. Please add a comment of your own and sign it, if you have the courage of your convictions. Thank you. TimBRoy (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I've tried to correct DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening section noted that aid was only given by the Saudi government to Muslim countries, curiously the reference pointed to a Daily Telegraph article from 2006 noting that a Saudi individual had just succeeded in encouraging his government to make the first aid payment to a non-Muslim country (Cambodia). So given that this was a clear error I removed the incorrect text. - "though only to Muslim countries.(Reference was: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1514026/Saudis-donate-aid-to-non-Muslims.html "Saudis donate aid to non-Muslims".

Others may wish to check whether this is a one-off payment to a non-Muslim country, or the Saudi government has changed policy since then (2006) and help improve the text. --mgaved (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Over the top to simply delete. The article says $250k is only donation to non-muslim country. Not much out of $49bn - it's a source for saying 'almost entirely' so reinstated on that basis. If someone can find source for further non-Muslim donations since 2006, can review - but even then 'almost entirely' is still likely to be appropriate and should not deleted. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

</gallery> FBI Latest on White House Press Release Saudi Arabia interest in Lebanon's Welfare

What's your point? DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of our articles about nations begin with the country's most commonly used name (usually the article's title), and then give the official name second. WP:PLACE states that this is the preferred style. Is there any objection to beginning this article: "Saudia Arabia, (officially the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia),..."? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings except that the official name is quite often used, as is the abbreviation KSA, in the country, probably more often than official names of other countries. Also, there are quite a few countries which don't follow that eg United States and United Kingdom. But if you are that concerned... I don't really care one way or other. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well United States is sort of an anomaly. As far as the UK, I plan to make that the last discussion on my list, as there may be some strong opinions there. My main concern is conformity, although I readily admit that this is not a major issue. The other discussons I've opened about this have been generally favorable to beginning with the commom name. Thanks for the go-ahead. I'll wait a bit to see if others wish to weigh in here. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I am going to go ahead and make the change. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to wait, as I have a question about the Arabic translation. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics of SA is listed twice. 216.204.206.155 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody decided to remove my reference to public executions on the spurious grounds that it was an act of vandalism. I have restored the comment and added a reliable reference. I don't see any reason why it should be removed now - these public beheadings are one of the most outstanding examples of the Saudi's distance from the West, and they should not be hidden in the name of false political correctness.

It's not false political correctness as much as it is racist propaganda. First of all, the laws do exist, but the execution rate is low compared to countries such as China. Second, 80% of the executions in the world took place in China (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT500062006). The execution rate PER CAPITA in the US is THREE TIMES HIGHER than in both Iran and Saudi Arabia, according to this post. So yes, in five days I am going to delete this part because if we're going to pick on countries based on their human rights record, we should look at other countries first. However, if you want to keep this piece of propaganda, tell me so I can add these statistics.

Without stating a personal view, I'll just say that it is widely held in Saudi Arabia that execution with a sword is a lot less painful and humiliating than Western methods. As for it being public, don't they provide rows of seats in the US to watch lethal injection executions? It's hard to condem one without also condeming the other.

No, "they" certainly do not. It varies widely by state, but certain public officials, law enforcement people, etc., are required to witness the execution. The common procedure is that the witnesses observe the condemned -- through a glass partition -- being wheeled into the death chamber on a gurney, then a curtain is closed while the injection takes place and the condemned actually dies, then the curtain opens again to show that the condemned is, in fact, dead. This is a far cry from making a public exhibition of an execution, especially a bloody one. --Michael K. Smith 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. Executions in China don't affect the notability of beheadings in this article. Stop preaching and read the damn guidelines. 219.78.21.154 (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... This is not up for debate. If Saudi Arabia has public executions, then that information belongs on this page. The discussion about America and other countries should be placed on those countries' corresponding pages. It is not for us to decide which facts we will display in the name of any type of "correctness". The facts are what matter. I repeat, it is not for you to decide which facts are displayed here. All facts regarding Saudi Arabia, including their execution practices belong. If you want a discussion on which country has the worst capital punishment then do so in the appropriate wiki's please. Pillowmurder (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what human rights the publicity of executions violate? The only reason why they can be menshioned is that they aren't a frequent occurence today, but I think they rather belong in the 'Law' section, and in any case,any judgmental tone is completely misplaced. Being different from the West (which in fact implies 'from America' as many so called 'Western' countries don't conform to what is considered 'Western') is not a crime. --89.191.241.225 (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, this one: Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. "Degrading" being the significant word in this context. The irrelevant snipe at America is ill-informed considering the enthusiastic use of the death penalty in some US states. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly "universal" when so many gov'ts don't adhere to it. It's also a POV tract. "Torture" is a very subjective term; while most if not all would consider someone being put on the rack as torture, a fast beheading probably would not be viewed the same (I certainly don't consider it "torture"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the name given to it by the UN - aspirational rather than descriptive. It's possibly not "Universal" not so much because of non-compliance, but because a small minority of countries (including Saudi Arabia) have refused to accept it. Public execution is not a breach of Art.5 because it's "torture" but because it is considered "degrading treatment". DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia should be listed as the country's legislature in the infobox. I understand that it has only Consultative powers, but it can introduce laws to the King and recommend decisions. In that sense, it has some legislative power, even though decision on whether to sign or strike down its decisions rests ultimately with the King. I know I can get in trouble for saying this, but that's far more power than the rubber-stamp legislatures of some dictatorships that I will not mention here for the sake of neutrality. The only difference: the Saudis are honest with what powers their legislature actually has. So, what do you think?--RM (Be my friend) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No it's misleading. The cabinet has the same power to propose legislation to the King: why doesn't that fulfil your definition of "legislature". A legislature must legislate. this assembly doesn't DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Check the new "Powers" section of the article Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia (I added it in). It actually has some limited function in government. In addition to its ability to propose legislation and advise the King on foreign and internal policies, it can also interpret laws already passed, review policies submitted by the King, examine annual reports referred to it by ministries and agencies, review the annual budget, and call in ministers for questioning. And I could name a few legislatures that act as rubber stamps and don't actually legislate.--RM (Be my friend) 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy with your additions except "widely considered to be a leg". You need citations for that - so I've reverted that part of your edit. If you can provide a citation - then no problem. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think, though? It is the closest thing to a real legislature the country has. There are many nations where legislatures have similar powers. For example, all laws proposed by the Parliament of Swaziland cannot be passed without the King's approval. There are numerous authoritarian states in the world where legislatures act as rubber stamps for party decisions, but this Assembly has some real, yet limited powers. My most important point is that in addition to those other tasks, it can propose and vote for laws, even though the King can veto or approve it.--RM (Be my friend) 17:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the point - it's not a rubber stamp. The King doesn't veto them. All they can do is ask the King to pass the law. As I said, no problem with "widely regarded as a legislature" if you can source it. DeCausa (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The King technically does veto it just by saying no, or he can approve it. Like I said, this body may not have full powers of a legislature, but it can be considered one due to its powers to approve laws (if the King does so as well), and interpret already passed laws. There are many other legislatures like this: For example, Swaziland is also an absolute monarchy, and all laws approved by the Parliament of Swaziland have to be approved by the King in the same way. The only main difference is the name.--RM (Be my friend) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry you are misunderstanding. What the Consultative Assembly does is ask the King to enact a law. That is different to passing a bill which is enacted unless it is vetoed. In other words, it already has a certain stus until the veto applies. For example, the President of the US has the power of veto over an Act of Congress and a bill of the UK parliament doesn't become law until it's signed by the Queen. What the consultative assembly produces isn't a law in any shape or form. It's a draft proposal for the King to consider. In fact, any Saudi citizen can do exactly the same thing. This is the important point. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change the following sentence in the "Abayah" paragraph under the "Culture" section :

" It is a black cloak which loosely covers the entire body except the head" to

"It is a black cloak which loosely covers the entire body and it is either starts from the head or the shoulders"

Also, change the following sentence in the same paragraph:

"Usually, the sleeves are decorated with stitched embroidery and different bright colors or even crystals, and the rest of the cloak is plain. Some women choose to cover their faces with a niqāb and some do not. Recently, there's a move towards Abaya colors other than black especially in the Makkah Province in the west of the Kingdom" to

" Sometimes, the sleeves are decorated with stitched embroidery and sometimes it is plain."

Please add another item after "Abayah" which is " Shelah" and its definition is " the headscarf"

After that please add other third item which is "Niqab" and in its description you can write " some women choose to cover their faces with niqab and some don't"

Thanks Purity86 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide some sources in compliance with WP:Reliable sources to verify this, thanks. DeCausa (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll add some internal WP "see also" links, at the religion section. "For pre-Islamic religious traditions, see also: Pre-Islamic Arabia, Arabian mythology, Jewish tribes of Arabia, History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia, History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula, Early centers of Christianity#Arabian Peninsula." Are there any additional WP articles to add to this? Benefac (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This section is about current demographics, not history, and those links are not particularly relevant, and there are certainly too many links in any case. I've theefore reverted. also, new sections should go at end of talk page. DeCausa (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear DeCausa, The links are certainly relevant. As currently written, the article gives the misleading impression that there was essentially no meaningful history prior to Islam, which is false. Where shall we put these links to pre-Islamic religious traditions? Under History? The only 'See also' link currently there is to the Unification of Saudi Arabia, which article doesn't begin until the 19th c. Right now the KSA article's entire pre-Islamic history is as follows: "In pre-Islamic Arabia, apart from a small number of urban trading settlements, such as Mecca and Medina, [...] most of what was to become Saudi Arabia was populated by nomadic tribal societies or uninhabitable desert." This is misleading -- we know for a fact there was a polytheistic culture for several thousand years (Thamud [Mada'in Saleh], Jurhum, ‘Aad, Tasm, Jadis, Amalek/'Amaleeq); there was a stone Christian church in Al-Jubail by the 4th century; and there were Jewish tribes which had been active there for centuries. Clearly, there should be links to WP articles on these pre-Islamic traditions, for the sake of our readers. Which of the links do you think is "too many"? Benefac (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several issues here:

• You inserted 4 "see alsos", making 7 in total. That is far too many. You would appear to be a new user: have a look around and typically the "see alsos" for a section number one, two, maybe three, rarely more than that. Don't forget that the main way to point to other articles is to wikilink words/phrases in the text. The "see alsos" should be reserved for one or two articles that are key to that section.
• The links are not relevant to the Religion sub-section because that is in the Demographics section. That's about the current population - the religious beliefs 1500 years ago are not relevant. Look at the Religion sub-sections in any country article and you will see what I mean. For instance, the religion sub-section at Greece does not discuss/refer/wikilink/"see also" to the religion and pantheon of the Ancient Greeks.
• The subject you raise is certainly relevant to the History section. However, this is an overview article and the History section is already arguably too long. (I actually wrote most of it, so I'm criticizing my own work there.) There is a question of how much should be devoted to the pre-Islamic era. I think to argue that to include much more pre-Islamic history in the history section would give it an unbalanced and undue emphasis in the context of the overall sweep of the country's history. Don't forget that the opening words wikilink to the Pre-Islamic Arabia article. I would suggest that those other articles you want links to should be linked to that article (if not already) rather than this one.
• Having said that, I would have no problem in the opening of the History section being tweaked (eg to have a reference to pre-Islamic Arabia being polytheistic with judaism and Christianity). But it really needs to be kept very very short. Remember too, that the recommended article length is around 100kb, and this is at 143kb. Take a look at the History of Saudi Arabia article. There would be more space there to expand upon the subject there.

DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not "There is no god but God: Muhammad is the Messenger of God". The truth is "There is no god but Allah: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". Drthet786 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God and should be translated as God (as this is the Engish Wikipedia). See the article on Shahada and the Wikipedia Manual of Style @ MOS:ISLAM. In any event the Saudi government translates Allah as God in the shahada, which is the source quoted for the translation in the article. DeCausa (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect again: Even though it is translated by Saudi website, God is not the right translation of Allah in English, God is equel to the Arabic word "Rabb", Allah cant be translated by any other word in any language than the word Allah itself becauase it is a proper noune like New York, Reyadh, king Fahad & Abdullah. If Fahad & Abdullah, Reyadh, Madina Monawwarah are not translated in English why they are trying to do so with the proper name of Allah. The word Allah is known to one and all by and larg, so dont worry to translate it for any one in his language. Salam Khan, Doha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaansalam (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry unsourced opinion doesn't count. MOS:ISLAM and the Saudi government are quite clear that it's translated as "God". DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes 46-53 are a laundry list of books about the country, listed in support of someone else's opinion. I'm not an apologist, it's just sloppy. Maybe someone with access to them can improve the article so we're citing experts with page numbers instead of plagiarizing tabloid sources like footnote 43.[2]

Also, can someone create an archive for this talk page? Jabrol (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, working on it. Also, added MiszaBot. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made two major revisions of this article, the first one at the end of 2010/first few months of 2011 and the second one beginning about a month ago and not yet finished: going sequentially through the sections and just completed Law. Because of the additions I've made over the last 6 months or so, the article is getting rather too long. I think the sections down to and including Law are about the right length. therefore, as I revised the rest I plan to shorten some of the sections, particularly Foreign Policy, Geography and some of Demographics (I wrote most of these sections earlier in the year). They're now disproportionately long and could do with trimming. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The following comment was copied from Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Saudi arabia (diffs: [3] [4]) by jcgoble3 (talk) at 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC).

I really think that there are many points missing in the human rights section. I worked really hard to put in order everything so could you revert your deletion, please?

We can shorter the first section, if you like but I bellieve the rest is absolutely fine. The human rights section should be long because human rights violations in Saudi Arabia are severe and even apparently injust: judging a person without a proper trial, torturing them to agree what they're suppose to admit, even they're innocent, does not sound right whatsoever.

The article reads like praising the law system while it's being challenged in Saudi Arabia, beside severe punishments, and especially outside its borders by independent international organisations, too.

Also, you may not be able to access resources because access to them may be limited in your country, possibly Saudi Arabia. One of them is Amnesty International.

I referenced my section very well, giving a reference to all major points from recognised international organisations such as AI, FH, national SA NGOs among others so I see no reason to just delete it. Please, put it back. You may shorten them but the fact that so many aspect of human activity is limited must be reflected by the article, you see, otherwise its value will be very low. --Rejedef (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

End of copied comment.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

motto translation is wrong it should there is no god but allah and muhammad is messenger of allah please change it

211.28.32.56 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – (possibly). The supporting source cited did not appear to support either translation.[5] I located another source which addressed this point, cited that, and changed the assertion to accommodate the information in that source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear why you say that the supporting source doesn't support the text. It quite clearly states ""There is no god but God: Muhammad is the Messenger of God." This is the translationyou will find in all Saudi goverment sources. I'll therefore revert to long-standing text. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My error. I think I searched without success for "motto". I should have been more thorough. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. For the benefit of the IP who made the request, please also see the Wikipedia Manual of Style which determines that Allah should be translated as God. See also the article on Shahada. DeCausa (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Literally officially in Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.105.161 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead introduces KSA as (among other things) the third-largest Arab country. Surely that must include a version of Sudan that does not exist anymore? 85.226.207.124 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4325018 This link could be added in the additional information section of the article after rights clearance. This could add valued information to the readers.Ilaila (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Construction in July 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the English in this article is fine, with an occasional small typo here and there, but occasionally it suddently descends into near gibberish, as in this selection from the "Social Issues" section:

Some historians incists that Saudi hatred to Shia Islam started when Caffer-Sadi'q banned Shias to travel for Hadj to Maekka and Madina. In this case Saudi is loosing millions and may be billions of dollars each years because of cancellation of every Shia Haj. Another reason is that Shias belive that Saudis are not even muslim. Because Gadr-Khum, which situates in eastern Saudi, is where the pr. Mohammed decleared Imam Ali as the leader after himself. Saudi bans Shias to travel to that city, also Saudi people are banned to enter to Karbala and Najaf.

Incists? Loosing? Decleared? Good grief! Somebody get a scalpel! Billcito (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation 7 is both 15 years old, and irrelevant to the statement for which it is used as citation, in my opinion. Chamberlian (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The cite in question appears to be the one currently numbered [10], not [7]; pointing to this URL. I've edited the article assertion to make it more closely track what the cited source says. I don't think the age of the cited item is necessarily relevant to its reliability here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As an American living in Saudi I must say that "requiring women to sit in separate specially designated family sections" is factually accurate but gives an incorrect slant. It is perhaps more accurate to say that single men have a special section. The family section in most restaurants is bigger and often better-decorated and served than the non-family section. It is not exclusively for women and mixed parties of women, men and children are common. In theory, if there are any men in the party then each woman must also have a male 'guardian' present (not required if the party is exclusively women and children), but in practice this is widely ignored and would only be an issue if the restaurant had not paid their 'voluntary contribution' to the Mutawa and was raided. In practical terms it is the men who are discriminated against in this case. 176.18.5.63 (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Very true. What happens in the malls is the same. You can't enter the mall if you don't have a female companion. It is very weird even to the Saudis themselves. Just to clarify a point, Family in KSA means woman. A single woman is considered a family which means she can enter the malls and the parks. In contrast to single men who are prohibited to enter most of these locations.Abrnkak (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Should that article mention that Saudi Arabia is in the continent of Asia? Joaq99 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The image of Allat has been addedVplain (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And I've taken it out. It was put in the religion section. That section is about contemporary religion not religious history. It would be better placed in History of Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Population and language section of this article contradicts itself: first it states that 5,576,076 of the 25,731,776 people in Saudi Arabia are non-nationals, and then it states that 31% of the population are non-nationals. 5.5 million is not 31% of 25.7 million. Someone should try to find out which number is (more) correct. Liam987 11:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Consultative Assembly is and was never any kind of legislature! does the several U.S. President's Advisory Council(s) count as a legislature too, no ! why should we mention it in the country infobox we dont mention advisory concils in all country infoboxes so there is no reason to include it here either, and i was not "edit warring" did not break 3RR or somehow show any intent to edit war as per edit war policy 67.212.88.26 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't just three reverts: see WP:EW. The point is several editors have deleted the current infobox legislature info, which says that there is no legislature (and by the way I put that in), to make a reference to the Consultative Assembly. That is, of course, incorrect. However, the last time it happened I acquiesced in a foot note about the consultative assembly going in so that it would stop happening for the future. Equally, this applies to readers, who may have heard of the Consultative Assembly and query what its status is as a legislature. In short, the footnote provides information, which is what WP is here for. It clearly states there is no legislature but it explains that the Consultative Assembly, which may be mistaken for a legislature (because it is elected and uses legislature-type procedures, language etc), is merely advisory. Why do you want to prevent this information being displayed? DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And I've just seen that you've reverted again. yes, you are edit warring. There is nothing wrong with a bold edit but per WP:BRD once you are reverted you should not revert again but take it to the tal page instead. I suggest you self-revert. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This action concerned some of the ulema and students of sharia law and was one of the issues that led to an increase in Islamic terrorism in Saudi Arabia, as well as Islamic terrorist attacks in Western countries by Saudi nationals – the 9/11 attacks in New York being the most prominent example.[44] But also many Saudis who did not necessarily support the Islamist terrorists were deeply unhappy with the government stance.[

Until someone comes up with a "non-laughable" explanation for why WTC7 fell down, an "inside job" is the only valid assumption. This being so, no references should be made to "9/11 attacks". If was an obvious false flag and Saudis were not involved.

WithGLEE (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your personal feelings and opinions re: that particular conspiracy theory : 1) are in contradiction with established consensus on this page and other pages related to 9/11, 2) do not constitute reputable sources on which such a change would be made, and 3) fall under WP:FRINGE.204.65.34.171 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition. It is copied from [6], but originates from US Gov source, and thus is Ok copyright wise, but it is too long for this article; perhaps a brief summary may be included. Materialscientist (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - far too long. There's a shorter version of it (same source presumably) in Islam in Saudi Arabia. I had thought that there was a paragraph on the Hajj in the article somewhere but surprised to find that there isn't. Probably warrants 3 or 4 lines either under Religion or Culture. If I have time in the next few days I'll have a go (unless someone else does). DeCausa (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Made change to lede which by virtue of use of "although" as conjunction instead of "and" implied that the Saudi monarchy's absolutism was at odds with Islam. This is the opposite of the actual fact historical and otherwise, constructions such as "islamic republic" are the result of Western impact on those societies, there is no implicit contradiction such as "although" implies between the Saudi regime and Islam. It's true there is a strong egalitarian thread in Islam but this is besides the point of the kind of actual societies, governments, etc. that are observed. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have add the following on the article since the nature of the incident is very inhumane and the following content is vital to explain the whole scenario.

---

The European Union expressed dismay that Saudi Arabia had beheaded a young Sri Lankan domestic helper convicted of murdering her employer's baby, despite repeated appeals for a stay of execution. Human rights groups said Rizana Nafeek was 17 at the time of the offense and that Saudi Arabia was one of just three countries in the world to impose the death penalty for crimes committed as a minor.^[2]UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United Nations independent experts and the world body’s human rights office voiced their dismay over the execution of Rizana Nafeek. Rupert Colville, a spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told in Geneva, "We are deeply troubled by reports of irregularities in her detention and trial, including that no lawyer was present to assist her in key stages of her interrogation and trial, that language interpretation was poor, and Ms. Nafeek’s contention that she was physically assaulted and forced to sign a confession under duress,". The Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan Méndez, noted that during the appeal of the case, the defence submitted that Ms. Nafeek was beaten and made to sign a confession under duress. "Her execution is clearly contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture," he said.^[3]

---

Since Saudi Arabia is not heeded to listen to the world, the content should be included on the main article itself on the human rights section.

Please discuss before you remove the content.Sudar123 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, please read WP:SOAPBOX. It is specifically contrary to Wikipedia policy to use Wikipedia as a basis for advocacy - which is what you are admitting doing: "Since Saudi Arabia is not heeded to listen to the world, the content should be included". Secondly, please read WP:CONSENSUS. In order to change an article you need consensus support to do so. At the moment you don't have that support. It's for you, as the one that wants to change the article to gather that consensus support. Policy requires that the article stay unchanged until you do so. So far no one has supported you and I object to what you have done. This is reflected in the well-established process of WP:BRD: B - you made a bold edit. R- you were reverted. D - you shouldn't revert to your edit, instead you should Discuss in order to gather support. Thirdly, your edit puts far too much detail about one case into a country article. You need to find a place fo it in one of the specialist articles. I'm reverting back to the consensus version. If you revert again you will be edit warring and you can expect that sanctions will follow if you persist. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to use Saudi Arabia as WP:SOAPBOX. Though I said on the Talk:Saudi Arabia that "Since Saudi Arabia is not heeded to listen to the world, the content should be included", I am not advocating anything but try to explain widely practising inhumane treatment on Foreign Workers though they are Minors and Women in General in Saudi Arabia and their archaic and biased judicial process and the execution methods. I don't think the content should be placed elsewhere; it doesn't represent one case but the untold incidents of many in Saudi Arabia.Sudar123 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that you seem to resort to a threat of "sanctions" towards another user whose opinion you don't share, and whom you encounter here for the first time. I see you have removed his edits, apparently so without any intent to put something more fitting in their place as there is now no mention whatsoever of either the case or it many implications, social, legal and with respect to Saudi Arabaia's international relations. Wefa (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you've inserted your post in a random out-of-sequence way in this thread. I suggest you transpose it (and my response) to a normal positioning at the end of the thread. Secondly, I did not remove the edits so there is no mention of the case. Another editor did that. Thirdly, the reference to sanctions is not in connection with "an opinion you don't share" but because the editor in question was failing to follow WP policy, and indeed the editor was subsequently indefinitely blocked for failing to follow WP policy (for sundry breaches that were nothing to do with this article). As can be seen from the consensus here, and also you may wish to check a similar consensus at AN/I, that was the general opinion. Fourthly consensus is that this case does not warrant mention in this country article but does warrant mention in Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. Hope that's clear. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• A mention of how they treat migrant workers may be worth a mention (perhaps, at most, two sentences). However, this individual case is far from the only one. A couple English sources:

1. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/06/30/another-indonesian-maid-dies-s-arabia.html
2. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/06/20/ruyati-beheading-a-blow-sby%E2%80%99s-claims.html (this one was beheaded)
3. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/12/22/poor-protection-blamed-repeated-abuses-migrant-workers.html
4. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/07/08/govt-tries-save-280-indonesians-death-row.html (includes Malaysia)

As I mentioned at AN/I, a migrant workers in Saudi Arabia article may be worth having — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate for this page. A better choice would be Human rights in Saudi Arabia, though that would be subject to consensus since that article does not discuss individual cases. Zero^talk 06:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Migrant workers in Saudi Arabia is a very good idea, and, now it's been mentioned, is a pretty obvious omission from the series of articles on Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can contribute sources from an Indonesian perspective. If someone can read Arabic, that would be a blessing... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Might be better to use a broader title such as Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. I think by the term "migrant workers" people have in mind mainly the temporary workforce of (often badly treated) domestics etc from south and south east Asia. But, of course, non-Saudi Arabs, middle managers/clerks from the Indian sub-continent and Western expats/executives are "migrant" workers too. I think it may be too subjective to make any distinctions in terms of the scope of the article. Unless anyone disagrees with that, I'll try to get the ball rolling in the next day or so with the first stab at an article (or as a sandbox link here.) DeCausa (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the article is created at "foreign workers", I think the migrant workers topic may be worth its own section. As for content, Khazar2 said he's interested in helping too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Foreign workers" sounds like a good title to me per DeCausa, with a subsection particularly focused on migrant workers. Would be a useful addition--I've got a lot of irons in the fire but would be glad to pitch in at least some. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• If nobody's started it yet, tonight when I come home I'll give it a shot with what sources I have available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, I've started the article. It's a bit outside my comfort zone, but I'll do what I can. Somebody'll need to flesh out the bit about skilled labourers, haven't found any sources on that yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted a series of bold edits that were made today to the History section, per WP:BRD as I believe they are, on the whole, not an improvement and require discussion. I think some aspects may be an improve, but the edits amount to such a significant change, it is difficult to pick them out without reverting all the edits.

My reasons for this view are are:

• The general direction is to reduce the modern section and expand the earlier history - with additions to "Ancient history" and tags seeking expansion of the earlier sub-sections. I think, if implemented, would result in imbalance. Firstly, this is a country article and the country is Saudi Arabia, which came into being in 1932 (albeit with Al Saud antecedants). The main focus should be to provide an account of that countries history. Of course, the earlier period can't and shouldn't be excluded but the earlier period is essentially background to the history of the state. Secondly, and probably the bigger point, is that expanding the earlier periods ignores the inherent balance of the historical significance of Arabia at different times, the balance of notable events and developments at different times and the balance of the published literature covering the different periods. One of the edit summaries says "90% of the history section is about the 20th century". There's a reason for that. As the lead to the History of Saudi Arabia notes: there were two times in history when the region was of global significance: a few decades in the 7th century and since the mid 20th century. For other periods, there is, in fact, little published history - that is, for example, in comparison to other regions of the world and in comparison to modern Saudi history. With the exception of the decades following 632 and the 20th century it was largely a backwater. The article reflected this, and the bold edits (including the requests for expansion) would be an unbalanced representation of the sources and of the flow of history. Thirdly, this is only a country article summary and it's already quite long. Expanding the earlier periods would make the totality too long.

• Some of the headings are unjustified and misleading, and some of the pic changes are not an improvement As it is a country history there should be a clear indication of state and pre-state history. That has been lost. Not having a pic of Ibn Saud, given the primary role he had in 20th century Saudi is strange. The early history titles and the Thalmud pic gives too much emphasis to the early period. The "Rise of Islamism" I think has some NPOV concerns as a categorisation of the whole period. There were other major issues during the period concerned.

• The transfer of some paragraphs from the politics section is inappropriate as they are key aspects for understanding the current polity. obviously, there's a fine line between what goes into the most recent history sections and what goes into politics, but I think this is over that line.

As I say above, I think some of the changes may have value, and I'm not meaning to be obstructive. But I do think the edits should be now discussed case-by-case. DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I restored the changes I made to the article, with the exception of those to the history section. I agree that it's a good idea to discuss the changes you find objectionable on talk first.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As for your first reason, that Saudi Arabia was only founded in the 20th century, so was Turkey and several other countries, but the previous periods in their history are still discussed at length normally. I agree that since the Arabian peninsula was something of a backwater the end result would still be unbalanced in favour of the more recent history, but I believe it should be something like 50% about the pre-Saudi history and 50% about the rest. Now there is only a single sentence about the pre-Islamic history, I had added something about the ancient period but it's lost in the current revision.

The changes to the headings and pictures can be discussed, but I believe that currently the section is poorly illustrated. I felt that the ikhwan, the first oil well and Juhayman could be good choices to start with. Of course, Ibn Saud played a vital role in Saudi history, but his picture doesn't refer to, or highlights, any historical event in particular. It only shows what he looked like. I think the pictures should show momentous event that changed the country's history, instead of showing individual rulers.

As for the last point, I still believe that the 2011 protests should be included in history rather than politics, and I kept the paragraph there in the last revision. I think that was the only part I moved from politics from history.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the revert constructively. I'll respond on the historical balance later today, as I don't have much time right now. On my last bullet point, apologies I had got got confused as to where you had moved some of the politics section paragraphs - thought more had gone into the history section, so strike that. On the pics, it's not so much what you adde (the Ikhwan and the oil well are good pics) but what you took out. I think the Ottoman map is useful because in practice it's showing the position over much of a 400 year period. The modern map is the only map of the current state in the article. As far as Abdul Aziz is concerned, I take your point but I still think that it's difficult for a country article on Saudi Arabia not to have a pic of him in it. Is it conceivable for France not to have a pic of Napoleon or Germany not to have one of Hitler? (I mean by that the comparison is the dominating impact of the individual). He even named the country after himself effectively! DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, I do think there was too much on the last few years - probably too much on the protests and the human rights issues for a history survey. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

On the question of chronological balance, I think the balance in the main general histories of the country would be a guide. AFAIK, the main ones are:

• Al-Rasheed, Madawi (2010). A History of Saudi Arabia. ISBN 978-0-521-74754-7.
• Watson, Mark (2008). Prophets and princes: Saudi Arabia from Muhammad to the present. ISBN 978-0-470-18257-4.
• Vassiliev, Alexei (2000). The History of Saudi Arabia. ISBN 978-0814788097.

al-Rasheed starts in the mid-18th century, and devotes only 22 pages out of 277 to the pre-1900 period. Watson out of about 560 pages gives 70 pages to the 7th century, 40 pages from then to 1900 and 450 post-1900. I don't have access to Vasiliev at the moment. From memory, however, it was something similar to al-rasheed. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Every mention of Islam in this article should be change to 'Wahhabi' or 'Salafi' which is what Saudi Barbaria practices. Wahhabism/Salafism (both interchangeable terms for the same primitive ideology) is a savage cult created by a fanatic called AbdulWahab about 200 years and its 'beliefs' are offensive to millions of Muslims around the world. The Saudi regime just beheaded a poor Sri Lankan Muslim CHILD on the most flimsiest accusations. Stop calling Saudi Barbaria 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' because they are not! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.83.93 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:POV/WP:OR/WP:SOAPBOX. There's plenty of sources to demonstrate that Wahabbism is a form of Sunni Islam. See the Wahabbi and Salafi articles. DeCausa (talk)#

This article says that "Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam". Not true. Saudi Arabia did not exist 100 years ago, let alone 1000. It is wiki policy to talk about historical periods using historical names. Rather than reverting my edits, good faith editing would be to further improve them. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your edit was unconnected with the point you just made, and it made no sense. Your text was "Saudi Arabia is situated around the birthplace of Islam" as though the "birthplace of Islam" was an enclave outside of, and surrounded by, Saudi Arabia. "good faith editing would be to further improve them". Sorry, no, the edit made no improvement whatsoever and was ill-conceived nonsense. Secondly, your above point is false pedantry. "Saudi Arabia" is a state and is now a geographic expression. We could use the clunky phrase "the territory that was to become Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam". But what's the point? It's clear from the article when Islam came about, it's clear when Saudi Arabia was founded. There is no confusion except in your head. It's a standard convention you'll see in any article to refer to the territory of the state prior to its foundation by the shorthand of the name of the state e.g. "These sites suggest that various hominid species existed in South Africa from about three million years ago starting with Australopithecus africanus". oh and now I see you've just deleted it altogether. You need to read WP:BRD. This explains how editing works here. If you make a change and you get reverted, you don't just keep on going reverting until you get your way. That's called edit-warring and you get blocked for that. You take it to the Talk page and you wait until you get consensus agreement to what you want to do. DeCausa (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The following is stated at the start of a paragraph on human rights in Saudi Arabia:

However, "ordinary Saudis", according to a BBC report, support the system and say that it maintains a low crime rate.

This doesn't mean anything. Zero explanation in the quote (or cited article) as to what constitutes "Ordinary Saudis" or how the reporter ascertained their contentment with the state of human rights in the country. No poll or actual research seems evident in deriving this conclusion. No facts at all are cited in the article to qualify it. It's basically some lazy journalist making an unqualified statement about "Ordinary Saudis" and doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. The statement is basically meaningless and should be deleted as it seems to whitewash a rather abysmal human rights situation. Presumably at least a few of the women suffering under this regime qualify as "Ordinary Saudis"? I'm going to go head and delete the citation and sentence if there is no issue here. 108.29.119.82 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. The BBC is a highly reputable reporting source, and qualifies as RS for this. It's purely your personal POV that it's "some lazy journalist" and that it's "to whitewash a rather abysmal human rights situation". If you have reliable sources that contradict the BBC piece indicating that "ordinary" or "most" Saudis have a different view, please suggest them so they can be considered and incorporated in the article. WP simply reflects what reliable sources say, not what the gut instinct of editors feel must be the "truth". DeCausa (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a quick question about this. What is the difference between the usage of the term "ordinary Saudis" and a weasel word? While I don't have any particular stake in whether or not the claim itself is true, I have taken quite a drubbing in the past for usage of such language (ie "many scientists assert" or "most historians conclude") without immediately qualifying it with a reference to a specific person who makes this assertion. Am I misunderstanding the weasel word thing now or in the past? DrPhen (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in WP:WEASEL: "However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves". The phrase in question is in quotes with direct attribution to the BBc, a reliable source. DeCausa (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I much appreciate your time and assistance! DrPhen (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A person who's actually from Saudi Arabia would laugh at the inaccuracies in this article. Why don't you talk to somebody who actually lives there instead of getting your information from textbooks that are 30-40 years old? ... "Huh? What does he mean? And why didn't he sign with the tildes?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.101.116 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And your point is...? 202.84.23.99 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was reading the article about Saudi Arabia, and checked the source (255) following the statement, "Female literacy is estimated to be 90% whereas male literacy is estimated to be lower." I don't want to seem like a woman-hater, because I understand the oppression of women must suck over there, but the source stated the opposite of what was written the article. It says the literacy rate is 99% among boys 15-24, and 97% for girl of that same age. In comparing the genders, it states that women are 90% literate in comparison to men. I'm under the impression a feminist wrote this article and misinterpreted the information as something that would support her bias. The living conditions of women in Saudi Arabia need to improve, but pretending that women are more literate isn't doing them any favours. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.214.106 (talk • contribs)

The adult female literacy rate in the source is indeed a percentage of the male literacy rate. Good catch! The only problem is the other literacy rates are youth literacy instead of adult. There don't appear to be any plain adult literacy percentages. AVAAGAA↪ 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The World Factbook source provides separate male and female literacy percentages which might help this section.

"total population: 86.6% male: 90.4% female: 81.3% (2010 est.)"

The area that uses this source for literacy rates also has outdated percentages.

"Girls are able to attend school. This disproportion is reflected in the rate of literacy, which exceeds 85% among males and is about 70% among females"

I'll make an edit request soon. AVAAGAA↪ 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Literacy percentage for women in the women section is 90% in the article, which is the percentage of the literacy rate of women when compared to the literacy rate of men in the source (women literacy rate / men literacy rate as a percentage).

Female literacy is estimated to be 90% whereas male literacy is estimated to be lower.

Another source does actually provide the female literacy rate, which could be used for the women section. Also, the section that uses this source, education has literacy rates that don't match the source. They're probably outdated. AVAAGAA↪ 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed the edit request. The page page is not protected, so any interested editor can make the change as long as it is supported by reliable sources RudolfRed (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is highly unlikely that the Rohingya people (an ethnic group from South/South East Asia; mainly Myanmar) can be in the number of around 400,000 in Saudi Arabia when there are only over 1.5 million people worldwide (out of which 800,000 reside in Myanmar itself & 300,000 in Bangladesh). I live in Saudi Arabia and personally haven't even met one Rohingya person. While Bangla/Bengalis exist in hundreds of thousands. Ethnologue gives just 15,000 as their population when one probably can spot 15,000 living on one side of Hara st. (Riyadh) itself! It completely ignores Malayalam (over 650,000 Malayalees reside in KSA) and Hindi (numerous speakers). Pashto is another major community that exists here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun.kandanat (talk • contribs) 11:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The article stated that the death penalty can be given to drug USERS; perhaps this should be drug DEALERS; and the drugs need to be specified, for example, smoking is not punishable in Saudi Arabia.

Have you read the source? It says repeated drug use (not dealers) are punished in this way. Also, no one is going to interpret the phrase "drug use" as including smoking. DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

By now it's gotta be pretty close to B-class, no? Seems very comprehensive, with few sourcing issues, well-illustrated, etc. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The article does not currently display the Gini coefficient of Saudi Arabia on the sidebar (0.737 according to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.113.83 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Saudi Arabia#Largest cities there is a banner about Obamacare, which I cannot find in the source for the page. Clearly, such advertisements does not belong in the article (or anywhere on WP). Can someone remove it? Tobsan (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was probably just an internet troll. Norum 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I recently read this supposedly secret but authentic interview, which claims that they are abductions of foreign nationals, females, who are placed in harems in Saudia Arabia. I have no idea how much truth there is in this. Bearing in mind women's rights and the possibility of dissapearing in Saudia Arabia, as well as the cases of women kidnapped to more secular nations in the middle east were the laws disfavor women, this need not be a prejudice case of islamophobia and anti-islamic sentiment and it would be ignorant to consider it so, because indeed, who can know? There is after all an historical background of non-muslim females kidnapped to slavery to harems, and the story bears similar features to the non-muslin females kidnapped from Africa and Europe to the harems during the early modern era. If this is confirmed, it truly deserves a place in the article: [7]--Aciram (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a blog, not a reliable source and can't be used. If this is reported in a reliable source it might deserve a sentence but this is an article – a survey – on a whole country and shouldn't be expected to highlight every social ill that it may have (WP:UNDUE). There may be other articles where it is better placed.DeCausa (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That is true: I looked in to it more carefully and could not find any reliable source for those statements. It may very well be some hoax after all. If any reliable reference ever appear, then I would argue that it should be included, but as it is now, there does not seem to be any. --Aciram (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As a Westerner who has lived in Saudi for the last 30 years I can confirm this article is amazingly outdated.

Women are not required to cover their hair. Only Muslim women are expected to do so. Most non- Muslims do not. In liberal cities like Jeddah, even a few Muslim women do not.

The description of clothing sounds more like traditional tribal dress. Coins on women's clothing and camel hair cloaks on men? Perhaps at folk festivals.

The picture of the woman in the article is typical of some areas. A tight silk abaya, bright red lipstick, Prada sunglasses and high heels are more usual for the young urban housewife.

I could go on. The whole thing needs rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.233.36 (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that "Wahhabism" is considered derogatory and offensive by practitioners, who prefer the term "Salafism" which as I understand is a synonym for the same Islamic ideology. I recommend replacing all instances of Wahhabism ow Wahhabi with Salafism and Salafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.211.47 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

41.249.184.83 (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Motto: لا إله إلا الله، محمد رسول الله "Lā ʾilāha ʾillā l–lāh, Muḥammadur rasūlu l–lāh" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.129.2 (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the SAMIRAD website (www.saudif.com) to the list of External Sources. This website contains almost 1,000 pages of detailed information on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Paulgeorgiou (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Www.saudif.com is empty. Sam ^Sing! 10:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the "established" year from 1932 to the correct of 1930. Today is the 84th birthday of Saudi Arabia. You can confirm this with ANY Saudi. Mamirhi (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't work on the basis of personal knowledge so it wouldn't do any good to ask any Saudi. Can you provide a reliable source to support 1930? The article cites sources to say that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was created by royal decree dated 23 September 1932. DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change 1932 to 1930. Mamirhi (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Answered above. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

78.175.104.191 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please replace the sentence in the third paragraph "The kingdom is characterized as a developed country while ranking very high on human development index, politically[...]"

with

"The kingdom is characterized as a developed country; ranking 34th on the human development index (HDI) [^[4]], while never being listed on the inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI) [^[5]] due to 'missing data'. Politically[...]"

This edit improves accuracy and corrects positive bias to a neutral stance. "Ranking very high" is different than "ranking 34th", and the missing data for the IHDI tells its own story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.159.111 (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In most articles on countries, Religion is in the demographics section. But in Saudi Arabia, religion in very much a part of culture and society and I propose moving (most of) it to the Culture section.
Examples:
Shia minority face systematic discrimination from the Saudi government',
"freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice"
Conversion by Muslims to another religion (apostasy) carries the death penalty,
etc.

These are social issues, not demographic issues. The population numbers and percentages can stay in the demographic section --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add something more specific about Saudi media, especially TV. Links to Saudi channels would be appreciated (example: http://www.arabisch.tv/tv/saudi-arabia/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.22.152 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find evidence backing up the claim Saudi Arabia has the highest percentage of military expenditure in the world, spending more than 10% of its GDP in its military.

My research has shown this to be incorrect (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc)

Please can you adjust the article accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.30.176 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor 192.43.227.18 has repeatedly put the following into the article.

Saudi Arabia also conducts dozens of executions each year, mainly for murder and drug smuggling, although there are people who have been executed for deserting Islam and crimes against the state. The method of execution is normally Public Beheading.

Problems with this;

• "Saudi Arabia also conducts dozens of executions each year, mainly for murder and drug smuggling" - Where is the cite to validate that the executions are mainly for murder and drug smuggling? It is not enough simply to argue that "beheadings happen".
• "although there are people who have been executed for deserting Islam and crimes against the state" - cite to support this?
• "The method of execution is normally Public Beheading." - Is it? Cite?

I have removed this until the 192.43.227.18 cites it. Please remember that it is their responsibility to make sure it is possible to verify content they are adding.

I'd also ask that 192.43.227.18 refrains for insulting others in their edit summaries. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There exists a very significant population of Malayali people (Keralite) who are Indian citizens. Apart from the state of Kerala, the most significant population of this ethnicity exists in the United Arab Emirates (747,440) and in Saudi Arabia (623,624). The massive population of over 600,000 Malayalam speakers almost puts them on par with the Filipino population. Also there is no mention of Bengali speakers (over 500,000) and Pashtun people who speak Pashto (a very significant population).

There are not many Pashtuns in KSA or any of the gulf arab states. This is huge misconception with not proper census to prove at all. Many of the Pakistani migrants are of Punjabi or Mojhar descent. Akmal94 (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)