Jump to content

Talk:History of Saudi Arabia

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

Princesses

[edit]

I learned that Saudi Arabia was founded by someone forcibly conquering smaller political entities one-by-one. As he went along, he would conquer a place and marry the ruling family's princess. He could have 4 wives at a time, then get rid of one to make room for the next one until the entire kingdom was unified. Anyone know if this is true? --Jon in California 23 June 2007

Well that's an over-simplified account, but it's essentially true, at least in Nejd and the eastern province. Slacker 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Some aspects of this place are POV. I suggest someone takes a look at it. I have no time right now.

I'm modifying the multiple references to the "Iraqi war machine" to Iraqi military.


"Contrary to popular belief expenditure in defence doesn't boost long-term GDP growth (The Broken Window Fallacy)."

This is clearly not an NPOV statement, even replacing "parable" with "fallacy"

Although I concur, I think this article needs to be completely revamped. If you find something to fix, fix it. - Eagleamn 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What was the UK's role w.r.t. what is now Saudi Arabia?

[edit]

"By the Treaty of Jedda, signed on May 20, 1927, the United Kingdom recognized the independence of Abdul Aziz's realm (then known as the Kingdom of Hijaz and Nejd)."

Independence from what, exactly?

I can't find anything else in this article which describes the UK's former influence (or otherwise?) over what is now Saudi Arabia. 217.155.20.163 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; A slight bit more info can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud but it would provide context for the treaty with the brits Mulp 05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Captain_William_Shakespear and Battle_of_Jarrab, but yes I agree, could use a bit more info. The British influence perhaps even merits its own article as it was extensive and complex. Mrhawley 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing History Period

[edit]

I think there is a long period missing here the first or second states of Al-Saud.

I agree. What happened between the first and second, and the second and third, Saudi reigns? KHarbaugh 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read more in First Saudi State , and Second Saudi State articles , between the first and second states , Ottomans have restored control of Hejaz while other areas been controled by local Tribes , between second and present states , Rashidis have taken control of most Arabia while Hejaz taken by Sharifs in battles with Ottomans while Arab Revolt. Ammar 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Wars?

[edit]

What happened during the Wars? What about the KSA's relationship with FDR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labodeng (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing borders of Saudi arabia

[edit]

Copied from Talk:Geography of Saudi Arabia:

The article does not really cover the changes that took place in the course of 20th century. I think some historical maps can be found on the internet: for example, a German 'dead-tree' lexicon of 1971 shows rather different borders with (South-)Yemen and with Qatar/UAE (UAE still a neighbour of Qatar at that time). See also [1]. --Miacek (t) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that map [2] also shows the UAE sharing a border with Qatar, i.e. it's obsolete. --Miacek (t) 11:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC

Hasan al Basari was not the founder of sufism. Hasan al Basari was a reputable orthodox Sunnah Scholar upon the way of the first Muslims. (I can't find the wiggly lines to sign with)

International recognition

[edit]

My primary question is, did the Great Powers recognise the First Saudi State, the Second Saudi State and the Emirate of Al Rashid? This should be clearly identified with a source added to this page as well as to the individual pages for those former states. The Emirate of Al Rashid should have its own page on Wikipedia and as of today it does not; there is only a page about the House of Al Rashid as there is one for the House of Saudi. Vadac (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azizfdr.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Azizfdr.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 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) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of History of the Arabian Peninsula

[edit]

I think the "Early history", "The Rise of Islam", and "The Middle Ages" sections can be moved/merged to History of the Arabian Peninsula, we don't need to turn this article into a duplicate History of Arabia. All this article needs a a hatnote pointing readers to "History the Arabian Peninsula" for pre-Ottoman history, Saudi Arabia is basically Arabia minus the southern cost anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree for these reasons:
  • Almost all country history articles go back to the period prior to the formation of the state. Why would Saudi Arabia be any different?
  • This article picks out the part of the history that is relevant to Saudi territory only. "Arabia" and "Saudi Arabia" are different. "the South coast" actually covers quite a bit of history that's not relevant to Saudi territory. You have to remember that "the south coast" i.e Oman and the gulf states was a populous area with a relatively eventful history so it wouldn't be peripheral to Saudi history in the period, in fact it would probably be the dominant part of the history.
  • History the Arabian Peninsula doesn't exist so what's the duplcaton? DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a typo, it was supposed to be "History of the Arabian Peninsula". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not an article that's a redirect to Arabian Peninsula. There's still no "History of the Arabian Peninsula" article. DeCausa (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, quite a bit of material in History of Oman and some in History of Qatar and History of United Arab Emirates (History of Kuwait?) would have to be similarly carved out. Then all of this material would be obscured for those readers that wanted to trace the early history of one of these countries - the putative "History of the Arabian Peninsula" article would have to repetitively point out which modern countries are being discussed for those readers that wanted to know what was the early history of Oman, Saudi etc. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me, SA history would seem to be sufficiently distent to warrant a separate enough topic to warrant some duplication, because of the shear importance of those excluded regions. Still allot of the content here should probably be copied to History of the Arabian Peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the massive corruption of the Saud family and the continued brutality of their regime? Neutron230 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 edit dispute

[edit]

Revirvlkodlaku, I don't really mind that you deleted my short inclusion of new data into the "History of Saudi Arabia (Spread of Islam section)". I won't undo it.

But I was just wondering who considers what is relevant or what "edits do not improve the article". To me this line in the same subsection -> "Nevertheless, Mecca and Medina remained the spiritually most important places in the Muslim world. The Quran requires every able-bodied Muslim who can afford it, as one of the five pillars of Islam, to make a pilgrimage, or Hajj, to Mecca during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah, at least once in his or her lifetime." seems like an edit that does not improve the article. Can I then remove it?

I find all of this to be very subjective, what is to one person "improving upon an article" is not to the other. Makes me wonder who has exclusive rights to what is and what should not be included into an article.

Isn't adding into an article good? As long as its not too long and cited well? It makes me feel like some editors are not open to new information eventhough its cited well and is relevant (well atleast I feel its relevant but others don't). Danial Bass (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Bass, you are right, there is a degree of subjectivity inherent to every Wikipedia article. After all, it isn't a bulleted list of points with references, there is some amount of prose inserted into each page, for the sake of legibility. You can remove whatever you deem unnecessary or inappropriate, but you may get challenged on that by other editors; this is simply how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as "exclusive rights" on this platform, that's just a silly conjecture.
Adding content to an article isn't intrinsically good, no. Adding useful content is definitely good, but there is the rub of the issue: what does the community consider to be useful content, as opposed to unnecessary filler, or perhaps even sub-par material? What caught my eye about your edit was that it included a typo, which can sometimes be a red flag, because it can indicate sloppy editing, which is itself a telltale sign of disruptive editing. I'm not accusing you of any of that, by the way, just explaining my reasoning process. The reference you provided isn't searchable, so I can't verify that the content you added is accurate. Tell me, why do you deem the short addition you made to be an improvement to the article? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all as you mentioned I was "spamming", I apologise for "spamming" i wanted to re-edit my message and I'm still unsure how to re-edit it as I'm new on this. I didn't notice it caused multiple messages to you, so I'm sorry for that. Secondly, I wouldn't call this a "dispute", I'm not here to argue with you nor do I want to challenge your revert (tbh I'm not very involved in this and you can do as you like), the reason why I asked in your talk page is because I wanted to know how these sort of things (the question I asked) work since you said you can provide a helping hand in you page.
Also I didn't say there was "exclusive rights" here (I know there isn't), just speaking symbolically. Also, I said adding into an article is good if its cited well and if its relevant. The short addition is an improvement to me because it is one small part of the history of Saudi Arabia. Again, I don't dispute if you don't agree with me and I'm fine to leave it as such, this really isn't a dispute. Its searchable here -> Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World : James E. Lindsay : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. But forget about it, I don't really mind Danial Bass (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, what was the typo? I looked back and couldn't find it Danial Bass (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Danial Bass, it appears that you have been editing Wikipedia since 2015. Seven years is not exactly "being new to this", is it?
Hopefully my explanation clarified some of the areas you were curious about. Let me know if you would like to discuss it further.
As for the typo, here it is: "Islamic historical sources explains" Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I am new to this. I edited 2 pages in 2015 and 2016, very minor edits. I didn't edit anything again until 2020-2021 where I did only minor edits and only a handful of articles. And when I say "new" I meant replying to a user's talk page. So I definitely am new to that. No further discussions is needed and yes you did clarify things Danial Bass (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Revolt

[edit]

The timeline gives the impression, the Ottomans were colonizing. When in fact the British ledca revolt for cessation against the khilafa. This tyoe of artficisl neo-nationalistic aka semi-apartheid ideology is the ruling ideology. As msny in Saudi were granted citizenship in the 20's to 40's from various geographical areas. 2001:8F8:1E35:3291:766F:10CE:4DC6:CDC9 (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide references to support the claims you are making? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1242671798"