Jump to content

Talk:Saudi Arabia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Hafr Al-Batin human rights case

I have added a short reference to this case [1]. Cpsoper (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

182.178.226.178 (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Empty request. Deli nk (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

94.201.93.50 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Hi,

Please change this,

Motto: لا إله إلا الله، محمد رسول الله "Lā ʾilāha ʾillāl–lāh, Muhammadun rasūl allāh" "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God."[1][a] (Shahada)

TO THIS.

Motto: لا إله إلا الله، محمد رسول الله "Lā ʾilāha ʾillāl–lāh, Muhammadun rasūl allāh" "There is no god but ALLAH; Muhammad is the messenger of God."[1][a] (Shahada)

Thank you very much, this fits perfectly for the motto of saudi Arabia.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Since I can't verify this is a correct translation, a source that says that: A) This is the right translation and, B) This is the official motto of Saudi Arabia. Thanks. Kharkiv07Talk 14:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Child abuse

The paragraph cites two sources, both of which are far from popular or recognized publications. The sources themselves refer to some "two researches" but never give neither their titles, nor authors, nor any information whatsoever. So basically this is "a friend of a friend of a cousin says Saudia Arabia is bad". You can't publish such gruesome statistics without proper sourcing! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

WP says that articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."; see WP:IRS. WP does not discount information from sources which are considered reliable for a topic but which do not disclose their own sources. If you disagree with that, the place to discuss it is Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, not here.
I couldn't find any mention of "two researches" in the article. I see that the lead paragraph of the Child abuse subsection currently has two cites in it, so I'm guessing that you are taking specific issue with that particular paragraph. Looking back, I see that here] You've added a {{Fringe-section}} tag there. I've attempted to improve that tag by pointing the discuss link to this talk page section (previewing my edit, I see that that doesn't seem to have any effect, but I've made it anyhow IAW thee template docs). I've also removed a couple of {{POV-statement}} tags you added. Those tags were attached to two statements which said"
  1. "According to a study conducted by Dr. Nura Al-Suwaiyan, director of the family safety program at the National Guard Hospital, one in four children are abused in Saudi Arabia."
  2. "The National Society for Human Rights reports that almost 45% of the country's children are facing some sort of abuse and domestic violence."
You appear not to have issues with the assertions quoted above (i.e., "Source X, cited here, says Y"); you seem to disagree with assertions made in the sources cited. If other sources dispute these assertions by cited sources, see WP:DUE for WP policy concerning how that should be handled. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud! You tried to "improve" the tags that already WERE pointing to this discussion. That's how those POV tags work. As for the sources and their validity... well, if you want to believe in BS, be my guest. I was just passing by. 15% of children are sexually molested in Saudi Arabia. 25% (!!!) of children are sexually molested in the USA. You think those are true objective numbers, that reflect the real picture? I don't have time for long discussions with people who have too much spare time. Wikipedia has long stopped being a reliable source of information for anyone except schoolchildren scribbling a project the night before it's due. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
When you instruct me above on your misperceptions about what I believe, you get it wrong. I don't have any POV beliefs re the points here, it's just that this article has gotten onto my watchlist and I saw what looked like a flouting of WP:DUE and tried to correct that in passing. I stand by my reasoning as I explained it.
Thanks for reminding me about the tags, though. The problem I spoke of was with the tag which had said {{Fringe-section}} and which I changed to read {{Fringe-section|1=Child abuse|date=May 2015}}. According to the template docs, that change should have made the link to the talk page in the hatnote point to this talk page section rather than to the top of this talk page, and it did not. That appears to stem from a problem in the template. I am attempting to get that corrected. See Template talk:Fringe-section#Problem with parameter 1 for info on that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"SA"

The usage and primary topic of SA is under discussion, see Talk:Sturmabteilung -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"SA" and "S.A."

The usage and topic of S.A. and SA are under discussion, see talk:S.A. (corporation) and talk:S.A. for the multiple discussions. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Reality Check

Apparently in Saudi Arabia, renouncing, converting, or criticizing your religion when you are a Muslim is a most serious crime, basically making this country nothing more than a religion dictatorship where freedom of choice, free speech and freedom of religion does not exist. A true religion does not need to be forced upon or imposed, it simply lead by good example. And if I were a Saudi, for saying this, I would be arrested, put in prison and publicly beaten by the official authorities of that country. I would also be fined an enormous impossible amount of money, have my family and inheritance taken away from me, and finally be executed by beheading, most probably in a public square for all to see. In other words, Saudi Arabia is not exactly the kind of place to visit or to do business or have any serious relation with; it’s more like a place to avoid at all cost for any self respected human being, until their leaders start to understand the meaning of Truth Freedom and Justice; and until they do, that country is just the shame of the human race

https://www.facebook.com/free.badawi

ليس مجنونا عن السياسة ولكنني سوف تجعل استثناء على ما يبدو في المملكة العربية السعودية، نبذ، وتحويل، أو انتقاد دينك عندما كنت مسلم هو أخطر جريمة. أساسا، مما يجعل هذا شيء أكثر من بلد ديكتاتورية الدين، حيث لا وجود له حرية الاختيار وحرية التعبير وحرية الدين لا يحتاج دين صحيح أن تفرض، فإنه ببساطة قدوة جيدة وإذا كان لي سعودي، لقوله هذا، سيتم اعتقالي، وضعت في السجن وعلنا للضرب من قبل الجهات الرسمية لهذا البلد أيضا، يتم تغريم مبلغ المستحيل هائلة من المال، وعائلتي والميراث اتخذت بعيدا عني، وأخيرا أن أعدمت بقطع الرأس، وعلى الأرجح في الساحة العامة ليراها الجميع وبعبارة أخرى، المملكة العربية السعودية ليست بالضبط ذلك النوع من مكان لزيارة أو للقيام بأعمال تجارية أو لديك أي علاقة جدية مع. انها أشبه ما تكون مكان لتجنب بأي ثمن لأي الذاتي تحترم إنسان حتى يبدأ قادتهم إلى فهم معنى الحرية الحقيقة والعدالة وحتى يفهمونها، هذا البلد هو ببساطة عار للجنس البشري ترك الناس مثل رائف بدوي وحده وتسألوا أنفسكم سؤال واحد من هم وحوش والكفار الحقيقية، عن طريق قتل الحرية؟ ملك المملكة العربية السعودية، وقال انه يستحق التعذيب الخاصة بها، لمهاجمة حرية التعبير وحرية الدين

70.55.135.43 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change, merely expressed your PoV.
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, or changed in, any article.
Please note, facebook is NOT a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Depletion of underground water

I'm not seeing any mention of the country's depletion of its underground water supply, as discussed in the following sources:

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Local Government in Saudi Arabia

Either in a new page, or a sub-section of the "Administrative division" sub-section, could someone add some additional context concerning local/municipal government in Saudi Arabia? It is briefly mentioned that each of the 13 provincial capitals are amanah (municipality/city) on the same administrative level as the 118 governorates. What's not mentioned is if there are additional smaller and more basic amanah in the governorates subordinate to the governorates, themselves. From what I can tell and to put it in the context of my country, regions would be on the same administrative level as "states", the governorates sound as if they are equivalent to "counties", and the amanah sound like "cities" or municipal corporations. Lastly, below the governorate and governorate-level amanah (provincial capital cities) are markaz, which to me sound like they'd be something equivalent to "townships." If someone could make a chart showing levels of subordination between the different divisions to make this more clear, that'd be great. --Criticalthinker (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Bias?

I tried to use this article for research, but it does not seem to be written in an objective and encyclopedic way. I would love it if a dedicated wikipedian took a scan through this article and revised it to eliminate the sense of judgement and bias which permeates the article.

Every section mentions that it is an intolerant, savage, and totalitarian country. While this is an issue for debate, it does not belong in an encylopedia's description of a nation's schools, culture, clothes, economy, etc.

Thank you

128.138.65.227 (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wahabism

In the beginning it's stated Wahabi is derogatory term, however as the article progresses it keeps referring Saudi Arabia as Wahabi. The article is biased and is using lots of weasel words to attack the Saudi Arabian polices.

I believe this is not a forum to express discontent or prejudice. I would suggest make a new Wikipedia page to highlight such issues and mention harmful/controversial policies of Saudi Arabia

This article should have neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.40.48 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

95.185.1.62 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2015 (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) 14:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Salafism

I think we should add a few words on Saudi's support of Jihaddist movement. Do you agree?

Salafism is sponsored globally by Saudi Arabia and this ideology is used to justify the violent acts of Jihadi Salafi groups that include Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Al-Shabaab.[1][2] In addition, Saudi Arabia prints textbooks for schools and universities to teach Salafisim as well as recruit international students from Egypt, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa and the Balkans to help spreading Salafisim in their local communities.[1][2] Liechtenstein96 (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

60000 Christians

"While a 2015 study estimates 60,000 Muslims converted to Christianity in Saudi Arabia." This is an absurd and unsubstantiated claim. It references one study that was done by an evangelical group based in Israel, and the study can only be accessed after signing up. To protect the integrity of Wikipedia, I believe this should be deleted unless actual unbiased and authoritative sources can be used to verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.229.32.100 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Redundant info in the last sentence of the top section

"The country is also criticised for its capital punishments, including the death penalty." The term "capital punishment" specifically describes the death penalty. On an unrelated note, some sources would be nice, considering the specific nature of the phrase. 193.33.93.43 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)user who is too lazy to create an account

Citizenship

Can a person who is not a Muslim become a Saudi citizen? If the answer is yes, then the statement that "The percentage of Saudi Arabian citizens who are Christians is officially zero, as Saudi Arabia forbids religious conversion from Islam (Apostasy) and punishes it by death" would be wrong.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The opening description of the KSA

It reads that the KSA "is an Arab state in Western Asia...". A better, more accurate, opening would read that the KSA 'is an Arab ISLAMIC state in Western Asia...'.

Not until halfway through the next paragraph is there any mention of the significant fact that the KSA is an Islamic state. Further, the fact is then expressed in a mealy-mouthed way which is grammatically clumsy: "The country has since been an absolute monarchy, effectively a hereditary dictatorship governed along Islamic lines." Given the suggested change above, this statement should be replaced with 'The country has since been an absolute monarchy and hereditary dictatorship.'

12.193.17.242 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Shahada

in motto section its said "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God.".There is no god but god should be change to be "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." Because it is the most important part of islam i suggest to change them.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


"Google's translation, or a part thereof, doesn't count here. Further, "Allah" is untranslated Arabic commingled with English rules of capitalization. It means the god, which follows, as much as English will allow, the formation of āl–lāh from al- and ilāh. The situation calls for translation, so if a change is warranted, the improved version would read as follows: 'There is no god but the god;...'.


12.193.17.242 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologetic nonsense

There's that undergoing apologetic nonsense in the article, such as "Public support for the traditional political/religious structure of the kingdom is so strong that one researcher interviewing Saudis found virtually no support for reforms to secularize the state", and similar. ITV documentary aired in march, 2016 contradicts this nonsense, see here [2]. There's a huge drive for change within country, except from the ruling class and their stoogies, plus the wahhabi clerics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Province

The Eastern Province isn't a Shia-majority, maybe it was at some point in history but not anymore.

However some towns within the Eastern Province are Shia-majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.51.156.162 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The Eastern Province is a Shia majority land, it was hsitorically Shia majority and still is. However, the ruling class is wahhabi. Before al Sauds conquered it, it was an idenependent Shia state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Calendar

There is no information for the calendar used in Saudi Arabia included in the page (in the side column). Seeing as many countries use calendars different to the western (Gregorian calendar) and there are a couple of different Moslem calendars, this would be useful information, even if only to confirm use of the Gregorian calendar.2A01:E34:EE5C:22C0:4571:9BBB:3B89:59FA (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Offensive one-sided statement that displays a serious lack of neutrality about the information of a country

"... called "the predominant feature of Saudi culture", with its global spreading largely financed by the oil and gas trade and used as a role model by terrorist organisations like the Islamic State.[11][12]"

For any citizen of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, this is an extremely offensive and derogatory statement that is based on prejudice and implicit bias towards that country and its people. There is absolutely no evidence that Islam in Saudi Arabia supports killing innocent people and spreading violence and fear. Wikipedia by displaying this opinion-based information as an actual representation of the country in its Wikipedia displays a serious bias towards one side and giving the platform to paint the image they would like about the country. Why didn't the author of this article state that Saudi Arabia has been the target of ISIS attacks ? [3] Why cann't Wikipedia authors say the fact the Iran had supported the Taliban and Alqaeda leaders and had given them haven within Iran on Iran's front Wikipedia page? [4] I ask Wikipedia to fix this glaring bias and the embracing of a one-sided view against a country. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanAlshehri2016 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... The objected-to phrase appears twice in the article, and supporting cites are given for each appearance. Neither cite includes a link to an online source, but the cited page of one of the two sources does appear to be accessible here, and does appear to me to support the sense of the objected-to phrase. The phrase itself is present in another source not cited in the article (perhaps that source ought to be cited -- see Inc., IBP, (2015), Saudi Arabia Criminal Laws, Regulations and Procedures Handbook - Strategic Information, Regulations, Procedures, Lulu.com, p. 9, ISBN 978-1-5145-0792-6 {{citation}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)).
Along with one of the two appearances of the objected-to phrase, the article asserts that Wahhabism is "used as a role model by terrorist organisations like the Islamic State". That assertion was shoehorned in ahead of two preexisting supporting cites in this recent edit. I have looked at an online copy of one of those two cites and found no support for that assertion. I doubt that the other cite would support that assertion (@Horst-schlaemma: - correct me if I'm wrong). I have removed that assertion. If reinserted, it should be accompanied by citation of a reliable source which clearly supports that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Husain, Ed (2014-08-22). "ISIS Atrocities Started With Saudi Support for Salafi Hate". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2015-09-21.
  2. ^ a b Friedman, Thomas L. (2015-09-02). "Our Radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2015-09-21.
  3. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/middleeast/saudi-arabia-mosque-attack/
  4. ^ http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195547.htm

land of Haramayn

As per WP:BRD. I know Arabic. Haram means sacred. Ayn means a place or two. Hence Sacred Places. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Inhospitable

I think that it would be a great if you change the word “inhospitable” in the first paragraph because inhospitable means harsh and difficult to live in which is not true. For example, Saudi Arabia has snow in springs. Also, green and beautiful mountains in the south of Saudi Arabia (Alfaifi Tariq (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

That actually describes most of the Saudi Arabian desert - not all of Saudi Arabia. However, I think since it is physically describing the landforms, "Arid desert" fits better here. As such, I am removing the inhospitable from the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Too much hate, fake news and sources have no credibility

This article contains too much hate toward the country and its people. As example:

  • There are many civilizations in this country, which are ignored or deleted. See the last edit before (Lemongirl942's revisions).

example of these early settled civilizations: The Dilmun civilization on the the east of the Arabian Peninsula, Thamud north of the Hejaz, and Kindah kingdom and Al-Magar civilization in the central of Arabian Peninsula.

  • In this article, the education system in Saudi Arabia summarized in 2 words: ((terrorism)) and ((wahhabism)) based on old faked news from shia countries ( Iraq, Syria Iran ), who hate KSA and its people. sorry but Their news agencies have no credibility, particularly when they talk about Saudi Arabia.
  • Many Academic Ranking of World Universities such as ranked the Times Higher Education , Academic Ranking of World Universities, and U.S. News & World Report ranked 4 of Saudi universities among the top in its list.
  • There are many Mixed-sex education schools and universities, and there are Single-sex education schools and universities as well . Examples of the coeducation : King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, The City School International Jeddah Saudi Arabia [1], Multinational School Riyadh [2], etc.. I have a list of 160 coeducation institutes in Saudi Arabia. So, why do want to keep the following ( Classes are segregated by sex )?
  • we are not wahhabi, We are Muslims who respect all faiths and religions. we are highly respected nation with a inveterate history and culture.
  • almost all countries in Wiki has no Human right section? why Saudi Arabia? Iran, our close neighbor, has no Human right section on its page? why Saudi must has it? any explanation? - — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Saudi2828 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)]] comment added by Saudi2828 (talk • contribs) 2016-11-24T07:18:14 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "thecityschool.edu.sa".
  2. ^ "https://mns-r.com/". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
The majority of the sources used in the Education section are from either the United States of UK. As you'd expect in an English language encyclopedia. Saudi Arabia has a section entirely devoted to Human Rights because there is a wide notable coverage to its breaches of them. The merits of whether Iran should have a similar section, or not, bears absolutely no bearing on whether this article should. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
facts are facts. This article neither reflect our country nor its people. It contains false information.It does not matter if theses false information from US or UK sources. We are humans, we are not animals as described in this article. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Saudi2828 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)]] comment added by Saudi2828 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

History: Pre-Islamic civilizations in Saudi Arabia

I have added few subsections to the History sect., I cited sevral reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the this section. I used some info of the previous edits. I hop What I did is correct. I would welcome your questions and your comment. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Saudi2828 (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)]] comment added by Saudi2828 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

my last edits?

Dear @Lemongirl942: , You removed many of the contents? I have the following 2 points:


- The land of the present-day Saudi Arabia is encompassing most of the Arabian Peninsula, the birthplace of Islam and Arabs, [1][2][3][4][5] and sometimes called "the Land of the Two Holy Mosques" in reference to Al-Masjid al-Haram (in Mecca), and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi (in Medina), the two holiest places in Islam. The King’s title is Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Arabic is the exclusive official language in Saudi Arabia.

- The future King, and the Crown Prince is determined and elected via Allegiance Council.


- I removed 2 controversial points because they are not relevant in the lead text (undue weight). I found the first one offensive and insulting, it stated that wahhabism is the "the predominant feature of Saudi culture? I think it abusive. It is not more than opinion not fact. The other point is about the A hereditary dictatorship, which is different from an absolute monarchy. Read about the hereditary dictatorship ans see the second section.

So could you explain what is the point that you disagree with?

References

  1. ^ Anthony, Shoult (2006). Doing Business with Saudi Arabia (revised ed.). GMB Publishing Ltd. p. 333. ISBN 9781905050673. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  2. ^ Arab (people)
  3. ^ "Cultural Dimension of Saudi Arabia". sauditourism. sauditourism. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  4. ^ Glassé, Cyril; Smith, Huston (2003). The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman Altamira. p. 58. ISBN 9780759101906. Retrieved 28 November 2016.
  5. ^ Peter, Webb. "The origin of Arabs: Middle Eastern ethnicity and myth-making". British Academy Review, Issue 2. Retrieved 28 November 2016.

Saudi2828 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

First, we don't remove stuff simply because they are controversial. Our guiding principle is NPOV. It is OK to mention about human rights concerns if reliable sources express such concerns.
Secondly, the claim about being the birth place of Islam and Arabs is problematic. Islam was born in the Arabian Peninsula, much before the existence of the Saudi Arabian state. As such, claiming this wouldn't be correct. Some of the citations such as "sauditourism" are not reliable either (See WP:RS for more).
Language I have added to the lead. (No need to say "exclusive official")
King's title and details isn't really necessary. No other countries have it as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
* Saudi Arabia and more notably Mecca and Medina were the places where Islam was born. Mecca and Medina are cities in the present-day Saudi Arabia. Muhammad was born in Mecca. I supported my point with many reliable sources such reliable books, an official government site. Here is one additional book source: [[3]]. I wrote the following ((The land of the present-day Saudi Arabia is encompassing most of the Arabian Peninsula, the birthplace of Islam and Arabs)) to make it fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible. Notice that I am talking about the ((Land of Saudi Arabia)). It is not a problematic point; it is a fact. We are talking about the land; I'm aware that the name ( Saudi Arabia) is a modern name, but we are talking about the land of Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina are located. The land does not change. I supported my point with strong, reliable sources. "sauditourism" was one source of many 5 sources. Based on your logic, we should remove the History section since the new name of the regime was not exist few decades ago.
* My point is that the controversial points should not be in lead text, it can be on the page but not in the lead because we need to indicate the opposing views. The Human Right sentence is located on the fourth line, within the first paragraph? ( after mentioning name of the country and its borders) Also, the information is not remarkably fact but opinion. It is indicating that the (( The country has attracted criticism for its lack of democratic freedom, the status of women in its society, and its usage of capital punishment )). I can find many sources that stating otherwise. For example there are 52 countries that still apply the capital punishment among them USA and China. I think it should not be in the lead. wahhabism is the "the predominant feature of Saudi culture is offensive and insulting.
* I removed the word (hereditary dictatorship)), because hereditary dictatorship is different from an absolute monarchy.. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy not hereditary dictatorship.
* (( The future King, and the Crown Prince is determined and elected via Allegiance Council )) Is removed? It is critical and should be in the lead.
* In this book: [[4]] The author said: (( Most analysts understand the importance of Islamic symbols and values in Saudi public life. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Arabness ))
* In This Book: [[5]] The author said: ((present day Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam ))
* In this book : [[6]] the author said : (( Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and its prophet whereto Muslims the world over journey to experience the sacred))
* In this book [[7]] entitled "The CIA World Factbook 2010, Book 2010", The author said: Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and home to Islam's two holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina

Saudi2828 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Saudi2828 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Lemongirl942:, I am still looking for your replay. I will add the info about the Allegiance Council since there is not comment about it. Saudi2828 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I am replying them. I have created new sections for relevant edits. It is easier if we also go one by one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Allegiance council

The future King, and the Crown Prince is determined and elected via Allegiance Council This information can be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead. The lead is only supposed to summarise - not mention how exactly the government works. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

we still need it in the lead because I was planning to add new sub-section under the Politics [[8]] about the Allegiance Council as well as the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia. Saudi2828 (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If you don't mind, could you add the information here (on this talk page) first? I'm not sure whether you understand the summary style we have on Wikipedia. That bit of content clutters the lead. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

List -> table?

The list of crown princes has certain facts in each bullet point: the name of the crown prince, the period of time he held office, how his time in office ended, and the king he was crown prince to. I'd like some other opinions: would a table present this information better? If the list is converted to a table, should the same thing be done for the list of kings, list of Second Deputy Prime Ministers, and list of Deputy Crown Princes? Chickadee46 talk 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

History after rise of the caliphates

There is little history about the region after the caliphates. What happened between 10th and 20th century excluding the Ottoman empire conquests? Why is that? Why did Arabia revert to tribal rule, why did the Abbasid Caliphate allow it? There's no information. 59.89.41.61 (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Education

U.S. News & World Report ranked 3 of the Saudi Arabian institutions as the top 3 universities in the Arab region where are around 127 universities in its list [1], and ranked 4 of Saudi Arabian institutions among its world's top 1,000 universities. [2]. The Academic Ranking of World Universities, known as Shanghai Ranking, ranked 4 of Saudi Arabian institutions among its 2016-2017 list of the 980 top universities in the world. [3]. The Nature Index, which measures the contribution of the institutions to scientific papers ranked Saudi Arabian institutions as the eighth largest riser in its score (weighted fractional count) globally over the last four years [4].

References

  1. ^ "Arab Region Universities". usnews. usnews. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
  2. ^ "Global Universities". No. 2015–2016. usnews. usnews. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
  3. ^ "World University Rankings 2016-2017". timeshighereducation. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Retrieved 6 December 2016.
  4. ^ Sedeer, El-Showk (28 April 2016). "Saudi Arabia draws on new reserves". natureindex. natureindex. Retrieved 6 December 2016.

The problem with the above is that it is entirely sourced to primary sources. Most FA country articles only mention one line about the university rankings and they use a secondary source to summarise it. Would you be able to find a secondary source which summarises this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

For the First 2 sources ( U.S. News & World Report ) , we can replace them with the following news article which is secondary source [[9]] Here is the citation [1]
For the third sources (( Academic Ranking of World Universities)) , we can replace it with this book source: [[10]] here is the citation [2]
The last one is news article, it is secondary source.

References

  1. ^ Kelly, Ross (June 14, 2016). "Saudi Schools Top 2016 U.S. News Arab Region Universities Rankings". Usnews. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  2. ^ Larry, Smith; Abdulrahman, Abouammoh (2013). Higher Education in Saudi Arabia. Springer Science & Business Media,. p. 24. ISBN 9789400763210. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
Saudi2828 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Umm,Saudi Schools Top 2016 U.S. News Arab Region Universities Rankings - Kelly Moss is still a primary source (and a highly dubious one at that). We don't use these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, just ignore it, we can replace it with the QS World University Rankings. Here is the sentence : QS World University Rankings has ranked nineteen Saudi universities among the top 100 Arab institutions, on its 13th edition. [1]

References

  1. ^ "19 Saudi universities among top 100 in the Arab world". Arab News. Arab News. 6 September 2016. Retrieved 7 December 2016.

Saudi2828 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the first one ( U.S. News & World Report ), I updated the reference of the other and include the last one (QS World University Rankings). Then i added them to the article. Saudi2828 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The natureindex is a primary source and it shouldn't be used. In addition about the university rankings, it should be mentioned only in 1 sentence and there should preferably be a secondary source which analyses the primary sources (QS rankings, ARWU etc.) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Instead of adding multiple sentences about rankings, what should be added is information about the percentage of university graduates in Saudi Arabia and the percentage of GDP spent on education. These are encyclopaedic topics which are supposed to be covered here. A country article on Wikipedia is supposed to be WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The following [11] is the official report contains what you want. It talked about the percentage of university graduates in Saudi Arabia and the percentage of GDP spent on education. It also talked about the ranking. Saudi2828 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive individual opinion of random author should not be included

Under the Education section: The following sentence ( Saudi Arabia sponsors and promotes the teaching of Wahhabism ideology which is adopted by Sunni Jihadist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Nusra Front.... [455] ) is removed. Here is why:

  • The source is [1] , which is nytimes's article contains aggressive opinion, not fact.
  • The same author wrote new article and changed his opinion in [2]

References

  1. ^ Friedman, Thomas L. (2015-09-02). "Our Radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  2. ^ Thomas, Friedman (2015/11/25). "letter from saudi arabia". nytimes. nytimes. Retrieved 27 November 2016. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

-Saudi2828 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This needs a discussion. I don't think this is an individual opinion of a random author. There are multiple other articles such as [12],[13],[14],[15],[16] which point support the content. Our work here is not to whitewash anything but to report what is happening with due weight. Whether the content needs to be rephrased or something, we can discuss. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Many of the sources you list here are not related, some of them are against the mentioned point that you are trying to support. For example in this source [17], the author said (( the official Wahhabism of the Saudi kingdom abandoned militant jihad and became a religiously conservative movement )).
We all know that Jihadist groups are targeting Saudi Arabia [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] and so on, These groups see Saudi Arabia as anti-islam and non-Islamic state. So it doesn't make sense that the Saudi Gov. promotes their ideology. Also, Saudi Arabia is not funding Nusra Front? Saudi Arabia ( with US , many other EU countries ) support the Syrian freedom army and fighting all other groups.
In the nytimes source which you posted [21], there are 2 different opinions, you only pick one of them? ignore the other? why don't we pick this specific info the following text: (( Yet some scholars on Islam and extremism, including experts on radicalization in many countries, push back against the notion that Saudi Arabia bears predominant responsibility for the current wave of extremism and jihadist violence. They point to multiple sources for the rise and spread of Islamist terrorism, including repressive secular governments in the Middle East, local injustices and divisions, the hijacking of the internet for terrorist propaganda, and American interventions in the Muslim world from the anti Soviet war in Afghanistan to the invasion of Iraq. The 20 th­century ideologues most influential with modern jihadists, like Sayyid Qutb of Egypt and Abul Ala Maududi of Pakistan, reached their extreme, anti ­Western views without much Saudi input. Al Qaeda and the Islamic State despise Saudi rulers, whom they consider the worst of hypocrites)) “Americans like to have someone to blame — a person, a political party or country,” said Robert S. Ford, a former United States ambassador to Syria and Algeria. “But it’s a lot more complicated than that. I’d be careful about blaming the Saudis.... While Saudi religious influence may be disruptive, he and others say, its effect is not monolithic. A major tenet of official Saudi Islamic teaching is obedience to rulers — hardly a precept that encourages terrorism intended to break nations. Many Saudi and Saudi­trained clerics are quietist, characterized by a devotion to scripture and prayer and a shunning of politics, let alone political violence. And especially since 2003, when Qaeda attacks in the kingdom awoke the monarchy to the danger it faced from militancy, Saudi Arabia has acted more aggressively to curtail preachers who call for violence, cut off terrorist financing and cooperate with Western intelligence to foil terrorist plots. From 2004 to 2012, 3,500 imams were fired for refusing to renounce extremist views, and another 20,000 went through retraining, according to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs ))
The uscirf's PDF document [22], has nothing to do with the above point. The report only talked about some ( intolerant statements in some textbook which are under revision and update ). Otherwise, it is acutely against the above point that you are trying to support. For example: It stated that: (( Over the past several years, the Saudi government has undertaken measures to combat extremism inside the country, such as rehabilitation and prevention programs for convicted extremists and terrorists, as well as retraining and/or dismissing imams and school teachers known to espouse extremist views. As part of the prevention program’s “mindset” component, the Saudi government distributed to the public millions of pamphlets, tracts, messages, and ads of religious opinions condemning terror and warning against the hijacking of airplanes, bombings, and assassinations. Many of these initiatives, implemented through the Saudi Interior Ministry’s guidance department, are designed to confront extremism through the propagation of a “more judicious interpretation of religious doctrine.” Examples include dropping the takfir doctrine, which involves accusing another Muslim of being an apostate to justify his murder, and insisting on strict jurisprudence of recognized authorities. Saudi officials assert that they continue to screen and monitor prospective and current teachers who espoused extremist religious views. During USCIRF’s 2013 visit, representatives of the government-funded KACND stated that it had trained hundreds of teachers on “Educational Dialogue in the Classroom.” According to Saudi officials, the government also continues to screen and monitor government-paid clerics in mosques throughout the country, although some public officials and clerics still make discriminatory and intolerant statements. In rural areas, the KACND “Caravan of Dialogue” program worked with local imams to include the concepts of dialogue in their Friday sermons and is in the process of retraining 40,000 additional Muslim clerics as part of a program to promote tolerance and moderation in Saudi society. During the past year, there were continued reports of virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-Shi’i sentiments in the official media and occasionally in sermons delivered by clerics. This continues despite some clerics having been disciplined for preaching extremist views. According to the State Department, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs supervised clerics through “regular inspections, surprise inspections, complaints received from worshipers, and investigations of accusations in the press.” Representatives from the Ministry of Culture and Information stated that the Saudi government is working on promoting “responsible and accountable freedom” through government-controlled media outlets. ))
The same with this source [23], it stated 2 different opinions, you only favored one of them over the other? for example why you don't favor this opinion: (( Mr. Shihab, the former government minister, said that in principle he had no quarrel with the Saudis trying to influence Islam in Indonesia. The Saudis have noble intentions for their religion, he said. They see that Christianity, Sufism, the Shiites, should be guarded against in order not to pollute Islam. I don't accuse them of being terrorist extremists. They want to expand their form of Islam, the rigid understanding of Islam. ))
Well, the idea is not fake and whitewash the facts by favoring some opinions over the other. We know that there are too much hate toward KSA because its conservative country. It is not fair to say ( Saudi promote the ideology of Sunni Jihadist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Nusra Front ) while KSA is in war with these groups. Saudi2828 (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You are still not getting it. Are you saying that Saudi Arabia sponsors and promotes the teaching of Wahhabism ideology is incorrect? That is, Saudi Arabia absolutely does not sponsors and promotes the teaching of Wahhabism ideology? There are multiple reliable scholarly sources which say that Saudi Arabia sponsors teaching of the Wahhabist ideology. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Wahhabism is myth. It doesn't exist. It only exists in some western media. If you come to Saudi Arabia and ask its people if they are wahhabi you would get 0 answer. The above text accuses Saudi Arabia of supporting the terrorist extremists.
* Saudi Arabia sponsors and promotes the teaching of Wahhabism ideology
* Wahhabism ideology is adopted by Sunni Jihadist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Nusra Front
Proof that the country support Wahhabism? proof that there is ideology called Wahhabism? proof that there something called Wahhabism? proof that it is adapted by Jihadist groups? Do not turn this into sectarian article.
I studied in Saudi Arabia, I am not Wahhabi? I'm not Jihadist or terrorist extremists as indicated in this article? this article accused us (as people ) of being extremist? I don't know what Wahhabi mean? I know that there is a guy named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab died 250 years ago but he has no influence on my life. He has helped the first Saudi ruler ( was not alone but with many others famous people, tribes, religious leaders etc..) to establish the first Saudi State Emirate of Diriyah. He has no role in the third Saudi state ( the recent one ). Again, the sources you posted above don't support your opinion, They have 2 different opinions, you only picked one of them. Saudi2828 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Wahhabism is myth. It doesn't exist. It only exists in some western media. It seems you are unable to edit neutrally and you are clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Please take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Wahhabis is myth. It doesn't exist. It is Sectarian term. It used by SOME western media, still, to me it doesn't make it valid. There are many reliable academic non-Sectarian sources that indicate the term 'Wahhabi' is Myth. Acutely the following book holds the title (( The 'Wahhabi' Myth )) [[24]] another book entitled ((Wahhabi Islam: Unraveling the Myth)) [[25]]. I am here not defend Wahhabism and I don't care about Wahhabism. I'm here to say that this article must be written neutrally and without bias. I'm stating that the sources you posted above consist of 2 different opinions. Which one do you pick? and why? Not just the sources you posted above, but the internet has many sources which have many different opinions? So, it depends on what sources you used? What measurement was used to conclude to the fact that Saudi education sponsors and promotes the ideology of ISIS and other extremist groups? Keep in mind this statement is offensive to 20 million people who are living in this country? the above statement has its impact on their life as well as their future career! Saudi2828 (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
None of those sources you are quoting are considered reliable. For "Keep in mind this statement is offensive to 20 millions people who are living in this country? It has its impact on their live as well as their future career" See WP:NOTCENSORED. Please drop the stick. This is disruptive. Btw, please also see and reply to the message I left on your talk page at User_talk:Saudi2828#Image_added. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we have difficulties in defining the meaning of reliable sources. Anyway, these books are not related to the main subject. Also, my point was not to censor Wikipedia in order to avoid offensive. My point is that the offensive content that is (exempted from regular inclusion guidelines) has more negative side than the non-offensive content. Thus, we should be more careful. I think we should ask for a third opinion, and please don't take it personally.
Dear @Escape Orbit:, I would appreciate your opinion here. As indicated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a neutral point of view means representing all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ALL of the above sources have 2 different views. However, in the following text (( Saudi Arabia sponsors and promotes the teaching of Wahhabism ideology which is adopted by Sunni Jihadist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Nusra Front. This radical teaching takes place in Saudi funded mosques and madrasas across the Islamic world from Morocco to Pakistan to Indonesia [] )) , the author who wrote this statement [1] changed his opinion few weeks later as in [2]. Then User talk:Lemongirl942 has posted several references above, these references don't conclude that ( Saudi Arabia sponsors and promotes the teaching of Wahhabism ideology which is adopted by Sunni Jihadist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Nusra Front ). They display 2 different opinions without jumping to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia sponsors the ideology that adopted by Sunni Jihadist groups. These sources don't directly support the information presented in the article. Note that the statement is talking about the official Saudi education system because it is starting with (Saudi Arabia sponsors and promotes) ! It is not about the non-official school and non-monitored clerics and teachers. In addition to all of the above sources, I can add the following [26]] [[27]] [[ Saudi2828 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The land of the present-day Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Arabs

I think we need the following sentence in the lead The land of the present-day Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Arabs Here are the sources :

[3][4][5][6][7]

Here are also some extra sources:

* In this book: [[28]] The author said: (( Most analysts understand the importance of Islamic symbols and values in Saudi public life. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Arabness ))
* In This Book: [[29]] The author said: ((present day Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam ))
* In this book : [[30]] the author said : (( Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and its prophet whereto Muslims the world over journey to experience the sacred))
* In this book [[31]] entitled "The CIA World Factbook 2010, Book 2010", The author said: Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and home to Islam's two holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina

Also, there are many other sources if the above are not reliable or trusted. just let me know.

References

  1. ^ Friedman, Thomas L. (2015-09-02). "Our Radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  2. ^ Thomas, Friedman (2015/11/25). "letter from saudi arabia". nytimes. nytimes. Retrieved 27 November 2016. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Anthony, Shoult (2006). Doing Business with Saudi Arabia (revised ed.). GMB Publishing Ltd. p. 333. ISBN 9781905050673. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  4. ^ Arab (people)
  5. ^ "Cultural Dimension of Saudi Arabia". sauditourism. sauditourism. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
  6. ^ Glassé, Cyril; Smith, Huston (2003). The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman Altamira. p. 58. ISBN 9780759101906. Retrieved 28 November 2016.
  7. ^ Peter, Webb. "The origin of Arabs: Middle Eastern ethnicity and myth-making". British Academy Review, Issue 2. Retrieved 28 November 2016.

Saudi2828 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted this. This is an encyclopaedia article and not a place to fluff up stuff. In particularly, there is nothing about "birthplace of Arabs" here. More importantly, the lead of Israel/Palestine doesn't claim it as the birthplace of Christianity. If is there is no consensus, I suggest doing an RFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but your point here is not clear? I reverted your change. The cited book stated that: ( Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Arabness). There is no general agreement about the capital punishment in KSA, yet we still have it in the lead. There is a general agreement that the land of Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam. There is no other opinion stating otherwise. It seems that you did not read the sentence and the source. The conversational issue between Israel\Palestine is not about birthplace of Christianity or the birthplace of Islam etc... Mecca is located in Saudi Arabia, it is the birthplace of Islam. There is no disagreement about this fact. All the historical researchers, reliable books, researchs, all religious, and even non-religious, acknowledge that Mecca was the birthplace of Islam. You can't say Quran is not the religious text of Islam? The fact that the land of Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam is the same as the fact that Quran is the religious text of Islam. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute as stated in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight
Is there any reliable source that stated otherwise? bring it so we can talk about it. Do not revert the changes because you personally disagree with it? Saudi2828 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
We can ask for third opinion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests if you want. Saudi2828 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear @Escape Orbit:, I would appreciate your opinion here. Saudi2828 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Saudi2828, what you are doing is called POV pushing. We revert to the last long time stable version per WP:BRD. Your additions are problematic because firstly, the phrasing is not encyclopaedic and secondly country articles do not mention that they are "the birthplace of x religion". That's stuff for a tourist brochure, more so because the entity Saudi Arabia was just not present at that time. I do realise the importance of Mecca and Medina and I think the lead should mention it in some way - but it needs to be phrased in a much better way. Can you please come up with a better sentences and post it here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

As this article is about Saudi Arabia, a country that did not exist at the time, it is a bit of a stretch placing the "birthplace" of either Islam or Arabs in the lead. It may belong in the appropriate history section, but I'm unconvinced it belongs in the lead. The leads's reference to "the Land of the Two Holy Mosques" would seem to be a fair indication of its significance to the religion, without further and rather fanciful elaboration. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will add this to the history section. Saudi2828 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have reverted. It's a heck of stretch to claim it as a birthplace of "Arabness" and even Islam. And the phrasing "birthplace of ...." is particularly unencyclopaedic. This needs an WP:RFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Saudi2828 If you want, I can start an RFC about this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

refugees

how many refugees has saudi arabia officially taken in from sunni shiite pre-destined civil war now playing out in syria and iraq?the home of sunni islam not only looks down its nose at everything not suuni islam but also down its nose at all sunni muslims outside of saudi arabia.the hypocritical malignant pecking order of dominance/submissiveness mentality.the furthest thing from true spirituality.don't take it specifically personal and get your collective persecution complex on for this is a world wide human phenomenon,to varying degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.249.141 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Another offensive personal opinion

Under the Etymology section. It's written that ( Its inclusion expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family ) . This is not more than personal opinion and not true, due to lack of understating the history of the land. Again, the land of Saudi Arabia ( was not exist at that time but its land, culture, heritages, language etc... do exist) is the birthplace of Islam and Arabs. Thus, In Arabian and Islamic heritages, the state traditionally use the title of the ruler. For example:

That seems reasonable, however the statement is pretty strongly sourced. Two sourced have the opposing interpretation. Do you have any sources that agree with your interpretation? I'm tempted to search myself in google books and so on.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
update: Brief searches were very unencouraging - No results found for "Saudis don't own Saudi Arabia"., No results found for "Saudi family don't own Saudi Arabia". A single result for "doesn't own Saudi Arabia" which is a statement that the US doesn't own Saudi Arabia. Further searches for "Name of Saudi Arabia" similarly didn't grant me sources that gave the Etymology that User:Saudi2828 suggested.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

another fake source

(( The official and dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia is commonly known as Wahhabism (proponents prefer the name Salafism, considering Wahhabi derogatory[329])

  1. The source doesn't state that Wahhabism is the official and dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia?
  2. the official religion in Saudi Arabia is Islam . The following is the constitution of Saudi Arabia translated to English by official gov site [[32]]

in Article 1: it stated that (( The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a fully sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion shall be Islam and its constitution shall be the Book of God and the Sunnah (Traditions) of His Messenger, may God’s blessings and peace be upon him (PBUH). Its language shall be Arabic and its capital shall be the city of Riyadh.)) Saudi2828 (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

But the sentence is verifiable. See this particularly the footnote and this as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The source is talking about Iranian and and their term (wahhabism, amercan'n islam ) etc.. Do not search google and read the footnotes for this basic info. The laws of the country stated that ( Its religion shall be Islam ) not Wahhabism . It doesnt matter how many sources you posted here. Wahhabism is not the official form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, unless you wanna force your opinion and change the laws of this country. This term is offensive. Wahhabism is fake, false and myth to us, it doesn't exist. There is nothing called wahhabsim. another offical source indicates that Article 1 of The Basic Law of Governance ((The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state. Its religion is Islam, and its constitution is the Holy Qur'an and the prophet's (peace be upon him) Sunnah (traditions). Its language is the Arabic language, and its capital city is Riyadh. )) [[33]] Saudi2828 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no guideline which states that we should solely follow what the government of a country states. We don't do that. We use reliable sources, in particular third party sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, How about this reliable sources: [[34]] and [[35]] . The sources that presented in this article, as well as the sources you posted above don't indicate that the ( Official religion ) is Wahhabism. Who determine if the religion is official or not? the official state does? the official state source stated that (its Official religion is Islam). Meaning any third party sources should refer to and point to the law of the state. Saudi2828 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The official and dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. The original statement is not about "official religion". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Btw, could you please reply to my query at User_talk:Saudi2828#Image_added? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have reverted your changes. We must work based on facts, and NOT to whitewash the facts. Again, the government doesn't recognize the term (Wahhabism ). The following source [[36]] has described it as offensive (anti-­Saudi synonym), thus I think there is a problem here. The following sources [[37]] [[38]] indicate that the Hanbali School is the official form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. Also, the following book [[39]] stated that the Hanbali is the official madhhab (school of thought) in Saudi Arabia. The wiki policy [[40]] stated that (( Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. )) Since we have several suitable alternatives we should use them. Otherwise, we should remove the whole statement since the official laws of the gov. doesn't state that Wahhabism is the official form of Sunni Islam in the country. Saudi2828 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you please reply to the message I posted at your talk page first? See User_talk:Saudi2828#Image_added and reply there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wahabiism

User:Jibran1998 removed Wahhabism and Salafism from the infobox, twice now. The first time it was reverted by me, the second by Lemongirl. I put this discussion here as it seems very related to the previous discussion between User:Lemongirl1942 and User:Saudi2828. I principally undid the edit because it was marked as a minor edit - removal of content like that is not "minor" - it is not a matter of a typo or cleanup or so on. It is a content edit.

It seems to me that the religion identification in the infobox should reflect the information in the article. In this case in the article it states, I quote "The official and dominant form of Islam in the kingdom – Wahhabism—arose in the central region of Najd, the eighteenth century. Proponents call the movement "Salafism"" - seems reasonably in tune with the inclusion of both these terms as concisely describing the religion of Saudi Arabia. --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Wahhabism" is not a Religion, its a sort of sect (disputed) under Islam, but it is not recognized as the official by the Kingdom, thus it cannot be stated as an "Unofficial Religion" under the Religion category of the article. Here is a answer of Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (Late Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia), to a question asked[1], where he clearly states that he follows the Hanbali school of thought which is a sect. The Grand Mufti is the Head in Saudi Arabia who issues Fatwas (Religious Orders), and since he has declined, i Believe there is no point in writing Wahhabism as an official religion.

References

  1. ^ http://alifta.com/Search/ResultDetails.aspx?languagename=en&lang=en&view=result&fatwaNum=&FatwaNumID=&ID=973&searchScope=14&SearchScopeLevels1=&SearchScopeLevels2=&highLight=1&SearchType=exact&SearchMoesar=false&bookID=&LeftVal=0&RightVal=0&simple=&SearchCriteria=allwords&PagePath=&siteSection=1&searchkeyword=119097104097098105#firstKeyWordFound

--User:Jibran1998 —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jibran1998:As I understand it, it's put there not as identifying the religion, but identifying the type of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. Despite Saudis not recognizing themselves as "Wahhabi-ists", even considering that term pejorative or derogatory, outsiders do - As I understand it even most of the muslim world does. It seems a bit problematic, but it has been the consensus so far in this article to follow this terminology. I took a look at the Mufti's answer to the Al-Majallah magazine - as you say he does deny the afiliation. But I think in certain cases you cannot trust a person regarding his own person. If a person says they are a "good person", it's clear that their word is not what you would base a judgement on. If a government says they're not a dictatorship, similarly they are not to be trusted on their word alone. Trump in the election said he was "very religious", one of a few cases I can think of where a person is not to be trusted about his religious views. Wahhabi seems to be viewed negatively, seems to be a negative term. It might be valid in this case.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC) (updated with reply to)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange palpable bias in the writing of this article against Saudi Arabia in a supposedly unbiased Wiki

Hi, Before I decided to write this topic, I did a quick tour of similar "negatively perceived" countries' articles on Wikipedia. And I can say I've not noticed such blatant bias in the writing context like I noticed here. Why is that? I thought this community upholds the principle of unbiased information to the utmost regard.

Just because someone can cite a resource that paints a country in a very very narrow and negative light does not mean it merits the presence on the very introductory section about the country. This might indicate a desire by the admins behind this page to paint this country in a certain light.For example, why cann't we see issues of the KKK or the two nuclear bombs dropped in Japan on the very introductory section of the USA Wiki article for example or the Hitler war crimes on the same section about Germany?? Why does certain negative aspects are allowed to be the very defining info of one country (Saudi Arabia) and not others?! what's the principle here?

Here is an example of a section that, by Wiki normal standards in other countries, shouldn't be on the introductory section of an article about a country: "... The country has attracted criticism for its restrictions on women's rights and usage of capital punishment [10]"

I hope the admins of this article would follow the same standards in the context of writing as noticed on other countries such as Russia, USA, Iran... etc etc. If for nothing but respect for the 30 million people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and their right to be viewed in an unbiased way in a supposedly unbiased Wikipedia community.

Thank you! SultanAlshehri2016 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

What appears in the heading of other country's article has very little bearing on what should appears here. However, you ask what the principle is; in the two examples you give I would imagine that the reason these facts are not in the country's lead are because they are historical. Criticism of Saudi Arabia's use of capital punishment and restrictions on women's rights are present day. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree with SultanAlshehri2016. This is not fair. Iran has the highest usage of the capital punishment, and has very bad record of Human rights, but there is no single word in Iran's page about that. read what written in the education's section and see how this article is only about the controversial negative points; for example the following has bean repeated 3 times: not sure why we need to keep repeating it?
(( According to critics, Saudi curriculum is not just dominated by Islam but suffers from Wahhabi dogma that propagates hatred towards non-Muslim and non-Wahhabis[453] and lacks technical and other education useful for productive employment.[5][454]. ))
:: outdated sources? [453] is primary source. we are not allowed to cite the primary source ?
(( The religious sector of the Saudi national curriculum was examined in a 2006 report by Freedom House which concluded that "the Saudi public school religious curriculum continues to propagate an ideology of hate toward the 'unbeliever', that is, Christians, Jews, Shiites, Sufis, Sunni Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine, Hindus, atheists and others".[456][457] The Saudi religious studies curriculum is taught outside the Kingdom via Saudi-linked madrasah, schools, and clubs throughout the world.[458] Critics have described the education system as "medieval" and that its primary goal "is to maintain the rule of absolute monarchy by casting it as the ordained protector of the faith, and that Islam is at war with other faiths and cultures".[459] ))
This info is not only outdated, but also not true. The most recent Freedom House reported in [[41]] or in [[42]], has nothing about these claims. the report has not mentioned the ((Wahhabi)) propaganda.
(( The approach taken in the Saudi education system has been accused of encouraging Islamic terrorism))
So basically this section about Wahhabism not about the education in Saudi Arabia. I suggest that we change the title to something meaningful and specific such as ( the teaching of Wahhabism etc..) Saudi2828 (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The report cited is 10 years old now, so could be outdated. However, rather than just removing it, could you source any information that demonstrates it is no longer the case? It certainly would be notable, and good balance, if it could be demonstrated from good sources that things have changed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well Escape Orbit, let me ask you this, if this is indeed the principle followed here. If someone cited a credible source about Iran being the top capital punishment country in the Middle East, would that be allowed to be on Iran's introductory section then? or China being the top capital punishment in the world in the same section? If not, then I'm afraid Wikipedia loses all of its supposed credibility. Thank you!SultanAlshehri2016 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think that other articles in Wikipedia is lacking important information, then I suggest you raise the matter of their talk pages, or be bold and add it yourself. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I quote from User:SultanAlshehri "why cann't we see issues of the KKK or the two nuclear bombs dropped in Japan on the very introductory section of the USA Wiki article for example or the Hitler war crimes on the same section about Germany" - it does say in United States "The United States [was] the first country to develop nuclear weapons, [and] the only country to use them in warfare [...]"and it does say in Germany "The establishment of the national socialist dictatorship in 1933 led to World War II and a genocide.". So the information is there, although not in the form critics would prefer. Note that KKK is not included in USA, but I think is a very minor group, slavery is included. I think no mention of Segregation is perhaps a valid criticism of that other article. The statements I could see in the lead that are somewhat controversial/negative are:

  • 1)"Saudi Arabia has since been an absolute monarchy, effectively a hereditary dictatorship governed along Islamic lines."
  • 2)"The ultraconservative Wahhabi religious movement within Sunni Islam has been called "the predominant feature of Saudi culture", with its global spread largely financed by the oil and gas trade."
  • 3)"The state has attracted criticism for its treatment of women and use of capital punishment."

With 3) being the motive for the controversy here. User:Escape_Orbit noted that the USA and Germany are not currently doing the things that User:SultanAlshehri noted the USA and Germany have done in the past. But the USA is currently accused of imperialism - and it is correctly I feel not included in the lead. On one hand it seems that NPOV is not against bias, only against bias that is not common in western academia, and Saudi Arabia here is in many ways anti-western as can be. First I argue that the existence of capital punishment, inequality between men and women need not be attributed to critics of Saudi Arabia. My suggestion therefore would be "Men and women are unequal in law in Saudi Arabia and there are crimes for which there is a death penalty". Here these are descriptions of Saudi Arabia instead of criticisms against Saudi Arabia - I think Islamic scholars would not be against this description, they'd say that it is not a problem perhaps, but the phenomenon is real. But I also see a very good point in the argument for removal of "criticisms" from the lead entirely. (it is interesting how using a nuclear bomb can be defended - NPOV seems problematic in that way, right?)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: I thought the death penalty had been abolished in the USA - the lack of NPOV is aggravated then by the fact that List of offenders executed in the United States in 2017 the USA has already executed two people this year - there's no "criticism of the death penalty" in the USA lead is there?.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I've said a number of times above; if you think there is something lacking in other articles, please go there and address them there. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Escape Orbit: I discussed other articles perhaps extensively which is perhaps a bit improper, but could you please comment on the possible change from the current contested phrase to "Men and women are unequal in law in Saudi Arabia and there are crimes for which there is a death penalty". In my proposed sentence these are framed as descriptions of Saudi Arabia instead of criticisms against Saudi Arabia.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 21:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Reply to template used.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

User:Sawahab.90 posted the entire article of Saudi Arabia here. It was very disruptive.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 21:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of Editing

You can't just block this article and, prevent all this people from improving or fixing this article it is a shame on you. Why you don't let some people try to fix or edit or a little bit of freedom this not a way to treat people like this to protect this article from vandalism doesn't means to block in the front of the people who they want make from this article a good even if it was the worse. People can change by trying not just by allowing them from editing. 11.99.000.796 (U.T.C) 20 February, 2017 Bpkhy69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.184.61.73 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus against the original statement is clear. There is rough consensus for Zero's suggestion, or something like it: The religion of Islam originated in the Arabian peninsula. The normal editing cycle can and should attempt to refine this suggestion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a content dispute about adding (diff) the following sentence to the article

The land of the present-day Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Arabness.

Previous discussions (here and here) have been inconclusive and this could benefit from input from other editors. The specific question of this RFC is Should the above (quoted) sentence be added to the article Please answer as

  • Yes (Mention where to add, lead or any body section)
  • No
  • Other (any other solution)

Please post your !vote in the "!vote" section along with a brief explanation, but keep any threaded discussions in the "Discussion" section. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

!vote

Wikipedia very strictly does not allow content based on editors being "pretty sure" about it. Wikipedia gives priority to what reliable, third-party sources contain. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No The sentence, as it stands, is simply too contentious to be added since there is no consensus among the myriads of legitimate sources on these issues, especially about the birth of "Arabness," a controversial term in its own right. The fact that two long discussions in Wikipedia on these matters have not reached consensus proves the point.-The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Here we are voting (with motivation), which is quite a different thing than 'proving'. That the issue has been discussed before doesn't prove anything or any 'point', except that people have given some opinions. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
You are making a huge mistake here. An RfC is not an opportunity to offer personal opinions irrespective of evidence! If a consensus in an RfC is somehow reached that, for example, the Earth is flat, rest assured that the relevant entry in the article about the Earth will not be changed, and that'd be because all reliable, third-party sources indicate otherwise. Our "motivation" here, to use your term, as Wikipedia editors and per the relevant guideline, is to make sure that "all articles...follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies." In other words, to assign verifiability and judge the relative merits of sources. Wikipedia is based on sources; not "some opinions". Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No That sentence is in the first place much too vague: (1) A religion doesn't get "born". (2) 'Arabness' is a not defined/definable 'thing', so there's no ground to state that 'it' originated somewhere after 571 AD. Yes, we have more or less a group of people indicated as 'Arabs', but there's probably no consensus about when someone is or is not 'Arab', so no consensus about who was the first Arab nor where he was born... Etymologically the word 'Arab' will have originated somewhere, perhaps even is Saudi Arabia (I have no idea), but that is not 'Arabness', and words don't get 'born' either. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Other A religion does NOT get born but it arises, comes into being. Presumably, Islam originated in Saudi Arabia. But it is nonsense to state that fact in a section called "Under Islam" (as proposed), because when Islam first originated, Saudi Arabia ofcourse was NOT yet under Islam! So, please correctly describe that arising of Islam in section 2.1.1.5 (Kindah), and please without "birth" metaphors. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
(Changed my mind:) it is okay to write in section "Under Islam" that Islam originated, but please then tell in a few lines how and/or why it originated (which you probably can look up in article Islam, which is more or less also what Wtmitchell here below proposes). And please without "birth" metaphors. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Other No The Islam article asserts, "Islam began in the early 7th century. Originating in Mecca,[1] ..."; that article and this should harmonize on that point. Pages 93-94 of the source cited there (and perhaps other bits) might be of interest re Islam and "Arabness". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've changed my vote to No, since it amounts to a vote not to accept the proposal as stated. Also, I observe that Arabs#Identity says, "Arab identity is defined independently of religious identity, and pre-dates the spread of Islam, ...", which appears to clash with the concept of "Arabness" suggested in the proposal. The articles should harmonize, not clash. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, er. First, "The land of the present-day Saudi Arabia" is clunky writing. A better phrasing re Islam would be "The religion of Islam originated in the Arabian peninsular.", which is easy to source to good sources. Regarding "Arabness", I'm not sure that's even a word. Worse, the historicity of the statement is dubious. The first historical mention of Arabs refered to peoples of the far-northern Arabian peninsular and the Syrian desert — not a good match to Saudi Arabia at all. I suggest that part be left out. Zerotalk 08:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
"Well, er" is not a vote here. We have three choices for the voting section above: yes/no/other. While you apparently have not yet made up your mind about that vote, I've replaced your posting in this Discussion subsection. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Who put you in charge here? It is blindingly obvious that I made an other vote with an explicit text suggestion. Zerotalk 11:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, er. Support Zero's proposal and agree with reasoning. DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, er. 'Arabness' NO, I don't even know what it means here. That Islam started in Mecca (and Medina?) is well sourced, and that these places are in present day S.Arabia also, therefore I don't see a problem with including this, HOWEVER this could easily be incorporated into present text seemleassly, in the parts dealing with 'Mecca' perhaps. … … BTW, the present lead says "Saudi Arabia has since been an absolute monarchy, effectively a hereditary dictatorship governed along Islamic lines" + later "Saudi Arabia is a monarchical autocracy", each of these descriptors may be RS'd but they read as 'overkill' in my opinion for the lead. It's an absolute monarchy, which is inherently hereditary, and also autocracic and dictator-like by western standards, but it reads as over-stating the obvious IMO. Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Totally unnecessary. It is a pointless interruption to the chronology of the history section. I suspect that emergence of Islam could be made a bit more explicit, but not through a sentence like that. Zero's "Well, er" option above is a good example in general, but regarding the specific placement of this sentence I do not think their suggestion fits either. CMD (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Going by the sources above, "birthplace of Islam" is fair enough, but the lead already mentions that Mecca and Medina are in the country so it doesn't seem to add anything. "Birth of Arabness" is baseless; as others have pointed out, even if you could pinpoint where an ethnic group originated, the earliest historical mentions of the Arabs are from modern-day Jordan, Syria and Iraq. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No We lack the consensus required among sources to use Wikipedia's Voice to declare that present-day Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of both "Arabness" and Islam. See also this essay to summarize my thoughts. AlexEng(TALK) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, er. Support Zero's proposal and agree with reasoning, would vote no on current wording. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • YesMakes sense L3X1 Complaints Desk 12:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

references

References

  1. ^ Watt, William Montgomery (2003). Islam and the Integration of Society. Psychology Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-415-17587-6.

Discussion

The RFC has closed today. Weirdly, the original editor with whom I had this dispute has not responded since the RFC started. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

encyclopedia entries request

It would be nice to have (recent) encyclopedic entries for economy. The box sector chart for trade and industry, the est. miles of road, telephones and tv's in use. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Economy

The following depicts the Saudi Arabian economy circa 2017.

Employment: more than 12 million workers with %11.5 rated unemployment.

Industry: Saudi Arabi is markedly a petro-chemical export economy. Saudi Arabia's major industries are: Crude oil production, petroleum refining, ammonia, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), cement, metals, commercial ship repair, commercial aircraft repair, construction (source: excerpt from usa cia world factbook jan 12 2017)

Exports: mostly oil; and has the highest rate of export per holding. About $200 billion exported in 2016.

Imports: machinery, foods, chemicals, cars, various industry inputs, and various home products

Transportation: over 200 airports, 1200 km of railway, and 47000 km of paved roadways

Telephone and Media: more than 50 million cell and 3.5 million telephones held (more than 1 per person). The TV media market is strong and improving, internet use is very wide-spread (about 1 connection per adult). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Treatment of imports, telecommunications, transportation, and unemployment is indeed lacking. I agree with you. Imports are from what I understand not usually considered part of an economy, except in saying something like "there isn't domestic manufacture and the country depends on imports". So I am not sure to what extent these could or should be included. Your information on telecommunications to me seems relevant, and especially in the Economy of Saudi Arabia where no mention of telecommunications is made at all. The Saudi Arabia economy section should in theory provide a summarized version, the most significant and relevant information of a more extensive treatment at the main article. Maybe a technology and telecommunications section here would be appropriate - televisions per capita, 43% PC per capita, 100%+ cellphone per capita, internet usage, web sales, size of IT business, facts like these seem significant and relevant. Regarding Transportation I am shocked to say that there seems to me no mention at all of this topic in the entire article nor in the main article of Economy of Saudi Arabia. This is indeed an area for inclusion and expansion. Finally about the unemployment rate - it is mentioned not in the section economy, but in the section culture, subsection social problems, I agree with you that it should be mentioned within the economy section as well. It's also barely mentioned in the main article: Economy of Saudi Arabia. Once again I agree that this should be included and receive signifcant treatment.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Saudi have a balance GDP (PPP) in capita and its total

The position of 14th in Saudi Arabia is an ideal way to make a sense. Then, the budget of "US $1,900,027" in 2016, also makes restless for all being. KaplanAL (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2017 (Western Indonesia Time)

It is a bit hard to make sense of your comment @KaplanAL:. Could you elaborate? Explain yourself a bit more?--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Population

KSA's population is over 30 million now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.105.248 (talk) 26 December 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

The state religion is listed as Christianity. The State religion of Saudi Arabia is Islam. Looks like even the registered users commit vandalism :] Hawari-ad-Din (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done by ‎Escape Orbit.

Image spamming

.

Not sure what happened to this article recently but it's unreadable. This is simply not what we are looking for .I have restored the article to before the image spamming....also noticed copy and pasting from other articles with no attribution.--Moxy (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir, what is the problem exactly? The photos are all related to the text and sourced. Moreover the number of photos in the page about Saudi Arabia do not exceed the photos of other countries pages, for instance that of Iran. I will take this matter to the highest place in Wikipedia as simply deleting hours of hard work and sourced material, I find very provoking and unnecessary. If you insist I can create a separate content page on the thread where those 30 photos, will be described in greater detail although if one clicks on each photo a description will show itself. A compromise must be reached, you cannot just simply delete sourced material, much-needed photos and hours of work out of a sudden.--OxfordLaw (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
As you can see by the image to the right the text is simply not readable...nor do we need 30 plus images in a gallery...pls review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for our gudlines on images. --Moxy (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir, please see my talk page and help me out. Thanks. Also there should be no problems reading any text any longer. I do not have such problems and I am using a computer.--OxfordLaw (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Pls see MOS:IMAGELOCATION--Moxy (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
More image overload and sandwiching of text. Not sure why the same problem keeps happening.....are these 3 editors related to each-other?

Article size

I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. I need to point out that our article Saudi Arabia is already at 13778 words without today's additions, well over the recommended 10000-word article size limit, so it's not a good idea to add any more stuff, especially material that is already available elsewhere on this wiki. To do so will make the article impossible to load for people on slow Internet connections or on older mobile devices. When our articles get too big, we split them and provide people with a wikilink to the sub-article. I am restoring Moxy's revision of 16:22, April 1, 2017. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear, I am using an incredibly slow internet connection and I have no problems loading the page. The country page of Saudi Arabia does not differ much from other country pages of countries of a similar size. That should not cause any trouble as I have not added a lot of text at all. Barely a new section about the Nabataeans who surprisingly where omitted and a very short section about tourism. I cannot believe that adding so little material is now a huge concern while nobody complained about the size of the article previously. Adding 6-7 more photos in a article with very few photos (compared to the likes of Turkey, Iran, Egypt or even other much smaller regional neighboring countries) should not be a case of concern.

I cannot stop thinking that there is some kind of bias involved as I do not understand why people would want to delete useful sourced material and thus vast counties of hours of hard work of other people. I really don't want to create any trouble but simply improve a page that is in much need of improvement but I will take this matter to the highest level possible as if deleted, as such action will show a lack of consistency by Wikipedia admins (see my examples of other country pages) and unfortunately possible bias as I cannot see any other explanation.

Thank you in advance and I hope that you take what I wrote into consideration.

However I am afraid that your two's actions leave me no other option but to take this matter to the highest levels possible.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What is now the problem? Almost every country page has a separate tourism section under the economy of that country x or y. The argument of this article being too big cannot be used either as the size of this page is significantly smaller than that of countries such as Turkey, Iran, Russia, the United States of America (50% bigger!) to name a few. Moreover my added text is short and also referenced/sourced.--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not even from KSA, an Arab, Muslim or from that part of the world but it is hard for me not to notice the bias. This has long been a problem of this article.--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

After your removal in this diff, article size is 13,994 words and 85 kB "readable prose size", which is still well over the guideline. Here is a link to the guideline: Wikipedia:Article size. It says at the section Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues that long articles may be more difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend. I suggest that instead of copying material into this article from elsewhere on Wikipedia (without the legally required attribution, which is a copyright violation), you find new content to add to the sub-articles such as the tourism article, the history article, and so on. Edit warring to retain your preferred version of the article is against Wikipedia policy. I am placing some information on that topic on your user talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because the tourism section that I have created, 50% of it is not my own work and sourced references, right? Please actually read what people have contributed to legally and with no intention to cause problems.

As for the length of the article, that might be the case, but this is the case with most country pages. Why not make a similar fuss on those pages? That's why I mentioned the lack of consistency and possible bias.

Also thanks for giving me warnings when you yourself decide to "play God" by removing material without this topic being thoroughly discussed. It does not show much tolerance to the other party and you cannot just expect me to accept that hours of hard work will simply vanish due to some so-called "problems" that were nowhere to be found just 30 hours ago. 30 hours ago the article was longer than currently but nobody created this much fuss.

You see, it's hard for me to see a consistency and that is obviously annoying. No offense. --OxfordLaw (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw your message where you state that some other articles are larger than this one. That may be true, but as of right now, we have 5.3 million articles, and I am under no obligation to bring each of them into compliance before working on this one. Also, I note that when copying from the tourism article to this one, you have not provided the legally-required attribution. I am preparing a report for the edit warring noticeboard now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

So selective bias it is? Where was this concern 30 hours ago when the article was even longer long before I and others began their edits?

I asked earlier what to do to enjoy "legally required attribution" but your colleague did not bother to help me. I gave a direct link to the "tourism in Saudi Arabia" page, took 1 sentence that was written on that page (did not remove any sourced material) and afterwards I added 1 sentence that I had written myself and sourced myself.

Fair enough. I will simply delete the first sentence and rewrite it and add the latest data from 2016. If I do that I wonder what else you guys can bother me with?--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Moxy already provided you with instuctions as to how to provide attribution. He did this on your user talk page at 16:36, 1 April 2017. To repeat: Each time you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you have to say in your edit summary what the source article was. Here is a sample edit summary: "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Tourism in Saudi Arabia on April 1, 2017. Please see the history of that page for full attribution." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saudi_Arabia/Archive_3&oldid=1254526110"