Jump to content

Talk:Saudi Arabia/Archive 4

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

Warning: Edit Warring

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning The ongoing edit warring needs to stop. I have already issued warnings to several parties involved. If it continues blocks may follow. Further, the subject of this article is covered by Arbcom's decision to impose discretionary sanctions on all pages broadly construed that deal with the Arab Israeli conflict. If this pattern of disruptive editing continues I may be forced to impose editing restrictions including but not limited to WP:1RR. I hope this will not be necessary. The bottom-line is that if an edit is challenged by reversion then it needs to be discussed on the talk page before being reinstated. Major edits such as removing large blocks of text or removing entire sections should be discussed on the talk page first. Your cooperation is deeply appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ping Bpkhy69 - OxfordLaw - Emir of Wikipedia
More image overload and sandwiching of text. Not sure why the same problem keeps happening.... Bpkhy69 - OxfordLaw need to talk to each-other...now we have Carlotm doing it as well.....all need to talk to each-other about what images are best to use.--Moxy (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Bpkhy69 and OxfordLaw are edit warring, but I have nothing to do with it. I was just trying to mprove a difficult page, and the changes Moxy did just now are simply appalling. Carlotm (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

All need to address image overload ..but more important is the readability of the article. Sandwiched text makes it hard for all to read...its why its part of the MOS on images. Pick readability over picture book layout pls.-- Moxy (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Moxy made his point by posting a snapshot that has nothing to do with my revision of Saudi Arabia page. That is not commendable. Carlotm (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Never implied was....in fact all can see it above from days ago when this was mentioned before. Any comment on what images are best to use? or how we can convey to these 2 editors the concept of sandwiched text?--Moxy (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems Moxy want to bypass me; instead he should explain why his revision should be considered an improvement of the preceding, whereas, by moving the hated sandwich in a different spot,he made things worse, with this long, unpalatable catalog of images on the right. Good job. Carlotm (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
100 percent correct...not sure what to do with the image spamming that keeps happening then the edit wars over those images that get spammed ..but readability is the most inportant thing. So what's best here...so far your contributions to the discussion have not advanced a solution. What images should we keep in order to make the article readable? Are we sure we need 10 images of historical times in that one section? You still sure adding all thoses images helps?--Moxy (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Moxy, I value correctness very much; so please put back my revision, and then we can consider how to really improve this battered chapter. Carlotm (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Your suggesting I restore an edit that is counter to our MOS? Why would anyone do that especially the person (me) trying to get you to understand accessibility is more important then loading the section with images. Pointless conversation...will wait for others to chime in. Perhaps a gallery with the images actually metioned in the article?--Moxy (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not edit warring, but merely trying to restore the consensus version. It is worth noting the other two accounts have been blocked recently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

You wrote that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was a Totalitarian Dictatorship. This is offensive, wrong for an outsider on the Islamic Kingdom to comment such and I most insistently would like this insensitive comment to be removed. 2A02:C7D:369F:F200:B8FB:4347:E546:331C (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We did not make the comment but CBS, The Guardian, and Aljazeera. If you have a problem take it up with them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

LINK CHANGED
Link changed to Modern Standard Arabic from Arabic Language.

The following discussion 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request about infobox

Can someone please change in the native_name section of the infobox in this article, from (Arabic) to (Arabic) Please and thank you. Check the source editing in this request to find out what I mean. KingSkyLord (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2017

@KingSkyLord: Why should we do this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Both link to the same article. Arabic language is a redirect to Arabic. Done. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Forget what I just said. I already made the minor edit (even though it doesn't look like that). I regret ever asking you guys to do this. KingSkyLord (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)KingSkyLord

Editor User:Emir of Wikipedia reverted my edit that changed [[Arabic language|Arabic]] (a redirection page) to [[Arabic]], citing WP:DONOTFIXIT. This is an incorrect understanding of WP:DONOTFIXIT, and indeed performs the opposite of what it is about.

WP:DONOTFIXIT instructs editors to not change a link from a redirect to a piped link, if the redirect name is already ideal for the purposes of the article text. It is about avoiding the introduction of piped links, not the removal of piped links.

In the case of this article, the piped link [[Arabic language|Arabic]] is unnecessarily and confusing, and the only reason it appears like this is because the [[Arabic]] article was previously called [[Arabic language]], before being moved.

However, now the article says "Arabic" and the intended article it wishes to link to is [[Arabic]]. So there is absolutely no reason to use a piped link that uses, but disguises, the redirect [[Arabic language]].

As WP:DONOTFIXIT says in its example; "However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to Franklin D. Roosevelt if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text."

Accordingly; in this article "Arabic" is the preferred visible text, so [[Arabic]] is the best way of writing this in the article.

The only possible reason I can see for retaining it as is would be if it is believed that a [[Arabic language]] article may exist in the future. This is unlikely to happen. As I explained above; the [[Arabic]] article was moved two years ago from [[Arabic language]], to be in line with other language articles. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Would a more appropriate link be Modern Standard Arabic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Well that article indicates it is the official language of Saudi Arabia, so that would seem to be a good idea. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:15, 1 June 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.

Citable sources

Some of the information sources seem to be opinion reporting, such as the Guardian's " This medieval Saudi education system must be reformed" (currently source 419). There are a few others (the following 420 and 423). I have not reviewed the entire article, these are the ones I glanced. I suggest that someone with editing privileges to make the effort to make sure the sources of information are factual. Other sources have incomplete citation and provide misleading information (399). The following source (400) is also broken, with no other source on the information that the average female age of marriage being 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braa94k (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

I would like to add this section following the "Islamic heritage sites" existing content:

Four cultural sites in Saudi Arabia are designated as UNESCO World Heritage Sites: the archeological site at Al Hijr (Kaaba); the Turaif district in the city of Dariya; Historic Jeddah, the Gate to Makkah; and the cave art in the Ha'il Region. Ten other sites submitted requests for recognition to UNESCO in 2015.[1]

In June 2014, the Council of Ministers approved a law that gives the Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage the means to protect Saudi Arabia's ancient relics and historic sites. Within the framework of the 2016 National Transformation Program, also known as Saudi Vision 2030, the kingdom allocated 900 million euros to preserve its historical and cultural heritage.[2] Saudi Arabia is also a part of the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas, created in March 2017, which contributes an additional 18.5 million euros.[3]

> This new part will add key information about Saudi Arabia Islamic heritage sites management. Thevictorator95 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much, Thevictorator95!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ KSA Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List (4), Unesco, 2017
  2. ^ SAUDI ARABIA TO SPEND $1BN ON CULTURAL HERITAGE, KSA Mission EU, June 30 2016
  3. ^ Destruction du patrimoine : une résolution historique du Conseil de Sécurité, Sciences et Avenir, March 28 2017

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

Please change the text in a certain imagebox on this article, under the category Geography:Animals. It reads:

"The Arabian Oryx are found in the deserts they are endangered animals"

This appears to be a grammatical error and should be fixed.

I believe it could be changed to something more grammatically appropriate like:

"The Arabian Oryx are found in the deserts and are endangered animals." (Or something similar, this is just an example)

It would do good to include a link to the Arabian oryx article as well, as there does not appear to be one.

Thank you! Vexillocrate (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Simplexity22 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2017

Please add the following in the end of the section Military: The European Parliament decided in 2016 to temporarily impose an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia, as a result of the Yemen civilian population's suffering from the conflict with Saudi Arabia.[1] 176.10.249.111 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ EU Parliament - unprecedented call arms embargo against Saudi Arabia, Middle east eye 2016-02-25
Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

There's a preposition missing. Please change: The official and dominant form of Islam in the kingdom – Wahhabism—arose in the central region of Najd, the eighteenth century. To: The official and dominant form of Islam in the kingdom – Wahhabism—arose in the central region of Najd, in the eighteenth century. Sharwyn (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Cannot edit an important thing

On the Crown princes there's Mohammed bin nayef ( 2015 - present) the issue is .. he is not the current criwn prince, the current crown prince is Mohammed bin salman Technical Peace (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2017

"Lā ʾilāha ʾillāl–lāh, Muhammadun rasūl allāh" it's translation - "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God" it doesn't make any sense.

please change it to -

"There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

I think it is the proper translation. thanks ssohan 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ssohan: It does make sense as it is the proper translation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please see Note "a", which explains that "Allah" is a Romanization that literally translates into English as "the God", so "Allah" is not strictly English, it is Arabic.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

god means .. god but God means allah ( الله ) in arabic the word god is ( اله ) and God is ( الله ) the difference is one letter ..

I don't how to explain it properly but i hope you understood me Technical Peace (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

Hello everyone, I would like to add another section following the "Islamic heritage sites" existing content:

In july 2017, King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has set up renovation commissions to develop two main archaeological and historic sites, Al-`Ula and Diriyah Gate. The commissions are in line with the Kingdom’s Vision 2030 plan, which includes a target of attracting one million tourists annually by putting in place the right infrastructure to grow the country’s tourism industry.[1]

> This new part could be added at the end of the “ Islamic heritage sites” paragraph, it mentions a new information and gives perspective :) Thevictorator95 (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. For instance, sources like BBC or NYTimes. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello jd22292, I think that Arabian Business is a reliable source, especially for news focusing on Middle East. Here are more sources here, here and here. Those are well know and viable sources in Saudi Arabia. Cheers,
Thevictorator95 (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote this page

This page is filled with nonsense


It's okay for a non-muslim to come as a tourist and ..

Who ever wrote this page is trying to offend SA as much as he can Technical Peace (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Independence from Turkey

Someone should definitely put the independence from Turkey as part of the establishment. Highly misleading to not put that in the info box for readers to understand further history of SA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.206.214 (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

women's driving allowed now

The article still states that women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive cars ("Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that effectively bans women from driving; [...]". I would upate the article myself, but I'd rather let someone else do it who a) speaks proper english and b) knows more about the topic than I do... volunteers one pace forwards! Please :)

I've made a change to this effect. Have a look and see what you think. Alarichall (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

The women section should totally change, "Religious police" do not exist anymore, women can drive, also most women request having separate seats so it's not "Violating women's rights" it's taking women's decision on it, a lot of Saudi women stand out in their jobs inside and outside of Saudi Arabia, also Saudi Arabia has one of the highest fining on Sexual harassment and rape, hitting your wife can fine between 20$-50$ thousand SAR, hitting women in Islam is a major sin in many ways especially wives and mothers, it's also against manliness in Saudi Arabia Hamasat LeShanbi (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Quantity of citizens.

In the Soviet Union there was a famous study that claimed Saudi Arabia was exaggerating the quantity of its' citizens by 3 times. Have this topic been studied further? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 00:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B: I have not heard anything, and please read WP:SIGLINK. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Please secify the signature problem. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 13:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: So how do I do that? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 14:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In Special:Preferences. Regarding the study do you have a source? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2017

Please remove the following sentence: "Its inclusion expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family." from the paragraph:

The word "Saudi" is derived from the element as-Suʻūdīyah in the Arabic name of the country, which is a type of adjective known as a nisba, formed from the dynastic name of the Saudi royal family, the Al Saud (آل سعود). Its inclusion expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family.[27][28] Al Saud is an Arabic name formed by adding the word Al, meaning "family of" or "House of",[29] to the personal name of an ancestor. In the case of the Al Saud, this is the father of the dynasty's 18th century founder, Muhammad bin Saud.[30]

Saudi Arabia follows a Muslim dynastic naming system that dates back to the earliest Muslim dynasties such as the Umayyad Caliphate named after their ruling dynasty, the Umayyads. the Abbasid caliphate named after their ruling dynasty, the Abbasids. The Ottoman Empire named after their ruling dynasty, the Ottomans. The royal family did NOT at any point in its history express the view that it was their personal possession. [2] John N Smith (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ King Salman plans to turn historic sites into tourist attractions, Arabian Business, july 26, 2017
  2. ^ "List of Rulers of the Islamic World". The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Department of Islamic Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved 11 October 2017.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2017

Saudi Arabia -- Politics -- Monarchy and royal family -- paragraph 3 -- "The current Minister of Defense is Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the son of King Salman and Deputy Crown Prince." DELETE "Deputy". Hebbgd (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Done  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The translation of the motto of Saudi Arabia is not precise.

Change from: 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."

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

The translation of word ALLAH in from Arabic language to English is by no means 'God'. The word is same for every language and should be written the same in English translation. Sameerhassan77 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Allah when translated to English is God. PBUH is not in the motto. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the official name

The translation of the name in Arabic is "Saudi Arab Kingdom" and not the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia"... ייהליזיושמר (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Totalitarian government

The list of totalitarian regimes pages lists this country is a totalitarian dictatorship. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason why I removed "article may be too long" and "multiple issues" Comment

I removed the "article may be too long" template after checking the prose size of other country's articles.

  • Saudi Arabia has (13664 words) "readable prose size"
  • Israel has (14668 words) "readable prose size"
  • The U.S. has (15608 words) "readable prose size"
  • Russia has (18468 words) "readable prose size"

I also removed the multiple issues since there's only one issue left, the issue on the image placement.

K 0yama (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

K 0yama (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

foreigners and westerners

It says Turks number 100,000 and then it says 100,000 westerners, under the foreigners section. Turks are geopolitical westerners so I say we put them under that. (ie 200000 westerners) thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are a few problems with this.
  • The source cited actually says there are 80,000 Turks. I've restored the article to what the source says.
  • The figure for the westerners is unsourced. I've flagged this.
  • Even if it was sourced, we don't know if it already includes those from Turkey, or not. We can't sum separately sourced totals like this, especially if we don't have a precise definition for one.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

This entry needs a section on the geology of Saudi Arabia, also plate boundaries in Red Sea and Persian Gulf. I am professor of Geosciences at UT Dallas Bob Stern rjstern@utdallas.edu 99.147.134.71 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This topic is discussed in minimal detail at Geography of Saudi Arabia. Due to the present restrictions covering the Saudi Arabia article itself, it may be worthwhile to incorporate information on the geology of the area into an entirely new article, "Geology of Saudi Arabia". A draft version could be started and taken to WP:AFC for further development there. Spintendo      12:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

Request to delete the following statement because it has no evidence and is a mere incorrect allegation : (....Saudi leaders' historical tendency to artificially inflate census results....) 185.150.106.19 (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: the statement is reliably cited, so I can't find a reason to remove the content. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

They are working our land here in Philippines. We call seek for help were sorrond of soldiers and thier relatives. Myth sister failure to killed them they number of counts died our family. They are organized but not to much engaged. As of now wanted to get our land. I dont enough to perform my titlle as of King here. Thank you! Sethfifth (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

Please update section 3.6 Military, where the budget figures in 3rd para are more than ten years out of date. Newer figures (with citations) can be found in the article List of countries by military expenditures. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Diff of change. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

The "Legislature" section on the page currently lists both the Council of Ministers of Saudi Arabia and the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia (but only after stating that Saudi Arabia has no legislature at all, which makes the whole section a bit clunky-looking). However, judging by the content of these pages, the Council of Ministers is simply a normal executive government, and has no more powers to propose laws by themselves than the Cabinet of the United States or the Government of France. I think the Consultative Assembly is much closer to the legislative branch, and should be listed as Saudi Arabia's only legislature (with the explanation in brackets that it is only a consultative body with no actual power). After all, there are precedents of describing powerless advisory bodies as "legislatures" for historical states (like the State Duma of the Russian Empire), so why not for a modern state that is somewhat anachronistic in its political system? TheImperios (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Do you have reliable sources to confirm this? We can't rely on the content of other Wikipedia pages to make these changes. Iffy★Chat -- 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The Council of Minister decrees and royal decrees issued by the king are the principal sources of legislation. See, for example, https://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub3507_1.pdf. The Consultative Assembly is not a source of legislation at all, therefore it is not a legislature. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

IMF New Data ( Administrators )

Current 2016 IMF Databese

New 2018 IMF Database
(2017 Figuers)
Saudi Arabia nom gdp 683.827
Saudi Arabia ppp gdp 1,773.551
Saudi Arabia nom per gdp 21,120.481
Saudi Arabia ppp per gdp 54,777.376

Link http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2017&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=43&pr1.y=11&c=456&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=

Please update old database. Thank you. Bunny2090 (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Translation of the motto(the shahadah)

I think it should be: "There is no God but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" I have read the references made. But firstly, Allah being a contraction of 'al' and 'ilah' is just a theory which is accepted by many. There is no definite proof of that. Based on just a theory Allah should not be translated the god. Secondly, even if Allah is translated as 'the god' the translation should be: there is no god but THE god. the translation doesn't include THE Which makes it completely wrong. What actually does 'there is no god but god' means?: 'there is no god without god' ?? that doesn't make sense as a sentence. and that isn't what the motto or the shahadah is actually meaning. I think that the translation should be changed as: "There is no God but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touhid3.1416 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No god except allah Navafnnc (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference in meaning in the English language between ‘god’ and ‘God’. The correct translation of Allah into English is ‘God’ not ‘god’. We don’t use the word ‘Allah’ because it is not English. However, the point you are trying to make is dealt with by the word ‘God’ with a capitalised initial letter. This is as agreed across Wikipedia - see MOS:ALLAH. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Jibran1998: @Alssa1: you’re both edit warring and both on the verge of 3rr. I suggest you discuss the issue here rather than continuing to revert. I would add that that the article should be reverted to the position prior to Alssa1’s edit while consensus is ascertained. On the other hand, Jibran1998 is clearly wrong: there are multiple reliable sources to justify the statement that Wahhabism is “dominant” and is “state sponsored” and the “official” form of Islam. These sources can be found in this article, in Wahabbism and in Legal system of Saudi Arabia. Further sources are easily found in Google books. DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@DeCausa:, I did realise that and stopped. Apologies for any disruption. Alssa1 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Population

The population sounds too good to be true. What are the chances of the population being 33,000,000 exact? There's no way it would be possible. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection

Per a rough consensus at these ([1] and [2]) discussions I have removed the 30/500 page protection from this article as I no longer believe it is supported by community consensus. If there is a disagreement on this point I would encourage opening a discussion at WP:AN where a consensus more specific to this article can be sought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy Ping TonyBallioni. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, I think it's good to keep this page protected. Even when I was editing this page it was protected I could not edit it but, I was reassured that it would not to vandalised again. This is only my point, is not the majority opinion others; would not agree with me at this point, I strongly support to keep the page protected as it was to avoid the risk of vandalism in the future. Kingston, CA (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture spam

We really need to fix the picture spam in the tourist section. Should discuss the 2 or 3 images that are best. It’s a mobile view nightmare that needs to be fixed ....this is not a picture book.--Moxy (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of dispute at DRN

Good morning everybody, there is currently a dispute resolution case open at the following link [3] if you wish to provide feedback on a path to a mutually agreeable solution. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Consistency

Read WP:MOS carefully. The previous version is messy and random. I re-wrote and added additional information. If you want to add something, go ahead, but do not ruin the article consistency and layout. Nabataeus (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. What exactly made it "messy and random"? You can't just delete numerous sourced material and relevant photos that give a much better overview of Saudi Arabian history than your edition. Several people contributed to the past version, you can't just delete it without reason. A compromise should be reached.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, there is no need for an edit conflict. I propose that a compromise should be reached. It's the only fair option. You can easily add some of your text into the existing categories whether Al-Magar, Dilmun, Nabatean Kingdom etc. I added some of your pre-historic content as you might have seen.

Try to add your text to the categories instead of deleting everything when several editors have contributed to it and numerous sources and references were used. Not to mention relevant photos with descriptions.

Also your text lacks direct links when speaking about all those civilizations. It would be good to add brackets ( [[ ]] ) when talking about those civilizations.

Also if you don't mind, you can contribute to the Saudi Arabia history page which is criminally neglected. Your text would fit much better on that page. This one should only give an overview of the main cultures and civilizations. The current layout serves this purpose the best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Saudi_Arabia

I wrote to you on your talk page but you seem to have ignored that. A pity.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • "Not at all. What exactly made it "messy and random"? You can't just delete numerous sourced material and relevant photos"
No, I didn't delete anything (except for Kindah and Thamud, I will work on it when I have more time), in fact, I re-wrote the article to make it consistent and much more smoth transition between periods, plus added great additional info. Making a sections out of every kingdom, with one and a half paragraph is not the followed style, see France, Germany, India etc. You could add what you want, but make it consistent and related to the content. Nabataeus (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You deleted a lot of material and relevant photos with descriptions to include 4 statues (!) when 1 is more than enough. The previous version (contributed by numerous users) gave a much better overview.

Why can't you add your text to the various civilizations, cultures and kingdoms that have their own section?

A consensus must be reached first before deleting so much information and this many photos for no reason.

There is no reason to delete Kindah and Thamud. That is the problem.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW your text is too long. It is more fitting for the History of Saudi Arabia page. Not a country page.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confused, nothing was deleted except for Kindah and Thamud (hardly two paragraphs combined), in fact you are the one who removed chunk of information. Read WP:MOS, sections shouldn't made for one sentence. this version is more consistent. Nabataeus (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Need your opinions @Kansas Bear: @Wario-Man: @Jbhunley: @Wikaviani:

See this version [4] and this version [5].

The former overview of Saudi Arabian history was messy and every kingdom/state has its section, Nabataean, Lihyan, Kindah, Thamud and Dilmun (two sentences maximum for many sections, transmitted from their respected articles lead long ago by Oxford). What I did was for the most part merely re-writing and adding additional informations, given utmost concern to WP:MOS, including consistency and layout that is followed by country's articles, France, India, Tunisia, etc.. And Oxford should read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images. Nabataeus (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting on any content differences between the two I prefer the Pre-Islamic History section in [6]. The prose provides a narrative flow and is easier to understand than having each broken up. I would like to see some way of quickly extracting/noting the pre-Islamic kingdoms though. The one advantage the other format has is it is easy to see there were five pre-Islamic kingdoms and what span of history they existed in and not being able to do that in the prose version is a considerable loss. Jbh Talk 22:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nabataeus:, @OxfordLaw: Hi, according to me, this version is better. It's better written and more pleasant to read. As far i can see, it also contains fewer unsourced claims. This version is an improvement of this article and i really enjoyed reading it and learned a lot of interesting things about the history of this region, thank you very much. As a last remark, i would say that it's a good behavior to discuss on the talk page, but it would have been even better if you had done this before an edit war. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Yes, a much more navigable, extensive (in the sense of inclusion of all major civilizations, cultures and kingdoms) and easier overview of the various periods of the history of Saudi Arabia (remember this is a relatively brief introduction to Saudi Arabian history) is now out of a sudden "messy".

Meanwhile your added text uses very few sources.

No, you also deleted all of the relevant photos with descriptions to add 4 photos, 3 of which show similar statues.

I added one of the photos that you used as well as the portion that you wrote about the pre-history of KSA. You cannot just delete something that numerous users have contributed to and which has been a consensus out of a sudden without a discussion beforehand. Likewise I offered you a compromise but you refused to even entertain this thought. I have nothing against reaching a compromise but why can't you add the additional information to the already existing sections that make it much easier to read and get a quick overview? Once again this is just a brief introduction.

I also told you that your text (contribution) would be highly welcomed in the "History of Saudi Arabia thread" which is criminally neglected unlike for instance the thread about Pre-Islamic Arabia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Saudi_Arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia

I wrote on your talk page the same day you deleted the previous version (as I have no interest in a senseless edit war) without explanation but you did not reply to my post.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • "Yes, a much more navigable, extensive (in the sense of inclusion of all major civilizations, cultures and kingdoms) and easier overview of the various periods of the history of Saudi Arabia (remember this is a relatively brief introduction to Saudi Arabian history) is now out of a sudden "messy"."
Hardly navigable and extensive, the older version is simply the epitome of randomness and messiness, with no narrative or consistent style. Sections for one paragraph shouldn't be made. Read WP:MOS.
  • "You cannot just delete something that numerous users have contributed to and which has been a consensus out of a sudden without a discussion beforehand. Likewise I offered you a compromise but you refused to even entertain this thought."
No consensus neither numerous users contributed to this subject, as said by @Moxy: long time ago in the archive, you simply copied and pasted from other article's lead into this article without proper attribution. Nabataeus (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that your wall of text (using only 2-3 sources at most), random photos (3 photos of similar statues) and some painting (depicting some Biblical scene) is better than the previous much more informative and RELEVANT photos?

Not at all. The text is sourced (40 + sources and references, more than you have used) and is divided into the main and most important parts of Saudi Arabian pre-Islamic history. Your text is random.

Wrong. I only added the Nabatean Kingdom portion. One can say the same about your additions. They are copied from "Roads of Arabia" and one single book that you are using again and again. Not sure what your point is.

As I wrote, you can just add your additions under each section. Not sure what the problem is. The layout is much easier/better this way. As I wrote, this is a brief overview of Saudi Arabian history. Not an extensive work.

That is for the "History of Saudi Arabia" thread.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


@OxfordLaw: Please slow down and stop editing the article unless a consensus is found between you and {u|Nabataeus}}, thank you.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


I have improved the layout of the section now. Nabataeus is free to add relevant text (that is not already included) in the relevant sections. 1 of your 4 photos have been included as well. One of the 3 similar ancient statues that you have used.--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiwiani I do not understand why you are deleting relevant changes (improvements) when I am addressing some of the previous criticism for the better? I don't think that Nabataeus would object to my changes, rather the opposite.

We are here to improve the page by reaching some kind of understanding and not blatantly out of a sudden change the entire layout and content without a prior discussion or deleting numerous relevant photos.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, as Moxy and i told you, please slow down, and wait to find a consensus with Nabataeus. If he does not have any objection about your edits then feel free to revert me. Thank you very much.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: If you agree with OxfordLaw's edits (the ones i reverted), then just feel free to revert me as well, my goal is to put an end to the edit war and find the best compromise for this article. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • "Are you trying to tell me that your wall of text (using only 2-3 sources at most), random photos (3 photos of similar statues) and some painting (depicting some Biblical scene) is better than the previous much more informative and RELEVANT photos?
Random photos? Wall of texts? Really? All of the photos are relevant to the context and not mere spamming, Jubail church and Tayma inscription for instance have no context, Tayma and Jubail respectively are not mentioned in the article, as Moxy told you, this is not a picture book. The layout is horrendous. I, Wikaviani and Jbh prefer the narrative version.
"Wrong. I only added the Nabatean Kingdom portion. One can say the same about your additions. They are copied from "Roads of Arabia" and one single book that you are using again and again. Not sure what your point is."
Actually you did, it is not hard to notice. And no, mostly they are not referenced from Roads of Arabia. Although using one source is not prohibited. You could follow the chronological consistent style. If you want to separate every kingdom/state go to History of Saudi Arabia. And Wikaviani is right, please do not edit the page while we have an active discussion. Nabataeus (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

They are very random and uniform. 3 photos of 3 ancient statues. The last photo is even worse. Some painting.

Yes, your text is too long considering that the history section of country pages is usually brief.

The Jubail Church has a context. The section named "religions in pre-Islamic Arabia", that the user Wikiwiani deleted. The Tayma inscription has a relevance in relation to the Nabatean Kingdom section.

Now you are lying. Everyone can go and take a look at how many users contributed to the previous version.

There is already a chronology. Pre-history, Al-Magar culture, Dilmun and Thamud civilization, Nabatean Kingdom, Kingdom of Lihyan, Kindah Kingdom and from there on Middle Ages and rise of Islam.

Actually your more extensive text is more fitting for the actual page concerning Saudi Arabian history which has been criminally neglected. Like this page.

Actually my edits did nothing but address some of your criticism in order to find a consensus (the aim is to improve the page) but I guess that you failed to notice that.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


  • "They are very random and uniform. 3 photos of 3 ancient statues. The last photo is even worse. Some painting."
And how do we reason with that? The three statues are relevant to the context, pre-history, Dilmun, and Lihyan are extensively discussed. Plus the paint is related to the five kings of Midian and their war. It is absolutely the opposite of randomness.
  • "The Tayma inscription has a relevance in relation to the Nabatean Kingdom section."
Tayma inscription in no shape or form related to the Nabataean kingdom.


  • "Now you are lying. Everyone can go and take a look at how many users contributed to the previous version."
Go ahead and check, textual contribution was substantially added by Saudi2828 who just dumped it without organizing or minimum carrying of the layout, additional to your contributions.
  • "There is already a chronology. Pre-history, Al-Magar culture, Dilmun and Thamud civilization, Nabatean Kingdom, Kingdom of Lihyan, Kindah Kingdom and from there on Middle Ages and rise of Islam."
"articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs." - I am interested in @Moxy: thoughts, should the article be divided into small sections for every kingdom, Lihyan, Nabataean, Dilmun, Thamud and Kindah [7], or, lumperd under Pre-Islamic period section with chronological narrative [8]? Best regards Nabataeus (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: This article is quite long and I have not gone through the revisions and discussions in thorough detail. However, it seems to me that the overriding concern is Wikipedia:Summary style, which states A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. There are already main articles on History of Saudi Arabia, Pre-Islamic Arabia, Al-Magar, Dilmun, etc., etc. There should only be enough description about Saudi Arabia's history here to provide context for the rest of the article. If the Dilmun civilization is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, then there's no need to mention it in the history section. Period. Trying to include information like that is what caused this article to grow into a 15,000-word monster, well in excess of the maximum article size recommended by WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLITSIZE. I strongly recommend moving such material to the appropriate articles. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

More third opinion: @Nabataeus and OxfordLaw: I'm sorry that I'm not really answering the question, but from my perspective either version is unacceptable for this article, and it's simply not worth discussing the details. The history section of either of those versions is larger than the main article History of Saudi Arabia, and that's just ridiculous. As a summary of the main article, it should be smaller than the main article. The history section should probably be under 1,000 words, depending on how much information is needed to provide context for the rest of the article. There probably shouldn't be separate sections for Lihyan, Nabataean, Dilmun, Thamud and Kindah, etc., but that's not really the point. It has to be much more concise. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I will try to make it shorter by deleting unnecessary info, that could be transferred to the article of Saudi Arabia's history. I will do some adjustment following your advices by making it concise. Nabataeus (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nabataeus:It's not clear that consensus supports your edits recently, as several different editors seem to have reverted you. Suggest more discussion of history page would be advisable before edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Please, like whom? I am genuinely Interested on the ones that reverted my edits? There's actually none. Only Oxfordlaw that revert a version preferred by multiple users, here[9]and here[10], and me (while the former version was not preferred by anyone). I tried every measures possible and made the effort to cooperate and resolve the issue instead of edit warring. My recent DRN case is an example, he refused to participate and continued editing after it was closed. If he want to restore infos or add additional content, I have no problem. But the layout and its inconsistent nature that need serious attention since it was dumped indiscriminately long time ago without minimum caring (Just copy and paste from articles leads) see[11]. Best regards Nabataeus (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
It's possible I misread the logs. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see. No worries. The talk page is quite disorganized which is easy to misread. Nabataeus (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Moving my comment here: @D7oom021: per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, when your changes are reverted you are expected to first reach consensus on that article's talk page before restoring them. I can start that discussion for you by courtesy. Let's also get input about what should be there. The material you are removing is sourced. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible new paragraphs based on Recent political and economic changes section

Hi, this section started as a subsectionof the Women section above it, and later included a number of other developments (e.g. cultural and entertainment), hence later it became a new section and was renamed. As most of it is still about women, I wonder if this could be reworked back as a subsection at the end of the Women section, perhaps titled ‘Reform’, and the other topics – such as Qidiya, cinemas, restrictions on religious police – worked into the relevant sections, e.g. Tourism, Arts and entertainment, Religion in Society. I’ve drafted a possible ‘Reform’ subsection for the Women section, plus some new paragraphs for those other sections, here in my user space.

Just to be clear my suggestion is to redistribute and build on what’s currently in Recent political and economic changes and then to remove that section. If someone has time to have a look and get back to me here that would be much appreciated. As I’ve tagged above and on my userpage, I have a COI as an employee at the Ministry of Media in Saudi Arabia. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Copy pasting

Looks like we have some copy pasting from another article....but the full sources were not moved over properly. Should we try and find them or just remove the additions that are currently causing reference errors?--Moxy (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you to solve this frequently common problem, by making a referendum; about which paragraph should be deleted from the article. Zozr789 (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: I assume you’re talking about the section I mentioned above? Yes and just to clarify for other editors here, apart from the three paragraphs which were a subsection in the Women section, it comes from Mohammad bin Salman (not 100% word-for-word but more or less). The missing sources are from the New York Times[1] (477) and New York Post[2] (478). While it is copied and pasted, the information is important and in my view would be best distributed across the relevant sections in the article. Since most of it is about reforms in women’s rights, those specific paragraphs could be redrafted into a subsection titled ‘Reforms’ at the end of the Women section. That’s what I’ve tried to do here under Reforms (and above that are two sentences which might go above this new subsection, i.e. following on from the current closing paragraph on women in medicine).
The other sentences that were copied across (restrictions on religious police, the General Entertainment Authority, etc.) are also important, and those sentences might also be incorporated into sections where they are relevant, i.e. tourism, arts and entertainment, and religion in society. I fully appreciate that I’ve proposed quite a bit of new material for these in my user space, but it is well sourced and concise, and I hope it can be reviewed and discussed by editors here in time. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mark Mazzetti; Ben Hubbard (16 October 2016). "Rise of Saudi Prince Shatters Decades of Royal Tradition". The New York Times. p. A1. Archived from the original on 16 October 2016. Retrieved 17 October 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Saudi Arabia to allow women to enter stadiums to watch soccer". New York Post. 12 January 2018. Archived from the original on 10 February 2018. Retrieved 1 February 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Update GDP Ranking to 16th from 14th List of countries by GDP (PPP) Philtheskid (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Danski454 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Turkish/Saudi incident

@OxfordLaw and SharabSalam: : Would suggest to both of you guys to discuss on the talk and avoid edit warring.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Mr.@OxfordLaw: has been arguing that Turkish sources aren't Trusted and that the case is still hasn't been solved yet. My problem is that the photos description doesn't imply that Saudi Arabia has committed the crime and it states what the Turkish police has revealed the investigation is still going but that's the result of the Turkish investigation and it should be addressed. SharabSalam (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The disappearance of a journalism is not enough to be included on a country page. Yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia on any country page despite 1000's upon 1000's of journalists worldwide disappearing, getting killed and silenced on all continents by governments in power. Moreover unfounded claims are that. Unfounded claims. Reducing this disappearance to only the "Turkish policy angle" is greatly biased. The President of Turkey, as recently as yesterday, did not make such a unfounded claim and one would believe that he is up to date.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record here are some sources. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/saudis-accused-of-killing-journalist-jamal-khashoggi-in-consulate-j26flg8gq

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-concludes-saudi-journalist-khashoggi-killed-by-murder-team-sources-say/2018/10/06/31ee4f86-c8d9-11e8-9c0f-2ffaf6d422aa_story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/08/jamal-khashoggi-turkey-search-black-van-carried-body-saudi-arabia

No Al-Jazeera just the result of the Turkish investigation. SharabSalam (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oxfordlaw: the section is about human rights violation in Saudi Arabia. Whataboutism argument is not enough reason to support your deletion of sourced information. SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Which are all quoting the same unfounded and unproven claims.

This was already exposed in this article below:

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2018/10/08/Jamal-Khashoggi-mystery-Deleted-tweets-unnamed-sources-and-fake-funeral.html

You are only showing one angle of this story which is some unnamed Turkish "police official" whose claim appeared on Turkish-state media.

In any case, there is zero reason for that person to feature on a country page unless numerous other country pages will feature journalists that have been jailed, have disappeared or been killed. From China to Latin America.

In Turkey itself, there are 50.000 jailed journalists.

As for human rights violations, this is arguably not fitting on the country page as a separate section as seen on almost every single Wikipedia country page. Similarly the outdated "women section". I don't see anything similar concerning Iran for instance (that faces many of the exact same problems) and numerous other countries in the region and outside of it. It's an "interesting" development.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: Alarabiaya is not a reliable source, DO YOU HAVE ANY SECONDARY SOURCE??!! It's a pro-Saudi newspaper. Plus, the article doesn't imply that the Turkish police investigation result was that the Jamal isn't killed. The article does just mention some tweets were deleted by Qataris and other stuff honestly I don't even know how does this article support what you are saying, besides it's not a reliable source.

The whataboutism argument doesn't also support your deletion of sourced informations as I mentioned before. SharabSalam (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya is a respected media.

But biased Western newspapers are the gospel that all quote some unnamed Turkish "police official" that made (apparently) a completely unfounded claim of some absurd 15 death squad team, several day long torture, that was tapped, being cut into pieces? Haha, OK.

The absurd claim remains unfounded and sounds as complete and utter bogus for many various and logical reasons. Sourced material is not alfa and omega. I can find you sourced material deriving from Davic Icke's website that claims that reptiles rule planet earth and similarly absurd claims from Smoloko.com. It's the source that matters. Not whether it is sourced.

Erdogan did not support the unfounded version that you have ONLY decided to include. Not to mention that his disappearance is not relevant to be included on a country page as one of the few nations if not the only one on Wikipedia.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: how does respect change anything with reliability? what you are saying is that Al Arabiya a Saudi-owned media is right and all of western media is biased? Shouldn't that by your logic be disrespectful to western media? You already admitted that you believe all of articles I showed you are biased even though they are from reliable sources and that you only want to add what al-arabiya stated even if it's an unreliable source and pro-Saui regime. You are clearly biased!! Also you keep repeating whataboutism again and again even after I told you that doesn't go e you any permission to delete sourced information in related section. If you have a problem with the whole section in the article then add that to discussion but now this is irrelevant. SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Al-Arabiya is a respected media that enjoys one of the largest audiences in the Arab world and the Middle East. It is not owned by the Saudi Arabian state either.

How many times do I need to repeat myself? The UNFOUNDED and BIASED (The Erdogan regime in Turkey are not exactly on the same wavelength with Saudi Arabia in regards to regional policies, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Kurdish issue, Iran etc.) CLAIMS from a SUPPOSED UNNAMED Turkish "police official" being repeated by Western media, does not change the main and key fact, which is that you are spinning a history only using one unfounded claim. If I am biased, what are you? Neutral? You don't strike me as very neutral to put it mildly.

You have not answered why a disappearance of a journalist (1 out of 1000's each year in the region alone) deserves an image on a country page and why such a case is only found on the Saudi Arabia country page and not for instance on the Turkey country page despite that country jailing 50.000 journalists. More than any other country in the world! Another neutral editor (just like me), :@Moxy: removed your addition as well for the exact same reasons that I have been raising here and when editing. --OxfordLaw (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: Al Arabiya is a Saudi owned media. Again you keep talking like if Wikipedia is owned by Saudi Arabia. This shows how biased you are: The fact that you keep attacking Turkish sources and western media. Meanwhile I am trying to put and keep things that are related to the section in the article "sourced and clear" and I provided reliable sources. Al-arabiya is not a reliable source regardless of being respected or not(maybe respected by you). You are biased because you refused all of reliable sources and start disrespecting them by saying they are biased meanwhile trying to show that the Saudi-owned media Al-Arabiya(we call it AlYahudia in the Arab world btw) is a glorious respected media. SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have little interest in further discussing this issue with an anti-Arab and anti-KSA individual who takes completely UNFOUNDED and BASELESS ACCUSATIONS as facts. I am sure that this will be dealt with accordingly either be me or another editor as done earlier today as well.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: this is personal attack! I am an Arab myself not just an Arab but also pure Arab I don't know how you came up with that allegation all I was doing is trying to keep this article safe from vandalism. How is that Anti-Arab or anti Saudi-regime? SharabSalam (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No personal attack. There is no such thing as a "pure Arab". The earliest traces of Arabic speaking peoples are found in Northern Arabia (modern-day KSA), Iraq and Southern Sham (Levant). Most of Yemen did not speak Arabic in pre-Islamic times but related Semitic languages. This explains why some of those languages native to Yemen and Southwestern Oman (Dhofar) exist to this very day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_South_Arabian_languages

You are clearly anti-KSA. It is clear beyond any doubt.

The fact remains the same. You are taking completely unfounded, biased and unproven claims from 1 single source (some Turkish police officer, Erdogan himself not supporting this version of events, and he must know more than anyone else) and acting like it is a undisputed fact. How hard is it to add that "allegedly" or "according to some Turkish sources" etc. Not to mention that this individual is not relevant for this country page. Add that on the relevant "human rights in KSA" page if you insist.

I love your obsession about this event while at the same time Turkey jails more journalists than any other country in the world and your beloved Houthi terrorist cult killing Yemeni journalists and kidnapping people left and right due to political disagreements or them exposing Houthi crimes! Also nice joke claiming to be a Sunni Muslim. Not seen a single educated Yemeni Sunni supporting the Houthi terrorist cult. False-flagging much or what?--OxfordLaw (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: the earliest trace of Arabic speaking people found in the north are you talking about an inscripte of the Lakhmids tribe that came from Yemen? Yes! There is something called "pure Arabs" the people of Qahtan are considered by almost all Arab historians as pure Arabs. An inscript doesn't really tell when did people read or wrote or spoke Arabic. Plus southern Yemeni languages are more related to Arabic than northern Arabic. You are truly a waste of time. Have you even read the articles you posted?. Can you give me one single example to prove that I am an anti kSA? SharabSalam (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I am actually from the tribe of Madh'hij one of the most pure Arab tribes that gave birth to many tribes in Saudi Arabia and other countries. DNA tests have revealed that most of Saudi Arabia are descendents of this tribe in fact I might be purest Arab alive and you call me anti Arab how ironic!! SharabSalam (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a false narrative that history, science and archaeology has long ago debunked.

Most of Yemen and Southern Arabia did not speak Arabic but Southern Arabian languages (very different Semitic languages) at the time of Prophet Muhammad's birth. Arabic is a Central Semitic language. Not a southern one. The earliest Arabic inscriptions have been found in Hijaz, Iraq and Jordan. Basically the borderlands of Arabia and Sham/Mesopotamia. That is also where the Semitic people originated by most accounts so far.

No, Saudi Arabians cluster much more closely to neighboring Shami people (Levant), Iraq and Egypt. Rest of Arabia as well (naturally) but what you are saying is not truth. Yemenis, albeit overall related to other Arabians, Arabs and West Asians (in the bigger picture) have Sub-Saharan African/Horner admixture that are only comparable with modern-day Egyptians.

If we go by tribal mythology, most Saudi Arabians are Adnanites (most tribes of Hijaz, Najd, Eastern Province and the North).

As for Khashoggi, an editor already included some text related to his case. He does not warrant an image/avatar on his own when Badawi is already there.--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

well first of all your behavior is truly shocking to me. your parents or the one who was responsible for you should have taught how to talk with other people respectfully. your talk page is an example of this. second you provided baseless unreal claims. majority of Arabs are Qahtanite who belongs to J1 haplogroup meanwhile Arabs who consider themselves as Adnanites belongs to j2a haplogroup which is the second most common Y-DNA haplogroup found among Arabs after J1. so genetically your claims are false. historically your claims are false since even in history the majority of Arab tribes are Qahtanite like tayy, Ghassanids or lakhmids you can hardly find any ancient tribes in Arabia that is considered as an Adnanite tribe or related to them. the second Jurhum tribe btw is the first tribe to settle in Mecca. finially I will have to give you a kind advise to change your behavior. you said Also nice joke claiming to be a Sunni Muslim. Not seen a single educated Yemeni Sunni supporting the Houthi terrorist cult. False-flagging much or what? this type of behavior makes people avoid any further discussion with you. also here when you said: your beloved Houthi terrorist cult... you accused me of being a terrorist?? SharabSalam (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

To both of you: How about restoring this discussion to the question of what edits to make to this article and why/why not? Please check WP:NOTFORUM and WP:AGF. A Wikipedian's origin is normally irrelevant, though it might be useful if s/he wishes to reveal (claim) a particular origin and if that helps give credibility to his/her understanding/choice of/access to sources. A Wikipedian's origin (or claimed origin) does not justify violating AGF, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia etiquette. You can shift a discussion on ethnic origins to one of your user pages (or user talk pages) if you feel that it's within the scope of userspace discussion. Descriptions of each other's origins or reactions to these claims should have no further place on this talk page. Please read WP:AGF. Thanks. Boud (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Militry conquest of Hejaz as "Unification" ...

... is laughable falsification of history of 1925.. --L.Willms (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? If you think that “unification” implies peaceful unification or unification by consent, it doesn’t e.g. wars of conquest by Prussia and Sardinia in Unification of Germany and Italian Unification respectively. In any event RS refer to it as unification. DeCausa (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The world largest oil producers

According to this [12] article Saudi Arabia is behind the US and Russia. I put that in my latest edit in this article but it didn't fit since the paragraph sounds like if it's talking about an old fact. An anonymous user has modified the paragraph and it also doesn't fit. Can someone fix it? Because it's very hard to edit using visual editor using my phone. SharabSalam (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested additions to Economy section

There’s currently no mention of Saudi Vision 2030 in the first part of the Economy section, and there’s actually a five-year gap in that part from 2013 to 2018, during which the program started. I propose including a new subsection within the section, titled Saudi Vision 2030, which could also include the two paragraphs just above the Agriculture subsection on the expected $11bn loan and the challenges of Saudization.

Then in the Tourism subsection, there could also be a brief mention of the main projects in that sector (Red Sea, Qiddiya, Al-Ula).

See here (and diff) for these proposed additions. If someone can review and comment here that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Tarafa15 (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Post-Muhammad period ≠ Pre-Islamic period

Though there is controversy regarding the phrase 'pre-Islamic', particularly when applied to figures who came before Muhammad and are revered as Prophets in Islam, such as Ibrahim (Abraham), who is regarded as the founder of the sanctuary of Mecca in the Hejaz, the period post-Muhammad is definitely not to be considered 'pre-Islamic', even in the secular POV. Leo1pard (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additions and edits to Economy section

See here (diff) for some proposed additions and edits to the Economy section. The reasoning for these is:

  • There’s currently no mention of Saudi Vision 2030 in the first part of the Economy section, where there’s a five-year gap between 2013 and 2018 during which Vision 2030 was launched. I therefore propose a new subsection in the Economy section, titled Saudi Vision 2030.
  • This new section could also include the two paragraphs before the Agriculture subsection (on the $11bn loan and Saudization). Regarding those:
    1. $11bn loan: a) the loan has actually now been closed, and b) the second sentence about the PIF receiving additional cash is misleading - in fact it’s just that after the last two years of investments this loan will give the PIF more cash, which isn’t really worth mentioning anyway. More important is that it represents a first step for the PIF in incorporating loans and debt into its funding strategy.
    2. Saudization: a) the unemployment rate is 12.9% (it’s not a "12.9% drop in employment" as the second sentence currently says), and b) the end of the final sentence - “meet its unemployment rate” - is not quite the right wording. It’s to meet its unemployment target.
  • The Tourism subsection could benefit from a brief mention of the main projects in that sector (Red Sea, Qiddiya, Al Ula). Tarafa15 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.-  Spintendo  18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the manual of style

ONE SECTION
There is consensus to organize kingdoms/states of pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia under one section in the article. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should every kingdom/state of pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia be separated into different sections as in here or should it be under one section labelled "pre-Islamic" (period) as in here. Moreover, what is suited and preferred manual of style between these two versions? Nabataeus (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Nabataeus (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

One section@Nabataeus: I like how the article looks without subsections for each kingdom of pre-Islamic Arabia, especially considering that the various dynasties of the "Middle Ages" are all merged into one section. The Manual of Style doesn't have any specific guidelines for subsection headings MOS:BODY, and it seems like none of the WikiProjects associated with this article have published any style guidelines of their own. Rosguill (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)07:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Different sections it seems easier to read that way. A {{TOCLIMIT}} can hide them from the top table-of-contents, it feels slightly excessive there. I doubt the Manual of Style will have anything useful to say on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Different sections. As Rosguill notes, there don't seem to be guidelines on this. As power~enwiki notes, different sections are easier on the reader. From personal of working on broadly similar articles at GOCE or assessing for GA, sections seem to be much the commonest approach. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit weird to have separate sections for the pre-Islamic era, but use paragraph-form for "Middle Ages and the rise of Islam"? If we think that sections are more accessible to readers, shouldn't we also split the "Middle Ages" section between Rashidun, Ummayyad, Sharif of Mecca, Qarmatians, etc. ? Rosguill (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding, most of it due to my wording, I tried to be neutral in presenting both cases to the point where it didn't address the sub-sections version problems and expose it to the viewers. For example this version, Kingdom of Lihyan, Kindah, and Thamud don't exceed couple of sentences. Which shouldn't be the case. As this version was indiscriminately dumped by Saudi2828 long time ago here. The problem is, are those kingdoms worth their sub-sections? Or should we merge them together, and please take a look into both versions and assess it accordingly. Nabataeus (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nabataeus: As someone who has studied the country (and language) and then lived and worked there, as well as being a fairly serious Wikipedian, I found the former option more informative and easier to digest. Modern nations do not lend themselves to rigid approaches to recounting their histories, as I found the latter option. The former shows that today's Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as successor to a long history of diverse part and periods. (However, the latter is reasonably readable, etc.) (NOTE: I did not dig down into specific periods, as granularly Rosgull did above.) If you are looking for votes, I vote like this. Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think a distinction needs to be made due the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia not having a direct line of succession from the pre-Islamic kingdoms. It is misleading to present these states as direct forerunners to the modern state, as while they shared some geographical territory in common, they were not completely coterminous, and the modern state does not stake its claims to legitimacy on the history of these previous kingdoms. For comparison, look at Egypt, Jordan, United States, and United Kingdom: none of these articles split the history of previous cultures into sections with a sentence or two on each dynasty (or equivalent multi-generational sovereign entity) that inhabited the region, but the articles are nevertheless informative and accessible. I maintain that this content is best presented as a prose summary that more clearly provides due weight to various chapters in Saudi history. It's rather silly that Version 1 presents more information about the Al-Magar than about the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates combined, despite the latter having almost unquestionably greater importance to the modern state.Rosguilltalk 18:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "For comparison, look at Egypt, Jordan, United States, and United Kingdom: none of these articles split the history of previous cultures into sections with a sentence or two on each dynasty (or equivalent multi-generational sovereign entity) that inhabited the region, but the articles are nevertheless informative and accessible."
Exactly! Nabataeus (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2018 (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.


A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Request edit

@Spintendo: sorry this wasn’t clear - what I’m proposing is two things:

1. The addition to the Economy section of a new subsection, titled Saudi Vision 2030, between paragraph 9 of that section (starting “Statistics on poverty in the kingdom are not available…”) and the Agriculture subsection, and incorporating paragraphs 10 and 11 (on the $11bn loan and Saudization) immediately above the Agriculture section. Vision 2030 is a significant program and the only mention of it in the Economy section at the moment is a passing one in the Tourism subsection. See here in my sandbox for that proposed (fully sourced) Saudi Vision 2030 subsection.

The first three paragraphs give 1) its origins, 2) some of its major projects, and 3) some of its main aims.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs are slightly adjusted from the two paragraphs above the Agriculture subsection. Those changes are:

  • In the fourth paragraph (from paragraph 10, on the $11bn loan):
    • Change “Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund is expected to sign a deal with some of the biggest global lenders for a loan of $11 billion in 2018” to “In September 2018 the Public Investment Fund completed a deal with a group of major global lenders for a loan of $11 billion” - as the deal has now been completed.
    • Change “Source close to Bloomberg claimed the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia will receive additional cash after two years of major new investments” to “The deal raised more than initially planned and was the first time the PIF had incorporated loans and debt instruments into its funding” - the source says “The deal will give the PIF additional cash after two years of major new investments” (i.e. the two years since 2016) and doesn’t mention anything about claims from sources close to Bloomberg. It's stating the obvious that the deal gave the PIF more cash - the salient features are that it was larger than expected and marked the start of the PIF incorporating debt into its funding options, as reported by Bloomberg in the September 17 article above.
  • In the fifth paragraph (from paragraph 11, on Saudization):
    • Change “The rate of local unemployment is at its peak in more than a decade, with 12.9% drop in employment” to “The rate of local unemployment is 12.9%, its highest in more than a decade” - it’s not a 12.9% drop in employment, 12.9% is the current unemployment rate (the source says “With unemployment at 12.9 percent, its highest level in more than a decade”).
    • Change “…the government needs to produce 700,000 jobs by 2020 to meet its unemployment rate” to “…the government needs to produce 700,000 jobs by 2020 to meet its 9% unemployment target” (the same source says “the kingdom would need to add 700,000 positions by 2020 to meet its 9 percent unemployment target”)

2. The addition of three sentences to the Tourism subsection mentioning the three main tourism projects - the planned Red Sea tourist resort, the entertainment city at Qiddiya, and the restoration of heritage sites in Al Ula - plus the 2030 aim of 30 million annual tourists. That slightly expanded section is also in my sandbox.

Let me know what you make of these proposals. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 16-NOV-2018

  Edit request partially implemented  

  1. Green tickY The corrections to sentences in the fourth and fifth paragraphs were implemented.
  2. Red XN The addition of the Saudi Vision 2030 section was not done, as a Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s subsection already exists containing a hatnote for the Saudi Vision 2030 article. Any proposed sections should make use of already-existing subsections to limit redundancy.
  3. Red XN The tourism section was not expanded, as the items mentioned therein describe future plans and projects, per WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL.

Regards,  Spintendo  04:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: thanks for taking a look and updating those two paragraphs.
The issue with the 'Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s' section is that it only really includes social changes. It grew out of a subsection titled Recent Progress at the bottom of the Women section, and it’s still mostly about women’s rights. So I’m not sure if what I’ve proposed would create any redundancy (beyond two links to Vision 2030 which I agree should be avoided). Social and cultural developments are an important part of Vision 2030, but its core is the economic program, which in my view warrants at least some kind of outline somewhere.
One option could be to include paragraphs 1–3 of the proposed Vision 2030 subsection in the 2010s section. See here for a possible version of the 2010s section, in two subsections:
1. 'Economic reforms' (note I’ve edited these paragraphs down slightly).
2. 'Social and cultural changes', which contains everything in the current section plus:
  • A sentence on restricting the powers of the religious police.
  • Four sentences (in italics) which are currently at the end of the Arts and entertainment section – two of these are actually duplicated across these two sections (cinemas reopening, which I’ve trimmed, and "comedy shows, pro wrestling events and monster truck rallies"). If you approve of an expanded 2010s section along these lines then I’d suggest these four sentences are moved here from 'Arts and entertainment'.
  • Ground-breaking at Qiddiya (which began seven months ago).
  • The sexual harassment law passed this year.
  • Some concrete developments regarding women in the workforce.
(Note the last paragraph in the current 2010s section is covered by paragraphs 3, 5 and 8 of the 'Social and cultural changes' section in this draft.)
(Also note the sentence on the first female head of the stock exchange isn’t in this draft as it’s also currently duplicated – it’s at the bottom of the Women section and seems better placed there.)
Another option, given the current 2010s section is a bit of an anomaly, could be to turn it back into a subsection of the Women section, titled Reforms, without the hatnote and retaining only what’s specifically on women’s rights. The sentence on cinemas reopening and the one on comedy shows etc are already duplicated anyway, and the sentence on Qiddiya can go altogether if you don’t think it has a place in 'Arts and entertainment' (although ground-breaking has begun as per the above). See here for a possible version of that Women > Reforms subsection (this is essentially the women’s rights points from the draft above, with the additional detail in the first paragraph of female candidates in the 2015 elections). If that replaced the 2010s section, the draft Saudi Vision 2030 subsection could then be included in the Economy section as previously proposed (note the first three paragraphs are also edited down slightly as in the draft above), with a sole link to the main Vision 2030 article there. I agree we should make use of existing sections, and this if anything might be a more logical use of them.
Regarding the Tourism section proposals, Qiddiya is underway, the Red Sea ground-breaking will take place in Q1 next year, and the Al Ula restoration is proceeding in partnership with France. There’s nothing to suggest any of these is in question. Perhaps they could be mentioned without Al Ula’s phase 1 completion date (see here at the bottom of my sandbox), which is of course subject to change, but they are notable and are going ahead so I’m not sure they’re as speculative as to be WP:CRYSTAL. Tarafa15 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I agree that duplication should be avoided here, and any attempt to collate the material rather than repeating it should be the preferred course of action. Whichever form the Vision 2030 section takes is of course for you to propose here, although these proposals would be strengthened if they were to include the input of other editors. This article currently has the benefit of being under the purview of 5 separate WikiProjects, and I would suggest that obtaining their input on these changes can only benefit what is already a well written and informative article.
To that end, you should make these proposals to editors involved in whichever WikiProject seems most appropriate. These WikiProjects are listed at the top of this talk page. To maximize chances of editor feedback, I would additionally suggest that a conversation take place in a central location—such as this talk page—whilst simultaneous notifications be placed in all five WikiProject talk pages. This notification can simply be worded as: "There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Saudi Arabia regarding what form a rewritten Vision 2030 section should take. Editors are urged to join in on the discussion." Participating editors can then be tasked with implementing any agreed upon changes when a consensus is reached (provided they themselves are not under any conflict of interest).
Please remember that even though you have a conflict of interest — you are ultimately the moving party here, and your input and suggestions are a vital and necessary ingredient for the community in reaching a decision to make these changes. If you have any additional questions about hosting a WikiProject discussion please don't hesitate to ask. Regards,  Spintendo  20:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting input on proposed Saudi Vision 2030 section

Just to summarize the main points of this discussion above for the benefit of any editors coming here from WikiProjects:

  1. There is currently nothing in the Economy section covering the basics of the Saudi Vision 2030 program, which is a major new direction for the country economically. In my view, a short summary of the main economic motivations and objectives of Saudi Vision 2030 is warranted somewhere in this article.
  2. While there is already a Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s section, this covers almost exclusively social changes, whereas the core of Saudi Vision 2030 is economic.

Three options have been suggested:

  • Option 1: Create a new Saudi Vision 2030 subsection in the Economy section, just under the Agriculture subsection. See here in my sandbox for a proposal for that subsection – the first 3 paragraphs cover the broad aims, some of the major projects, and some of the specific economic objectives of Vision 2030. The 4th and 5th paragraphs are the existing last 2 paragraphs before the Agriculture subsection, which could be transferred to the Saudi Vision 2030 subsection if it were to be created. The Saudi Vision 2030 hatnote would then be moved to the top of this section from its current place at the top of Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s.
  • Option 2: Create the new Saudi Vision 2030 subsection as per option 1 above PLUS if editors feel there's a potential redundancy issue given the existing Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s section, then given that section is mainly about women's rights (it grew out of a Recent Progress subsection at the bottom of the Women section just above it), it could be turned back into a subsection of the Women section, titled Reforms, without the Saudi Vision 2030 hatnote and retaining only what's specifically on women's rights. See here for a proposed Women > Reforms subsection to replace the Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s section – more detail on that is in the thread above.
  • Option 3: Expand the Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s section, which could be divided into two subsections e.g. Economic reforms and Social and cultural changes. See here for that proposed expanded section – the 4 sentences in italics are taken from the Arts and entertainment section (2 of which are actually already duplicated between that section and the current Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s section). These 4 sentences would need to be deleted from the Arts and entertainment section if this option were to be implemented.

A fourth option of course is just to leave both the Economy and Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s sections as they are.

If anyone has time to consider these suggestions and leave feedback that would be great. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Opinion

List of countries named after people It is suggested that this article be placed in the section of the origin of the label and Etymology. Ms.3hooD (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ms.3hooD: Etymology of what?--Biografer (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Biografer:

This phrase is contained in the article section Etymology : name of the country, which is a type of adjective known as a nisba, formed from the dynastic name of the Saudi royal family, the Al Saud (Arabic: آل سعود‎). Its inclusion expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family.

Other views should be presented, including this list : List of countries named after people Ms.3hooD (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Government section in the infobox.

A little while ago, I added "totalitarian" to the government section in the infobox. This does not need to be here anymore, as an absolute monarchy is already totalitarian, so there is no need to state it twice. I would remove it if I could, but apparently I need to discuss this here to reach a consensus, before reverting an edit which should not have been made anyways. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Request edit

can someone please correct the 1st paragraph in the end it says saudi population is the biggest in the middle east its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.235.35 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  16:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

What's the reason of removing this? "An autocratic monarchy,[1][2]" --SharabSalam (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

An almost excactly identical sentence already exists in the paragraph above: "Saudi Arabia has since been a totalitarian absolute monarchy, effectively a hereditary dictatorship governed along Islamist lines." So I removed the (near) duplicate, and moved up its sources to the first sentence. M . M 01:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The Authoritarian Resurgence: Saudi Arabia's Anxious Autocrats". Carnegie Endowment. Retrieved 5 October 2015.
  2. ^ Democracy index 2012 Democracy at a standstill (PDF). The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saudi_Arabia/Archive_4&oldid=1164856550"