Talk:Saudi Arabia/Archive 5

Sharia law
Yea so your baseless replacement of the word interpretation, without even reading the source shows that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia but rather to push a POV that is not in the sources. The interpretation that is referred to in the sources is called Wahhabism which is something far from Islam.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In my estimation, Wahhabism is (unfortunately) one of the most accurate forms of Islam. And as I wrote on your talk page, I was mainly referring to the sources in the article Legal system of Saudi Arabia that the relevant sentence wiki-linked to. As I also wrote, I'm going offline now and I'll leave it your way as "interpertation" until we reach consensus (hopefully tomorrow). M   .   M  02:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Accurate form of Islam? That's your POV and again opinion. You didn't even read the Wahhabism which most Azhar and other scholars call it "Satanic faith" also how the British endorse it. Please I don't want to hear any POV again. Also you said and I quote from the edit summary "No, it's what the sources say...". Again more proofs of WP:NOTHERE--SharabSalam (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me bring to you what Wahhabism article says so we have your opinion "most accurate form of Islam" and these Muslims who know Islam probably more than you. Therefore I ask you to not make such baseless claims again as you are basically wasting my time --SharabSalam (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you're engaging in wish-thinking and WP:original research by claiming that Wahhabism is not related to Islam. The sources describe it as an "ultra-conservative" form of Islam. I.e., one of the most conserved. Ergo, Wahhabism is an implementation of Sharia law. If you want to, I can also present sources that explicitly use the word "implementation". M   .   M  02:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, good night. :) M   .   M  02:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes per it's article it's far from Islam and as Muslim scholars have described it. You didn't even read what Wahhabism article says.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "It has been described" that's not it's definition also a reform movement that was endorsed by the Western world (until now). See what Muslim scholars have said about it to know it's definition.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a RS source already there https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/the-death-penalty-in-saudi-arabia-facts-and-figures and it says interpretation not implementation. In the edit summary when you replaced interpretation with implementation you said that's what the source says. That was a lie? Do you do this always while editting, not just this article but other articles?--SharabSalam (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Amnesty International does a lot of good work, however they're very PC. Of course they're afraid to use the term "implementation". But these people aren't;
 * A Brief Overview of the Saudi Arabian Legal System - Dr. Abdullah Ansary, B.A. in Islamic legal studies from King Abdulaziz University, writing for New York University School of Law: a system of governance and implementing the Islamic-based principle of consultation, as presented by the Qur'an (Islam's Holy Book) and authentic Sunnah (Prophet Traditions)...the King carries out the policy of the nation in accordance with the provisions of Islam. He oversees the implementation of Islamic Shari'ah.
 * Islamic Law and Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia - Frank E. Vogel, Harvard Law School Ph.D. thesis: The law of Saudi Arabia is the Islamic sharīʾa, meaning divine law...including formulating and supervising the implementation.

I can present many more like these if you want me to... M   .   M  13:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Those sources don’t support your argument. Of course they use the word “implementation” - that doesn’t prove anything. The point in the article is the interpretation used in the implementation. I agree with SharabSalam. M, you appear to be making an incorrect assumption that describing Wahhabism as ‘ultra conservative’ means it’s interpretation of Islam or Sharia is somehow more ‘authentic’. I created and have written most of the Legal system of Saudi Arabia article and if you look at the sources cited there you will see that a key issue in implementing Sharia is that content and scope of Sharia is uncertain and subject to interpretation. There is not a single interpretation of Sharia which all Muslims are agreed upon and the only question is ‘how much’ of it is implemented. DeCausa (talk)
 * More WP:original research. The most reliable sources say that Saudi Arabia implements Sharia law, therefore we must use the word "implementation" when describing the state's connection to said law. Case closed. M   .   M  13:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s a bizarre statement. Of course Sharia is ‘implemented’ in Saudi Arabia. There’s no dispute over that and of course there are multiple sources saying that. But that’s not the point of the sentence you want to change. That sentence is about the interpretation of Sharia I.e. How it is implemented. And there are multiple sources in the Legal System article about that. DeCausa (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, just took a look at the first source and it says :"The application of Islamic law in the Saudi Arabia Courts is mainly based on the rules of Islamic Shari'ah in accordance with the interpretation of the Hanbali School-the fourth orthodox school of law within Sunni Islam." I don't need to see the next source. This is obviously a Google search ("Saudi"+"Sharia"+"implementation"). The hanbali school is the Wahhabi school of Fiqih(see it's article) which is the one that according to most Muslims "Satanic faith". I can explain how Wahhabism is far from Islam but I don't think it's needed as the article of Wahhabism there gives more information.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If these sources are going to modify the statement they will be like "implementation of the Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia law" which will not change the meaning and would be completely unnecessary--SharabSalam (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a dispute over that. In fact, it's precisely what this dispute is about. Sharab is under the impression that Saudi Arabia doesn't implement Sharia law, only interprets it.
 * But how about this for a compromise?"The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons including: its archaic treatment of women, its excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment, state-sponsored discrimination against religious minorities and atheists, its role in the Yemeni Civil War, sponsorship of Islamic terrorists, and its strict legal system,     which implements Sharia law."It distinguishes the sources for criticism and the sources for implementation.  M   .   M  13:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely unacceptable. You failed to prove anything. You even lied when you said in the edit summary that the source says implementation. Again thats not an impression that's a great adherent to what the sources say. You on the other hand have that POV that Saudi Arabia is implementing authentic Sharia law which is a POV that has no source and no place in Wikipedia. The moment I saw your user page which says "I don't hate Muslims but I hate Islam" and calling the Islamic prophet a pedo I realized you aren't here to build an encyclopedia. And this type of POV pushing and time sinking arguments prove it more.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia implements Sharia law. If you have sources more reliable than Harvard Law and NYU Law that say otherwise, I'd be happy to see them. Also, I would advice you to refrain from WP:personal attacks. I've learned (the hard way) that the admins are very block-happy in these instances. M   .   M  14:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Two editors have already told you that the sources don't support your POV which you are trying to push yet you still referencing them again. Without replying to the argument. Also give me an example of a personal attack I said to you. The reason I am commenting about you is because you said something not true(lied) when you said in the edit summary -at the time you started the editwar and didn't do the BRD circle- that the source says implementation. Is this a personal attack? Certainly not. If you want to make a report in WP:ANI about this you are welcome but read this first WP:SHOT. I find it ironic that civility is something I should be concerned about when I am talking with someone who insults other people beliefs by saying their prophet is pedo and stuff like that. I am certainly adhering the civility policy but all I am seeing you doing here is wasting the community time with your POV doing quick Google search and without even reading the sources.POV in the talk page you shown i.e Wahhabism is the authentic Islam, Saudi Arabia is implementating the authentic Sharia law etc. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass..--SharabSalam (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction: one editor has told me that - you. The other editor,, wrote that Of course Sharia is ‘implemented’ in Saudi Arabia. There’s no dispute over that and of course there are multiple sources saying that. He simply thought you were disputing something else. And my proposed compromise doesn't include the phrase "implements authentic Sharia law", it just says "implements Sharia law". M  .   M  14:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course what the Saudi regime call its law Sharia law but that it's interpretation of Sharia they implement their interpretation of Shari'a law. It's just the same as saying their interpretation of Sharia law. Even the source you gave says that. But you did ctrl-f(implementation) then cheery picking what the source says. You are trying to say this they implement Shari'a law that's it not like their Wahhabi interpretation no no, it's the accurate Shari'a law, because why? Wahhabism is (unfortunately) one of the most accurate forms of Islam grossly POV.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also please do better quoting next time, the editor said after that "The point in the article is the interpretation used in the implementation" I agree. they implement their interpretation of Sharia law which is Wahhabism, they don't implement "Shari'a law" as it is.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you fail to comprehend is that Saudi Arabia implements Sharia law. That's what the most reliable sources explicitly state. It's not a "strict interpertation" or "their version" or anything else. It's Sharia law, plain and simple. And we can't change that on Wikipedia. M   .   M  15:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what? Huh? None of the sources support your claim. They all say that Saudi Arabia has its own interpretation of Sharia law.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here we go again...
 * A Brief Overview of the Saudi Arabian Legal System - Dr. Abdullah Ansary, B.A. in Islamic legal studies from King Abdulaziz University, writing for New York University School of Law: a system of governance and implementing the Islamic-based principle of consultation, as presented by the Qur'an (Islam's Holy Book) and authentic Sunnah (Prophet Traditions)...the King carries out the policy of the nation in accordance with the provisions of Islam. He oversees the implementation of Islamic Shari'ah.
 * Islamic Law and Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia - Frank E. Vogel, Harvard Law School Ph.D. thesis: The law of Saudi Arabia is the Islamic sharīʾa, meaning divine law...including formulating and supervising the implementation.
 * If you have nothing new to write, just stop writing. Please don't make me post this a third time. M   .   M  15:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again you none of the sources support your claim. You are cheery picking from the source. Read what it also says the fact that Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabi country that it's Wahhabi "Shari'a law" implemented doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia is following Shari'a law just like that which implies that Saudi Arabia (US and Israel best ally) Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia law is the accurate one. Even the sources you gave says they are following an interpretation of Sharia law in addition to the amnesty report.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. Yes, every implementation of any given law is technically an interpertation of it; we are all individuals, and we all have our own unique interpretations. The question is whether Sharia law is implemented is Saudi Arabia, and the answer is yes because that's excactly what the sources say. Just like the Constitution of the United States is implemented in the United States. M   .   M  15:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's you who is far away from the point of this discussion. It's whether we say this; Saudi Arabia was condemned because of its "strict interpretation of Sharia Law" or "strict implementation of Sharia Law" --SharabSalam (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019
I would like this to be edited so that Saudi Arabia is not pictured in such a bad light with the "human right" infringements which do not exist! I think this item is biased, non factual and made by someone who has not been to Saudi! Saudi Arabia is a fabulous country band only people who have been there like me can actually tell the facts about it and these are completely biased by the western media! Only the section where it talks about the Saudi Arabia's fake human right violations should be removed! Thank you! I have talked about this my friends and family members and they all agree that this should be done! If you want actual facts then go to Saudi Arabia national government website where all the facts are there and yes some people do abuse the system and government does recognise this however you can not make this a big part of the country as the all countries have criminals. Just because criminals have affected certain things does not mean you can stereotype the whole country and make it sound bad like the western media! Thank you very much for your thought on this important matter! Bob55445544 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Edit requests are for precise requests.  If you have a general complaint about the page, you can start a new section on the talk page (or continue discussing in this one).  But you should first read about Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing before trying to whitewash any information.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Heads of State Side Bar
The informational side bar that lists the heads of state only lists them as Salman and Mohammad instead of their full names, or even at least given names and House of Saud family name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.242.109 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2019 (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. All different views must be displayed And not just this opinion "Its inclusion expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family." The quote ended Because this bias Ms.3hooD (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Partially done, Special:Diff/916730487. I added the link of List of countries named after people.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This edit Special:Diff/916521952 was bold and was reverted, please seek consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the template is not further information but see also. And it's an deniable fact that the Saudi kingdom was named after a small tribe in it.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 4 comments in response:
 * Firstly,this edit makes no sense. The House of Saud is not the Main article for this section. Apart from the fact it’s already linked in the text, the only article that could be the “main” would be an article specifically on the etymology of Saudi Arabia (which does not exist) per WP:SUMMARY
 * Secondly, the country is not named after ‘Arabia’. That’s the English language equivalent. As the sourced statement in the section says the literal translation is “Saudi Arab” or “Arab Saudi” kingdom I.e it’s the adjective not the noun. Therefore Arab (etymology) is an entirely appropriate See also, as the etymology of “Arab” is not explained in the section.
 * Thirdly, including List of countries named after people as a See also, is just wrong. The purpose of the See also is to provide additional information. There is nothing additional about the etymology of Saudi Arabia in that article. But worse than that, the OP seems to suggest that it is an attempt at a POV contradiction of a sourced statement ("Its inclusion expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family.") If there’s a contrary view then it should be brought up here with sources to reach consensus not through a ‘back door’.
 * Fourthly, long-standing text should be left as is, until there’s consensus for change. So I’ve reverted. Once a change is agreed, it can be implemented. So please don’t revert again.
 * DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

On August 10, 1932, a meeting was held in Taif for scholars, personalities, representatives of the citizens of the Kingdom and a group of citizens who saw the need to change the name of the state from the Kingdom of Hejaz and Najd and its annexes to a name that shows the situation as a unified bloc and the enactment of a basic law of governance and a law to inherit the throne, and in the light of the results of that meeting, Name changed to Saudi Arabia. Source in Arabic * There is another view that it resembles the historical Islamic countries such as Ottoman Empire and Umayyad Caliphate and Abbasid Caliphate Ms.3hooD (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ms.3hooD (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The text you present just refers to a single new name. It doesn’t present any alternative to the the sourced statement that it reflects the fact that the country was the possession of the Al Saud. DeCausa (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This common name indicates that it was issued through a popular and spontaneous proposal and that the motive behind the naming is unity, not personal ownership. The reasons and historical and geographical conditions have brought this result Neighboring countries such as Oman, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar are absolute monarchies and this does not affect the nomenclature.Ms.3hooD (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for your opinion. However, we have 2 cited sources that the name was determined by Ibn Saud to reflect his clan’s proprietorial right, as he saw it. It’s a pretty uncontroversial point: Saudi = Al Saud. Q.E.D.. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is not related to the meaning of the name and its origin, and the dispute over the motives and reasons, I have a source and in Arabic is located below, do you speak Arabic? This text of the Royal Order The unification of the kingdom in September 1932, which is an official source, makes sense that according to Article 2 of  Basic Law of Saudi Arabia and Allegiance Council, the inheritance of the throne is only descendants of king Abdel Aziz, so why didn't we call it  "Azizia"? If the motive was personal property, the Abdul Aziz family did not constitute up to 10% of the total Al-Saud family. The Saudi royal family was ruled before 1932 for nearly two hundred years and the name has not changed, although the feudal genetic system itself has not changed. Emirate of Diriyah, Emirate of Nejd

The current King Salman was born in 1935 and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 1985, ie born after the choice of name in 1932 and not before, so the inference that the choice of name expresses personal possession makes no sense in this case Ms.3hooD (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OR. You need a source to back up your claims: you can’t go by inferences - you need an explicit statement from a reputable secondary source saying exactly what you are trying to say. You’re putting together your own theory. There is no dispute over this in the sources.DeCausa (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

“need an explicit statement from a reputable secondary source saying exactly what you are trying to say. “ Is the official newspaper Um Al-Qura (newspaper) that publishes laws before they enter into force and the international agreements to which the Kingdom is a party to be officially adopted in Saudi Arabia and the government news agency there is Saudi Press Agency a reliable source and  good reputation? The sources in the naming section on this subject are books by authors who express what they think You rely on what others are saying about Saudi Arabia, not what the Saudis say about themselves and their history. An Arabic-language source was published in the Official Gazette in which the text of the Royal Order unified the Kingdom On September 17, 1932 Which came into effect on 23 September This is an important historical document on the subject The source is a photograph from Qatar National Library Ms.3hooD (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (a) You’ve not quoted anything that backs up your point. They are silent as to the reason for the inclusion of “Saudi” (b) see WP:PRIMARY. It needs a reliable secondary source to contradict the existing cited secondary source for your point to be considered. DeCausa (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , The source you gave says that the name was changed to Saudi Arabia in order to unify the Najd, Hijaz and the other lands. However, the source doesn't explain why the term "Saudi" was used; hence, why wasn't it the Kingdom of Arabia or the Kingdom of al-Haramayn or the Islamic kingdom of Arabia المملكة العربية الاسلامية. So why they included the name of the family of al-Saud? the answer is not in your source; your source says to unify the regions that were occupied. That doesnt explain why Saud was included in the name so we want the reader to know what the name of "Saud" mean and why it was included in the name of the kingdom. The answer is: Its inclusion expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family. --SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The answer is in the source on the right side of the royal order on the photo page, where the names of people who met at a house in Taif were written and suggested that if someone is fluent in Arabic, he will see the following headings: Ms.3hooD (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * بدء تكوين الفكرة
 * عقد الإجتماعات
 * نشر الفكرة في الوطنيين
 * Where does it say why “Saudi” is the name? It doesn’t. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where does it say why “Saudi” is the name? It doesn’t. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Saying that the country is named Saudi because it "expresses the view that the country is the personal possession of the royal family." Is just purely a biased statement in my honest opinion. That's an exceptional claim and I guess the Saudis themselves have to state it for it to be 100% true, else an exceptional or excellent source is needed to verify that claim. 104.129.159.51 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, in terms of Wikipedia policy that’s wrong. We have WP:RS sources supporting the statement. An individual editor’s opinion on that, even an “honest opinion”, is irrelevant per WP:OR. If there’s a Saudi statement disputing this statement (which I don’t believe there is) then it’s relevance is that a statement saying the Al Saud dispute this can be included. But that doesn’t alter the fact that WP:RS say it’s so and should be stated. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
I see that whole passages here are strike-through. Is it allowed to do that to others contributions, in Wikipedia ?? Isn't that a kind of vandalism ? -- A random Visitor --93.132.141.227 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strike out of blocked sock edits per WP:TPO. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

subject verb agreement
Fix the grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny dawson (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 December 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) 02:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * مهرجان التمور 2.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020
5.108.56.66 (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC) I am very offended that you wrote that Saudi Arabia sponsor terrorists it is absolutely not true please fix your information and stufy before you write anything that could be offensive


 * The cited source to that statement (Brookings) actually says that Saudi Arabia “passively supported, or at least tolerated” terrorism. I think the current wording does not reflect that and implies an activism which the source does not claim. I have therefore changed it to “tolerated Islamic terrorism”.DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Totalitarian Dictatorship
Is there any kind of FORMAL classification to Saudi Arabia as a totalitarian dictatorship. The sources that used talk about freedom, but not about what type is the regime. And it is clear that there are some users here are trying to spread false information to vandalize. عمر خالد 8888 (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't put what Saudi Arabia officially say about itself. We put what reliable sources say.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This infobox section has been deleted (after more minor deletions). Saudi Arabia now has no government type. Note that KSA calls itself an absolute monarchy. Views? HLHJ (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Evolution of Saudi Arabia with respect to Women and art of Drifting (Sport)
Evolution of Saudi Arabia with respect to Women:- In the past 3 years, there has been an improvisation in law in order to allow the need for women to drive as well. Before 2017, women weren't allowed but now things have changed and improvised, thereby allowing women empowerment. Saudi Arabia has improvised their norms to equality among men and women thereby providing the right to authorities such as driving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Sport:- The art of drifting is a spectacular sport performed by the very locals of Saudi Arabia, which is performed on the sand dunes respectively. This stunt is an attractive stunt but equally dangerous and should be performed by experts only. Drifting is banned in Saudi Arabia due to the high death rates caused due to this act.

https://carbuzz.com/news/drifting-banned-in-saudi-arabia-as-more-and-more-die Manishaashettyy (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  JTP (talk • contribs) 04:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Legal System
In one of the images in Legal System its states "Saudi Arabia is unique in enshrining a religious text as a political document". However KSA is no unique in this as all the other gulf nations also do this. For example Bahrain also has a similar legal system. Qayrawan (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Totalitarian Dictatorship
Saudi Araba is a unitary, islamic, absolute monarchy but is called a totalitarian dictatorship. It should be called: Unitary totalitarian absolute monarchy. Monarchies and dictatorships are the same: autocracies. Please explain this to me, how is Saudi Arabia "totalitarian"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.240.222 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC) SharabSalam answer please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.240.222 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont know why you are calling me. I am not the one who added it. There is a comment above which says that the infobox section was removed here, meaning that totalitarian is has been there for a long time. The section was "Unitary Islamic totalitarian absolute monarchy."
 * The dictatorship seems to be added recently. I reverted one person who removed the section without explaining. I also think that what the government says about itself is irrelevant and not reliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TBH an absolute monarchy is essentially a hereditary dictatorship, that's why the word monarchy was used to describe a lot of ancient kingdoms (because "monarchy" meant dictatorship back then"), so, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. 190.141.88.36 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * TBH an absolute monarchy is essentially a hereditary dictatorship, that's why the word monarchy was used to describe a lot of ancient kingdoms (because "monarchy" meant dictatorship back then"), so, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. 190.141.88.36 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Legislature
The article says that saudi arabia’s legislature is none, this is completely false, it’s Legislature system is consultative assembly, same to all it’s gulf neighbours Aziz bader (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as explained in the article the consultative assembly is not a legislature because it has no legislative power. The only legislative authority in Saudi Arabia is the king. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Aziz bader, DeCausa is right about the Majlis-Al-Shura (Consultative Assembly) acting as a consultative appointed collegial body with no legislative authority. The King of Saudi Arabia is the sole legislative, executive and judicial authority in the Absolute Kingdom. 190.141.88.36 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Bahrain is absolute monarchy and by the way it’s article says that it’s legislature is consultative assembly, yes i agree with you that the king has the power but does that mean the country has no legislature ? Meanwhile the arabic page of saudi arabia says the “majlis al shoura” is saudi arabia’s legislature, Unlike the english page Aziz bader (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The National Assembly of Bahrain is described as a legislature in that article because it passes legislation. The king may then ratify or return within six months to the National Assembly where it may only pass into law if approved by two thirds of both houses of the National Assembly. The Saudi Majlis doesn’t even get to the first stage of that - it can’t pass any legislation at all. If you speak Arabic it sounds like you should correct the page on Arabic Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020
51.36.91.158 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC) it written here that the driving side is right which is wrong and the correct is left driving side
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020
When Googling "How old is Saudi Arabia?", the excerpt presented in the search results (First page of google search results) states the "Family" as "Al ash-Sheikh". This is incorrect as the ruling family is the "Al Saud" family. Respectfully request this be resolved to showcase "Family" as "Al Saud". The link below will take you to the search results page.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&rlz=1C5CHFA_enSA825SA825&ei=FekfX6fqIK3BlwT0iJHAAw&q=how+old+is+saudi+arabia&oq=how+old+is+saudi+arabia&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQQzICCAAyAggAMgIIADIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjoECAAQRzoICC4QkQIQkwI6BQgAEJECOggIABCxAxCDAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6DgguELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOgIILjoHCC4QQxCTAjoECC4QQzoFCAAQsQM6BQguELEDOhEIABAWEAoQHhCLAxCoAxCYAzoJCAAQFhAeEIsDOgsIABAWEAoQHhCLA1CRE1i-J2DcKGgBcAN4AYABmQKIAcUhkgEGMC4xOS40mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpergBAsABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjnyNPSyu_qAhWt4IUKHXREBDgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

Source for accurate information is: Abulnof (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't have any control of what shows up on a Google search result since the two are completely seperate entities. Google merely grabs information off Wikipedia (or mabye Wikidata) to show up in the "featured snippet" section. There's nothing we can do about it here. I would suggest you to leave a message in the "Feedback" button on the bottom right on Google. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 09:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—103.255.5.99 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 04250102169545
 * You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, which appear to me to be correct. If you think that there is an error, you need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Better source for Official Language
This is a source from a Saudi Government website that shows the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia, which states the official language as Arabic. I'd argue this is a better source than the CIA World factbook. The edit page said to search for talk page consensus before changing anything. Thoughts?

https://www.moe.gov.sa/en/TheMinistry/AboutKSA/Pages/System-of-Governance.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvillerius (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , the constitution might be considered a primary source, and is not entirely independent of the subject, Saudi Arabia. We usually prefer to use secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In this case I think you could add a citation of it, but it would be good if you didn't remove the existing one. This goes for the various other articles you've been doing this in. In general, it's a good idea to get some feedback about an edit, for example at the Teahouse or maybe Template talk:Infobox country, before you go making the same kind of edit to a large number of articles. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely understand your point of view here, but I might push back that this doesn't make too much sense in this case. An official language is something self-determined pretty blatantly in most cases by a subject, not a conclusion drawn by various other parties about said subject. I think it would be presumptuous to say that it's anything but ideal to have a country's own primary source as the link. Plenty of other wikipedia articles already do this in the same manner that I've been updating pages (most of the pages I've updated don't even have citations for these). Corroborating second sources are good, but it makes more sense in my mind that in this situation a primary source goes first because it is pretty black and white in many cases. When you actually go through these constitutions, you understand that as a pattern most countries have an article that directly says X language is the official language of the State. Let me know what you think about this! --Wbvillerius (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for updating the pages that have no citations. Primary sources as information about themselves are usually ok as long as the information isn't controversial. But sometimes with constitutions you will find it says one thing, but experts say that in practice it really isn't that way, or it's a gray area. Even official languages are not always black and white. In any case it doesn't matter to me which one goes first - I just think it's better to not delete the other reference. We usually only delete references when they're invalid, superseded, etc., which was the case for example here:, but not here: . --IamNotU (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for updating the pages that have no citations. Primary sources as information about themselves are usually ok as long as the information isn't controversial. But sometimes with constitutions you will find it says one thing, but experts say that in practice it really isn't that way, or it's a gray area. Even official languages are not always black and white. In any case it doesn't matter to me which one goes first - I just think it's better to not delete the other reference. We usually only delete references when they're invalid, superseded, etc., which was the case for example here:, but not here: . --IamNotU (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , Actually, if you look at how wikipedia has designated them - Official language. An Official language is designated by the government. It can be contentious just like the article says, but it's really a government's choice and they self-determine this in legal writing generally. That being said, I think you might be confusing an Official and National language. The national language is usually the one more up to debate and wikipedia often recognizes them in the Infoboxes as well. I've been updating Official languages because they are black and white and self-determined by the country's government - It's not up for debate unless there are conflicting legal accounts by the country. Thanks for the info about the paywall source, it is kind of strange however to source a website that requires payment when this information is clearly readily available in a myriad of free and reliable online sources. Thanks for teaching me that wikipedia does not make this distinction however! --Wbvillerius (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not confused. But anyway, that's fine, just be careful about deleting valid sources, that's all. If they agree, then good, but if they disagree (I don't have an example of that) then the "official" source doesn't automatically override something like the CIA Factbook. And a secondary, independent source may also have commentary that provides better context in some situations, and which can be used to expand the article. I noticed your editing because I have "Languages of Syria" on my watchlist, and this edit: was quite in error. --IamNotU (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020
There are multiple conflicting figures given for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's literacy rates for women. The figure in the "Women" section cites 81% while the Education Section cites slightly above 925%. Can these two claims be clarified or altered to reflect that different sources have slightly varying statistics, instead of having contradicting sections?

Thanks.

70.102.219.233 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC) AlphaStone
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Thanks for spotting the error, however, the main purpose of an edit-protected request is to suggest a concrete change. A quick glance at the World Bank data page shows women's literacy as 93% in 2017.  Some research comparing different sources with the same years seems necessary.    Goldsztajn (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sponsorship of Islamic Terrorism
Concerning the wording of "criticized for sponsorship of Islamic terrorism" in the 5th paragraph, cited by the Brookings paper-- "Byman, Daniel L. (1 February 2005). "Confronting Passive Sponsors of Terrorism". Brookings.

The article explicitly says: "Passive support such as that provided by Saudi Arabia is a different animal from traditional state support of terrorism, but it has received little serious attention during the Global War on Terror. Iran typifies a traditional, active, state supporter: Tehran has armed, trained, organized, and at times directed the Lebanese Hizballah as an instrument of regime policy. Passive support, in contrast, involves regimes that support terrorism by not acting. A regime can be said to be guilty of passive support if it knowingly allows a terrorist group to raise money, enjoy sanctuary, recruit, or otherwise flourish without interference but does not directly aid the group itself. Often passive support is given by political parties, wealthy merchants, or other actors in society that have no formal affiliation with the government".

The paper itself explicitly says that they are not state sponsors of terrorism, but rather a "passive supporter" which was defined by them as a country that does not take adequate measures to curb terrorism. Saying it "has been criticized for sponsorship of Islamic Terrorism" and citing that using this by Brookings is highly misleading.

Salmanov123 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re misrepresenting the article. Nowhere does it say explicitly or otherwise that “they are not state sponsors of terrorism but rather a ‘passive supporter’l. What it does is distinguish between active and passive support for terrorism. But just because it is passive rather than active doesn’t exclude it from being “sponsorship”. An attempt to make a pedantic distinction between the words “support” and “sponsor” doesn’t succeed. The clue is in the title of the piece: Confronting Passive Sponsors of Terrorism DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * They explicitly highlighted the difference between "Passive support such as that provided by Saudi Arabia" and a "traditional, active, state supporter". They are not using the traditional definition of state support of terrorism through government funding, they are rather accusing Saudi Arabia of being guilty through non-action. I would like to see a clarification of this definition in the main article, I propose "they have been criticized for not doing enough to curb terrorism" or something of that sort. Salmanov123 (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The piece is a about state sponsors of terrorism - three examples of the ‘passive’ kind, one of which is Saudi Arabia. No modification is necessary. I’ve added another source describing Saudi Arabia as sponsoring terrorism - this time not referring to ‘active’ or ‘passive’. And, by the way, it’s not just about this sentence we have a whole section in the article about allegations of sponsoring global terrorism (not to mention a section on Saudi Arabia in State-sponsored terrorism). Per WP:LEAD it should be referenced here unless you are going to make major changes to the article itself. If you do want to, there’s a lot of of other citations to discuss. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Though if you have additional sources that are more up to date then they would be preferable, 2004 isn't exactly recent considering the geopolitics of the region. This testimony from 2016: https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-u-s-saudi-arabia-counterterrorism-relationship/ details their "paradoxical relationship" with terrorist groups and adds more perspective.Salmanov123 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Why does the "Sport" section include details on women and cuisine? Pondertorium (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerns over article content & tone
The article content and its tone seem to be extremely biased against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In no other article for any other country on Wikipedia is the tone and content, especially in its introduction, so negative. The neutral information that is added in the introduction is accompanied by negative information in almost every aspect; where is this seen for any other country on Wikipedia? ... An example is “Saudi Arabia has since been a totalitarian absolute monarchy, effectively a hereditary dictatorship governed along Islamist lines.” The NEUTRAL tone to be written is “Saudi Arabia has since been a absolute monarchy, effectively ruled along religious lines.”  There is also citations of sources connected to writers who will have obvious biased against Saudi Arabia because of their backgrounds. Other negative information about the kingdom are allegations that have been cleared up as since, even the United States department cleared up misconceptions of such. Yet it seems the negative misconceptions are still in place and haven’t been removed. There needs to be a neutral tone for this article as is the same for all other articles regarding countries here on Wikipedia. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The first thing to be clear on is that being neutral does not mean being less negative (necessarily) or having any sort of balance between negative and positive. WP:NPOV requires us to reflect what reliable sources say “in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint”. To take an extreme example, you wouldn’t expect much that is positive in the Adolf Hitler article. Indeed, if the article were less negative about Hitler it would be no longer be neutral. If the preponderance of reliable sources give negative coverage then the article needs to do the same.
 * The reality is that aspects of Saudi Arabia have a preponderance globally of extremely negative coverage in reliable sources, and this mainly relates to the form of government, corruption, the judicial system and human rights, and foreign policy. You tried to delete the fifth paragraph in the Lead, and were reverted by an editor. Deleting it is quite wrong. If you think that there are sentences which don’t reflect the RS, then you need to specifically raise them here and evidence why they don’t. Challenging it simply because it’s “negative” won’t get support. In the sentence you say you don’t like in your post, you need to explain why the words “totalitarian”, “hereditary dictatorship” and “Islamist” don’t meet WP:NPOV because they don’t reflect the preponderance of reliable sources. Leaving them out would be contrary to neutrality if that’s how the preponderance of reliable sources describe the Saudi form of government. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned that “ The reality is that aspects of Saudi Arabia have a preponderance globally of extremely negative coverage in reliable sources, and this mainly relates to the form of government, corruption, the judicial system and human rights, and foreign policy.” Although it doesn’t. Rather, the media that you are referring to precisely comes out of specific western countries that have an agenda for specific countries like Saudi Arabia. If you view the countries that that western media typically targets, like Venezuela as example, you will see a negative tone to it and negative information all over its article. Now another example is that the United States of America is widely criticized for its wars around the globe and its long rap sheet of coups that it has engaged in over history, and it still does as it is also still engaged in numerous wars. Yet none of that information is to be found on the USA wiki article, more importantly even in its introduction. The same is said for the UK where it has been criticized in reliable and well known sources for selling arms to various entities etc. and the list goes on. Even Russia has practically 0 negative information on it, especially in its introduction. Some of the sources that are cited in the introduction here are from writers with obvious bias because of their background. There is one from a pro Israel source. Using your extreme example Nazi Germany, it wouldn’t be fitting to use a citation from a Nazi officer on Israel’s Wikipedia page. This is because the Nazi officer will have an obvious bias. As I mentioned previously, there isn’t a neutral tone and there is no attempt at such. Rather, the original contributor to this article seems to have found as many negative toned definitions to describe the Kingdom as possible. For every nations Wikipedia article, one can hypothetically find negative toned definitions and information to substitute what is already in place and it wouldn’t change from right to wrong or vice versa. To conclude, the sources you refer to as reliable were chosen with precision for a specific tone to be undertaken on this article. If this happens for most countries’ articles that are notorious in today’s global stage which have reliable criticism against it in sources, then it wouldn’t seem Saudi Arabia is being singled out. But this is obviously not the case as countless examples can be provided. I have the neutral template for this article that can be agreed on to make the situation fair finally. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please indent your posts per WP:THREAD. Who is this “original editor” who has chosen the sources in this way? You don’t seem to know how Wikipedia works. The article is 17 years old and is the result of over 12,0000 edits by over 5,000 editors over that time. What you see is the result of WP:CONSENSUS that has happened during those years. You seem to be unaware of how Saudi Arabia is seen by reliable sources and you clearly have a particular WP:POV on how Saudi Arabia should be presented. But Wikipedia isn’t here to advance particular points of view per WP:ADVOCACY. I’m not sure what you mean by “I have the neutral template for this article”. Any attempt to make wholesale changes without first getting consensus will almost certainly be reverted, as you were with your attempt to delete a paragraph of the lead. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Islamist terrorist !!!
The use of terms such “Islamist terrorist” may be considered as an offense, according to https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall/index.html further this view is the result of stereotypes,(https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5437&context=flr) and the promotion of this concept in an article about a country shows irrationality, ideological basis, and fallacy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnegie6 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It has a lot of citations and I see that as proof enough that it should be kept. Barack Obama's quote and opinion is not proof enough that it should be removed even if it's interpreted by a major publication and political figure. PyroFloe (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Gulf of Aqaba/Israel
stop the slow burn edit war and agree the outcome here. Photomenal has just reverted back to the longer standing position (including a reference to Israel). WatanWatan if you revert you may be blocked if consensus is not first reached here. As I understand it, the argument for including Israel is based on that country sharing a coastline with Saudi Arabia on the Gulf of Aqaba. The argument for excluding Israel is that Saudi Arabia doesn’t actually have a maritime boundary with Israel. (Egypt and Jordan intervene). Both are arguable and with the right form of words this should be easily resolvable. sort it out here and stop reverting. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * How can there even be a talk of an "edit war" from my side when I have merely "reverted" (as in corrected the prior consensus if one takes a look at the edit history of the Saudi Arabia article) once earlier today after posting a map that clearly shows that Israel lies Northwest of Saudi Arabia (as an example one can see Eilat (Israel) with the naked eye from the Saudi Arabian coastal city of Haql in the Northwestern direction) similarly with Egypt and Jordan. Since Jordan has a direct land border with KSA it is not mentioned in that sentence while Egypt and Israel is as only the Gulf of Aqabah separates them from KSA. The disagreement will be handled amicably as I have no intentions otherwise however I struggle to see (given the map that I posted) how this can even turn into a discussion when it is plain obvious that Israel lies Northwest of Saudi Arabia across the Gulf of Aqabah. In that particular sentence there is no mention of any maritime borders. In fact maritime borders are not mentioned at all in the introduction as otherwise Iran would have been mentioned as well given the rather long maritime border that both KSA and Iran share. In any case this is my position and other users are welcome to give their opinions and if another majority consensus will be reached, I have no intention to object.--Photomenal (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That was your second revert (previously on 9 January). WatanWatan has reverted in the opposite direction 5 times in recent months. I don’t care which way it goes but no more reverting in either direction until there is resolution here. Up to you and WatanWatan DeCausa (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And by the way, can both you and WatanWatan learn to indent your posts as required by WP:INDENT. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * False. There was no revert on January 9 as I was not engaged in any edit warring with anyone back then. I simply, after editing the geography section of the article, noticed that Israel was omitted in the introduction when Egypt was included in relation to the Gulf of Aqaba. So your claim is factually wrong. My first revert occurred today after I posted the map that clearly shows why I am correct if no mention of maritime borders (no mention of any maritime borders in the edit history from what I could see) hence it is rather a stretch to claim that I am "edit warring". What do you mean by "indent"? --Photomenal (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , I will just add that editor was reported in the admin noticeboard for incidents like disruptive editing, wrongly accusing an administrator for sockppupetry, POV pushing, and doubling down on his statements here. He was also recently banned but got appealed by a different administrator. If you look at his talk page and contributions page, he also engagd in many edit wars before this. PyroFloe (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . You are wrong. Your edit on 9 January here is a revert of WatanWatan’s edit on here. Reverting isn’t about clicking on a revert button. Per WP:REV: “ Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously.”. That is what you did on 9 January. DeCausa (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My edit on January 9 was not part of any reverting or "edit warring". Read the context of that edit as I wrote earlier. Nor were I even aware of who edited that sentence the last time around to begin with. It is rather irrelevant who edited it last time around (was ages ago as can be seen in the history of the article) as by that logic nobody can edit anything or make any improvements, unless accused of edit warring, as logically the content that is being edited was edited by someone else prior to that as in this case. Also as I wrote before, I took a look at the edit history afterwards and prior to WatanWAtan's edit (I am not even sure if he was the one to initially remove Israel, as all I looked at was that it took place a long time ago) and the removal of Israel from the sentence, Israel was mentioned in that very same sentence for ages, hence it could be easily claimed that my edit was simply reverting to the old status quo.

In any case there is no mention of any maritime borders anywhere in the introduction as I wrote so I struggle to see how I am in the wrong here factually speaking. I will once again refer to the map that I posted when I made an edit summary of my latest edit.

In any case it would be interesting to hear your own opinion about this topic as well now that we are discussing it.--Photomenal (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m aware of that. I contributed to WatanWatan’s ANI thread and have warned him previously. Both of them need to change their approach. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Healthcare.
The headline seems bit misleading as the content does not talk anything about healthcare system of the country but about life expectancy and obesity. Life expectancy should not be under health section as it is a variable of multiple factors, like homicidal rate,accidents,disasters,etc.,not just health alone. Both life expectancy and obesity, if at all to be included,should be there in different section such as "lifestyle" or "demographics" Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue of Wahhabism
Wahhabism is considered an offensive term to all Saudis or "wahhabis", using Salafi is more appropriate and reflective. Wahhabism mainly serves discussing the movement in a historical context rather than a movement being followed today as most of religious clergy ascribe to many strains of Salafism and Sunni Islam in general.

Stating Saudi is Sunni Muslim is enough in description on the side, as thats the official recognized sect. Wahhabism is reform movement, not a different sect, even though many anti-Saudi commentators or political affiliations like to portray it as some obscure different sect, it doesnt qualify in the traditional sense as an Islamic sect and the state doesnt recognize the term outside of Salafism. There needs to be an overhaul of it, its largely a political term used outside the kingdom.

Why is this being used to officially describe the religious issue of the state? Especially since its extremely offensive to Saudis?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.183.246 (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s because we follow how reliable sources describe such issues, not what the official designations are in the country in question. DeCausa (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
What is the source for the claim that the Saudi Arabia is known officially as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Clearly, the proper English translation of the official Arabic name is the Arab Saudi Kingdom. I know it is common to call it Saudi Arabia but Arabia contains more than the Saudi kingdom. And this error is not reflected in the official Arabic name. The use of Arab in the official name shouldn't be confused with the usage of the word Arabia. So, can anyone let me know what might be considered an official source for country names in the English language? Otherwise, I will change the official name.Hiesen2 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There’s multiple sources e.g. this and this. DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The UNGEGN list of country names has it as Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the). CMD (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that what I said is already discussed in the Etymology section. I am satisfied with these sources. Thanks. Hiesen2 (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jeddah at night.jpg

Ethnicity in infobox wrong
The ethnicity section of the country infobox is wrong. 90% Arab 10% Afro-Asian is only the figure for Saudi citizens, not all of Saudi Arabia's population. Therefore, this section of the infobox should be fixed. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the religion box to include religious composition of all Saudi Arabia’s population. Unfortunately, I could not find any source for the ethnicity section. Please advise if found. Ajwadsabano (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Former US Presidents
Can someone please explain why there are images of 3 former US Presidents (Reagan, Obama, Trump) in an article that is supposed to be about Saudi Arabia? B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t particularly see a problem with that - they all feature KSA kings and are relevant. You could argue that the Reagan pic is not relevant to the section it’s in and could go. We gotta keep the Trump pic though! It’s iconic LOL. The pic that really should be deleted for obscurity is the Polish senate one. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL 'iconic' B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Masjid al-Quba.jpg

Polemical rethoric and one sided POV citation
The following statement is absolutely inaproppriate: "Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), said that Hunt and Boris Johnson "played an utterly central and complicit role in arming and supporting the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen."" Well, this statement shouldn't be in the article for three main reasons:

1. The war in Yemen is a delicate subject with a fierce fight between islamist rebels and Saudi-backed forces since 2015. Polemical rethoric like that, blaming Saudi Arabia for war's destructions is dishonest with the reader, at least without mentioning sources pointing the whole context of the war. Controversial statements should not be included this way.

2. The source comes from a activist, not from an journalist, academic, political scientist... but the information is added without any observation, it's included like some academic opinion. According to Wikipedia properly, the CAAT is an UK-based campaigning organisation. Why is this the opinion of Wikipedia too? If it's to include that, why no confliting theories at all?

3. Before this statement there's one more blaming Saudi Arabia for the famines caused by the war: "More than 50,000 children in Yemen died from starvation in 2017. The famine in Yemen is the direct result of the Saudi-led intervention and blockade of the rebel-held area." It reinforces that bias one more time, sources blaming the rebels for the continuum of the war are not found in the article, it shouldn't be included because of the same reason this two statements shouldn't be included, we should agree that a war have at least two sides. Polemical rethoric again, and it's even used to criticize Boris Johnson, from the campaigning organisation's (The source) native country's government. Sawyersx (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It is often a difficult point for those new to editing Wikipedia that “biased” sources aren’t excluded. There may be reasons why that quote shouldn’t be used, but not for the three you have given. The first point is that the source is not actually CAAT but iNews, who quote CAAT. That’s important because iNews qualifies as a reliable source. The Wikipedia policy that is relevant here is WP:NPOV which defines neutrality. This says that the article must “fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.” So the test is not whether the view expressed is “right”, “wrong”, “unfair”, “unbalanced” etc but whether it is given the right prominence compared to the prominence of other views on the topic. Wikipedia just reports what others say - editors can’t make judgments about the validity of what others say - that’s called “original research” and is not allowed. I’m not making any comment on whether the CAAT quote is WP:UNDUE but that’s the issue you would need to address if you think it should be removed - does it give too much prominence to an essentially fringe view? DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That's the point, the following quote you cited explains what i mean: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.”. I found only sources exposing this kind of rhetoric in the article. I'm sure there are more contrary views in academic circles, newspapers, books and so on. The question about "weight" isn't addressed here, in my view. I do not favor some form of original research, but exposing that: As i think this is a polemical opinion, it can be and it could be found all over the internet some sources which can bring more diverse opinions to the article specially in the topic of Yemen War. I was planning to invite more editors to address that. This is the main article of a country, keeping neutral or diversified views is important, and i agree that this argument has some weak points because Academia could have some bias towards negative views of Arab countries that are allied to the USA and the West in general, i.e, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and then finding reliable sources or majority views in this sense should be difficult (To address the matter of negative views, not the rhetoric blaming Saudi Arabia for the destructions of any complex conflict). Maybe because academic views in general want to reinforce that despite those countries' material prosperity they fall behind in the concept of "cultural modernity", which is a Western standard (Like it's found in this article properly). So maybe this is impossible to address due to Wikipedia's nature exposed in your considerations, which i think are valid.Sawyersx (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for section on science and technology
Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021
When describing the kingdoms monarchy in the second paragraph It says “Hereditary dictatorship” Change to “line of command” or “hereditary sovereignty” Noshka98 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Etymology
‏ Part of the text of the resolution in 1932 Royal order ‏  Number: (2716) ‏ After relying on God, and based on the lifting of Telegraphy from all our people in the Kingdom of Hijaz and Najdah and its annexes ‏In view of the desire of the public opinion in our country and a love to unite the parts of this Kingdom, we have ordered the following: ‏Article 1 - The name "Najd Al-Hijazi Kingdom and its annexes" shall be transformed into "the name of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia".

Based on the traditions of Islamic history, the Ottoman Empire and the Abbasid Umayyads, the naming of Saudi Arabia was proposed from public opinion to unite the country

"personal possession of the royal family" Therefore, this phrase in the article may not give a complete idea of ​​the reason for the name

According to the royal decree, the name came based on a popular suggestion, and was inspired by the traditions of Islamic history that give the title of the state based on the ruling dynasty. 2001:16A2:C822:6100:ECC1:B8CD:E6DF:3000 (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, we don’t use primary sources which the decree is to make that sort of interpretation. Secondly, there’s no reliable source that believes Abdul Aziz’s supposed claim that giving the country his family’s name is “by popular demand”. DeCausa (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A digital copy from Qatar National Library showing a picture from Umm Al-Qura newspaper, which is the official newspaper, talking about a meeting in Taif of the Hijazi elite and popular telegrams.

https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100023520516.0x000083

This is a list of the names of the people who participated in the famous meeting in Taif from the elite of society and suggested changing the name to a name that expresses more unity and suggested writing a constitution and a written law to inherit the throne

فؤاد حمزة ، عبدالله الشيبي ، صالح شطا ، محمد شرف عدنان ، خالد القرفني ، عبدالله الفضل ، حسن باسلامة ، احمد باناجة ، مهدي القلعي ، ابراهيم الفضل ، محمد صالح نصيف

https://aawsat.com/home/article/3209606/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8

An article on the names of the participants in the famous Taif city meeting in Al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper

The proposal for the name is inspired by the historical traditions of Islamic countries such as the Ottoman Empire, the Abbasid Empire and the Umayyads, because they combine different regions such as Najd, Hejaz, and Al-Ahsa in need of a name that expresses the national union and is inspired by Islamic history.

2001:16A2:C822:6100:152E:AC6C:FD93:395 (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s called original research in Wikipedia - and we don’t use it. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what I mentioned above

British documents in the Near East in the nineteenth century described the forces loyal to Ibn Saud as “the Saudis.” The British correspondence was the first to give this description two hundred years ago.

2001:16A2:DF1A:BB00:BCB6:E3C:E0EC:7ABA (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021
Jishiboka1 (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Change best equipment quality after Israel to Second-best, I think It would make more sense? (Thank You)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021
change In public women are required to wear a black abaya or other black clothing that covers everything under the neck with the exception of their hands and feet, although most women cover their head in respect of their religion. This requirement applies to non-Muslim women too and failure to abide can result in police action to In public women were required to wear a black abaya or other black clothing that covers everything under the neck with the exception of their hands and feet, but they are no longer required to do that in fact now most women wear a colored abaya and many don't wear an abaya and women no longer have to cover their hair anymore in fact many of them don't. RyAan06 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's military
I think we need a more-detailed explanation of its military. How could we explain without re-writing already written text? Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

me
Hello im a british citizen since 1988 im here to speak freely of my prayers can you tell me the dangers of me in a cloak ?? is it a must or can i wear what is correct?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.52.65 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

reliable source
is the source used in this edit reliable? it is an Open Access academic paper from a Saudi Arabian University. In this ranking, which is based on CEOWORLD magazine, Saudi Arabia is ranked 55 in 2021.Premitive (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks to be peer reviewed and a reputable publisher, so probably yes. But I don’t know this journal and I’m not sure why you ask me in particular. If you are in doubt you should post a query at WP:RSN. Different rankings use different criteria - you would need to research which has most notability to decide which to use or else use more than one. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't knew where should I ask that. then I just assume it's reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premitive (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Shahada
The Shahada in the info box is written in such a way that is never used, even in the English language. It is always stated “There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” A quick youtube search of people converting to Islam on camera will show that the recitation of the Shahada always uses ‘Allah’. This is an easy example.

Also, the name ‘Allah’ is world renowned for people to know it right off the top of their heads. So, to place ‘God’ instead of ‘Allah’ is practically serving a purpose to no one. Most people around the world will understand the ‘Allah’ immediately.

And to reinforce the matter, ‘Allah’ will have a link to it in which the people can click on to better understand who Allah is and that the name is the Arabic word for ‘God’. The note left on it is almost useless as most viewers of Wikipedia will not even ponder on touching any links or notes; they just read it off the face value of the article.

In summary, I am proposing to change the Shahada to how it is always recited in English: “There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:ALLAH. This is very well established throughout Wikipedia, with detailed responses to others who have raised this at pages such as Talk:Shahada as well as here. Check some of them out. There are pages and pages explaing why God is preferable to Allah. In addition, you may note that the cited source for God rather than Allah in the Infobox translation is the Saudi government.DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MAKKAH - panoramio.jpg

On the use of "hereditary dictatorship" and "governed along Islamist lines"
The statement "Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that is effectively a hereditary dictatorship" is redundant, what additional information does calling it a hereditary dictatorship provide that isn't already satisfied by calling it an absolute monarchy? Salmanov123 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources cited do not support that Saudi Arabia is "governed along Islamist lines". The source used from Carnegie Endowment outright contradicts that claim "A key target of Saudi interference has been the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood... During the 1990s, these popular figures mounted an unprecedented political critique of the royal family, and more hard-line clerics inspired the growth of al-Qaeda. A desire to prevent a repeat of this scenario has factored heavily into Saudi Arabia’s post-2011 policies toward the Brotherhood." Salmanov123 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's obviously helpful to readers to clarify that the regime is a dictatorship. It's inane to assume that readers know what an absolute monarchy is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that’s why we have blue links, which this is: Absolute Monarchy. However, Hereditary dictatorship is also a blue link which, confusingly for the reader, links to an article that begins is a form of dictatorship that occurs in a nominally or formally republican regime, but operates in practice like an absolute monarchy. So no help at all for the reader really. The opposite in fact. I think it’s a misleading term to use anyway in the case of Saudi Arabia. It’s clearly an authoritarian deeply undemocratic regime but the king is far from being a dictator despite his theoretical power as the source of all executive and legislative authority. But in practice this power is exercised subject to a complex web of multiple family, religious and tribal power centres. I guess the closest analogies are party dictatorships (China?) or oligarchic dictatorships (Russia?, medieval Venice?). But not quite. Adding the “hereditary” adjective misleads into overstating the personal role of the king and his successor as opposed to the Al Saud as a whole, or the Ulama or the tribal leaderships or the other leading families Bin Laden family, Al ash-Sheikh etc.
 * There are 3 sources cited to that sentence. The only one I can access, Carnegie, doesn’t support it. The other two, although I can’t access, don’t look very reliable as political science sources (which should be used for a statement like this) though may well be generally reliable. On “Islamist”” that’s weak too. Although there are undoubtedly Islamist streams in Saudi society. and ruling elite, the elite as a whole is far too conservative/self-interested to be given such a radical label. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All dictators are subject to some constraints. The lead should just straight-up describe the Saudi regime as authoritarian or as a dictatorship. There is no dispute among academics that the regime is authoritarian, see gold standard works like that clearly identify Saudi Arabia as a dictatorship. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any issue with “authoritarian”, as I’ve already said. All you produced there was a book with the word “dictatorship” in its title. I think we can have a better and more nuanced view than that don;’t you think? DeCausa (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A quote from How Dictatorships Work Power, Personalization, and Collapse: "Regimes can and often do include the tenures of more than one dictator, as in China under Communist Party rule or Saudi Arabia under the Al Saud family dynasty". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premitive (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So how does that tie in to a term wkilinked to an article that says a form of dictatorship that occurs in a nominally or formally republican regime, but operates in practice like an absolute monarchy? DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article Hereditary dictatorship is awful and we should preferably not wikilink to it. We should instead link to Authoritarianism and/or Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Saudi Arabia is mentioned multiple times in both books as an authoritarian regime and/or dictatorship. I strongly disagree that the lead should solely characterize the Saudi regime as an "absolute monarchy" and exclude any mention of the authoritarianism/dictatorship if that's what this discussion is about. Do we at the very least have an agreement that the lead should note the authoritarianism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Authoritarian, repressive etc etc is absolutely fine. But it’s important to use wording that gets the reader to understand that it’s about a the regime of an elite rather than just Salman or his immediate family’s “dictatorship”. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me.Premitive (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So I’ve changed the sentence to Saudi Arabia has since been an absolute monarchy, where the king, the princes of the large Al Saud royal family and the country’s traditional elites have overseen a highly authoritarian regime. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

New changes about women
New changes about women aren’t included including guardianship laws and right to travel abroad without male guardians as well as choose not to wear hijab Nlivataye (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. An updated summary of Women's right's in Saudi Arabia should be added in the "Women in society" section. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
The translation of the motto is incorrect; In "There is no god but God;" God at the end should be written as "Allah" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptio-Comrade (talk • contribs) 06:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a good outside source to confirm this translation? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:ALLAH. It’s well-established consensus across WP to use ‘God’ not ‘Allah’ - including on this talk page, multiple times recently and over the years. DeCausa (talk)

Negative tone in the Article Should be dealt with
In the lead, there is information that makes sure to deliver a very negative tone of Saudi Arabia. Other countries who are well known to have terrible reputations do not have such a tone in their articles, especially their leads. This makes one wonder what is the purpose of defaming Saudi Arabia in this matter? Of course, it is very easy to assume that those with an agenda and Bias towards Saudi Arabia, and Arabs in general perhaps, will have put this lead together. So, why allow it?

Some may make the claim “well this what the narrative or view of Saudi Arabia is in general” ..well, who’s view? The West? Israel? Of course, this is their view on Saudi Arabia. But more importantly, a lot of sources will be gathered from Western sources to implement this negative tone within the lead. Although, and at the same time, sources from the West as well could be found many times over putting Western Countries, Israel etc in a very negative limelight on their articles. But it doesnt happen. Why? Because there is indeed Bias and an agenda I believe very strongly at play here against Saudi Arabia. The situation here is manipulated very well as well, especially when numerous other editors have pointed it out in the past, but were reverted with scrupulous reasons.

For example, Monarchies are by definition hereditary dictatorships. Although in Monarchies all over the world, “hereditary dictatorship” is not mentioned in their articles. Only here in Saudi Arabia does it do that. Why? again because of the Agenda and Bias at play here against KSA. Also, It says Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism and/or proxy groups and there are countless sources that follows in the article to possibly catch the eye of a reader, sort of like saying “Hey Reader! Look over here!”. Many countries, including the West and Israel are known for sponsoring mercenaries and proxy groups etc. But none of it is mentioned in its leads. Maybe not even in their articles at all. The same bias regarding Human rights etc etc.

Heres the solution: Clean this Biased Agenda towards Saudi Arabia up. It is a Monarchy, it doesnt have to include “hereditary dictatorship governed alongst Islamist lines”. The neutral statement would be, for example, “It is a unitary absolute Monarchy governed on the basis of Islamic law”.

Remove the allegations Human rights abuses claims and sponsorship of groups from the lead and shift them down to a section below.

In conclusion: This Bias against the Saudi Article has been ongoing for far too long. Otherwise, other countries with well known negativity should have it on full display in their articles, especially in their leads. There is plenty of sources, even western ones more than anywhere else to display that negativity. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Who’s “biased”, the article or you? The article’s based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE using WP:RS. You’ve just expressed a personal opinion that you don’t like how reliable sources characterise Saudi Arabia. That’s unfortunate, but that’s the way it is. The reality is Saudi Arabia does have one of the worst human rights reputations in the world and has used proxies for terrorism. By the way, the lead no longer uses the phrase “hereditary dictatorship”. But it is not true that moanrchies are “by definition” hereditary dictatorship. Many possibly most monarchies are actually democracies (Uk, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Norway etc etc). KSA is very unusual in maintaining a medieval form of monarchy. DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the State of Israel has attracted a wide range of criticism internationally for being called an "apartheid state" and committing a "genocide", their article never mentions that in the leads. So why does Saudi Arabia have this kind of labeling in there? In addition, there was a former edit that added a referenced list of the most recent human rights reforms in the leads, which followed the listing of the human rights abuses but it was retracted. So, I disagree. There is some form of negative tone bias in the article that should be fixed because it is not abiding by the WP:NPOV. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern regarding the fact that plenty of other articles with terrible records do not have have this kind of tone, was not addressed. Again, the matter each and every time is avoided when it is brought up that Saudi Arabia is targeted with a Biased Agenda.

One could very well find reliable sources to place in the leads of other articles where it displays negativity of the country, although it will be removed promptly as done in the past. So, How could we make a matter like this even and equal across the board?

I believe at this point, continuously bringing up these matters will have changes implemented. Otherwise, The tone will try and be kept by certain people with Biased Agendas unfortunately. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution for other pages being poor is to fix other pages. Very few country pages are in great states. (They are difficult articles to craft!) If you are bringing up the issues of other articles here, then they will never be addressed, because issue on other pages cannot be addressed here. What can be addressed here are specific issues relating to this page. For those to be addressed, it helps if the issues identified are specific, and come with associated sources and potential solutions. Presenting this clearly, without tagging along tangents about other articles and Israel, is more likely to elicit consideration and participation from other editors. CMD (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This article skews a strong bias in several contexts: geographical, recentism, and possibly religious. Also, much of what is propagated about Saudi Arabia in mainstream media, particularly the sources the “average Wikipedia” consumes, tends to have undertones of political agendas: Biden, Trump, Democratic, Republican, and any other number of things. In particular, the mention of Khashoggi in the lead section seems way out of proportion, and similar people with a similar impact in Western countries would not be considered notable enough to be mentioned in the lead.

The geographical and recentism biases are blatant, so I will tag them at the top of the article. The religious bias is something that comes to mind as a possibility, but if it’s there it doesn’t seem significant enough to warrant tagging, just something for fellow editors to keep in mind.

There is also the possibility that the article is based on a “9/11 bias”. 9/11 had an unprecedented impact on the increase in media coverage of Saudi Arabia from the Western world. Much of that is focused on terrorism, war, and other things perceived to be “evil” or “bad”.

Many of the negative things mentioned in the lead section are taken way out of proportion from a neutral global perspective. Also remember that the Arabic or Middle Eastern view of democracy and women’s rights is very different than the Western view of those things. We need to make sure those topics are neutral in this article and that editors aren’t just seeking references that speak from viewpoints that align with their own beliefs, ethics, and morals Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * What’s your evidence for any of that? Your complaint that the aticle contains “much of what is propagated about Saudi Arabia in mainstream media” suggests you have a poor understanding of Wikipedia and its policies. We’re not here to WP:RGW. The tag you placed at the top of the article merely reflects your POV and is WP:POINT. Unless you can justify it it will be removed. Our. objective per WP:NPOV is to reflect mainstream views in the WP:RS not WP:FRINGE or the self-interest of particular regimes. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not tag articles out of spite .... please review  Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please gain consensus for your tag or provide sources to change sourced content.

Thank you. Moxy - 06:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Romanization inconsistencies
The romanization of 'Saudi' is very inconsistent. On one hand, the Arabic language template gives as-Suʿūdīyah across articles, but the Etymology section still says as-Saʿūdīyah, and the audio file at the beginning gives as-Saʿūdīyah. For clarity, a singular romanization should be chosen. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Administrative Divisions" link target is broken
Clicking on "Administrative Divisions" in the TOC just returns to the top of the page instead of the correct section. Other links, eg. "Geography", work correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5802:BBB:0:64DB:A1C3:6423:DA4C (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about the Lead
Along with the concerns @Mrbeastmodeallday has pointed out, this 6-paragraph lead has been very poorly maintained. It does not reflect the rest of the article in any way, shape, or form.

The two sentences about military spending in the fifth paragraph have not been updated in three years, and they shouldn't have been in the lead in the first place. It is a ridiculous assertion that a member of the G20 being "the 28th most militarized country" is important enough to be included in the lead.

I propose that the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs be merged. The lead should be concise and to the standard of other level-3 vital articles.

Salmanov123 (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Given that this article has been the subject of POV disagreement in the past, I suggest, for such a potential major change, you propose any draft text for merging those paragraphs here, either in full or linking to a sandbox, prior to making any changes to the article. DeCausa (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Rebuttal to the reversion of my recent edit.
Dear Vif12vf/Tiberius

In your response to your comments regarding my edit to Saudi Arabia's talk page, I would like to state that I sincerily believe that I have never added any incorrect statements to its wikipedia page. I was merely stating what reality stated before me. I have been conviced beyond a reasonable doubt that Saudi Arabia has nearly every characterists that a fascist state (ie nazi germany) would need. Absolute power in one leader, No free and fair elections (if there are any elections to begin with), Massive corruption, Mass-survialence, Persecution (often violent) of any form of oppsition groups, De Facto enslavement of women, State-Sanctioned Murder of LGBTs and atheists (I myself am a member of the latter group), etc. I apreeciate your input.

--Lobx10 (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Lobx10
 * Lobx10, sincere belief is not enough. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and you need to offer sources for anything you want to add. Secondly, the infobox, which is only for the driest of facts, is a bad place for your content. There is for example a section on "Monarchy and royal family" and a "Human rights" section. You may want to see if you can add something to them. But don't forget the sources. (PS, Lobx10 writes about "my edit to Saudi Arabia's talk page", but I believe they mean to refer to an edit to the article's infobox, and perhaps also to a discussion on their own user talkpage.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC).


 * Lobx10, I would also add that even if you are able to find a source to support your edit (and I have my doubts that you will be able to), that doesn’t guarantee its inclusion. Please read WP:ONUS and WP:DUE on that. The reason why I say that I doubt you will be able to find a source is that reliable sources don’t generally describe the Saudi regime as fascist. While all fascist regimes may be authoritarian and do not respect human rights, not all regimes that are authoritarian and do not respect human rights are considered fascist. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgetting about the inflated labeling of the Saudi government, your supporting sentences are mostly either outdated or disingenuously false.
 * "Absolute power in one leader": There is two with absolute power: the King and the Crown Prince, not to mention that the princes of the large Al Saud royal family and the country’s traditional elites are also in charge of dictating the domestic and foreign politics.
 * "Massive corruption": Saudi Arabia performs very well (Top 29%) in the Corruption Perception Index.
 * "Mass-survialence": I assume you mean mass-surveillance. In what way? The same can be said to any powerful state with an intelligence agency that actively seek and track down any suspects for acts of espionage or domestic terrorism in varying degrees, though the Saudi one might sound more overt in its operations.
 * "De Facto enslavement of women": It's conceivably an outdated description. Check women's rights in Saudi Arabia with the recent major reforms. The present women's rights situation in Saudi Arabia outperformed the global average score in some statistics.
 * "State-Sanctioned Murder of LGBTs and atheists": I don't recall any Saudi state-sanctioned murder of an LGBT or atheist person. If you mean the death penalty for the said categories, they're not enforced. Also the Saudi Crown Prince previously mentioned that he abolished the death penalty for them.
 * Back to your argument, yes, Saudi Arabia still has an awful human rights record, but it's far from labeling it as a "Nazi Germany" fascist state. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Saudi Arabia RfC
You are invited to participate in an Commons RfC regarding which version of calligraphy should be used for the Flag of Saudi Arabia by default. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy/islamic theocracy
This is mentioned nowhere in the article or the government section

2A01:CB04:133:8000:3D19:69E6:B72:4806 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Your references come from sources that aren’t necessarily accurate, just representations of what they believe. This is simply hearsay. The Yale law source even outwardly points the flaws in the idea that Saudi Arabia is a theocratic government by claiming that Religion and Culture are separate, and that equating them is false. The source also never flat out states that the governing system is a Theocracy, it only engages with theocracy on an intellectual level. With good reason too since a theocracy, by definition, is a government ruled by divine figures or those who claim to profess divine knowledge; the Al Saud family have never claimed such a power. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with Islamic jurisprudence being the basis of the legal system, but is de facto absolutist. Hence, “Islamic Absolute Monarchy,” simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.63.43 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2022
The nominal GDP is incorrectly in billion instead of trillion. 2A02:2F0B:9103:C600:98AE:1B4:79EC:B83D (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)