Talk:Saudis

Orphaned references in [[:Saudi Arabianpepolll]
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Saudi Arabian people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica": From Islam in Saudi Arabia: no mention of holidays From Asia:  From Muhammad:  From Islam:  From Culture of Saudi Arabia:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belizean people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian people → Saudis – "Saudis" is the only WP:COMMONNAME for these people, clearly per Google Ngram, other terms like "Saudi Arabians" are extremely rare. "Saudis" is an unambiguous and plural demonym. "Saudis" never explicitly means the House of Saud, because English uses the "House of Saud", "Al Saud", or the "Sauds" for that royal family. "Saudis" correlates with their original Arabic-language national self-identification (سعوديون, saʿūdiyyūn). And "Saudis" is more WP:CONCISE than "Saudi Arabians" or "Saudi Arabian people". Per WP:ETHNICGROUP. The last part of the current title ("[...] people") is redundant per Koreans, Kurds, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Punjabis, Germans, Swedes, Russians, Serbians, and many other titles of similar articles. --Relisted. Steel1943  (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In Arabic Wikipedia ar:السعوديون (the first google translate offering on "Saudis") acts as a redirect to ar:آل_سعود (Al-Saud). However, two other translation of Saudis: ar:السعوديين and ar:سعوديين redirect to: ar:السعودية Saudi Arabia and ar:الشعب السعودي (Saudi Arabian people) acts as a redirect to: ar:التكوين الاجتماعي للسعودية the ~The social composition / demographics of Saudi Arabia.  Despite potential questions related to the Saud family, given the Ngrams I think there would need to be a good reason not to make the move.
 * For a better response - ping members of WP:WikiProject Saudi Arabia :, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . GregKaye 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , you have to remove the first 2 letters, i.e. alif and lam because the Arabic word for "Saudis" is سعوديين, not السعوديين. I expected the Arabic Wikipedia to have an article on Saudis i.e. Saudi nationals. But I am surprised to find it has none. ar:سعوديون redirects to ar:التكوين الاجتماعي للسعودية whose English equivalent is Demographics of Saudi Arabia. At least, the English Wikipedia does have an article on Saudis. And so does the Russian Wikipedia ru:Саудовцы (Saudovcy). But there seems to be no main articles on "Saudis" in other languages except English and Russian in Wikipedias. Khestwol (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Khestwol Lol, I guess that's just one example of problems when "Al-" gets added. There doesn't seem to be a Arabic parallel page to this content, only one in Russian for some reason.  This was the page I was trying to find as I produced the write up above.  Clearly the clear common name is Saudis but contention was raised.  I'm just personally postponing !voting in case serious arguments are raised.  My question would be, if they exist, why is Saudis common name?  GregKaye 11:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that is correct. The same problem was encountered in the Masjid al-Haram move request. Khestwol (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT per above. Khestwol (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per common name and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/525348/Saudi-Arabia texts such as "thousands of Saudis in nontraditional jobs. In addition, tens of thousands of Saudi students have studied abroad," GregKaye 11:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – I was initially reluctant, but the nom has convinced me. The proposed title is more concise, more natural, and more guideline with out guidelines in general. The present title is an odd construction. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was under the impression that the singular term 'Saudi' in some contexts referred to a member of the ruling family, the House of Saud. Is this incorrect? Imc (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yes incorrect, because "Saudi" as a noun is a demonym (Saudi). Khestwol (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support At the very least we need to take "people" off of the title, we don't have an article titled American people (other than a redirect to Americans), as that would be odd and unnatural. I'm not familiar enough with the region to say for sure if "Saudi" or "Saudi Arabian" is more appropriate, I would have initially assumed "Saudi Arabian" to be, however, based on the discussion here, that may not be the case. Regardless, I'll be ok with either name as long as we remove "people" from the title. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, the usual term (in context) is "Arabians," which is unfortunately vague and over-broad without context. "Saudis" is certainly used, yes, but I suspect "Arabians" is used much more (and obviously was pre-~1920 before the House of Saud took over).  So "Saudi Arabian people" or "Saudi Arabians" is the way to go here.  SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for the ~450 million "Arabians" or "Arabs", the proper article is Arabs not this article. Only 5% or less of Arabs are Saudis (not "Saudi Arabians" or "Saudi Arabian people", extremely uncommon terms). Khestwol (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, that's why Arabs / Arabians won't fly for an article on just people from Saudi Arabia. And yes, "Saudi" is usually used as an adjective, e.g. Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen.  However if we're specifically talking about a citizen of Saudi Arabia, I suspect that usage is split between "Saudi" and "Arab" or "Arabian" (with context clear that it means "Arabian from Saudi Arabia" not "Arab in general"), but those uses are hidden in the vast pile of other usages of "Arabian".  I will say that I did some quick paranoia checks and various articles in "The Economist" seemed to only use Saudi, though, so I'll modify to a Weak Oppose.  SnowFire (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME.  sami  talk 13:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Excessively brief.  The current title is more than sufficiently brief.  The inclusion of "people" is important because there are things Saudi that are not people.  The change would reduce recognizability without any advantages to any reader.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: not WP:COMMONNAME and not suitable per WP:ETHNICGROUP. Did you see the Google Ngram? Also see comments above. Khestwol (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Saw. Understood. Unpersuaded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So what if "Saudis" is excessively brief? Google Books search gets about 362,000 results for "Saudis", but only about 4,360 results for "Saudi Arabian people" and about 19,000 results for "Saudi Arabians". Clearly, "Saudi Arabian people" is uncommon, and not an encyclopedic title, and unsuitable per Wikipedia's guidelines. "Saudi Arabian people"'s construction appears almost as odd as referring to Swedes as "Swedish Scandinavians". Khestwol (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Google books results are not reliable, and massively biased to repeated mentions over introductions or titling uses. When I look at actual sources, I see that in introductions of the subject of the people, the word Saudi is always used in conjunction with "people" or some form of that word. I Oppose dropping "people", and don't object to dropping "Arabian" if it is agreed that locally it is not used and inaccurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assertions are simply not true. Google Books search is concentrated on reliable sources, hence it is the best tool to identify COMMONNAME. That is why it was used above. However even a simple Google Search corroborates that "Saudis" is the COMMONNAME, because Google Search gets about 6,890,000 results for "Saudis", but only about 350,000 results for "Saudi Arabians" and about 11,800 results for "Saudi Arabian people". Therefore "Saudis" is more than 500 times as common as "Saudi Arabian people", which makes "Saudi Arabian people" unsuitable for titles. Khestwol (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A one word search will produce more hits than a two word search which will produce more hits than a three word source. Your numbers are i calibrated with respect to each other. And they count uses, not titling. You ignore my point about people. I am happy to drop Arabian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are happy to drop "Arabian"? The proposed title does exactly that but it also drops "people" as it becomes redundant when the plural demonym ("Saudis") is used. Khestwol (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that these slightly contextualised Ngrams may help clarify.
 * However in books searches,
 * "Saudis" -Arabian got to "Page 86 of about 310,000 results" and
 * "Saudis" -Arabians got to "Page 97 of about 365,000 results" while
 * "Saudi Arabian" gets to "Page 88 of about 502,000 results"
 * Also pinging who has more developed thinking on this than me.
 * "Saudis" to my understanding, can only refer to the people of Saudi Arabia and am reasonably convinced by the common recognizability argument and that's whether or not words like "arabian" or "arabians" appear within the same content such as a book. The only question that I think is relevant here is whether there is an NPOV argument which has been mentioned.  I have not personally encountered any objection amongst Arabic communities to the designation "Saudis".  Al Jazeera make no reference to "Saudi Arabian people", minimal reference to "Saudi Arabians" and comparatively significant reference to "Saudis".   GregKaye 10:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:UCN, WP:CONCISE, etc. Even if there are possible other meanings of "Saudis" this is clearly the most significant one. Red Slash 03:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the abbreviated form to me is too colloquial for an encyclopedic entry. I worry that it is belittling. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per wp:commonname, wp:primarytopic, and wp:concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, according to the Oxford dictionary, "Saudi, noun (plural Saudis): A citizen of Saudi Arabia, or a member of its ruling dynasty." The latter meaning is unlikely, per nom. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Saudis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930015845/http://english.president.go.kr/cwd/en/diplomacy/diplomacy_2007_20.html to http://english.president.go.kr/cwd/en/diplomacy/diplomacy_2007_20.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 12:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Historic name of the people
This problem is alluded to in the discussion above. What were the people called before the House of Saud assumed power? It is weird that the whole nation derives its demonym from the ruling family. It is as if the English all came to be called "Windsors."Sylvain1972 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2016 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Saudi in niqap.jpg

23?
I'm sure there are more than 23 Saudis 2001:56A:F0E4:6800:F020:8777:6B7A:3276 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)