Talk:Saudi Arabia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sanitised

This has to be the most wishy-washy sanitised article imaginable. More proof that Wikipedia is utterly worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.139.135 (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 88.105.65.1 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

no one asked you how to avoid a door dummy.

the Population

the Population is 27,601,038 not 24,735,000

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.55.144 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Motto

I'm a little puzzled by the motto, which is currently given as "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger." To the best of my theological understanding, this is a misleading translation of the common Islamic phrase. I had been under the impression that the meaning was more clearly stated by the translation "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is only his messenger," a statement of religious arianism intended to distinguish it from the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ. In the "there is no God but Allah" version there seems to be an element of religious supremecism involved. Is my understanding correct? Can any Muslims or Saudis help me out here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.200.16 (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, and it did say "God" previously before someone changed it. It should be changed back. Some fundamentalist Christians, however, prefer to use the word "Allah" to add to the mystique of Islam as a "pagan" religion with a "foreign" deity. -- Slacker (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But the literal translation of the phrase is "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His messenger," but you can say it the other way too. It technicaly means the same thing. Allah is "God" in arabic and even the Christians say it as "God." I would like to explain it in a less confusing way but I cannot. Mus640 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

La Ilha ill-allah translates into No God but Allah, NOT No God but God. The Arabic word for generic God is A'rabb, not Allah so the translation should rightly read "No God but Allah; Muhammad is His messenger". AreJay (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AreJay, tell me where you get your arabic, and I will tell you the answer. Al-Rabb vs Al-ilah. you are saying Ilha while it is Ilah. when you pronounce two vowls with a middle vowel, remove the middle vowel, so Al-ilah is (Al-lah) go translate Ilah and not Rabb which im not sure who told you it is translated as such?. of course needless to say, its certain arabs with known goals who came up with this controversy the 1st place. dont learn C# programming from an Amish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, "al-Rabb" means "the Lord", and can be used in Arabic for non-deities. It's the cognate of the word Rabbi. So, "God" is definitely the correct translation. -- Slacker (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The motto's translation in English should absolutely read "God" and not "Allah". "Allah" is simply Arabic for "God". A translation of "one country under God" into Arabic would use the word "Allah"; they would not retain the English word. Using Allah in English is, as someone mentioned above, a way to make Islam seem foreign and incompletely monotheistic--many Westerns like to say that Muslims worship a special god named, "Allah." Muslims absolutely understand the God they worship as identical to the God worshiped by other monotheists. Staplovich (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Change "Saudi Land" to "Saudi Arabia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.118.149 (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

the Population

the Population the Population is / 16.529.302/ not / 24,735,000/ 24.735.000 includes 5,360,526 non-nationals /// http://www.saudia-online.com/saudi_arabia.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.73 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very old reference .  A M M A R  01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Education

I'm trying to find some source that says evolution is not taught in Saudi schools. The education article, which I have now linked to, does say this, but it doesn't provide a citation, and the only reference given doesn't seem to back it up. Richard001 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources in Arabic language will be good for you ?  A M M A R  01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources in any language are fine, though because I can't speak or read any Arabic at all it makes it rather difficult for me to research. The same is true for other Arabic speaking countries as well. If you can provide me with a source and tell me what it says that would be great. Richard001 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you cant speak arabic tell me the points you are talking about and i'll try to find you some websources about it. It's very hard to find relible english sources talking about education about saudi arabia.  A M M A R  16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Check this out, (Ministry of Higher Education).  A M M A R  19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TIME Collection

There is a collection of Saudi Arabia related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindkeogh (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Relations Section

This section has some colorful rhetoric in it that clearly suggests an anti-Saudi Arabia bias. The article deserves a more fact-oriented section. Elle (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dress

"However, Saudi women must wear a long cloak (abaya) and veil (niqāb) when they leave the house to protect their modesty." This is not true, veil (niqab) is not enforced (at least not in Jeddah, Makkah, Riyadh, Taif, Madinah, Dammam, Khobar, Yanbu, Jubail). Its true that veil is common among Saudi women, but that's either due to tradition or choice (of women or their guardian). --Hesham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.19.229 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Change it then. Be Bold!. -- Slacker (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The downside for wearing the abaya for women is when the hot season comes in, it does not go along with the whole black outfit. Bustamove34 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oil Resources

I have a reference for the sentence:

"Some have suggested that Saudi Arabia is greatly exaggerating its reserves and may soon show production declines (see peak oil).[citation needed]"

It is as follows:

Simmons, Matthew. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. Wiley. ISBN 978-0471738763. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

Could someone more privileged than my humble self add it, please?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.73.175 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference added. Though, I would not seriously consider Simmons an expert in the matter. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not an expert (who could claim to be outside of the Saudi authorities? - and they aren't saying), but I think he can count as a member of the 'some' in 'some have suggested' :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.8.158 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

oo i have a good one, "Some have suggested that Saudis eat people for dessert and enjoy playing with balls." <reference: nobody> add it, i just said it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.246.169 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

why government of saudi arabia should recognize kosovo as a state?

saudi arabia should recognize kosovo as a state because:

• 90%of people in kosovo are muslim
• kosovan people were discriminate for long time from Serbia(for hundred years)Serbia killed about 12.000 in 1998-1999. still nobody knows where are 1500 people since 1999.serbia burned 60% of houses in kosovo, serbia deported one million people
• kosovan people were not allowed :to speak to write their language , to go to schooll to get education,to have their TV OR RADIO station

These are some of the reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeni.124 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IPA transcription of "Saudi Arabia" wrong

Should be /i/ as in "heed" instead of /I/ as in "hit". --198.137.17.31 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

error in madinah province link

the link for al-madinah province incorrectly leads to the city page when it should instead lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Madinah_Province

kindly fix, thanks. Umar99 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, unless I screwed it up because of unfamiliarity with Saudi Arabia. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate categorization?

Why is Saudi Arabia in the "Category:Constitutional monarchies"? Most sources I've read list it as an absolute monarchy. Josh (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why it's listed in the "Category:Constitutional monarchies". It says in the infobox that it's an absolute monarchy. I'll change it to another category. --Xevorim (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be useful to cite a supporting source for the government_type parameter info in the infobox. The Factbook SA page says "Government type: monarchy". Wtmitchell (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of this section and its restoration as vandalism revision popped this up on my watchlist. I see that the article currently says government_type = [[Islamic law|Islamic]] [[absolute monarchy]]. Also, I see that the Government page of the Saudi Embassy to the US website says, "Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Economy/Government

Only the beginning of the government section is about the government. The bottom 2/3 is about economics. The economics section is too long, given that it has been spun off into a main article. Noloop (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture

Please note that "Ahmed Abodehman" a novelist mentioned in the Literature section is not a Saudi . His name should be deleted from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.215.136.100 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

wonderful people like in Dubai

wonderful people like in Dubai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.215.15 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A few miss conceptions.

The Statement of corruption.

"Saudi Arabia has been the subject of widespread allegations of corruption, for example that BAE Systems bribed government officials and the Saudi Royal Family in order to win the Al Yamamah arms contract."

I would seem almost amazing that we would quote a rag Newspaper, who knowningly lies. Or even just quoting a newpaper would seem, less than intelligent?

Back to the statement. These are allegations. As first stated. However, the following revolves around the second part, which then comes to "state", that these are fact! When these were orginally investigated by British police, no corruption was found. As when the US have interviewed several top BAE system managers, no corruption has been found.

SO i would ask that this be removed. If for nothing more, than honesty.

2nd, Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer int he world. Russia is #3 or 4. As according to the experts. see UN Energy, US Dpt Energy....et cetera...

Sincerely

fenir

(114.76.177.221 (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Semiprotection review

• 19:06, 5 October 2007 SouthernNights protected Saudi Arabia ‎ (vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly two years ago. I'd like to review this to see if it's still necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I've contacted SouthernNights, the protecting admin. --TS 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

malos amigos como emiliano fpu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.152.205 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia witch-hunt

This site: [Saudi] talks about a warlock sent to death for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia.Agre22 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Interesting.This might find a place in the Saudi Arabia#Law or the Saudi Arabia#Human rights section of the article. My understanding from this WP article is that the Qur'an is considered to be the constitution of the country. My understanding from from the item you linked is that Hady Amr, director of the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy said has said, the Qur'an does not accept any other supernatural forces other than the individual and society's relationship with God, that anything that contravenes that is seen as blasphemy and against the will of God, and that blasphemy merits severe punishment. I see that Manzil#As an antidote to witchcraft speaks of Islam and sorcery, but I'm unable to parse what it says. It's a bit clearer Here, in #s 101-104; #105 there says, "And the punishment which awaits unbelievers in painful indeed." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Persecution

Saudi Arabia does not persecute other religion. There are quite a number of Filipinos living in Jeddah without being threatened. For the exact meaning of the word persecution, please refer here. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the wording which mentioned the word "persecution" in this old revision of the article (and some older revisions) has since been changed, and that particular word does not appear in the current revision of the article. The same cited supporting source remains in support of the moderated wording. That source says, in part,

The Government confirmed that, as a matter of public policy, it guarantees and protects the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious services. However, this right was not always respected in practice and is not defined in law. Moreover, the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited, and mutawwa'in (religious police) continued to conduct raids of private non-Muslim religious gatherings. Although the Government also confirmed its policy to protect the right to possess and use personal religious materials, it did not provide for this right in law, and the mutawwa'in sometimes confiscated the personal religious material of non-Muslims.

That cited supporting source is a bit outdated, being a 2008 report, but the 2009 report says the same thing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page is not a forum for general discussion of unsupported Ooiginal research or individual opinions re the article topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Explaining the name

It is pretty obvious that the name "Saudi Arabia" reffers to the Saud dynasty, but shouldn't it be mentioned in an Etymology section or atleast one line in the intro for the benefit of readers? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea. --Dhulfiqar 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Child abuse section

I noticed this was removed and reinstated. Here is the text:

Extended content
Child abuse According to a study conducted by Dr. Nura Al-Suwaiyan, director of the family safety program at the National Guard Hospital, one in four children is abused in Saudi Arabia.

It was reinstated on the basis that it was sourced, and should therefore not be removed.

However, the source is an arabnews.com news article, written in quite a POV fashion, which refers to 2 studies (one in the US - which it does not even specify) and one in KSA for which it gives a Doctor's name and place of work - no other details of the survey. There is no link to the details of either survey, and the US one is not even named.

I can't make the article text balanced by pointing out that the article says the US results were 1 in 6, because the reference isn't good enough - and it's not fair and balanced now because it refers to a source which doesn't elaborate on its own source for the KSA survey.

I believe that in this case this reference is not enough to warrant this section - so I'm removing it.

If anyone can source the actual surveys, and provide balanced text then maybe it can be re-included without looking like POV - but I'm not sure it merits its own section.  Begoon^talk 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in my revert, I'm ok with the sourced facts not having their own section, I'm just against the deletion of the facts.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that - if you read my comment I'm disputing that this is a good enough source to demonstrate notability of this survey, having examined the article - it gives us no idea as to the details of the results of the survey, other than a vague "1 in 4", and no way to examine the survey methodology, date, place, or sample size. If you feel that's good enough as a reference to demonstrate the notability of this survey, then ok - I won't remove it again - but personally I think it's a dreadful reference, and an unbalanced statement in the article as a result. Hopefully some other editors will comment here since we obviously disagree on the suitability of that article as an encyclopedic reference - consensus would be nice, though, since 2 editors have removed (with explanation) what you have now reinserted without waiting for consensus to form in this discussion.  Begoon^talk 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

correction unter "1891 to present"

Not sure how to do this, but under "1891 to present" first para, instead of "Hussein bin Ali" that should surely be "'Abd al-Aziz bin 'Abd ar-Rahman Al-Faisal Al Sa'ud" ('nuff said <G>) previously styled "Sultan of Nejd". Hussein was the Hashemite ruler of Hejaz. Quite a different matter, as they say <G> (and yes, I knew his descendant Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, too).

FWIW I lived in the Kingdom for 15 years and know nearly all the current protagonists personally ... 'Abdallah since 1971 for example ... I am not here to tell stories but there's quite a lot that needs to be said for the sake of, well, reality <G>.

Tepegawra (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC) John E. Burchard saluqi@ix.netcom.com http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/

Links

What happened to the links for the flag and coat of arms?? 07:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Something is wrong with the infobox, the emblem and flag is not linking properly, could somebody please fix that? Gryffindor (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanitized Article

The article read like it was written by the Saudi Embassy. I've tried to cover three glaring omissions: (1) corruption - I've added in a new section under politics; (2) opposition to the regime (and islamism) - again added in a new section under politics; and (3) religious intollerance - added to the 'Religion' section. I don't have time to track down more references so i'ved only included brief particulars on each (but with references). I hope someone can develop these further - I think in particular more should be said on islamism.DeCausa (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Corruption alegations should be mentioned at the articles of the respective heads of state, politicians or administrations. The article about the country is a topic too general to go into this level of detail. The sections should be removed from this article MBelgrano (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a systemic feature of the governmental structure and rule of the Al Saud (the "we" in the quote from Prince Bandar refers to the Al Saud)- too widespread to just be referenced against specific individuals. Cf. the reference to corruption in the Nigeria article.DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean that it isn't a topic that defines a country, just a subsidiary topic of the politics of the country. It may change in relatively very little time. MBelgrano (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, don't see it. I think you'll find that many consider that it does, in part, define the country. You can't not mention it (as you can't not mention it in eg Nigeria. It's not a one off "scandal" - as I said before it's systemic - part of the way the country is run. The origins are that the Al Saud see the country as family property so the distinction between "state" and "personal" is pretty blurred for a senior prince. I accept that the article should go into this (and doesn't) - but I don't have the time right now to dig up the references. Hopefully, someone will follow this up.DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Users 178.73.80.117 and 46.44.88.64

Edits from the above two unregistered Saudi based IPs over the last couple of days have inserted similar edits, which I have reverted. They are mostly of three types (1) removal of references to support for Islamist terrorism (or in one strange edit to insert the unsourced POV that Saudis are generous and unknowingly give money to cover organisations!!); (2)adding in a list of "famous" female Saudis - the people are not particularly "famous", I believe it is unprecendented in WP to have such a gender based list (there is no male list), and it seems to be POV-pushing with the aim of countering the usual allegations about how Saudi society treats women;(3) deleting sourced material on the Ulema and replacing it with unsourced material. There are elements of these edits which I think can add to the article and I would invite the editor(s) to discuss here before inserting them again. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)