This is an archive of past discussions about Saudi Arabia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Xpërt3: per WP:BRD please don't continue to add the other version of the flag, you've been reverted more than once and clearly there is no consensus for it. Instead discuss here. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@DeCausa There has been ongoing discussion at File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg at Wikimedia Commons and there is evidence that both flags have been used in all settings, although Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg has been seen more. I understand that you may perceive adding both flags having slight variation in script as unnecessary, but the evidence has been shown that both flags are used. Without having both flags added, it will be problematic. Users who have reverted my edits don't seem to understand the evidence behind this. Xpërt3 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
None of that means that both flags should appear in the Infobox. I suggest you create a footnote and put the alternative flag there. It's way overkill to have both in the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@DeCausa I've seen the dual flag setup used in the page of Bolivia on Wikipedia, which I thought looked the same as this. If this is too overkill, could you possibly help me out with the footnote because I'm unaware of how that works. Thanks. Xpërt3 (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Bolivia literally has two flags: the tricolor and the Wiphala. This is not the case with KSA which has a minor variance of the same flag. To add a footnote you simply add the following where you want the footnote to appear: {{efn|...add text here which could include the alternate version of the flag...}}. DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@DeCausa, I never knew that images could be put in footnotes, which was why I was very confused. It looks a lot better! If you happen to see anything that doesn't sit right in terms of organization, could you take the time to fix it? Thank you so much! Xpërt3 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xpërt3: I see another editor has a different view to you as to which of the two flags should be treated as the main flag. The Commons RfC doesn't affect consensus here at en.wp or this article. It's independent of that. You may want to set out your arguments/sources here. From my perspective, the variance is too small for me to care much. But this shouldn't decline into an edit war between those that do care. DeCausa (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I will source my information here (This info is pulled out of a older post):
File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg is used in governmental settings by the Saudi Arabian Government, as evidenced by pictures of this version of the flag in use in Saudi offices and most meetings out of KSA (eg. [1], taken in Al-Ula during the Qatar-GCC reconciliation in 2021, [2], taken on 7/15/2022, during Joe Biden's visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a picture at UN headquarters, provided by the Saudi Royal Palace on March 27, 2018, showing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General at the United Nations headquarters in New York [3].) Additionally, it has been seen in civilian settings (eg. [4], taken in Saudi Arabia). You could do a quick Google search and find what I'm saying is true.
File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is used in most civilian settings and therefore is not an illegitimate flag. However this flag is not seen in Saudi government offices, only rarely ever seen in official meetings with other country officials in different countries (eg. [5], taken in Washington during a meeting).
Just to clarify, I believe both flag versions with the different calligraphy's are both legitimate flags that should be put on the Saudi Arabia country page.
Here is another users POV on both flags from a post who goes by the name of User:Zyido:
"The most obvious things to spot [in both flags] are the differences in styling the لا in إلا and the و in رسول. I've tried to gather examples of the flag in official use: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10. As you can see, the VM version appears inside the royal court, when receiving dignitaries, and on flagpoles in the country. In addition, here, you can see a video shot inside the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO), the body responsible for maintaining the flag specifications, with the VM version flag in the office. On the other hand, there are, at least, some examples of the FOTW (File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg) version being used in an official capacity, but they are fewer in comparison: Example A, Example B. In both instances I could find, the flags have been hoisted on the wrong side, indicating they've been set up by the non-Saudi counterpart."
I will say these variances are small but they are noticeable for Arab and Muslim users and those who work on Saudi Arabian-related content on Wikipedia. Xpërt3 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@DeCausa I'm also thinking about interchanging where both flags go on each file. The main KSA flag is the type 1 flag, but I think that File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is the best place to put this flag since this change will be shown all over Wikipedia. However, I did get into an editor war with Aziz bm, who has continually lied to me on Commons about the flag, and I need help with increasing the amount of users getting involved in a consensus. Seriously, Commons admins have been unresponsive about this issue and nothing is getting done, so I don't know what to do next. I have sourced all of my arguments with very recent images, yet he (Aziz bm) kept getting away by using the same image from nearly 20 years ago >:( Xpërt3 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion on secondary sources
Are there any secondary sources on this? Various images and youtube videos are not the most helpful sources. CMD (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Without the ability to speak or write in Arabic it is extremely difficult to find secondary sources on this. The best I can do on my part is find images from the Saudi Arabian Government and flags in the streets of Saudi Arabia which show Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg. Xpërt3 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Both the CIA Factbook and Britannica use that same version: [7], [8]. I think all that's needed is for someone to access one of the definitive Flag encyclopedias to confirm the position and ignore the selection of individual photos the use of which I think is WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem I'm having is that all the new photos released by the Saudi Arabian Government show Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg (eg. Saudi Press Agency, owned by Saudi Gov, released a story about relief efforts in Somalia, and you can see Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg present[9]). All of this is leading me to believe that this is a flag used by the government and not the public. You can look at more news stories by the Saudi Gov and you will see this flag everywhere and not File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. I think that Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is more of a flag used by the general public as opposed to the government, which is very interesting. When I was looking at arabic sources, all I could find was recent news regarding new rules that would protect the flag from abuse. I also found that there are problems with the way the Arabic script is written on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. The flag has the same letters but with different boldness and it is noticable in this Arabic CNN story[10]. Xpërt3 (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
This may not be the best source in Wikipedia's eyes but this was tweeted by the Saudi Press Agency, operated by the Saudi Arabian Government, showing the latest version of the flag and the older version of the flag, showing Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg: [11]. In the meantime I will try to find more sources in Arabic. Xpërt3 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, for that source WP:TWITTER and WP:PRIMARY are relevant. Assuming that it's the authentic Twitter account of the Saudi Press Agency, the text says in relation to the two flags shown "The official flag of the first and second Saudi states, and the official flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after its unification at the hands of King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al Saud - may God have mercy on him." So that's unclear as we know that unification happened in 1932 but that the flag royal decree was in 1973. On the face of it that suggests that the flag shown was used 1932-1973. Because it's a primary source it's too unclear to take at face value.
worldatlas.com uses the same flag as the CIA Factbook and Britannica here. (According to this discussion at WP:RSN worldatlas.com is a reliable source.) It says that this version was adopted on 15 March 1973. The website of the Bureau of Experts at the Saudi Council of Ministers has Royal Decree No.M/3 Dated 10/2/1393H (15 March 1973) here. On the 10th page it very clearly has the same version as the CIA Factbook, Britannica and worldatlas.com. It all seems to be pointing strongly, in terms of Wikipedia policy, to use that version (which is currently File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. DeCausa (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Page 12 of that document shows the script on Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg. And if you translate the caption on that page, it says "Model". This leads me to believe that this variation is legitimate. However, I have a few concerns about the age of this document. For example, Page 10 shows the royal flag on the bottom half of the page, but that particular script is not used anymore for royal flags. Also, the palm tree emblem is noticeably different as opposed to the new version. A user I mentioned above that goes by the name of Zyido was talking about how Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg has an official origin from some document. He said, "It is my understanding that an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984. I'm still trying to hunt down this document."
I found a twitter source by another Saudi Arabian Government source, which is Ministry of Media [12]. It shows Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg as the latest flag. However, I would not say that invalidates us from showing the flag with the alternate script because that flag (Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg) is constantly used by the Saudi Gov in the royal court, etc. I will still keep looking. Xpërt3 (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
But the point is we need secondary sources like the ones I've found. The case for Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg now seems very strong. By the way, the Saudi embassy in Washington on its webpage about the flag uses that same version: [13]. Unless a secondary source is found saying the 1973 royal decree was replaced with a new decree I think that's the flag that should be used. DeCausa (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xpërt3 Model 6 is a legitimate flag variant, but on page 10, the top model's caption translates to "Model 1: The national flag of Saudi Arabia" so that should be the primary flag to be shown. Thus, I agree with @DeCausa, Model 1 from the Flag Code of Saudi Arabia in the Saudi government website should be a strong indicator for the use of Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg Flag of Saudi Arabia to represent the main Saudi Arabian flag in this article. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is the pictures right below Saudi Foreign Ministry's header show Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg. We can put Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg as header for now, but that doesn't delegitimize Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg. All latest images with Saudi Gov officials show Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg. I think we should invite or tag multiple Saudi users to discuss this here because they would most likely more know about this than us. Xpërt3 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That may become problematic. What we can't have is individuals saying what they've seen with their own eyes in country. That would be WP:OR and is irrelevant. As I keep saying we need reliable secondary sources stating the position not pictures or first hand accounts of what people have seen. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@DeCausa Well I mean like sources and things of that sort because they have easier and more reliable access to Arabic sources versus us. I still stick with the idea of inviting or tagging multiple Saudi users to discuss this here and have them bring acceptable evidence. They could even go as far as contacting the Saudi gov over there as I think I have seen it done before for picture copyright reasons. Maybe getting people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Saudi Arabia might help but I'm going to need someone else to help tag them in an appropriate matter. Xpërt3 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It is unlikely that a Wikiproject page would have more eyes than this one. If sources exist, it is most likely that they would be raised here. CMD (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I have contacted Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality Organization which maintains flag standards and they will contact me back within two days. I will await their response and let all of you know what they have responded with. Xpërt3 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: I asked them questions about the flags but the representative who responded didn't understand my question fully, so I will let you all know when I receive a good response. Xpërt3 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, any reply that you get won't be a source that can be used as it won't be "published" as required by WP:RS and will fail WP:V. If it highlights were the published information is available, and we can then examine that inform ation to check that RS/V is satisfied, that would be ok. DeCausa (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion on the weight of the white script
I'm the other editor involved in the flag argument. The main reason I prefer (Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg) is the better weight of the white Arabic script (Shahada) especially when the flag image is viewed in a smaller size. In the other image which is (Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg)
Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1)
, the flag does not accurately resemble the one you have shown at those various images as the thickness of the white script looks thinner and overall less proportionate to the green background frame. However, the first flag does not have this issue. I would appreciate if you @Xpërt3 or @DeCausa can help in finding an editor that can update the flag file and increase the boldness and proportion ratio of the white scripture . In the meantime, I still stick to my original argument. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The second flag's script can be seen in the images I have shown though, but I can see what you mean by disproportionateness. Since I'm not an image editor, unfortunately I cannot fix these issues. However, what I will do is I will see if I can try to get as many editors as possible to participate in this discussion. Xpërt3 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
“Change king salman is the king of saudi arabia and prime minister of saudi arabia to king salman is the king of saudi arabia”
“Change Mohammed bin salman is the crown prince of saudi arabia and first deputy prime minister to mohammed bin salman is the crown prince of saudi arabia and prime minister” Waleedxxrashoud (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
From 26,900,000 inhabitants in 2013 to 38,000,000 in 2022??
On the one hand the article states a population number of approximately 38,000,000 in 2022, on the other hand it states “ The population of Saudi Arabia as of July 2013 is estimated to be 26.9 million, including between 5.5 million and 10 million non-nationalized immigrants”. The discrepancy between 26,900,000 in 2013 and 38,000,000 in 2022 is so large, that I doubt very much that both estimates can be near the facts at the same time. Within the same article, that creates a lot of tension and reduces its credibility.
Or could it be the case that the word “including” has been used incorrectly and should be replaced by “apart from the”?Redav (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Arabic is the primary language in Saudi Arabia. Add that information.
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. Infobox already lists it as the official language, also discussed in the Languages section. What are you requesting? Cannolis (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Possible influence by Saudi Arabia on Administrators - Neutrality
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After the reports from NGOs and the press, I'm of the opinion that articles on Saudi Arabia, including the representatives, should urgently be:
Keep calm. I've watched this article for over a decade and there's no dubious editing from admins. The media reports are confused, mixing up "admins" and "Wikimedia staff. It's also unclear which language WP is concerned. It would be ridiculous to blanket label all WP articles in this way. If you see anything that deserves it, fair enough. But all the KSA articles I see have big chunks on human rights abuse, authoritarianism, corruption and criticism of foreign policy. So if they have "infiltrated" they haven't done a very good job, DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
As I already wrote: Who says your personal view is decisive? How do you want to know for sure whether there has been and is being manipulated here? This is a serious issue and also determines the credibility of Wikipedia.--Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Per policy, to put that tag on you should identify an issue in the article where neutrality is disputed. Have you identified such an issue? DeCausa (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit semi-protected
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the infobox, should we only include citizens of Saudi Arabia or should we include the millions of migrants from all over the World? It is a significant number, as aforementioned, it is nearly 40% of the population. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:2CF0:7EE2:2CCD:CA5C (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Being an atheist is illegal in Saudi, however we all know they exist. Gallup reported 5% of Saudi are "convinced atheists", which is not an insignificant number. I think the figure should be added to the religious breakdown in the infobox "unaffiliated" percentage. Thoughts?
No. No data. The source you linked to says "the evidence is anacdotal". We don't go by anecdaote or "we all know it exists". WP:V. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I don't understand how come a photo of Al-Masjid Al-Haram, the most holy and important site in Islam, is less relevant than a photo of a 10 year + old road sign showing that non-Muslims are not allowed to access Makkah. This is already written in the article concerning "religion in society".
Also I am not a Muslim and I have been visiting Makkah for engineering work so it is categorically false that non-Muslims have no access to Makkah.
Here is a fairly recent article (2022) that shows that non-mkslims can enter Madinah as well, outside of the Prophet's Moosque.
https://salaamgateway.com/story/tourists-flock-to-saudi-arabia-as-the-country-opens-to-foreign-visitors
There are non-Muslim Youtubers that have been visiting both cities to openly. A simple Youtube search will confirm this.
In general the entire Saudi Arabia article contains numerous outdated information from 10-15 years ago. Photomenal (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
You have been here long enough to know that claims of your own experience (aka WP:OR) are irrelevant and that youtube is not WP:RS. (And entrance to Medina is irrelevant.) These are WP:RS on non-mulsim entry to Mecca:
BBC in 2017: "Non-Muslims are prohibited from visiting Mecca".[16]
The Guardian in 2022: "The journalist, Gil Tamary ...[entered Mecca]...in defiance of a ban on non-Muslims."[17]
Al-Monitor in 2022: "Religious authorities there do not allow non-Muslims to enter the city [Mecca]."[18]
Middle East Eye in 2022: "An Israeli journalist has broadcasted footage from Mecca in Saudi Arabia, defying a long-standing ban on the entrance of non-Muslims to Islam's holiest city."[19]
In any case what is the explanation and argument for using some road sign as a photo rather than a photo of the most holy place in Islam, the world’s second largest and fastest growing religion? In particular as the ban of non-Muslims to enter Al-Masjid Al-Haram is already mentioned in the text? Photomenal (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, there's already a pic of the mosque in that section. You adding a second one is redundant. It's 2 pictures of the same place! Secondly, it's not "some road sign". Excluding people from a city on religious discrimination grounds is highly notable and this is a unique pictorial represenation of it. Thirdly, stop edit-warring or you'll get blocked again. DeCausa (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Administrative division map
The map currently used for the Saudi administrative division is showing an outdated version of the file (template, file name is Saudi Arabia location map.svg). You can see the difference comparing the borders of the Tabuk Province, for example. Could someone make the template use the current version of the file? Ur frnd (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I have discovered that my mobile phone shows this one correctly, while on the PC the problem is there as described. Ur frnd (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, please seek consensus here per WP:ONUS (and WP:BRD): "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included...The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I question whether your edit/source satisfies WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a far higher Reliable source than politicized US-centric think tanks like the Cato Institute or an academic source advocating feminist activism. The encyclopaedic reference reflects the general academic view on the country's ruling system.
There's two problems with your edit. Firstly, the source you used doesn't say "the general academic view" is that it is not totalitarian. Secondly, it is highly misleading to leave it as just "it is not". Even sources that don't categorise it as totalitarian give it some other descriptor indicating its authoritarian nature. Something like this would work: "while some critics regard it as a totalitarian state [existing citations], others regard it as lacking aspects of totalitarianism, but nevertheless regard it as an authoritarian regime." with the last book you cite and this one as the sources. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Only two people are arguing here. Would you guys like to try to get more eyes on the conflict? Hint, Wikipedia:Third opinion exists specifically for a disagreement between two people. If there's merely more edit warring, I will fullprotect. Bishonen | tålk19:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen. Actually, Shadowwarrior8's last edit came up as a revert in the edit summary but was in fact implementing my suggested compromise above. I think we're done here. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
On the GDP (Nominal) Per capita section of the article, it states that Saudi Arabia is "(43th.)" This should be "(43rd.)" Aknatn (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
"Politics", and particularly "foreign relations", are the big monsters whose material would be better split off into their respective child articles (both of which already exist) - see the section sizes widget in the talk header for a full page breakdown. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there any reason Saudi Arabia's page shows both a UNOCHA map and globe, when to my knowledge, no other country's page does this, showing only a globe.
This is simply incorrect. The name "Saudi Arabia" doesn't indicate the possession of Arabia in a feudal sense. That's anachronistic. The name comes from the well established Arabic (and Islamic) tradition of naming the administrative apparatus after the ruling dynasty. By this logic, The "Ottomans," "Nasrids," "Uyunids," "Usufurids" etc. literally own (in a personal possessive sense) their respective territories, this is linguistically incorrect and foreign to Arab-Islamic societies. 93.112.232.190 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
"a central figure in the understanding of hominin evolution"
In
"a central figure in the understanding of hominin evolution"
it is indeed possible that "hominin" is correct, and what was intended. But it seems much more likely that it should be "hominid". Toddcs (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
"the prehistory of Saudi Arabia shows some of the earliest traces of human activity in the world"
with reference to National Geographic 4/2018 "88,000-Year-Old Finger Bone Pushes Back Human Migration Dates".
I don't have access to the article, but it seems to be about the timing of Out of Africa. I would be very surprised if it were about traces of human activity from the times of Australopithecus, or even the early times of Homo or Homo sapiens.
There is a related problematic passage in Prehistory:
The Arabian Peninsula is regarded as central to the understanding of hominin evolution and dispersals.
At the times cited (125,000 BP), Hominini (to which "hominin" redirects) was already since a long time split up, and I don't see the Arab Peninsula's relevance for chimpanzees. The article Homo even says that Homo sapiens emerged around 300,000 years ago. These sites are probably important for understanding the dispersal and development of Homo sapiens and perhaps some other Homo species, but it seems that the article tries to broaden the scope of these site's importance.
The reference is to Out of Africa I: The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia, the title of which suggests there are some grounds for the claim of our article. I would, however, want that checked, as the actual claims in the cited article may be more modest – and I'd be surprised if they aren't. –LPfi (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, on the "some of the earliest traces of human activity in the world" claim - that should be about the earliest evidence of homo sapiens outside of Africa, not worldwide. There needs to be a more general statement that there is growing evidence that the Arabian peninsular was the earliest known route for the Out of Africa migration. And yes, I've checked the "hominin" article and in it they are discussing Homo but for some reason the authors use the term hominin. But it's essentially the same point about the earliest evidence for Out of Africa migration by humans. Here's the National Geographic article[20] which is derived form this article from Nature Ecology & Evolution and which was better described in this article in The Guardian. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I changed the wording in the lead to say "outside Africa" and the other to say "Man" instead on "hominin". We shouldn't use an odd word choice in the title of the source, but the actual content. Good if the general discussion can be expanded. –LPfi (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not just in the title of the source - "hominin" is used throughout. This page seems the key part of the source where it talks about hominim dispersal around 1.8 Ma. DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the reference about to the flats being "larger than US state of Missouri" in the geography section to "about as large as Cambodia" (see the wiki page on country sizes for verification). Referring to individual US states for size comparison is not as universal as countries, and choosing Missouri in this context is odd in any case (it not being a well-known state). 85.76.74.191 (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Partly done Agree with M. Bitton that the Missouri comparison is mentioned in the source. However, given that Aramco World's target audience is American oil workers, there's apparent Americentrism in the way its content is written (see where the magazine's WP article says …albeit with significant biases towards the interests of US audiences. cited to this), and hence the Missouri comparison on this article seems undue and/or out-of-context for much (most?) of the global general readership on en.wiki. From a policy standpoint, adding Cambodia would constitute original research/synthesis since it's not mentioned in the source. In any case, I think a fair solution for all involved would be to simply remove the comparison altogether, which is now being done. Left guide (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2024
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove public execution, it's a myth and has no data backing it up.
Don't like seeing myths and accusations on a site that's supposed to be a reliable and true source of information
there are no public executions because they are no public ones, all just private in a room JohnGalt245 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
There certainly have been, and I've added a citation to Amnesty International to back it up. I've modified the wording somewhat,since it doesn't necessarily reflect current practice, but it is not a myth. Acroterion(talk)17:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2024
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under "Politics --> Human Rights", there is an error where a reference isn't completed.
"The justice system regularly engages in capital punishment, which has included public executions by beheading.[276]ref>"Rights group condemns Saudi beheadings". Associated Press. 14 October 2008. Retrieved 14 October 2008.</ref>"
English Wikipedia generally applies the transliteration and spelling standards developed by English-language scholars and academics. This is certainly the case with historical terms, while current terms may be spelled according to official policy in the respective country. The scholarly norms have evolved over time and are well founded.
The common academic name spelling in English requires the definite article (al, etc.) and "son of" (ibn) to be written small, unless it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. The article must be followed by a hyphen. Examples:
I know some perceive it as irreverential, but it's not meant to be and it is the common practice. If administrative units (national governments, regional or municipal authorities) decree a different English spelling as normative, this concerns only the individual names to which the decrees apply, and the modern administrative units, not the historical or archaeological sites.
This edit request to Saudi Arabia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The water percentage of "0.7" was added with no source by an account from with only 3 contributions which all seem to be misguided. After research, I could not find a single source which claims the same number. There is no official number for the water area of Saudi Arabia. 99.64.160.215 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Infobox already lists it as the official language, also discussed in the Languages section. What are you requesting? Cannolis (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Done Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Already done That census figure is already in the infobox. Largoplazo (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Note: The source that is cited in the article compares it to Missouri. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Partly done Agree with M. Bitton that the Missouri comparison is mentioned in the source. However, given that Aramco World's target audience is American oil workers, there's apparent Americentrism in the way its content is written (see where the magazine's WP article says 
![[1]](https://image.cnbcfm.com/enwiki/api/v1/image/106819633-1609918195681-gettyimages-1230433807-AA_05012021_241268.jpeg?v=1619586969){kind=link}
![[2]](https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/ly/uploads/images/2022/07/15/218658.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://guardian.ng/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Mohammed-bin-Salman-4-957x598.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2018/09/22/ea9b567b-959c-407f-9368-d555dcd2b581/ea9b567b-959c-407f-9368-d555dcd2b581_16x9_1200x676.jpg?format=jpeg&width=960){kind=link}
![[5]](https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Trump-Saudi-Arabia-MBS-salman-img.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
