Talk:Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia vs. KSA

• "Saudi Arabia": 99,700,000 Google hits
• "KSA" Saudi: 318,000 hits.

That clearly makes it less common, even though it's the IOC code. - Eagle^amn 22:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While that's not exactly the best way to find out, I a do agree, KSA is far less common, escpially since KSA can't be translated back into Arabic. Burning phoneix 10:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be less common on google, but I just came back from KSA and have seen that KSA is widly used within the country, in my opinion even more than Saudi Arabia.93.132.202.15 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know more about Saudi Arabia's history. The history section seems very small for such a large and powerful country. ( I agree with the comment above about the shallow representation showing little else other than Islam this Islam bad this bad that that by many people who never even visited KSA are writing, the proble may be the manager of this page himself :? the page looks like plain slander to me and not a wiki project. since it can be easily seen that way, it serves the slanderers right. —Preceding 02:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with the business about oil and military interests in the section where it mentions the abbreviation KSA? 68.118.41.239 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wahabism and Muslim Extremists are very common in Saudi Arabia

this was not mentioned in article

Absolutely--this article is painfully sanitized and free of any discussion of the many highly controversial policies of the Saudi government, including the funding of Islamic fundamentalist movements abroad, in part to stifle dissent at home. Needs BALANCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Groff (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Saudi-Arabia is leading in exporting and funding fundamentalist islamism, and the US government still think they're an ally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.235.226 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! You really think it's THAT simple?! LOL! Jersey John (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

another example of the many shallow slanderers writing on this page... plenty of college wiz-kids.

No background to any of these claims, so far I have seen only stereotypical assumptions of the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've spent the last month or so correcting this (and other sanitized aspects of the Article) - hopefully it is now a little more informative and sourced and less like a brochure issued by the Minsistry of Culture & Information. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Politics

This section is mostly about revenue and economic performance. I personally would like some info on governance , corruption and internal opposition. Any contributors with sources. I don't want to be confrontational or controversial but this is very closed country and English speaking media and governments are very happy to side with the Saudi regime im the best.Saudi Arabia is the number two producer of oil in the world. It is second to russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.216.138.246 (talk) 17:02, melvin is the best.

Exactly. All the economic stuff should be in the economy section, and far more could be added about politics in the kingdom, particularly the delicate situation between the royal family and the religious establishment. 24.87.21.40 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's political POV, we the readers are certainly interested in the basic structure of the Saudi government, like what kind of counsel / assembly it has and which princes hold which post in the government.

Im sure many volunteers would have contributed to elaborate about the closed structure of gov and its slow shift towards certain directions, but when anyone sees the amout of biased shallow info he feels like 'what the heck, its a slander page written by outsiders, look for info in another page'.

I've taken out the economic stuff and re-written the politics section with sourced material which is hopefully more informative. Criticism and improvements welcome, but I'm keeping watch to revert unsourced edits taking out sourced material because the editor thnks it's not positive about KSA. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

I just read Lawrence Wright's excellent book, "The Looming Tower," and he said the Saudi Arabia completed an extensive census in the 1960s-70s and realized the population might be closer to seven million, but was reluctant to publish this figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.30.43 (talk) 01:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there is a sizeable Shia minority in Saudi but I cannot find any reference to the its size! CIA simply says 100% Muslims but does not give a break down of each sects (as it does on other countries), has anyone got any idea? Kiumars 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would guesstimate it at about 10% shias, mainly in the east of the country. I don't have a source though :(.

There aren't any official government statistics, but I have seen many local and foreign non-official sources. Most of them give it somewhere between 10 and 20%. However, the most reliable source I've seen was a loacal Saudi newspaper that gave Saudi Arabia 85% Sunni and 15% Shia.

The Shiaa are less than 5 %.

No, they are definatly above 10%, but less than 20%. So the best thing to put on wekipedia is that it is estimated at around 15%(like most sources that don't take sides do). Please don't rely on anti-Shia sources with propaganda that claim they are less than 3 or 5%, or on some pro-Shia sources with propaganda that claim they are 25%!!

If we would like to come up with the exact figure of shia in Saudi Arabia, we should look at each city seprately.

The vast majority of shia live in Al-Ahsa an Qatif. They contiribute 86% of Qatif citizin and 48% of Al-Ahsa citizin. They are also some Shia in Riyadh (1%), Dammam (8%) and Madina (4%). There are neglitible number of Shia in the rest of the kingdum.

On the other hand, Ismaili contribute 65% of Najran citizin population. If we consider Ismaili as Shia, then total numer of Shia in Saudi Arabia will be between 6% and 8%. If we take out the Ismaili, then Shia will be between 4% and 6%.

Anyway, if we assume that 60% of Eastern Province are Shia, than there population will not exceed in any circmunstances 10% of Saudi Arabia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.32.28 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation /ˈsɒdɪ əˈɹeɪ̯bɪə/ is obviously Anglicized, but I'm not sure what the Arabic pronunciation is. Is it just /ælʕɑrɑˈbiː æsːæʕuːˈdijːæ/ as mentioned, or is the short form "Saudi Arabia" also used natively? Ardric47 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Saudi Arabia" is almost never used in Arabic, but I've seen few Arabic publications with "العربية السعودية" /ælʕɑrɑˈbiː æsːæʕuːˈdijːæ/, probably due to mistranslation. The most common short form is "السعودية" as-Sa'udiyah /æsːæʕuːˈdijːæ/- Eagle^talk 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject & Portal

Hi there, some new projects have been started to improve Saudi related topics, help is most welcomed. So if you please check out our Wikiproject Saudi Arabia which is maintaning the portal, thank you--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Life in Saudi Arabia

Could someone write up on what life in Saudi Arabia in relation to office hours, school hours etc is? I got interested in this after reading the Siesta article. AFAIK, Saudi Arabia (and a number of other Middle Eastern) countries more or less completely shut down during the afternoon but I'm not completely sure. Nil Einne 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Nil Einne, thanks for your interest in Saudi Arabia. Well, the school hours are kind of normal, but a bit earlier then the North American schools, kids usually get up at 6-7 in the morning, they get ready for school and as I remember they start at around 8:--, classes go normal, in most schools there are about 7-8 classes of 40 minutes each, there are breaks in between, at around noon there is the Dhuhr Prayer break, around 40-60 minutes (the prayer is 20 minutes and the rest is lunch break), the school finishes as early as 2:00pm and as late as 4:00pm, depends on the school, district and if it's a private or public school (some private schools have extra curricular activities in the afternoon). But for businesses, they can vary. The day starts at around 6-7 in the morning, there is a break at Dhuhr prayer at noon, some business have a long break until sunset and then start working, and start again after 6:00pm to about 9-10 pm,, but that varies on the business type as well, offices close in the afternoon but shops and stores are usually open. All business must close at prayer times, 5 times a day that last for about 30 minutes, restaurants close their doors at prayer times but if you are already eating inside you may stay in, they just won't open the doors until the prayer is over. This is different from city to city, for example Riyadh is much more strict than Jeddah. If you have anything else please don't hesitate to ask, thank you. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not all prayer breaks are for 30 minutes, right? I used to live in Saudi Arabia and remember some being for shorter periods (~10 minutes) than others.

That depends. If you go to a major brand-name supermarket/store, the break is longer, but if you go to a smaller local shop, the employee might just go to a nearby mosque,pray and come back immediatly. It's not set in stone.Burning phoneix 10:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And the weekedns are not Saturday and Sunday. The weekends are Thursday and Friday

This may change. There has been talk of changing the weekend to Friday/Saturday in line with Dubai.

-King Abdullah has passed a law that women are now allowed to drive! This news was so exciting to me and my family when we were living there. Could someone tell me more about that? Is it even true? No women seem to be driving even though the law was passed.

203.217.81.59 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC) richard. It would be good to discuss censorship in Saudi Arabia. I have read that English words like 'pig' and 'whisky' are masked in crosswords imported for English Language newspapers. Also the words 'Christian' and 'lust' etc are banned. Are all western DVD's allowed, or is there a board of censors who decide what is allowed and what is not? Do the morality police only exist in public spaces or do they enter homes? << another twisted shallow example, what censorship on words like 'pig' 'whiskey' 'christian' 'lust' are you talking about? where the heck do you get this info?

Makkah & Madina

Officially in Saudi Arabia it is Makkah & Madina & NOT 'Mecca' or 'Medina'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.51.0.131 (talk • contribs)

I believe that is true, but in most English sources you will find the spelling "Mecca" and "Medina." - Eagle^(talk) 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eagle, it's their language and they can spell it how ever they want, we [Arabic people] say the word "America" like "Am'ree'kah", we say "Paris" like "Pa'rees", "Montreal" like "Mont'ter'yal", "England" like "In'gelt'ra", "Switzerland" like "Swees'ra" and so on, so I guess as long as they know what they are talking about, they can call it whatever they want --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Institutional Racism in Saudi Schools

Someone should add something about the extent to which the Saudi government indoctrinates their school children against Jews and Christians.

<< yet another example of what creates most of this page, its not a Saudi wiki info page, but a Christ Jew slander newspaper fox news page. get real and dont exaggarate stuff.

Here's a good article on the subject

Excerpts from modern Saudi Textbooks

sample: "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

• • Notice: I have read the link, and followed and questioned about it... it does not refer to any sources, its the source of itself written by a person who knows nothing but blasphemy. to set the record straight, in fact, King Solomon, David, Moses, Abraham, and the bunch, are highly respected in the books, so are mentioned in the stories of the Jewish neighbors of Mohammad and Rabbis and how God favored sons of Israel above all (the ones who didnt scheme to kill him of course like attempts on Jesus). the citations were set straight to point out whats in history, stories like splitting the sea and devils and Jews who were transformed to apes by God for disobeying him. but the misleading excerpt above is an example of the backstabbing which happened then and is still hapeening now by certain people. bring clear examples with references and citations if you want to prove otherwis. —Preceding

Hmmm, having this issue been brought up, why don't you tell me who Israel and Western Textbooks portray Muslims??

[::Oh you're implying two wrongs make a right. Way to go Stalin.Jersey John (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)] << nice go mr.two words. just look at the excerpt and realize how silly and shallow it is. may you have plenty of shallow sympathisers.

I can't speak for Israel, but I can say that in the US, the acheivments of the Muslims are lauded, Islam is treated with respect as a "world religion", terrorism is said to be a perversion of Islam, the Crusades are portrayed as unbridled Christian aggression (while the final conquest of Constantinople, ordered by Muhammed, is treated as just another historical event), and in general Islam is portrayed as a peaceful religion. Anything else?

• You may not know about Israel, but I do; and I am perplexed that notwithstanding Muslem hatred, that appears to be an intrinsic part of Islam, the Children of Israel are taught to respect differences; and respect for other's beliefs; including Muslems who are equal to Jews under the laws of the State of Israel. How about including the fact that Jews are not even permitted to enter this country; even though places like Medina were founded by Jews.

• Medina was not founded by Jews! Arab Pagans lived there long before Jews have.

• I am copying the following text, posted at the next section hereafter, to this section:

Israeli Text books (I am an Israeli Educator) tend to deal with Islam in a staight forward manner, dealing with historical developement, trends and natuarlly interaction with Jewish communities in Muslin countries, and a comparison between Judiaism and Islam. Over 20% of israelis are Muslims, and many Muslims work in the Israeli Ministry of Educationm, so there would be little point, interest nor opportunity to inclide hate literature in official studies or text books. While there are differences in textbboks for Arab and Jewish pupils (firstly becvause of the use of Hebrew or Arabic, secondly because of more emphasis and depth on Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Druse religious aspects, in relation to the specif needs of different pupil groups). Because it is in the interest of the people and the government that all of its citizens be able to live in harmony and mutual respect of others ideas, religeous beliefs and rights, it is only natural to stress the common aspects of our beliefs and history, and downplay the negative disrespective events that have occured. While extremist views are expressed in some situations by both sidesd, these are not part of any officially authorised texts or curricullums (I'm talking about the Israeli school system, as opposed to the Palestinian Authorities texts, some of which are donated by Saudi sources, and reflect those views). In the first years of Islam, it sems that the prophet Muhhamed assumed that the Jewish tribes in what is now Saudi Arabia would convert to Islam. Many Jewish tribes lived on the area of Mekkah and Medinah. When this did not occure Muslim leaders declared war / jihad against them. Eventually almost all Jews in the area were killed or converted. The only exceptions being Jews in Yemen, who were allowed, with certain restrictions to live peacefull and carry out their traditiopns both is religion and craft (Jewlers and traders) Since them, Jews in that area have been rare, and are officially band from entering all of Saudia Arabia, and not just the 2 holy cities. Israeli Muslims are allowed to make the Haj, but cannot carry Israeli Passports. One of the few recognized Jews to enter Saudi Arabia was Henry Kissenger, the US sec. of state at the time. American Jewish soldiers are not officially allowed (by the Saudis) to serve in the country, but the US armed forces do not report soldiers' religion (though there have been problems with the supply of Kosher food to them, especially on the Passover Holiday wjhich has many dietary restrictions).

Israeli teacher, we all know its not particularly religion here, its politics. a Yemeni Jew can enter Saudi, but an Israeli Muslim cannot till now because of the Palestine conflict. The map which determines 'who is who' still needs to be lined. Under all the pressure of the world it would be immoral to just 'let the higher voice take what it wants'. As for all the controversy saying 'look I found an artifact with david's star on it under your house so your house is mine' is not particularly correct. it may point out certain things but not the real world. which is mostly about 'how do I claim a peice of land?'. the whole UN is desperately trying to regulate this. and its not anyone's fault that Adam didnt split the world to his children with deeds saying 'China is for the Chineese and America is for the Americans'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In Britain, a predominanantly Christian country, we learn ONLY about Islam in schools, I was never taught abour Catholicism and had to learn it from my family. We are taught that Islam is a peaceful religion, we learn all about the five pillars, bismallah, halal, the process of hajj etc. We are also taught that terrorism is a corruption of Islam. All in all, we are very much taught to respect and attempt to understand Muslim culture. So to claim that Muslims are portrayed in a negative light in Western education is simply COMPLETELY wrong. I just wish some Muslims I met lived up to the image I was taught, rather than being so unwilling to learn about MY culture as I have theirs.

-- The above unsigned comment is incorrect. I work in the UK education system and secondary school children are taught about a range of religious beliefs as part of the national curriculum. --mgaved (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some clear double-standards here. Let's put aside for a moment the institutional racism in the British education system that existed historically to justify its extensive rule over brown people the world over, racism that persists to this day. The government of Saudi Arabia's record on human rights and tolerance is indefensible. But those from Britain and Israel who post to criticize the ideological treatment of religions other than Islam and people other than Muslims should be more concerned with their own government's treatment of Muslims--which goes far beyond the ideological. Britain is currently involved in the brutal occupation of a Muslim country (Iraq) and Israel, far from promoting "harmony and mutual respect" of rights is waging a decades-long war on the Palestinian people. Israelis or supporters of Israel who are outraged by Saudi Arabia's barring Jews from certain places in the country would do well to turn their attention to the Israeli state itself, which bars millions of Palestinians from returning to the homes from which they were expelled in 1948.Khuryps 05:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference 41 (http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-2006-05-23.htm) is not accessible i.e. it gives a page cannot be found error. Therefore it is invalid and should be removed - Zawar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zawarq (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

discriminating people for their religion is NOT racism, racism is discriminating people for their 'race' (or at least their ethnicity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.235.226 (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I continue this talk with a demand that we question the reliability of the source to indicate, in wikipedia, that Saudi Arabian schools teach children to hate Christianity and Judaism, and other practices of Islam, such as Sunni Islam.

I have not seen any good sources indicating that 'hate' is a good word to use. There is no 'hate' word in the source. Also, the source is conspicuous. The source's text is mostly, as I've read, consumptions. "The United States SHOULD" "The Saudi Arabian schools SHOULD" "So, it SHOULDN'T be.." Do we really want to use the information provided in this source? It doesn't support any outer links. For all we know this could be an anti-islamic text with no background whatsoever. The fact that it has a lot of text doesn't mean it's reliable. I want to see another source, before we can allow the usage of a sentence like "Saudi Arabian schools teach children to hate Christianity, Judaism and other religions." The word "Hate" SHOULD NOT BE USED, AM I RIGHT? I expect a quick answer, for it is unacceptable to tell readers that Saudi Arabians hate christianity, with an unstable and unreliable source such as the one --91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)provided! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Population estimates

Comparison of various reputable sources for population estimates:

• UN Population Division: 24,573,100 (2005) / 25,192,720 (2006)
• Population Reference Bureau: 24,573,000 (2005)
• Saudi Arabia Census of 2004 (provisional results): 22,673,438
• World Gazetteer: 23,595,634 (2005-2006)
• CIA Factbook: 27,019,731

The CIA figure seems to overestimate the population compared to other sources. I think we should use the UN figures unless the CIA figure is corroborated by another official source. Polaron | Talk 21:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm,, well Saudi Arabia has a low avrage age, not because there are no old people but because there are many, many, many young people. So one year can make a one-two million and it's not getting lower (yet), so estimating can be really hard. I would say follow which ever one says (2006) but i know its not 23.9 mil, I would say 25-27 mil --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The CIA is the most modern of the above because it's 2009 estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrnkak (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

28,686,633 [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrnkak (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, in population estimates, and other statistics it is smarter to trust the UN than the CIA, for obvious reasons. The CIA, as I have said many times, continues to be a highly unreliable source for any of this kind of information, for the fact that the CIA's published knowledge is clearly United States POV. I would trust the United Nations more than the CIA, even if the UN info might be out to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.247.203 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative name for the country?

The articles makes the following statement: "no cheese of the House of Saud reject the family's legitimacy and decline to speak of the country as 'Saudi Arabia'." So, I was curious to know what they would call it? What are the alternative names for Saudi Arabia? I can understand if it's not really relevant or widely used that it shouldn't go into the article's text. But I'm very curious and think that this kind of trivia (if it is indeed "trivia") is always interesting to find at Wikipedia. Thanks!--Sir Edgar 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who oppose the rule of House of Saud often identify themselves by their region or province, e.g. someone from Jeddah, Makkah or Madinah prefer to be known as a Hijazi rather than a Saudi. It's probably easy to assume the answer is simply "Arabia" (without the "Saudi") but the term is too generic, something that the mostly tribal-by-nature Saudis would not associate themselves with. South of the border, I personally knew someone from South Yemen who still does not think favourably of the reunification; he does not identify himself as Yemeni but a citizen of Hadhramaut.

The translation of the English name and Arabic name are not the same (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arabic: المملكة العربية السعودية‎)). Is Saudi a kingdom or not? Kiumars 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a kingdom. "Arabia" (without the "Saudi") is one alternative name. Others sometimes refer to it as just "The Kingdom", or "Arabian Peninsula", or just "The Peninsula", or less commonly "Kingdom Arabia". Some who oppose the rule of House of Saud refuse to identify themselves as Saudis identify themselves as "Arabians" or identify themselves by their cities/villiges/tribes/region.

Sports in Saudi Arabia

I came to the Saudi Arabia page to look for information on sports in Saudi Arabia, but was disappointed to find no mention of it. If some expert could shed light on the subject (what sports are popular, satdiums and clubs, regulation, women's sports), it would be greatly appreciated. Arnob 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm,,, the information you are looking for would be found at Category:Sport in Saudi Arabia, I guess we could add a section under culture --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nightlife in Saudi Arabia?

How is the nightlife in Saudi Arabia. Do they party all night long?--Comanche cph 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Saudis usually stay up long periods of time during vacations, even though there is very little entertainment, no movies or arcades or nothing! strange huh? I'm writing this at 5:15 am and I don't plan to sleep before 10. I woke up at 4pm today. Which is totally normal :). Burning phoneix 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you mean by nightlife = night clubs. In case you mean night clubs there are no night clubs at all because most people are conservative and its againt Islam. Well most people stay at night if there is no work the other day. They like to go to set on the beach or just gather at relatives or friends houses. There are Arcades but no movie theater but you can rent a movie and watch home or just see it on Satellite channels.Ekxnss 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

unless you're a prince in Jeddah...in which case it's alcohol, drugs and prostititutes...Viewing cable 09JEDDAH443, UNDERGROUND PARTY SCENE IN JEDDAH: SAUDI YOUTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I live in Saudi Arabia and we have parties. We stay awake for the next morning. We have cafes and we have a lot of fun. It's so cool to ,live there. I am so proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.178.219 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What does "under high tentions" from radical groups mean? Opposition? Please translate into proper English JohnC (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights - Public executions

Somebody decided to remove my reference to public executions on the spurious grounds that it was an act of vandalism. I have restored the comment and added a reliable reference. I don't see any reason why it should be removed now - these public beheadings are one of the most outstanding examples of the Saudi's distance from the West, and they should not be hidden in the name of false political correctness.

It's not false political correctness as much as it is racist propaganda. First of all, the laws do exist, but the execution rate is low compared to countries such as China. Second, 80% of the executions in the world took place in China (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT500062006). The execution rate PER CAPITA in the US is THREE TIMES HIGHER than in both Iran and Saudi Arabia, according to this post. So yes, in five days I am going to delete this part because if we're going to pick on countries based on their human rights record, we should look at other countries first. However, if you want to keep this piece of propaganda, tell me so I can add these statistics.

Without stating a personal view, I'll just say that it is widely held in Saudi Arabia that execution with a sword is a lot less painful and humiliating than Western methods. As for it being public, don't they provide rows of seats in the US to watch lethal injection executions? It's hard to condem one without also condeming the other.

No, "they" certainly do not. It varies widely by state, but certain public officials, law enforcement people, etc., are required to witness the execution. The common procedure is that the witnesses observe the condemned -- through a glass partition -- being wheeled into the death chamber on a gurney, then a curtain is closed while the injection takes place and the condemned actually dies, then the curtain opens again to show that the condemned is, in fact, dead. This is a far cry from making a public exhibition of an execution, especially a bloody one. --Michael K. Smith 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. Executions in China don't affect the notability of beheadings in this article. Stop preaching and read the damn guidelines. 219.78.21.154 (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... This is not up for debate. If Saudi Arabia has public executions, then that information belongs on this page. The discussion about America and other countries should be placed on those countries' corresponding pages. It is not for us to decide which facts we will display in the name of any type of "correctness". The facts are what matter. I repeat, it is not for you to decide which facts are displayed here. All facts regarding Saudi Arabia, including their execution practices belong. If you want a discussion on which country has the worst capital punishment then do so in the appropriate wiki's please. Pillowmurder (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what human rights the publicity of executions violate? The only reason why they can be menshioned is that they aren't a frequent occurence today, but I think they rather belong in the 'Law' section, and in any case,any judgmental tone is completely misplaced. Being different from the West (which in fact implies 'from America' as many so called 'Western' countries don't conform to what is considered 'Western') is not a crime. --89.191.241.225 (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, this one: Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. "Degrading" being the significant word in this context. The irrelevant snipe at America is ill-informed considering the enthusiastic use of the death penalty in some US states. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly "universal" when so many gov'ts don't adhere to it. It's also a POV tract. "Torture" is a very subjective term; while most if not all would consider someone being put on the rack as torture, a fast beheading probably would not be viewed the same (I certainly don't consider it "torture"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the name given to it by the UN - aspirational rather than descriptive. It's possibly not "Universal" not so much because of non-compliance, but because a small minority of countries (including Saudi Arabia) have refused to accept it. Public execution is not a breach of Art.5 because it's "torture" but because it is considered "degrading treatment". DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruthless cuts

I cut a lot of poorly written text which appears to be more like propaganda from the section of politics. Also, the section of economics had a well-written several paragraphs, followed by text which did not fit with the above and which was an amalgam of data, belonging to Economy of Saudi Arabia. I cut that one too.

I wonder if there are any comments on that. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How can it be racist propaganda for not mentioning China or Iran in an article about Saudi Arabia??!?!?! Is it homophobic too because it doesn't mention homosexuality? I haven't looked at the pages for China, Iran or the US yet but I daresay contentious subjects like this will also be mentioned there. I shall have a look now...

Stable versioning tested on this article.

Stable versioning is being tested on this article. This means that all editing will be made on Saudi Arabia/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page. If you disagree with the current version, please let me know. Ral315 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So tell me about Punishments for Women in Saudi Arabia?

In which I mean to tell me about what kind of punishments do Women and Girls get in Saudi Arabia? Because I really what to know all about 'cause due to that it seems that it dosn't really describe Punishments as a sorta whole thing for the people in Saudi Arabia . Do they get the death Penalty or not? And do they get less harsher punishments or not? I just want to know all this and much more. Also is their much percent of murdur and/or crime victims that are female just like in some societies? And please answer too (quickly).

Women usually receive less or equal punishment than men but I have no idea about the female crime rate.Burning phoneix 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for adultery of course.. ;) TastyCakes 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, what a nasty insight from a tasty homo thing. do you have plenty of adultry in your country?

Wrong statistic in economy section

"despite the fact that they have shipped over 6.2 trillion barrels of oil between 1980 and 2006"

6.2 trillion barrels is more oil than has been produced in the entire world since oil production began. This cannot possibly be correct. A rough estimate based on current production of about 10 Million barrels per day. 10M x 365 x 26 years = 94.9 Billion barrels.

State sanctioned anti-Jewish prejudice

I have started a stub that needs further elaboration.-- Lance ^talk 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My contribution was removed without justification or comment. The article, in its present form, is patently unencyclopedic.Lance ^talk

of course its unencyclopedic given the large number of slanderers of your kind who are interested in the subject and elaborating from the atlas and blogs.

Establishment?

It has been stated in the History section that a Saudi State was first established in 1750. Should the Establishment section of the Fact file have a slight change.

many writers and contributers here are concerned with bad Islam and political structures not allowing others to interfer easily. real history and social and cultural stuff is second priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Safest part of KSA?

Im a highly educated Saudi Female (MD, PhD). I lived all my life in Saudi, I went to school here, I went to university here and I was sent to the states on a Saudi scholarship (they pay for full fees and a salary). The people who are writing this article obviously have no idea what they are talking about! Either you are people living in the US that havent stepped out of you home town and get you info from Fox news, or you a westerner living in one of those "gated communities" and also get your info from Fox news!! We are a normal community that have a different lifestyle. We have our own culture, traditions and beliefs. We are different and we are proud about it! So make this article about Saudi Arabia and its people...and not a newspaper article were ill-informed people get to post their opinions! (Oh and yes we women do water sports, dive and shop like all you other folks...Gees!!)

I see we have some Saudis here, so I pray you won't mind if I ask a few questions. I've always wanted to visit Saudi (too bad about the 'no infidels in Mecca' thing; I'd love to see it) and I was wondering what part of the country our native chums would recommend. Riyadh is the capitol, but I hear Jeddah is a wee more liberal and open to foreigners. Basically, I would like to visit your lovely country without having my head sawn off by a bowie knife-wielding madman screaming "Allah Akbar!" Any tips? How would a 6'5 tall, white, blond, 23 year-old Irish-American young man fare in KSA? << LOL, I would worry if I were you. especially with the frequent 'highlight' on 'touchy' things. Its like, look at the number of peeps and their views about different things around the world, as a result do you expect someone to visit certain places in an honest heart? can BinLaden apply for a visit to the Pope? on the contrary, can 6'5 tall guy apply to visit Mecca? look its just a Nazi officer who wants to visit Jerusalem, no bad intentions, honest.

About entry; I've heard that Jews and atheists cannot enter. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Christian (Roman Catholic, to be precise). Would it be possible for me to simply not bring up my atheism and enter the country as a lifelong nominal Catholic Christian? Roland Deschain 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC) << its not about beliefs there, its about politics.

I am not a Saudi but spent some time there years ago for profesional reasons. I'll start with the entry visa. Carrying an Israeli passport would prevent you automatically from requesting a visa. You carry an American passport and not an atheist passport. So nothing to explain as long as you say that you are an American.

As for which places to visit, i'd recommend Jeddah and the Eastern region (i.e. Khobar in particular). There are many foreigners there as well so you don't have to panic thinking that your physical appearence would bring you troubles. Just be friendly and good luck. << yeah and dont bring a camera and start filming ladies in black robes for a wiseguy report, bad idea.

P.S. Have a look at Category:Wikipedians in Saudi Arabia where you'd find a few natives and foreigners for more details. Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • You're right, some Saudis aren't big fans of Americans, They like Canadians and Europeans. I brought some of my Canadian friends over to Riyadh and they loved it. You know what bro, Saudi Arabia is not really big on tourists, if you want to go somewhere nice, go to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, its full with Americans and all other nationalities, you will love it there.--mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow Mo, why don't you tell us how you really feel?Jersey John (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been to Dubai and it's great. I've always wanted to travel to Saudi Arabia because it's an epoch of culture and I've always been interested in Islam. Maybe I can visit some time in the future. Thanks for the info, anyway. Peace. Roland Deschain 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC

• I believe the only way I would be visiting there would be as a uniformed member of a US military force Scott S 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to! No tourist activities! Maybe this is why Saudis would not welcome you as they would do w/ Roland. It reminds me of the stupid propaganda of the actual US admin; Iraqis would welcome us w/ flowers. Good luck. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that will greatly increase your chances of getting killed. :P Burning phoneix 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to start with the above. Where do people get these strange ideas? There are tens of thousands of Brits and Americans living happily in Saudi Arabia. Mrhawley 13:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are all good points ya doctoora, but since you're both an MD AND a PhD, you have no excuse not to set up a user account and start contributing yourself. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saudi_Arabia is in dire need. Now get to it :) Slackerlawstudent 00:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"religious freedom and civil liberties as the West" I dont think thats true, many countries around the world dont allow different religious activities including USA, you cant build a Mosque just next to an Evanglical Cathedral or in the middle of a Catholic community. not something good, but its not the only place to point out for having differences. (COULD) have had his head chopped?? how did you know he COULD? its not 1000bc.

hi Jinjaa i just want to point some thing

• mutaween don't chop off gay men head actually there is nothing in islam about choping people head we through them off a clif and

• mutaween do not hassel girls

• from the begining of the kingdom to this day 2007/08/22 no gay man were executed

• and about someone Spitting on you i want to say that some SOME not all some Saudi hate American we are not proud of it but let not forget that there are also some American who hate saudi even some police Official

i grew up in saudi and i knew what i talking aboutArabian soul 06:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

-- "but seeing as how it's illegal to practice Christianity in Saudi" : I'm a Saudi girl, 22 y.o. living in Makkah, I want to tell you that my best friend in high school was a christian. She's Syrian born in Saudi Arabia and living with her family in a small town near Makkah. After She finished her high school degree she went to Syria to continue her Bachelor degree but her family are still living and working here. "So it's not illegal to practice Christianity here". You'll find the religious freedom here as long as you respect your religion and stick to its rules. ^{~( Unsigned by 212.71.37.92 14:45, 14 May 2007 )~}

I'm a westerner who has lived in Saudi off and on for almost 20 years. The most common remark I hear from other westerners who visit here is "it's NOTHING like I imagined from what I had read or seen on TV. Everybody is so friendly." Saudi is pretty cool and most Saudis are great. They have had a very bad rap due to a few nutters. Yes, there are things that need fixing here, but the new generations are working on it. (And the film "The Kingdom" is about as accurate a representation of Saudi as "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is of Texas.) Anjouli 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly help Saudi's case that the government is being run by those few nutters. If we took the men at the helm out of the equation, quite a few countries would be a nicer place, at least as far as policy goes. But that is neither here nor there as far as Wikipedia editing is concerned. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Major Vandalism Issues

It seems like whole sections of this article are completely destroyed by vandalism. Can someone please clean this up so that this is a credible article again? I would but I don't know enough about Saudi Arabia to completely change the sections, which looks like is what is needed.

- "Saudi Arabia is the world's leading petroleum producer and exporter." - this is contestable. Russia overtook Saudia Arabia as the world's largest oil producer in August 2006, and I haven't heard that that situation has changed since. Palefire 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, I haven't heard about that! Is there a source for this?Burning phoneix 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of sources - [2] [3] [4] [5] Palefire 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Why are there so many photos of Riyadh hotel resorts for the Saudi Arabia country article? Kind of ridiculous, don't you think? --75.31.240.212 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in riyadh and I've never seen those places but they say they are parks so I assumed that it was OK. :/Burning phoneix 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture heading vs. Culture of Saudi Arabia Article

I'm an English teacher with two Saudi students; they're writing about their homeland in English. One is doing something on marriage and courtship in Saudi Arabia; I'm having him write it in the culture article; I'm going to link the story here at the culture heading. If there is a better place for these contributions, or other suggestions for organizing this material, please advise.Nhrenton 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

History

I have made a few amendments and additions to the very brief history of Saudi Arabia. Any comments or suggestions? Trinaw 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Saudis converting to Shia

Saudi king said last week that some Saudis are converting to Shia, is that true? Can anyone confirm it? Was he talking about Saudis being dissatisfied wit the current regime or he was talking about the public being fed up with the Western backed anti-Islamic regime of Saudi? Why these guys are so afraid of people being Muslims? Kiumars

I doubt that he stated that thet are converting to shia but rather that some people are trying to influnence modrate muslims to become shia. The situation is very critical now with sunni and shia war in iraq that some people are trying to influnce it down to the Saudi state. And they are afraid of insurgency because some people are backing up fundamental shia sects and smuggling weapons etc in the country. The major view about these shia is that they have loyalty not for the nation but for Iran.. which is dangerous for the nation's securtiy. 87.109.194.132 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They are in the eastern region, dude. Dammam, shia population is pretty high.. --Yu5uF 19:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Page

Why does this page indicate at the bottom that Saudi Arabia is a member of the OECD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.189.28.37 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't actually say the country is part of the group, the template is just there for some reason. I'll remove it. --Phoenix 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Education

After having read the "Education" section, I am left with the feeling that the Saudi education system is a darn good one. Heavily financed and accessible for everyone and all that... Nothing more to add to that? I have heard some numbers about very high illiteracy rates. Is it possible to rewrite this in still NPOV manner that covers reality better than it does now? Medico80 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would serouisly consider the Saudi education system to be quite bad I'm afraid. It depends on rote memorization and a large chunk of the school day is taken to religious education in addition to one class of "Watiniya" a week which translates to "Patriotism". How sad is that? Burning phoneix (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

what about religious freedom in saudi arabia

Who will write on this? some other wikipedia? -- ^{UNSIGNED : 12.7.175.2 06:16, 9 July 2007}

dont worry enough slander have been put up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Immigration/Citizenship/Nationality of Saudi Arabia

I've been trying to find the answer to, "Can I get Saudi nationality/citizenship if I marry a Saudi woman?" anywhere on the Internet. The nationality/citizenship section of this article is very weak. Also- the recent law that was passed for citizenship- does that allow one to actually apply for a Saudi passport? Or is it just an ability to stay in the kingdom without the need for sponsor?

so you are saying, can I get rid of the sponsor by screwing a girl from the internet? please look for citzenship application on another web-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Passport Section

On Wikipedia, there are many sections detailing the passports of various countries. For example: Canadian Passport or Singapore Passport. Saudi passport holders aren't able to travel to several countries such as Thailand. A friend of mine traveled to Thailand indirectly on her Saudi passport and upon return, her passport was suspended for 1 year and she was fined. Perhaps this information can be placed on the 'Saudi Arabia Passport' page if one is created.

I was born and raised in Saudi Arabia until my family migrated to the United States. From what I learned from my parents, I think that one of the ways for getting citizenship in Saudi Arabia is to convert into Islam. Although I am Filipino and born in Saudi Arabia, I'm not an Arabian citizen. Bustamove34 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"as-Suʻūdiyya"

Someone (User:Slackerlawstudent) changed "as-Saʻūdiyya" to "as-Suʻūdiyya". Is that a local pronunciation or something? -- 129.78.64.102 08:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Both correct , this is a non-english speaking state , so translation depends on the simulation between arabic and english alphabets. i even recommand writing Al-Sa'udiyya  A M M A R  14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Su'udiyya" is the correct form, because "Suud" is just the plural of "Sa'd". Many non-Saudi Arabs (esp. Lebanese) incorrectly pronounce it as "Sa'udiyya", but Saudis say "Su'udiyya". "Su'ud" is also the transliteration used by Encyclopedia of Islam. -- Slacker 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Economic cities.gif

Image:Economic cities.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Economic details under Government heading

In the Government section the text starting with "The combination of relatively high oil prices and exports" and ending "which provide a substantial fiscal "cushion."" seem more an economical analysis which should be merged with the appropriate section. FlipC 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Article leads

There seems to be some confusion about the nature of article leads, and what information might be appropriate to include in the lead for this article, so I thought I would jot some explanatory notes down here to enable editors to understand the context to my recent edit. An article lead tries to do is to summarise the most important points of the article. The lead isn't just a bland statement of basic facts about the country, although it can contain some of these if they aid with understanding. Instead it is meant to give a reader who is short of time and unable to read the whole article a basic introduction to the subject in question. It is important therefore that all of the most notable aspects of an article's subject should be reflected in its lead. Any aspect on which there is a large amount of content later in the article is a good candidate for the lead; similarly anything which marks out a country as particularly distinctive in relation to other countries should be mentioned. The article on France, for example, talks about its imperial past and its role as a founder member of the UN; the article on Panama points out that the country is a transcontinental nation; that on Bangladesh mentions monsoons. These "notable aspects" will, of course, be different for different countries; to state that if a particular piece of information doesn't appear in all country articles it shouldn't appear in any (I paraphrase) means that no country lead would contain the things that marks the country out as distinctive, by definition. A useful rule of thumb is "is this something that the country is very well known for?" - if so, the lead is a sensible place to summarise this, and there should be corresponding detailed content to back this up below. Leads should also not contain any information that is not contained elsewhere in the article, because they are summaries. So ... "info is included elsewhere in the article" is, fairly obviously, not a good reason in itself to delete content from the lead. Hope that helps. SP-KP 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well firstly, it's highly debatable whether this is one of the three things the country is most well-known for. Perhaps this is simply the aspect that is of most interest to you. You're implying that aside from Mecca, Medina, and oil exports, the only thing notable about this large, ancient, and complex country are vague "perceptions" by Westerners about human rights. If Israel, Iran, Burma, Syria, China, and Egypt - all countries with much more notable human rights issues - don't include info of this nature in the lead, there is no reason Saudi Arabia should be any different. What makes all the teams editing those articles wrong, and your opinion correct (with all due respect)? Secondly, it's not clear whether you're talking about actual human rights violations, or simply "Western perceptions" of human rights in Saudi Arabia. If it's simply an issue of how the country is perceived by the West, then that's not terribly notable, and is much too ethnocentric. If it's the former then the text is simply too vague. If you're going to mention this in the lead, then in fairness, you should make it clear to the reader what specifically these organizations object to. Painting such a broad brush that may imply the whole range of imaginable human rights issues (some applicable to this country and some not) does not serve the reader's interest in an objective and fact-based treatment of the subject. -- Slacker 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Some good points there - the wording definitely needs an improvement - any suggestions? On the central point (include or not) it's not my opinion that I'm giving here, it's Wikipedia policy - i.e. I'm attempting to educate you, not debate with you - policy always trumps "it hasn't been done elsewhere so why here" argument (which is a good thing in my opinion, otherwise we'd never reach consensus on a whole range of things). You're incorrect in saying that information about Saudi Arabia's approach to human rights is based on vague perceptions. There is reliable, objective evidence that this is a country which has a poor human rights record. To take one example, the Economist magazine's Democracy Index ranks them the 9th lowest of all countries based on a detailed scoring system. Also, I'm not sure where the "three things" comes from - did I say that? SP-KP 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy; the policy says that notable topics should/can be addressed in the lead, but the way you insist on applying it makes it seem like the policy is "if it's in the article, it can be in the lead". It seems to me that, according to the policy, you have to demonstrate that this info is notable enough to be in the lead. This is why the other country articles are relevant; they don't "prove" that it's wrong to include the info, but when many teams of editors worked for a long time on comparable articles and concluded that this sort of info is not notable enough to be in the lead paragraph, then we can use that as guidance as to what is and is not appropriate for similar articles. Also, I didn't mean to say that human rights concerns were simply based on perceptions (otherwise I would have argued against inclusion of this topic in the body as well). What I meant was that the text you inserted seems to be speaking about Western perceptions, not the actual, objective information which you mention. Simply saying "there are Western perceptions that Saudi Arabia is a bad place" is not notable enough for the lead. I know that's not what you're trying to say, but that's what the text is saying right now. In any case, if the text stays, then I hope it would specify exactly what Saudi Arabia is accused of, because right now it's too broad to be considered encyclopedic. -- Slacker 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those clarifications. It doesn't sound like we are in great disagreement about the policy itself - I'm definitely not of the opinion that it says "if it's in the article, it can be in the lead" and I agree that I, as the editor wanting to insert the material, need to demonstrate its notability. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions you draw from the other articles though - do you have evidence that the editors of those articles have considered the specific question of whether the human rights records of those countries belongs in the lead? My experience of working on similar articles is that the lead is often one of those things that is left till last, and it may just be that the editors haven't yet done that gap analysis. It's good that we agree that the wording, if it is to stay, needs to change. Should a revised version say something more definite, then, e.g. "Saudi Arabia has a poor human rights record" (perhaps backed up with examples) or would that be too strong/NPOV? SP-KP 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly expressed concern about issues A, B, and c in Saudi Arabia, although the Saudi government dismisses these concerns." That just feels more accurate and measured in my humble opinion. As for whether this sort of topic was discussed in the other country articles; I'll have to look at those discussions and get back to you. Thanks for your reply. -- Slacker 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure it ought to be possible to find some specifics. I'll see what I can track down. SP-KP 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The most recent "Democracy Index" in The Economist holds Saudi Arabia as the seventh most authoritarian, which is only notable as a change from the listing as ninth in the above text. Krumbel (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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. [6] —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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

"Largest Arab country in the Middle East" - in lead section

I reverted an edit altering this to "3rd largest", and left a message on the user talk page to discuss here.

I am assuming the statement refers to area - in which case it seems correct to say "largest".

I won't revert again in case anyone here wants to discuss alternative wording (and it's my second revert)  -  Begoon (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is not the largest Arab Country. It is the third largest Arab country after Sudan and Algeria; I mean in area. Just make sure you correct this error in the first sentence of the article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Night flight911 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says "the largest Arab country of the Middle East". I don't think Sudan or Algeria are generally regarded as being in the Middle East, are they? The article Middle East doesn't say they are - although it does discuss a concept called the Greater Middle East, which it says is " is a political term coined by the Bush administration to englobe together various countries, pertaining to the Muslim world". Given that, I think the statement is probably ok as it is - but I'm happy to be corrected if anyone else thinks I'm wrong.  -  Begoon (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, if it's considered confusing, it could be reworded to "the 3rd largest Arab country in the world, and largest in the Middle East" - but that seems a bit unwieldy to me. If it is changed, then we should make sure it's changed accurately. I'm ok with it as it is - but the potential for confusion might need consideration, I suppose.  -  Begoon (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, just "the largest country in the Middle East". The fact that its people are predominantly Arabs is important, but it's only the fourth appearance of the word "arab" in the opening sentence. The wording made me wonder if Iran or Turkey or somewhere might be larger, but they're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoeuidhtns (talk • contribs) 14:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "the third largest Arab country and the largest country in the Middle East" which I think is the most unambiguous way to put it. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2011 (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)

There's almost NOTHING about WW1 in this article?

From reading the article, one would assume that the country was not occupied by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of WW1, nor does it detail the key part the country played in the Ottoman Empire's defeat. I will thank you not to edit my comment. Please add a comment of your own and sign it, if you have the courage of your convictions. Thank you. TimBRoy (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I've tried to correct DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2011 (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)

Error in text removed

Opening section noted that aid was only given by the Saudi government to Muslim countries, curiously the reference pointed to a Daily Telegraph article from 2006 noting that a Saudi individual had just succeeded in encouraging his government to make the first aid payment to a non-Muslim country (Cambodia). So given that this was a clear error I removed the incorrect text. - "though only to Muslim countries.(Reference was: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1514026/Saudis-donate-aid-to-non-Muslims.html "Saudis donate aid to non-Muslims".

Others may wish to check whether this is a one-off payment to a non-Muslim country, or the Saudi government has changed policy since then (2006) and help improve the text. --mgaved (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Over the top to simply delete. The article says $250k is only donation to non-muslim country. Not much out of $49bn - it's a source for saying 'almost entirely' so reinstated on that basis. If someone can find source for further non-Muslim donations since 2006, can review - but even then 'almost entirely' is still likely to be appropriate and should not deleted. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia interest in Lebanon's welfare

</gallery> FBI Latest on White House Press Release Saudi Arabia interest in Lebanon's Welfare

What's your point? DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom

The overwhelming majority of our articles about nations begin with the country's most commonly used name (usually the article's title), and then give the official name second. WP:PLACE states that this is the preferred style. Is there any objection to beginning this article: "Saudia Arabia, (officially the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia),..."? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings except that the official name is quite often used, as is the abbreviation KSA, in the country, probably more often than official names of other countries. Also, there are quite a few countries which don't follow that eg United States and United Kingdom. But if you are that concerned... I don't really care one way or other. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well United States is sort of an anomaly. As far as the UK, I plan to make that the last discussion on my list, as there may be some strong opinions there. My main concern is conformity, although I readily admit that this is not a major issue. The other discussons I've opened about this have been generally favorable to beginning with the commom name. Thanks for the go-ahead. I'll wait a bit to see if others wish to weigh in here. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I am going to go ahead and make the change. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to wait, as I have a question about the Arabic translation. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See Also

Politics of SA is listed twice. 216.204.206.155 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Legislature

I think that Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia should be listed as the country's legislature in the infobox. I understand that it has only Consultative powers, but it can introduce laws to the King and recommend decisions. In that sense, it has some legislative power, even though decision on whether to sign or strike down its decisions rests ultimately with the King. I know I can get in trouble for saying this, but that's far more power than the rubber-stamp legislatures of some dictatorships that I will not mention here for the sake of neutrality. The only difference: the Saudis are honest with what powers their legislature actually has. So, what do you think?--RM (Be my friend) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No it's misleading. The cabinet has the same power to propose legislation to the King: why doesn't that fulfil your definition of "legislature". A legislature must legislate. this assembly doesn't DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Check the new "Powers" section of the article Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia (I added it in). It actually has some limited function in government. In addition to its ability to propose legislation and advise the King on foreign and internal policies, it can also interpret laws already passed, review policies submitted by the King, examine annual reports referred to it by ministries and agencies, review the annual budget, and call in ministers for questioning. And I could name a few legislatures that act as rubber stamps and don't actually legislate.--RM (Be my friend) 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy with your additions except "widely considered to be a leg". You need citations for that - so I've reverted that part of your edit. If you can provide a citation - then no problem. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you think, though? It is the closest thing to a real legislature the country has. There are many nations where legislatures have similar powers. For example, all laws proposed by the Parliament of Swaziland cannot be passed without the King's approval. There are numerous authoritarian states in the world where legislatures act as rubber stamps for party decisions, but this Assembly has some real, yet limited powers. My most important point is that in addition to those other tasks, it can propose and vote for laws, even though the King can veto or approve it.--RM (Be my friend) 17:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the point - it's not a rubber stamp. The King doesn't veto them. All they can do is ask the King to pass the law. As I said, no problem with "widely regarded as a legislature" if you can source it. DeCausa (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The King technically does veto it just by saying no, or he can approve it. Like I said, this body may not have full powers of a legislature, but it can be considered one due to its powers to approve laws (if the King does so as well), and interpret already passed laws. There are many other legislatures like this: For example, Swaziland is also an absolute monarchy, and all laws approved by the Parliament of Swaziland have to be approved by the King in the same way. The only main difference is the name.--RM (Be my friend) 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry you are misunderstanding. What the Consultative Assembly does is ask the King to enact a law. That is different to passing a bill which is enacted unless it is vetoed. In other words, it already has a certain stus until the veto applies. For example, the President of the US has the power of veto over an Act of Congress and a bill of the UK parliament doesn't become law until it's signed by the Queen. What the consultative assembly produces isn't a law in any shape or form. It's a draft proposal for the King to consider. In fact, any Saudi citizen can do exactly the same thing. This is the important point. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The king does NOT have actual real powers . They just rule the kingdom. TerenceBoshy (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

But seriously what the heck are you talking about ? TerenceBoshy (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources and stuff

Footnotes 46-53 are a laundry list of books about the country, listed in support of someone else's opinion. I'm not an apologist, it's just sloppy. Maybe someone with access to them can improve the article so we're citing experts with page numbers instead of plagiarizing tabloid sources like footnote 43.[7]

Also, can someone create an archive for this talk page? Jabrol (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure Jabrol . What kind of archive would you like ? TerenceBoshy (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

New Cold War

Saudi Arabia is raging a New Cold War against Iran for their nuclear weapons . TerenceBoshy (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)