Talk:Saudi Arabia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article candidateSaudi Arabia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
May 22, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 23, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 29, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 21, 2018.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 23, 2004, September 23, 2005, September 23, 2006, September 23, 2008, September 23, 2009, September 23, 2010, September 23, 2011, September 23, 2012, September 23, 2013, September 23, 2014, September 23, 2016, September 23, 2017, September 23, 2018, and September 23, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Possible influence by Saudi Arabia on Administrators - Neutrality[edit]

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:


Context: Bildersindtoll (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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[edit]

In the infobox, under Ethnic groups, please add a footnote that what is listed is just citizens and that 38% of the population of Saudi Arabia are migrants. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:8DBA:2280:EBCA:EF37 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done. Please establish a consensus for your proposed change before using the edit semi-protected template. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding migrants to ethnic groups in the infobox[edit]

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)Reply[reply]


Sa is/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1838:7401:0:20:7F48:CF01 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atheism in Saudi[edit]

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?

BBX118 00:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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)Reply[reply]

Administrative division map[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
It seems to be fixed now. Ur frnd (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Saudi Arabia Wikipedia page[edit]

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. 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)Reply[reply]

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".[1]
  • The Guardian in 2022: "The journalist, Gil Tamary ...[entered Mecca] defiance of a ban on non-Muslims."[2]
  • Al-Monitor in 2022: "Religious authorities there do not allow non-Muslims to enter the city [Mecca]."[3]
  • 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."[4]
DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023[edit]

Saudi arabia is on THE ARABIAN GULF. Not persian gulf. It is our sea not the persians sea, Fix this racism. 2A02:CB80:4206:8B60:D48D:7D46:6196:81A1 (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: see Talk:Persian Gulf. Also see Persian Gulf naming dispute and that talk page Cannolis (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]