Talk:Saudi Arabia

Execution of Rizana Nafeek

I have add the following on the article since the nature of the incident is very inhumane and the following content is vital to explain the whole scenario.

---

The European Union expressed dismay that Saudi Arabia had beheaded a young Sri Lankan domestic helper convicted of murdering her employer's baby, despite repeated appeals for a stay of execution. Human rights groups said Rizana Nafeek was 17 at the time of the offense and that Saudi Arabia was one of just three countries in the world to impose the death penalty for crimes committed as a minor.UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United Nations independent experts and the world body’s human rights office voiced their dismay over the execution of Rizana Nafeek. Rupert Colville, a spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told in Geneva, "We are deeply troubled by reports of irregularities in her detention and trial, including that no lawyer was present to assist her in key stages of her interrogation and trial, that language interpretation was poor, and Ms. Nafeek’s contention that she was physically assaulted and forced to sign a confession under duress,". The Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan Méndez, noted that during the appeal of the case, the defence submitted that Ms. Nafeek was beaten and made to sign a confession under duress. "Her execution is clearly contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture," he said.

---

Since Saudi Arabia is not heeded to listen to the world, the content should be included on the main article itself on the human rights section.

Please discuss before you remove the content.Sudar123 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, please read WP:SOAPBOX. It is specifically contrary to Wikipedia policy to use Wikipedia as a basis for advocacy - which is what you are admitting doing: "Since Saudi Arabia is not heeded to listen to the world, the content should be included". Secondly, please read WP:CONSENSUS. In order to change an article you need consensus support to do so. At the moment you don't have that support. It's for you, as the one that wants to change the article to gather that consensus support. Policy requires that the article stay unchanged until you do so. So far no one has supported you and I object to what you have done. This is reflected in the well-established process of WP:BRD: B - you made a bold edit. R- you were reverted. D - you shouldn't revert to your edit, instead you should Discuss in order to gather support. Thirdly, your edit puts far too much detail about one case into a country article. You need to find a place fo it in one of the specialist articles. I'm reverting back to the consensus version. If you revert again you will be edit warring and you can expect that sanctions will follow if you persist. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to use Saudi Arabia as WP:SOAPBOX. Though I said on the Talk:Saudi Arabia that "Since Saudi Arabia is not heeded to listen to the world, the content should be included", I am not advocating anything but try to explain widely practising inhumane treatment on Foreign Workers though they are Minors and Women in General in Saudi Arabia and their archaic and biased judicial process and the execution methods. I don't think the content should be placed elsewhere; it doesn't represent one case but the untold incidents of many in Saudi Arabia.Sudar123 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that you seem to resort to a threat of "sanctions" towards another user whose opinion you don't share, and whom you encounter here for the first time. I see you have removed his edits, apparently so without any intent to put something more fitting in their place as there is now no mention whatsoever of either the case or it many implications, social, legal and with respect to Saudi Arabaia's international relations. Wefa (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you've inserted your post in a random out-of-sequence way in this thread. I suggest you transpose it (and my response) to a normal positioning at the end of the thread. Secondly, I did not remove the edits so there is no mention of the case. Another editor did that. Thirdly, the reference to sanctions is not in connection with "an opinion you don't share" but because the editor in question was failing to follow WP policy, and indeed the editor was subsequently indefinitely blocked for failing to follow WP policy (for sundry breaches that were nothing to do with this article). As can be seen from the consensus here, and also you may wish to check a similar consensus at AN/I, that was the general opinion. Fourthly consensus is that this case does not warrant mention in this country article but does warrant mention in Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. Hope that's clear. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• A mention of how they treat migrant workers may be worth a mention (perhaps, at most, two sentences). However, this individual case is far from the only one. A couple English sources:

1. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/06/30/another-indonesian-maid-dies-s-arabia.html
2. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/06/20/ruyati-beheading-a-blow-sby%E2%80%99s-claims.html (this one was beheaded)
3. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/12/22/poor-protection-blamed-repeated-abuses-migrant-workers.html
4. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/07/08/govt-tries-save-280-indonesians-death-row.html (includes Malaysia)

As I mentioned at AN/I, a migrant workers in Saudi Arabia article may be worth having — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate for this page. A better choice would be Human rights in Saudi Arabia, though that would be subject to consensus since that article does not discuss individual cases. Zero^talk 06:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to create migrant workers sub-article

Migrant workers in Saudi Arabia is a very good idea, and, now it's been mentioned, is a pretty obvious omission from the series of articles on Saudi Arabia. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can contribute sources from an Indonesian perspective. If someone can read Arabic, that would be a blessing... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Might be better to use a broader title such as Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. I think by the term "migrant workers" people have in mind mainly the temporary workforce of (often badly treated) domestics etc from south and south east Asia. But, of course, non-Saudi Arabs, middle managers/clerks from the Indian sub-continent and Western expats/executives are "migrant" workers too. I think it may be too subjective to make any distinctions in terms of the scope of the article. Unless anyone disagrees with that, I'll try to get the ball rolling in the next day or so with the first stab at an article (or as a sandbox link here.) DeCausa (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the article is created at "foreign workers", I think the migrant workers topic may be worth its own section. As for content, Khazar2 said he's interested in helping too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Foreign workers" sounds like a good title to me per DeCausa, with a subsection particularly focused on migrant workers. Would be a useful addition--I've got a lot of irons in the fire but would be glad to pitch in at least some. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• If nobody's started it yet, tonight when I come home I'll give it a shot with what sources I have available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, I've started the article. It's a bit outside my comfort zone, but I'll do what I can. Somebody'll need to flesh out the bit about skilled labourers, haven't found any sources on that yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wahhabi/Salafi. NOT Islamic

Every mention of Islam in this article should be change to 'Wahhabi' or 'Salafi' which is what Saudi Barbaria practices. Wahhabism/Salafism (both interchangeable terms for the same primitive ideology) is a savage cult created by a fanatic called AbdulWahab about 200 years and its 'beliefs' are offensive to millions of Muslims around the world. The Saudi regime just beheaded a poor Sri Lankan Muslim CHILD on the most flimsiest accusations. Stop calling Saudi Barbaria 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' because they are not! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.83.93 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:POV/WP:OR/WP:SOAPBOX. There's plenty of sources to demonstrate that Wahabbism is a form of Sunni Islam. See the Wahabbi and Salafi articles. DeCausa (talk)#

Bold edits of the History section

I've reverted a series of bold edits that were made today to the History section, per WP:BRD as I believe they are, on the whole, not an improvement and require discussion. I think some aspects may be an improve, but the edits amount to such a significant change, it is difficult to pick them out without reverting all the edits.

My reasons for this view are are:

• The general direction is to reduce the modern section and expand the earlier history - with additions to "Ancient history" and tags seeking expansion of the earlier sub-sections. I think, if implemented, would result in imbalance. Firstly, this is a country article and the country is Saudi Arabia, which came into being in 1932 (albeit with Al Saud antecedants). The main focus should be to provide an account of that countries history. Of course, the earlier period can't and shouldn't be excluded but the earlier period is essentially background to the history of the state. Secondly, and probably the bigger point, is that expanding the earlier periods ignores the inherent balance of the historical significance of Arabia at different times, the balance of notable events and developments at different times and the balance of the published literature covering the different periods. One of the edit summaries says "90% of the history section is about the 20th century". There's a reason for that. As the lead to the History of Saudi Arabia notes: there were two times in history when the region was of global significance: a few decades in the 7th century and since the mid 20th century. For other periods, there is, in fact, little published history - that is, for example, in comparison to other regions of the world and in comparison to modern Saudi history. With the exception of the decades following 632 and the 20th century it was largely a backwater. The article reflected this, and the bold edits (including the requests for expansion) would be an unbalanced representation of the sources and of the flow of history. Thirdly, this is only a country article summary and it's already quite long. Expanding the earlier periods would make the totality too long.

• Some of the headings are unjustified and misleading, and some of the pic changes are not an improvement As it is a country history there should be a clear indication of state and pre-state history. That has been lost. Not having a pic of Ibn Saud, given the primary role he had in 20th century Saudi is strange. The early history titles and the Thalmud pic gives too much emphasis to the early period. The "Rise of Islamism" I think has some NPOV concerns as a categorisation of the whole period. There were other major issues during the period concerned.

• The transfer of some paragraphs from the politics section is inappropriate as they are key aspects for understanding the current polity. obviously, there's a fine line between what goes into the most recent history sections and what goes into politics, but I think this is over that line.

As I say above, I think some of the changes may have value, and I'm not meaning to be obstructive. But I do think the edits should be now discussed case-by-case. DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I restored the changes I made to the article, with the exception of those to the history section. I agree that it's a good idea to discuss the changes you find objectionable on talk first.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As for your first reason, that Saudi Arabia was only founded in the 20th century, so was Turkey and several other countries, but the previous periods in their history are still discussed at length normally. I agree that since the Arabian peninsula was something of a backwater the end result would still be unbalanced in favour of the more recent history, but I believe it should be something like 50% about the pre-Saudi history and 50% about the rest. Now there is only a single sentence about the pre-Islamic history, I had added something about the ancient period but it's lost in the current revision.

The changes to the headings and pictures can be discussed, but I believe that currently the section is poorly illustrated. I felt that the ikhwan, the first oil well and Juhayman could be good choices to start with. Of course, Ibn Saud played a vital role in Saudi history, but his picture doesn't refer to, or highlights, any historical event in particular. It only shows what he looked like. I think the pictures should show momentous event that changed the country's history, instead of showing individual rulers.

As for the last point, I still believe that the 2011 protests should be included in history rather than politics, and I kept the paragraph there in the last revision. I think that was the only part I moved from politics from history.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the revert constructively. I'll respond on the historical balance later today, as I don't have much time right now. On my last bullet point, apologies I had got got confused as to where you had moved some of the politics section paragraphs - thought more had gone into the history section, so strike that. On the pics, it's not so much what you adde (the Ikhwan and the oil well are good pics) but what you took out. I think the Ottoman map is useful because in practice it's showing the position over much of a 400 year period. The modern map is the only map of the current state in the article. As far as Abdul Aziz is concerned, I take your point but I still think that it's difficult for a country article on Saudi Arabia not to have a pic of him in it. Is it conceivable for France not to have a pic of Napoleon or Germany not to have one of Hitler? (I mean by that the comparison is the dominating impact of the individual). He even named the country after himself effectively! DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, I do think there was too much on the last few years - probably too much on the protests and the human rights issues for a history survey. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

On the question of chronological balance, I think the balance in the main general histories of the country would be a guide. AFAIK, the main ones are:

• Al-Rasheed, Madawi (2010). A History of Saudi Arabia. ISBN 978-0-521-74754-7.
• Watson, Mark (2008). Prophets and princes: Saudi Arabia from Muhammad to the present. ISBN 978-0-470-18257-4.
• Vassiliev, Alexei (2000). The History of Saudi Arabia. ISBN 978-0814788097.

al-Rasheed starts in the mid-18th century, and devotes only 22 pages out of 277 to the pre-1900 period. Watson out of about 560 pages gives 70 pages to the 7th century, 40 pages from then to 1900 and 450 post-1900. I don't have access to Vasiliev at the moment. From memory, however, it was something similar to al-rasheed. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia did not exist at the time Islam was founded

This article says that "Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam". Not true. Saudi Arabia did not exist 100 years ago, let alone 1000. It is wiki policy to talk about historical periods using historical names. Rather than reverting my edits, good faith editing would be to further improve them. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your edit was unconnected with the point you just made, and it made no sense. Your text was "Saudi Arabia is situated around the birthplace of Islam" as though the "birthplace of Islam" was an enclave outside of, and surrounded by, Saudi Arabia. "good faith editing would be to further improve them". Sorry, no, the edit made no improvement whatsoever and was ill-conceived nonsense. Secondly, your above point is false pedantry. "Saudi Arabia" is a state and is now a geographic expression. We could use the clunky phrase "the territory that was to become Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam". But what's the point? It's clear from the article when Islam came about, it's clear when Saudi Arabia was founded. There is no confusion except in your head. It's a standard convention you'll see in any article to refer to the territory of the state prior to its foundation by the shorthand of the name of the state e.g. "These sites suggest that various hominid species existed in South Africa from about three million years ago starting with Australopithecus africanus". oh and now I see you've just deleted it altogether. You need to read WP:BRD. This explains how editing works here. If you make a change and you get reverted, you don't just keep on going reverting until you get your way. That's called edit-warring and you get blocked for that. You take it to the Talk page and you wait until you get consensus agreement to what you want to do. DeCausa (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

claim about "ordinary Saudis" should be deleted

The following is stated at the start of a paragraph on human rights in Saudi Arabia:

However, "ordinary Saudis", according to a BBC report, support the system and say that it maintains a low crime rate.

This doesn't mean anything. Zero explanation in the quote (or cited article) as to what constitutes "Ordinary Saudis" or how the reporter ascertained their contentment with the state of human rights in the country. No poll or actual research seems evident in deriving this conclusion. No facts at all are cited in the article to qualify it. It's basically some lazy journalist making an unqualified statement about "Ordinary Saudis" and doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. The statement is basically meaningless and should be deleted as it seems to whitewash a rather abysmal human rights situation. Presumably at least a few of the women suffering under this regime qualify as "Ordinary Saudis"? I'm going to go head and delete the citation and sentence if there is no issue here. 108.29.119.82 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. The BBC is a highly reputable reporting source, and qualifies as RS for this. It's purely your personal POV that it's "some lazy journalist" and that it's "to whitewash a rather abysmal human rights situation". If you have reliable sources that contradict the BBC piece indicating that "ordinary" or "most" Saudis have a different view, please suggest them so they can be considered and incorporated in the article. WP simply reflects what reliable sources say, not what the gut instinct of editors feel must be the "truth". DeCausa (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a quick question about this. What is the difference between the usage of the term "ordinary Saudis" and a weasel word? While I don't have any particular stake in whether or not the claim itself is true, I have taken quite a drubbing in the past for usage of such language (ie "many scientists assert" or "most historians conclude") without immediately qualifying it with a reference to a specific person who makes this assertion. Am I misunderstanding the weasel word thing now or in the past? DrPhen (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in WP:WEASEL: "However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves". The phrase in question is in quotes with direct attribution to the BBc, a reliable source. DeCausa (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I much appreciate your time and assistance! DrPhen (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)