Jump to content

Talk:Faisal of Saudi Arabia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFaisal of Saudi Arabia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2018Good article nomineeListed
August 14, 2019Good article reassessmentKept
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 25, 2004, March 25, 2011, March 25, 2012, March 25, 2015, March 25, 2018, March 25, 2019, and March 25, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Oil Embargo And Assassination

[edit]

There is hardly any mention on the oil embargo or the possible link to his assassination. Just a statement dismissing the whole view. Is this truly an encyclopedia, or a propaganda machine?; The article gives a completely different impression about that turbulent part of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.129.241 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a propaganda machine to me! The article is glowing with all his "development" achievements. 2.96.177.84 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old comments

[edit]

Does anybody know who was behind the assassination? It is odd that I've never even seen any theories!

One theory that I read of was that King Fahd was indirectly responsible for it. He was the Minister of Interior at the time he order the execution of Khaled bin Musaid for killing a guard. King Feisal took the blame for it. And it was Khaled's brother Faisal bin Musaid who shot the late loveable King Faisal. King Fahd supposedly convinced Faisal bin Musaid that the late King Faisal was the killer and not him.

Article name

[edit]

There was a proposal that Faisal of Saudi Arabia be renamed and moved to King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, but no debate.

  • Faisal bin Musad not King Faisal nephew as wrote in article he is son of Musad the younger brother of King , CIA was behind the assassination coz they gives the assassination plan while Faisal Bin Musad was in USA Qatarson 11:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protocols

[edit]

Is there a source for his interest in the Elders of Zion propaganda? --Skritek 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Why should we include a section on what he thinks about Jews? Do we have a similar section, say in a Menachem Begin article, as to what he thinks about muslims? If anything, I think we should have a section titled "controversies" or something along those lines, and mention it there among other things. Otherwise, it sounds as if criticizing or stereotyping Jews is different and more serious than doing the same thing to other ethnicities and races of the World. -Ur

-- I feel you're right about this one, there's no reason to include a section on everyones biography about what they though about the Jews. thestick 03:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Assasination Theories

[edit]

Any theory which may suggest outside intervention because his actions regarding oil caused great tubulence in the energy hungry industriliazed countires. Perhaps CIA??? I am also surprised there is no discussion here regarding that. Living in the middleast, I often came across people touching this subject almost always as if it was a western (popularly) US assisted assasination. omerlivesOmerlives 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Deacon - The Israeli Secret Service - suggests that the CIA provided the tip-off but that the true source of the intelligence was Israel - which was keeping an eye on Libya and Ghadaffi. The intelligence was traded for other intelligence, such as aiding the secret nuclear programme. It's possible that many earlier coup attempts on the Saudi dictator could have been prevented, the price paid for the bomb. 2.96.177.84 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very likely that his assassination was a plot from within the family, probably by king Fahd himself. And yes, it is also likely the Americans assisted him, to get revenge from Faysal, because he's the one who masterminded the oil embargo against pro-Zionist western states during the 1973 October war.

Stop it

[edit]

Beit Or can you stop blindly reverting my edits, esp. when I am giving the article a more logical order. I also added a source for the fact that he was a fan of a roick group. Also, your implicit declarations that I'm "stalk[ing]" you are offensive and uncivil. If you have any objections to the sources, please state them here.Bless sins 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:STALK. You never edited this article before, only reverted my contributions, minutes after I made them. Regarding your comment on content, Jews are not a "foreign nation", and making antisemitic attacks is not "relations" with Jews, just antisemitism. Beit Or 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert your edits. Yes, I shifted content around, and re-sectioned the article. His comments are mostly regarding Israel. Jews can be considered a nation that is foreign to Saudi Arabia. Nation: A nation is not a state, and while traditionally monocultural, it may also be multicultural in its self-definition. Also "relations is the most NPOV way to put his comments. In anycase, Faisal is far more noted for other things. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight demands we give very little weight to this issue.Bless sins 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Beit Or, that you are not interested in improving this article, rather just throwing dirt at the man.Bless sins 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give his attitudes towards Jews a section as they are notable in his career. Infact that quote of him must be reduced per WP:NPOV/Undue_weight. He is known far more for other aspects.Bless sins 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely his attitude towards Jews - who are not a "foreign nation" - are far more notable than the lyrics to Grateful Dead songs.Proabivouac 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I have removed neither. You on the other hand, are selectively removing content. I am saying that his quote on Israel should be shortened for sake of due wieght. Jews are foreign to Saudi Arabia. They are not the indigenous pop. There are also a nation. I think you are confusing "nation" with "nation state".Bless sins 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, Jews are a religious and ethnic group.Proabivouac 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want, we can change the title to "peoples" instead of nations. That woudl work better in light of Faisal's relation with the American rock bands.Bless sins 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that the Grateful Dead trivia needs to be here at all, but, as the song was supposedly written on the occasion of his assassination, I've moved it to that section.Proabivouac 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That song is more illustrative of his relations to other nations, than it is to his death. In any case it is no more "trivia" than Faisal's liking Protocols of Elders of Zion.Bless sins 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Deadhead has nothing to do with foreign policy.Proabivouac 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse not. And I never said that. But does have to do with one's personal interests. And it also has to do with how others view that person.Bless sins 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from hampering attempts to make the article better and more neutral Beit Or, there's no dedicated section for the communists. thestick 08:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Libel

[edit]

OK, there is no source for the protocols issue, so I removed it, but writing in support of the concept of the blood libel is not only a reference to the antisemitism issue, but is patently antisemitic in and of itself. Anyone disagree? -- Avi 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just as I can't go around hurling accusations of Islamophobia without a source, you shouldn't deface Arab leaders with accusation of anti-semitism, uinless you have a reliable source.Bless sins 18:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But the protocols have now been properly sourced by Beit Or, and the blood libel has always been sourced, so the antisemitism tag is properly applied. Anyway, I am of the belief that Faisal would not have thought of it as defacement, but as a badge of honor. I mean, the blood libel is such a disproven canard, and such a disgusting accusation, that for someone to make such an accusation in the modern era strikes me a s person who would wear his hatred of Jews loudly and proudly. Of course, that is just my opinion, but it does not change the verified and reliable sourcing of the facts that demonstrate the need for the category. -- Avi 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood libel and belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have now joined pogroms in an expanding list of things that, according to certain editors, aren't antisemitic.Proabivouac 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful Dead

[edit]

Sorry people but this is silly. The guy was not a fan of the Grateful Dead - I doubt he ever even heard of them. The source that's been provided here only shows that some 'Dead lyricist wrote a song inspired by King Faisal, but that's it. Slackerlawstudent 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia discourages the addition of trivia sections Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles. Pelase take note of that before anyone re-inserts the section on trivia. Bless sins 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it looks like that bit of trivia was reintroduced. It unlikely that Faisal, born in 1906, would be a fan of the the Grateful Dead when Faisal was in his 60's. I looked for original sources.

  • The original citation seems to be Robert Hunter (lyricist), who in his book, "Box of Rain" writes about Faisal. I did not find that book online, but "The American Book of the Dead" by Oliver Trager quotes from "Box of Rain" on [| p. 241] and states that Faisal was a fan of the Grateful Dead: "Hunter's note in A Box of Rain says, 'This lyric is a requiem for King Faisal of Saudi Arabia - a progressive and democratically inclined ruler [and incidentally a fan of the Grateful Dead] whose assassination in 1975 shocked us personally.' "
  • Another book by Trager, "The American Book of the Dead" quotes a second hand conversation with Garcia from around the time Blues for Allah was written (1975) and indicates that they were not personally acquainted with Faisal. See [p. 45.]

Without a second primary source, such as a newspaper article, I think this is completely preposterous and probably Robert Hunter making a joke at the expense of Faisal? So, we have one original source that says Faisal was a fan of the band, but no other sources. In light of that, I'm marking this with Template:Verify_source. Cxbrx (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section. One person, Robert Hunter (lyricist) claims that Faisal was a fan. Maybe there was confusion because his assassin Faisal bin Musaid was in the US around 1970 and arrested for selling LSD and Hashish. It seems more likely that his assassin was a fan of the Grateful Dead. Follow up conversation will be on Talk:Blues_for_Allah. Cxbrx (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Jews

[edit]

Also, Faisal's views on Jews were his personal ones and part of his hobbies and interests. Lastly, for the sake of undue wieght, we shouldn't have a section "views on Jews", as Faisal is not at all notable for that.Bless sins 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is very notable for his antisemitic views. Beit Or 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. He is notable as the King of Saudi Arabia. If he is, please show me a biography of Faisal that mentions his views on Jews. Bless sins 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show any biogrpahy of Faisal? Also, please review the notability guidelines. His antisemitic views were documented by mutiple, independent, reliable sources; thus, they are notable enough to be included. Mixing views on Jews with hobbies makes no sense; there is not a single Wikipedia article that does so. Topics like antisemitism or racism are always presented in separate sections. Beit Or 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is one already cited in the article, Encyclopedia of World Biography. His views on Jews were personal ones. That he believed in the ritual murder by Jews were his personal views on Israel/Zionism. For the sake of undue weight we shouldn't give that its own section. Also, you have inserted qutoes regarding him in the article. Please provide sources that suggest those quotes of his are notable enough to be included.Bless sins 01:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are under a bit of a misconception, I believe, Bless. The person has to be notable to merit an article. Once he is notable, important points about his life, even if they are not meritorious of an article in and of themselves, are eligible for the article if properly sourced. It is similar to a notable band. Often, the individual album articles are "merged" into the parent, because they are uneorthy of their own article, but are important in the context of the band's article. Same here. Perhaps you need to become more involved in the AfD proces to get a better understanding. -- Avi 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please refer to me as "Bless_sins", editors in the past have used short forms in an offensive manner. Secondly, I'm more focusing on undue weight, which is exactly what is going on here. I am not against removing sourced views, only against giving them a prominent place in the article.Bless sins 01:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, Bless sins, if that is what you prefer. Secondly, where would you suggest putting his blood-libel accusations and protocol funding? It is not exactly foreign relations. To remove it from the article in toto would be POV violation, especially as Arab-Jewish relations are a significnat part of any discussion of the Middle East, and the views of one of the most important Arab leaders of the modern world is of extreme importance. -- Avi 04:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avraham please understand that i've never advocated the removal of the material, regardless of what some users says on this page. I suggest putting it in a section containing his personal views and interests. There is no connection between his politicial activities and his views on Jews (as Saudi Arabia is not the onyl country that is hostile towards Israel).Bless sins 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no connection between his politicial activities and his views on Jews (as Saudi Arabia is not the onyl country that is hostile towards Israel)"
Non sequitur, Bless sins.Proabivouac 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more clear. In any case, the burden of evidence is on you to show how his views on Jews were connected his political life and were something major.Bless sins 05:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, I can be more clear: your claim that there must be no connection between his antisemitism and his hostility to Israel because other countries are also hostile towards Israel falsely presumes that these are not also hostile towards Jews, and even if that were so, it wouldn't mean that Faisal's policies and his personal views weren't related. That he shared his views with foreign envoys makes it that much clearer. As it is no secret that Israel is the only Jewish state, it is ridiculous to allow that Faisal believed Jews to be evil, yet this had no effect on his policies, which, only by coincidence, strongly opposed and rejected Israel. It is incredible to me that I should really need to explain this; indeed, I'm left wondering why you object to the label "antisemitism," as it refers to a set of attitudes which your contributions consistently suggest you to believe completely justified.Proabivouac 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought you had learned from you previous mistakes. You had (falsely) accused me of sockpuppetry, now you are hinting that I believe that "antisemitism" is "completely justified". If you want to disrespect other users, wikipedia is not the place.Bless sins 06:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I accused you of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, which over multiple inquiries you have refused to unambigiously deny, perhaps because you are an honest man. As these IPs have quieted down since our conversation, I have no further complaint.
Where articles are concerned, whether on Banu Qurayza, Battle of Khaybar, Antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism or this article, I find you representing the same duplex point of view: that there has been no antisemitism in Islam, and that what incidents and attitudes were otherwise ascribed to antisemitism are justifiable on some other ground. You are certainly free to represent this point of view; there is also no reason I cannot observe it. If I am mistaken in this, you are likewise free to correct me.Proabivouac 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there should be no mistake about my behavior: Your allegations that I used an anon for sock/meat puppetry, votestacking, vandalism etc. ARE COMPLETELY FALSE. Do I make myself clear? Are you looking for a stronger "unambigiously den[ial]"? If there has been anti-semitism in Islam you need reliable sources to show that. The lack of sources saying otherwise can't be used as a justification to throw accusations on 1.2 billion people.
I don't agree with "blood libel" or other "antisemitism". I only wish you didn't agree with the propaganda that suggests Muslims are bad people.
However, King Faisal is better knwon for other things, his politics, charity, relations with other Muslim countries, than he is known about his views on Jews. Thus per undue weight that should not figure prominently in the article.Bless sins 16:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, expand the other aspects of the article, but do not attempt to hide his antisemitism somewhere in "Personal life" or "Foreign relations". Beit Or 18:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but his alleged "antisemitism" can't be given too much wieght per NPOV:undue weight.Bless sins 03:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bless sins, since for whatever reason you insist upon discussing this here, the specific question that you've repeatedly declined to answer was, "Are you saying that you are not in any way connected to the person who posted as User:216.99.52.133?"Proabivouac 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time I'm giving you a clear answer: I AM NOT INVOLVED IN SOCKPUPPETRY WITH ANY ANON LIKE YOU'VE ACCUSED ME OF. I also believe that you don't really have any "evidence" (that you said you did) against me. Bless sins 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you are not in any way connected to the person who posted as User:216.99.52.133?Proabivouac 04:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things seem to be quite clear at this point: 1) it is pointless for me to try and answer your question, 2) form now on I'd be better off by ignoring your allegations (as they are completely baseless) than by challenging them.Bless sins 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that this is the most active Saudi-related page simply because of some dubious quotes about Jews found in a polemical tract, plus a really insignificant tidbit about the Protocols (as if any of this has showed itself in his policies). I just took a quick look at some pages relating to Israeli personalities. Golda Meir made the statement that "Palestinians do not exist", and she also accused Arab mothers of hating other people more than they love their own children. Neither of these quotes appear in her wikipedia article. May I include these two better documented and far more relevant quotes under "Views on Arabs" without provoking an edit war? Moshe Dayan once called for treating the Palestinians "like dogs" in order to induce them to leave the West Bank after 1967. This does not appear in his article either. May I include that quote as well under a seperate section, for the sake of consistency and relevance? Slackerlawstudent 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it if double standards, such as the ones you have outlined above, end. Bless sins 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any problem with that. If accurate, those are certainly notable quotes.Proabivouac 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would be very surprised, if there were NOT any problems when those quotes were inserted into the respective articles.Bless sins 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problems from me?Proabivouac 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was attempted to include those quotes in the past and it did provoke opposition. Anyway, if I get around to finding a proper source for those quotes, I'll insert them. I hope someone living in an Arab country can double check the quotes from Al-Musawwir and Al-Sayyad because they seem dubious to me. Slackerlawstudent 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The veracity of the stated quotes aside, Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir have nothing to do with this article and should not be invoked to support any argument here. Before doing anything on those two articles, please read WP:POINT. Beit Or 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I thought I was allowed to invoke whatever I want on the talk page. I guess I'll have to make sure to consult with you first the next time I "invoke" anything on the talk page.Slackerlawstudent 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is in serious need of sourcing

[edit]

Without proper sourcing, most of the article will have to be deleted as original research. -- Avi 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the information today. Please, be a little patient re:sources. Also, I noticed you put a tag on every section, but there's already a tag at the very top that says the article is unsourced, so isn't what you just did a little redundant? It also makes the article unnecessarily ugly IMO Slackerlawstudent 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redone. -- Avi 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Slackerlawstudent 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are sources in Arabic acceptable? I haven't found any specific guidelines on that. Slackerlawstudent 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable if there is no English equivalent, and they have been verified. But they should be minimized as this is English wikipedia. The applicable guideline is here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. -- Avi 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is about as well-sourced as any wikipedia article on Saudi Arabia. Will you allow me to remove the tag?Slackerlawstudent 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Slacker. I moved the tag to the assassination section, which still has no sources, but you are to be commended. Well done! -- Avi 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the last tag, after linking to a BBC source. Nothing in that section is controversial or likely to be challenged anyway.Slackerlawstudent 10:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Steven Stalinsky" a reliable source? Why?Bless sins 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Avi, can you pinpoint the scholars making the allegation that Faisal was anti-semitic?Bless sins 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bless sins, it would appear from the titles of the cited works that all these scholars are making precisely that allegation. However, I don't have a problem with the section title "Views on Jews;" Faisal's statements speak for themselves.Proabivouac 20:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That entire section is referenced, Bless Sins; you may follow it for yourself. -- Avi 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism Category

[edit]

Avraham, the category "Anti-semites" was deleted and then removed using bots from all articles that were linked to it (including this one). If we're going to put an "Antisemitism" categorization on a biographical page, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of the previously-agreed-upon deletion? It seems like a back-door way of reinstating a deleted category. Slacker 17:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a significant section of this article that relates to Faisal's views and antisemitism? The current category is for articles that discuss antisemitism; which this does. The deleted category was for anti-semitic people. Now, Faisal was most likely a virulent anti-semite, but the current category does not make that claim, merely that the article discusses antisemitism, which it unquestionably does. Remember, bowdlerization and sanitization are just as extreme violations of POV as is improper accusations. -- Avi 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unlike the other articles in that category, this article only discusses Antisemitism in a tangential or incidental manner (about 200 words in a 2500 word article); it is primarily the biography of a king in whose life any alleged antisemitism played a most minor part, as is amply demonstrated by the article (anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism per se). The other articles in this category discuss Anti-semitism in a far more substantial manner. Therefore, this categorization seems to be an effort to achieve by insinuation what was not achieved by the defunct category "Anti-semites." If we're going to put this category here, we might as well revive that category. Slacker 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we might as well. By the way, your opinon that anti zionism is not anti semitism is an opinion... many agree that it is essentially the same thing. As the article has a whole section, quite long actually, I don't see a problem with the category. Amoruso 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“The late King Faisal made a practice of presenting copies of the Protocols and other anti-Semitic publications to visiting ministers, diplomats, journalists and other dignitaries.” It sounds like his antisemitism was more than a minor part of his life. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's still pretty minor in light of his entire career. The point remains that (1) this is not an article about anti-semitism (unlike other articles in the category) but about King Faisal, and (2) the category "anti-semitism" should not be used merely as a substitute for a deleted category. Slacker 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism, what Amurosu said is true; it is a matter of opinion, which is all the more Faisal's alignment with other Arab countries against Israel should not be factored into the equation, in case anyone wants to make that argument. Slacker 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that the antisemitism section belongs here. Its hard to distinguish manipulation of local attitudes for political goals (the Wahhabi clerics are accountable to the government and as such will proclaim whatever the government wants them to) from personal sentiments. If you are going to write about antisemitism (and it should be changed so it doesn't state that these were his personal views as you can't discern that from available sources. Saudi politics and culture is different from what the West is used to and you can't interpret things the same) you should also include a section on the oppression of the shia's while you are at it. Government and religious propaganda was as hard on Shiites as it was on Jews, if not harder. I'd say that this oppression was worse than any antisemitic propaganda geared towards regional political posturing (to make Saudi out to be the prime defender of Palestinians to add to its role as protector of Islam) as the Shiites were actually stuck in the freaking country. King Faisal made many improvements throughout the country but the Shiites were still persecuted for not relinquishing their religious and cultural identities. In 1979 when the revolution in Iran occurred Shiites in Saudi rose up only to be cut down. In 1980 Saudi helicopters actually gunned down crowds of Shiites as they attempted to openly celebrate ashoora. Shiites were branded as heretics, infidels, demons, in concert with the zionists, parasites attempting to infiltrate and corrupt Islam. If you are going to take political propaganda as evidence of personal sentimetns, even if its from the horses mouth itself, you should include the bigger issues. I personally feel the antisemitism section doesn't belong in the article and a section on Shia persecution isn't needed either as these are governmental policies decided by the high ranking members of the royal family and voiced through mouthpieces of the government including royal officials and the religious establishment. This rambled a bit, but basically due to the delicate interwoven nature of Saudi politics, religon, family ties, etc. etc. etc. you can't take quotes like those in the antisemitism section and attempt to show that the personal feelings of King Faisal on the subject of Jews directed government policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.22.98 (talk • contribs) 01:42, August 9, 2007

His policies towards Shiites are irrelevant to his policy towards Jews. You are more than welcome to bring suitably verifiable and reliable sources and build that section of the article. As Tom said above, anyone who propogated the despicable accusations of the blood libel, especially in the modern era, cannot be construed as having antisemitism be a minor part of their life, in my opinion. Especially, if they have the responsibility of being the supreme leader of a sovereign nation. -- Avi 05:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policies towards Shiites and Jews have a common theme, which is that they are based in the doctrine of Wahhabism. All non-Wahhabis, even Muslims, are considered infidels. I just dont see the need for a section on antisemitism for King Faisal in particular when antisemitism has been institutionalized in the policies and propaganda of the Saudi state and its religious establishment. King Faisal's leanings didn't have anything to do with making the policies as both his personal sentiments (which we can't be sure of as one would be required to keep the official line to maintain religious and political legitimacy) and state policy was determined by the Wahhabist ideology. I just don't see how a section on antisemitism has any merit on this wiki page when anyone who knows about the Saudi state would know its inherently antisemitic in many ways. There is no need to restate this for each and every ruler of the country as they all shared the same views and condoned/encouraged the same propaganda after the creation of the state of Israel and especially after the 1967 war.
Our job in the encyclopedia is to inform. In the article about this person, we discuss the important elements of the person. Each and every ruler had the right to make their own decision as to how to relate to their subjects and their surroundings. The historical record of each is independant, and each's actions should be ascribed to them and them alone. If there is a reliable and verifiable source that makes the inference that the similarities between the treatment of other sects or groups are based in some deeper philosophical ideal on the part of Faisal, that would be an excellent addition to the article. But it is original research for any one of us to make that claim, and especially to suppress information based on such a self-made claim. -- Avi 21:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lost everything I wrote out so ah well. Basically I don't have the time to work on this article so I will just drop the issue and keep in mind that this is just an online encyclopedia and anyone who will cares to learn history will only use wiki as a very general starting point, or at least I hope (far too many people citing wiki in their sources at university). Anyways, for anyone interested the best possible source on Saudi history is currently The History of Saudi Arabia by Alexei Vassiliev. That is all.

Fair use rationale for Image:Faisal time.jpg

[edit]

Image:Faisal time.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with communist countries

[edit]

It said KSA maintained no relations with communist countries under his rule, yet the article Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the USSR shows that KSA and the USSR indeed had relations. Josh (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Talal of Jordan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<a href='http://www.f0-0f.com/vb/'>منتديات فيصل</a>

His Marriage

[edit]

So his first wife is also his own aunt (his father's favorite wife and Faisal's wife are sisters), and I added that fact and someone reverted it without justification. So I can learn, can someone help me understand why it was reverted?

- Dministrator (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted by me because you did not provide any source. On the other hand, his mother was not from Sudairi family. Therefore, she was not his aunt, but a sister of his father's wife, a step aunt maybe. But you must put a source, reliable one, of course. --Egeymi (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Faisal of Saudi Arabia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Slacker has done excellent work sourcing, and this is now a solid B in my opinion. -- Avi 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2017

[edit]

In the section "Assassination", there is a sentence:

King Faisal was quickly taken to the hospital.

I suppose no specific hospital is intended, so the correct way to state this is:

King Faisal was quickly taken to hospital. HFS-er (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Could you, please, be more specific and explain your reason for keeping "infobox person"? As I said in my edit summery, he's a royal figure. Hundreds of royals have been assassinated but still "infobox royal" is used on their articles. And by the way, it's already stated in the lede and in the relevant section that he was assassinated. I'll be glad if other users share their opinions as well. Keivan.fTalk 18:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the edit my only reason was just for the assassination parameter. What advantage do we get from changing the infobox person to infobox royalty? I am not denying that he is royalty, and it is even used as module so the information is still kept. I do not think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good enough argument, especially if there was non discussion and it is just a result of following a bad status quo. I too would also appreciate the opinions of other users. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

[edit]

Change "zionism" to "Zionism". Minor edit, correcting a misspelling.

BTW I've been a registered user and frequent editor for years, but I guess I haven't reached 500 edits yet. I won't be too far off, though!) James Dunlap (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

[edit]

It would be a good idea to nominate this page for good article status. It is an article and biography of good quality. Векочел (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел: You could always nominate the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Faisal of Saudi Arabia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I will start reviewing this. HaEr48 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First pass review

[edit]

Initial feedback after first pass:

  • In "Religious inclusiveness", there is "Unlike his successor, King Faisal attempted... ". 02:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Then the passage needs to be clarified, "they can worsen the kingdom" is too vague to be informative, in my opinion. I see the passage cites Rachel Bronson (2005), can you clarify which page? You can use {{rp}}, for example. HaEr48 (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about 'once they were encouraged, disastrous effects would result' Векочел (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, shouldn't it read "was" instead of "is"?

I'll give further feedback in the following days. HaEr48 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

This page has not been edited since August 20, and the article itself was last edited by Векочел on September 22. HaEr48, Векочел, the review has been open for over six months; it's time to either resume it or let it close. I'd like to suggest the end of the year as a reasonable deadline, but if work is progressing by then, there's no reason to cut the review short. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I missed Векочел's last reply and this just slipped my attention after that. Векочел, are you still up for continuing this review? If yes, I'll give it another pass in the next one or two days. HaEr48 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. It is time that this review ended. Векочел (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

[edit]

-- HaEr48 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

[edit]

@Векочел:: I've passed the review. Sorry for the delay. One last suggestion that you haven't acted on: Please narrow down the page number that you used for reference for the passage "once religious zealots were encouraged, disastrous effects would result". You can use {{rp}}, for exammple. HaEr48 (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

[edit]

The introduction of the article erroneously refers to a 1973 "boycott." It was an embargo. "Boycott" has a meaning that in no way applies to the oil embargo of 1973.

The sentence should read: He led an oil embargo in 1973 which caused an oil crisis. 42GeoCPU (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Thanks, 42GeoCPU. HaEr48 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

[edit]

The source for King Faisal's speech under the content "King of Saudi Arabia" is wrong. Please change it from "Sherifa Zuhur (31 October 2011). Saudi Arabia. ABC-CLIO. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-59884-571-6." to "Mordechai Abir (1987). "The Consolidation of the Ruling Class and the New Elites in Saudi Arabia". Middle Eastern Studies. 23 (2): 150–171. doi:10.1080/00263208708700697. JSTOR 4283169." The quote can be found on page 156 in the updated source by Mordechai Abir that I provided above. Thank you. Abu Yagub (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done However, the template Template:Cite journal was transcluded directly in the article. You can see my changes here. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my friend. Abu Yagub (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error in caption

[edit]

Under the section Struggle with King Saud it now reads:

Further information: History of Saudi Arabia § Modern history
Faisal with his father King Abdulaziz (seated) and brother Saud (left [should be: right])

The description of the file doesn't mention who is who. It is very obvious though that the standing person on the left is Faisal; Saud is thus not the one on the left but on the right. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice if someone took notice and corrected the caption. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Egeymi: After I placed the notifications above, you obviously found time to edit rather unimportant things in the header of this talk page twice. Could you please also have a look at the content of my message, and then correct the erroneous caption of the image in the semi protected page? As stated above, the description of the image doesn't mention who is who, so someone already (erroneously) interpreted the image based on their own observation. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@77.164.133.132: Sorry about it, but I did not want to involve this issue. From now on I will. It would also be appropriate if you ping the editors who reverted your edits. --Egeymi (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have, if any of my edits had been reverted. I use this talk page to advocate the correction of an error because I cannot edit the semi protected article. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saud
    Saud
  • Nizam VII, Mir Osman Ali khan and Saud
    Nizam VII, Mir Osman Ali khan and Saud
  • Saud, Nasser and Shukri al-Quwatli
    Saud, Nasser and Shukri al-Quwatli
  • Saud
    Saud
  • Faisal
    Faisal
  • Faisal
    Faisal
  • Faisal
    Faisal
  • Faisal and Kennedy
    Faisal and Kennedy

Yom Kippur War

[edit]

Today someone changed an article sub-heading Yom Kippur War to Ramadan War with the reason The Arabs and Muslims call it "Ramadan War", hence it should stay this way. I am of the opinion that WP:NEUTRAL would have Yom Kippur be used in the sub-heading. Векочел (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

[edit]

Change name from “Faisal” to “King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud“ X1KSAX (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no valid reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A0788744

[edit]

Md milon mia 2400:C600:3650:68F1:1:0:7967:B3FA (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2024

[edit]

Please add following template to the bottom of the article: 

98.228.137.44 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Left guide (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1252192428"