The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Saudi Arabia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
The article currently fails the WP:B-class criteria #1): The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., possibly #2): The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies, and #4): The article is reasonably well-written.
The article is in the following categories:
Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2013
Articles containing potentially dated statements from October 2018
Articles with unsourced statements from February 2020
Articles with unsourced statements from September 2020
Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes from June 2023 in the "Human rights" subsection
Articles with unsourced statements from January 2024
The sourcing issue is enough but adding potentially dated statements, NPOV issues, and dangling sentences, that are sentences added after a source.
The last sentence of the third paragraph of "Saud dynasty and unification" subsection.
The first and second paragraphs of the Biodiversity subsection.
The "Administrative divisions" subsection.
The fifth and seventh paragraph of the "Economy" section.
Third paragraph of the "Health care" subsection.
First and second paragraphs of the "Women in society" subsection.
Second paragraph of the "Heritage sites" subsection.
The "Cuisine" paragraph.
The first paragraph of the "Sport" subsection
The External links section has six links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
Please note:
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Hans Zimmer got hired for doing their national anthem. A lot of newspapers are doing it. I’d say cite off the newspapers, see the latest things.
a lot of people are talking about it. 121.75.202.128 (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to Restructure the "Human Rights Abuses" Section for Consistency
Hello everyone,
I would like to raise a concern regarding the "Human Rights Abuses" section in this article. While I fully acknowledge the importance of covering human rights issues, I have noticed that many other country articles—such as China, Iran, Russia, and the U.S.—do not have a separate "Human Rights Abuses" section. Instead, human rights topics are often integrated into broader sections like "Politics," "Legal System," or "Government."
For consistency with Wikipedia’s neutrality and formatting standards, I propose restructuring this section rather than outright removal. This could involve integrating the relevant content into the "Politics" or "Legal System" sections while ensuring that all verifiable and well-sourced information remains intact.
This would align the Saudi Arabia article with how human rights topics are addressed in other country pages, ensuring a balanced and standardized approach.
I welcome feedback from other editors and look forward to a constructive discussion.
Thank you. Loix33 (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally persuadable towards integration, although not to write each country article the same, but I'm a bit confused. There is not a, as quoted, "Human Rights Abuses" subsection, but a "Human rights" subsection. Further, you propose restructuring rather than outright removal, but you have outright removed the information? CMD (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your openness to discussing integration. You are correct that the section was titled "Human rights" rather than "Human Rights Abuses"—that was an oversight on my part in my initial proposal. However, my concern remains that the current section primarily focuses on human rights violations while neglecting other aspects of human rights developments, making it inconsistent with broader coverage seen in other country pages.
You also raised a valid point about the removal. The reason I removed the section instead of directly restructuring it is that as a standalone section, it does not align with how similar topics are handled in other country articles. Instead, human rights issues are generally integrated within Politics, Legal System, or Governance sections, which allows for a more balanced and contextual presentation.
To move forward, I propose discussing how best to restructure the content within relevant sections of the article rather than having it as a separate heading. For example, topics like capital punishment could be integrated as a subsection under "Religion" to reflect its context. Loix33 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are also country articles with Human rights subsections, picking some that don't and basing the whole argument around that is WP:OSE. If you want to propose ways to integrate things please do so, but removing the information does not seem an obvious improvement. CMD (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed multiple country pages, and I have not found a single one with a subsection explicitly titled "Human rights" within the main article. For example, in the United States page, human rights topics such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, or other controversies are not placed in a dedicated section on the main page but are instead discussed within their relevant contexts. This raises a question of structural consistency—should Saudi Arabia be an exception?
I have already suggested a structured way to integrate key human rights-related topics within relevant sections. For instance, capital punishment could be included under "Legal System" or "Religion", reflecting its full legal and cultural context rather than being placed in isolation. If there are other elements that need integration, I am open to discussion.
Regarding the removed content, it's important to note that the entire section was previously flagged with the following template:
"This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view." (June 2023)
This suggests that concerns about bias and imbalance were already raised prior to my edit. If the section itself was already identified as problematic, then a full restructuring—not just a partial revision—seems necessary. Loix33 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nop, Japan tiny footnote is nowhere comparable or reported as BIAS with many bad sources. If you wanna argue consistency, look at all country pages, not cherry pick one. Either all counties have them or non.
Your more then welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and review what we are doing with country articles. But we are very clear "Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." Moxy🍁08:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the recent change, it was not a restructuring but changing the prose without any reference to sources. Please provide an explanation for how capital punishment is part of Religion, and how you think it should be incorporated there. CMD (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:OTHERCONTENT argument doesn't work. There is no particular need for the sections tobe exactly the same. it depends on the prominence of the topic in WP:RS on that country. It would be a breach of WP:DUE and would be WP:FALSEBALANCE to treat Human Rights in this article as it is in Japan. While there might be something to say about human rights in every country, it's not always as major an issue as it clearly is for Saudi Arabia. Each country has to viewed case-by-case. By the way there are multiple countries with Human Rights sections, I'm not sure where the OP gets the idea that there aren't. He are some examples: Turkey, North Korea, Russia, China (Sociopolitical issues and human rights), Belarus, Democratic Republic of the Congo etc etc It's actually quite common. DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1- The redundancy is having a Religion section, plus Religion in Society, so adding another “Human Rights” section that largely stems from religious law creates overlap and inconsistency. This goes against standard Wikipedia structuring.
2- The sources cited in the Human Rights section are clearly biased in their framing. For example, using the term “ mass execution “ to describe the Qisas law punishments for murder and terrorism is misleading and inappropriate in a legal context.
3- If you’re not familiar with basic Sharia , it would be best to avoid making changes that misrepresent its application.
4- According to whom? What standard is being applied here? Not being a western country?
Guantanamo bay is in Cuba. There is no standard Wikipedia structuring, but as I noted, I am open to proposals. Suggest specific changes to the text if you feel changes should be made. CMD (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Done I've reverted the edit that changed the flag. 
Courtesy ping: Dmytrosk2024 '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
