Talk:Politics of Saudi Arabia

Green Party of Saudi Arabia was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Politics of Saudi Arabia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Saudi Arabia High‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Just a note: the IP address edit just before I wrote this to the talk page was me forgetting to log in. UOSSReiska 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

absolute monarchy and Basic Law

Doesn't the basic law make Saudi Arabia a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one?

A "constitution" which assigns absolute power to the King, is both a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy, they are not mutually exclusive, it is possible for a particular country to be both.Eregli bob (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so... A constitutional monarchy is where the power of the monarch is limited, it's not parliamentary though. An "absolute" one is where the monarch exercises absolute autocratic authority over his kingdom/country.

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of Saudi Arabia" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

Green Party?

Are we sure about the actual existance of the Green Party? I googled, I couldn't find any RS source on it. The two refs in this article are not RS. I found a facebook group, but remain unconvinced as whether there is actual such a party in the country. It looks more like a private blog that disappeared. --Soman (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Green Party of Saudi Arabia has a web page online and has sent out some press releases. Given the situation in the kingdom, I am not surprised that it remains an underground political movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.38.190 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

zakat

Zakat or the religious tax as you called it is collected by the government itself and cant be used by terrorist groups. the problem is in the non charities groups, where these people who their identity not known used the people good hearts for their own interests. However after 2001 the government started massive programs to lightened the citizens not to give money to anyone without a written permission from the government. last but not least the kingdom itself suffered more damages from terrorists than any part of the world. Which rises a question what are these people want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrnkak (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia to back up what you say it can be included in the article. Im answer to your question of "what are these people want?", I think we all know - the overthrow of the Al Saud and the creation of a Wahhabi based Islamic republic. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AlSaud are targeted by these groups. what happened at august 2009 proofed it. Prince Mohammad bin Naif the vice head of ministry of interior is almost killed by terrorist. check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QdUOUNdw2g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoks6dUcQro http://www.alriyadh.com/net/article/455617 Abrnkak (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean reliable source on what you say about Zakat. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check this one http://www.dzit.gov.sa/en/index.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrnkak (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Class B

I think this article deserve class B.Abrnkak (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 source, its not exhaustive yet. possible a stuf instead of start even.Lihaas (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge Umma Islamic Party to a subsection here?

Does anyone object to merging Umma Islamic Party, which is a tiny (so far) article about a would-be party only 1 day old (the party only 1 day old), i.e. is risky under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS, to the subsection: Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia#Politics.2C_political_parties_and_elections ? The article would become a redirect. If in the future the party becomes more notable, then it can be split off back to Umma Islamic Party and the redirect undone. Boud (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object. There are whole looad of reasons but WP:recentism is the obvious one. One day old! I think the decision needs to be postponed at least a few weeks to see what happens - including, I suspect, early deletion of the article.It only has one source which says "more an act of protest than an effective start-up of a political party". Can't think of a better candidate to be deleted. There's already a mention of it in 2010–2011 Arab world protests article but without a source. Beter merged into there. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia has articles on all minor political parties, for example, Rights and Equality Party, a minor Turkish Kemalist party. In addition, this Umma Islamic party is the first party in Saudi Arabia. Kavas (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is also running on only one source, and has alot of tags on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose its notable and sourced, so no need to merge. Minor parties are not reason to keep them out.Lihaas (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge Right now this article is running on a single reference I see no notability to be found here as of yet, If the party gains movement and a large following okay but not now with just 10 members. I do not want a repeat of another Syria type article someone made just because a "day of rage" was planned that never took place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason to delete the article, not merge it with this one. The whole thing is just too soon to go into WP at all. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does someone want to send this to AfD then? This pretty much fails WP:CRYSTAL and per WP:Notability "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the article probably does not meet the notability criteria at this point, we need to keep in mind that this is an evolving situation, and I would much prefer to have an AfD taking place in a month, resulting in a meaningful conclusion, rather than to discuss the possible deletion continuously for several weeks, possibly in a sequence of several AfD, as the situation evolves. The source is a Reuters report, so the possibility of serious damage to the encyclopedia is minimal. Cs32en Talk to me 04:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three other sources in the article now - it seems clear that this was a real attempt to create a political party, and that five founding members of the party were put straight into prison. I will remove the merge tag, because there were several objections to merging, and the only support for merging came along with the comment "I do not want a repeat of another Syria type article someone made just because a "day of rage" was planned that never took place." For the record: the Syria type article was not deleted, and, rather curiously, seems to have split off into about 30 to 50 or so subarticles. Boud (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of "rise in Islamic terrorism"

The opening paragraph concludes by saying "there has been a rise in Islamist activism, which has also resulted in Islamist terrorism". This needs a citation or removal.Sheldon Kepler (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, citations are not necessarily required (and arguably shouldn't be needed) in the Lead because it is a summary of the article - and the cited material should be in the body of the article. i.e. there's no need to double up citations. In this case, that statement is a summary of the sub-sections Opposition to the royal family and Islamization in Politics of Saudi Arabia#Politics outside of the royal family. Those sub-sections are fully sourced. DeCausa (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister ?

There seems to be a lot of mentions in various articles about the Saudi princes, about the "first deputy prime minister" and the "second deputy prime minister", but the "prime minister" doesn't seem to be mentioned ever. Why is that ?Eregli bob (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The King is ex officio Prime Minister. That's why it's not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.88.36 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2017

No doubts, Arabs miserably failed to unite Muslims under one flag Italic text

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.255.4.74 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia is not "totalitarian"

181.179.20.126 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC) The official form of government of Saudi Arabia is "Unitary absolute monarchy with islamic traits". The totalitarian thing should be removed.[reply]

Poverty

The problem with the current edit (besides the fact it needs a section of its own) is the age of the source, 2013. I did find this[1]which is just over two years old. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Informal structures

The article would be improved with more detail on how governance actually works de facto rather than de jure. The present Crown Prince, for example, clearly runs the country yet first appears only well down the article in respect of controversies. The fact that many ministers are royals who serve in the appointment until death points towards the existence of other decision makers operating similarly to the Crown Prince; i.e. holding all the power, but informally. Emmentalist (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make Corruption in Saudi Arabia it own article

There should be more information relating to Saudi Arabia corruption history but it would make the article very long, so I suggest splitting the corruption information into its own article. Canw2qr (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]