Talk:Saudi Arabia

Consistency

Read WP:MOS carefully. The previous version is messy and random. I re-wrote and added additional information. If you want to add something, go ahead, but do not ruin the article consistency and layout. Nabataeus (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. What exactly made it "messy and random"? You can't just delete numerous sourced material and relevant photos that give a much better overview of Saudi Arabian history than your edition. Several people contributed to the past version, you can't just delete it without reason. A compromise should be reached.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, there is no need for an edit conflict. I propose that a compromise should be reached. It's the only fair option. You can easily add some of your text into the existing categories whether Al-Magar, Dilmun, Nabatean Kingdom etc. I added some of your pre-historic content as you might have seen.

Try to add your text to the categories instead of deleting everything when several editors have contributed to it and numerous sources and references were used. Not to mention relevant photos with descriptions.

Also your text lacks direct links when speaking about all those civilizations. It would be good to add brackets ( [[ ]] ) when talking about those civilizations.

Also if you don't mind, you can contribute to the Saudi Arabia history page which is criminally neglected. Your text would fit much better on that page. This one should only give an overview of the main cultures and civilizations. The current layout serves this purpose the best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Saudi_Arabia

I wrote to you on your talk page but you seem to have ignored that. A pity.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Not at all. What exactly made it "messy and random"? You can't just delete numerous sourced material and relevant photos"

No, I didn't delete anything (except for Kindah and Thamud, I will work on it when I have more time), in fact, I re-wrote the article to make it consistent and much more smoth transition between periods, plus added great additional info. Making a sections out of every kingdom, with one and a half paragraph is not the followed style, see France, Germany, India etc. You could add what you want, but make it consistent and related to the content. Nabataeus (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You deleted a lot of material and relevant photos with descriptions to include 4 statues (!) when 1 is more than enough. The previous version (contributed by numerous users) gave a much better overview.

Why can't you add your text to the various civilizations, cultures and kingdoms that have their own section?

A consensus must be reached first before deleting so much information and this many photos for no reason.

There is no reason to delete Kindah and Thamud. That is the problem.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW your text is too long. It is more fitting for the History of Saudi Arabia page. Not a country page.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confused, nothing was deleted except for Kindah and Thamud (hardly two paragraphs combined), in fact you are the one who removed chunk of information. Read WP:MOS, sections shouldn't made for one sentence. this version is more consistent. Nabataeus (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Need your opinions @Kansas Bear: @Wario-Man: @Jbhunley: @Wikaviani:

See this version [1] and this version [2].

The former overview of Saudi Arabian history was messy and every kingdom/state has its section, Nabataean, Lihyan, Kindah, Thamud and Dilmun (two sentences maximum for many sections, transmitted from their respected articles lead long ago by Oxford). What I did was for the most part merely re-writing and adding additional informations, given utmost concern to WP:MOS, including consistency and layout that is followed by country's articles, France, India, Tunisia, etc.. And Oxford should read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images. Nabataeus (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting on any content differences between the two I prefer the Pre-Islamic History section in [3]. The prose provides a narrative flow and is easier to understand than having each broken up. I would like to see some way of quickly extracting/noting the pre-Islamic kingdoms though. The one advantage the other format has is it is easy to see there were five pre-Islamic kingdoms and what span of history they existed in and not being able to do that in the prose version is a considerable loss. Jbh ^Talk 22:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus:, @OxfordLaw: Hi, according to me, this version is better. It's better written and more pleasant to read. As far i can see, it also contains fewer unsourced claims. This version is an improvement of this article and i really enjoyed reading it and learned a lot of interesting things about the history of this region, thank you very much. As a last remark, i would say that it's a good behavior to discuss on the talk page, but it would have been even better if you had done this before an edit war. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a much more navigable, extensive (in the sense of inclusion of all major civilizations, cultures and kingdoms) and easier overview of the various periods of the history of Saudi Arabia (remember this is a relatively brief introduction to Saudi Arabian history) is now out of a sudden "messy".

Meanwhile your added text uses very few sources.

No, you also deleted all of the relevant photos with descriptions to add 4 photos, 3 of which show similar statues.

I added one of the photos that you used as well as the portion that you wrote about the pre-history of KSA. You cannot just delete something that numerous users have contributed to and which has been a consensus out of a sudden without a discussion beforehand. Likewise I offered you a compromise but you refused to even entertain this thought. I have nothing against reaching a compromise but why can't you add the additional information to the already existing sections that make it much easier to read and get a quick overview? Once again this is just a brief introduction.

I also told you that your text (contribution) would be highly welcomed in the "History of Saudi Arabia thread" which is criminally neglected unlike for instance the thread about Pre-Islamic Arabia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Saudi_Arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia

I wrote on your talk page the same day you deleted the previous version (as I have no interest in a senseless edit war) without explanation but you did not reply to my post.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Yes, a much more navigable, extensive (in the sense of inclusion of all major civilizations, cultures and kingdoms) and easier overview of the various periods of the history of Saudi Arabia (remember this is a relatively brief introduction to Saudi Arabian history) is now out of a sudden "messy"."

Hardly navigable and extensive, the older version is simply the epitome of randomness and messiness, with no narrative or consistent style. Sections for one paragraph shouldn't be made. Read WP:MOS.

• "You cannot just delete something that numerous users have contributed to and which has been a consensus out of a sudden without a discussion beforehand. Likewise I offered you a compromise but you refused to even entertain this thought."

No consensus neither numerous users contributed to this subject, as said by @Moxy: long time ago in the archive, you simply copied and pasted from other article's lead into this article without proper attribution. Nabataeus (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that your wall of text (using only 2-3 sources at most), random photos (3 photos of similar statues) and some painting (depicting some Biblical scene) is better than the previous much more informative and RELEVANT photos?

Not at all. The text is sourced (40 + sources and references, more than you have used) and is divided into the main and most important parts of Saudi Arabian pre-Islamic history. Your text is random.

Wrong. I only added the Nabatean Kingdom portion. One can say the same about your additions. They are copied from "Roads of Arabia" and one single book that you are using again and again. Not sure what your point is.

As I wrote, you can just add your additions under each section. Not sure what the problem is. The layout is much easier/better this way. As I wrote, this is a brief overview of Saudi Arabian history. Not an extensive work.

That is for the "History of Saudi Arabia" thread.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: Please slow down and stop editing the article unless a consensus is found between you and {u|Nabataeus}}, thank you.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have improved the layout of the section now. Nabataeus is free to add relevant text (that is not already included) in the relevant sections. 1 of your 4 photos have been included as well. One of the 3 similar ancient statues that you have used.--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiwiani I do not understand why you are deleting relevant changes (improvements) when I am addressing some of the previous criticism for the better? I don't think that Nabataeus would object to my changes, rather the opposite.

We are here to improve the page by reaching some kind of understanding and not blatantly out of a sudden change the entire layout and content without a prior discussion or deleting numerous relevant photos.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, as Moxy and i told you, please slow down, and wait to find a consensus with Nabataeus. If he does not have any objection about your edits then feel free to revert me. Thank you very much.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: If you agree with OxfordLaw's edits (the ones i reverted), then just feel free to revert me as well, my goal is to put an end to the edit war and find the best compromise for this article. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Are you trying to tell me that your wall of text (using only 2-3 sources at most), random photos (3 photos of similar statues) and some painting (depicting some Biblical scene) is better than the previous much more informative and RELEVANT photos?

Random photos? Wall of texts? Really? All of the photos are relevant to the context and not mere spamming, Jubail church and Tayma inscription for instance have no context, Tayma and Jubail respectively are not mentioned in the article, as Moxy told you, this is not a picture book. The layout is horrendous. I, Wikaviani and Jbh prefer the narrative version.

"Wrong. I only added the Nabatean Kingdom portion. One can say the same about your additions. They are copied from "Roads of Arabia" and one single book that you are using again and again. Not sure what your point is."

Actually you did, it is not hard to notice. And no, mostly they are not referenced from Roads of Arabia. Although using one source is not prohibited. You could follow the chronological consistent style. If you want to separate every kingdom/state go to History of Saudi Arabia. And Wikaviani is right, please do not edit the page while we have an active discussion. Nabataeus (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

They are very random and uniform. 3 photos of 3 ancient statues. The last photo is even worse. Some painting.

Yes, your text is too long considering that the history section of country pages is usually brief.

The Jubail Church has a context. The section named "religions in pre-Islamic Arabia", that the user Wikiwiani deleted. The Tayma inscription has a relevance in relation to the Nabatean Kingdom section.

Now you are lying. Everyone can go and take a look at how many users contributed to the previous version.

There is already a chronology. Pre-history, Al-Magar culture, Dilmun and Thamud civilization, Nabatean Kingdom, Kingdom of Lihyan, Kindah Kingdom and from there on Middle Ages and rise of Islam.

Actually your more extensive text is more fitting for the actual page concerning Saudi Arabian history which has been criminally neglected. Like this page.

Actually my edits did nothing but address some of your criticism in order to find a consensus (the aim is to improve the page) but I guess that you failed to notice that.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• "They are very random and uniform. 3 photos of 3 ancient statues. The last photo is even worse. Some painting."

And how do we reason with that? The three statues are relevant to the context, pre-history, Dilmun, and Lihyan are extensively discussed. Plus the paint is related to the five kings of Midian and their war. It is absolutely the opposite of randomness.

• "The Tayma inscription has a relevance in relation to the Nabatean Kingdom section."

Tayma inscription in no shape or form related to the Nabataean kingdom.

• "Now you are lying. Everyone can go and take a look at how many users contributed to the previous version."

Go ahead and check, textual contribution was substantially added by Saudi2828 who just dumped it without organizing or minimum carrying of the layout, additional to your contributions.

• "There is already a chronology. Pre-history, Al-Magar culture, Dilmun and Thamud civilization, Nabatean Kingdom, Kingdom of Lihyan, Kindah Kingdom and from there on Middle Ages and rise of Islam."

"articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs." - I am interested in @Moxy: thoughts, should the article be divided into small sections for every kingdom, Lihyan, Nabataean, Dilmun, Thamud and Kindah [4], or, lumperd under Pre-Islamic period section with chronological narrative [5]? Best regards Nabataeus (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: This article is quite long and I have not gone through the revisions and discussions in thorough detail. However, it seems to me that the overriding concern is Wikipedia:Summary style, which states A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. There are already main articles on History of Saudi Arabia, Pre-Islamic Arabia, Al-Magar, Dilmun, etc., etc. There should only be enough description about Saudi Arabia's history here to provide context for the rest of the article. If the Dilmun civilization is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, then there's no need to mention it in the history section. Period. Trying to include information like that is what caused this article to grow into a 15,000-word monster, well in excess of the maximum article size recommended by WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLITSIZE. I strongly recommend moving such material to the appropriate articles. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

More third opinion: @Nabataeus and OxfordLaw: I'm sorry that I'm not really answering the question, but from my perspective either version is unacceptable for this article, and it's simply not worth discussing the details. The history section of either of those versions is larger than the main article History of Saudi Arabia, and that's just ridiculous. As a summary of the main article, it should be smaller than the main article. The history section should probably be under 1,000 words, depending on how much information is needed to provide context for the rest of the article. There probably shouldn't be separate sections for Lihyan, Nabataean, Dilmun, Thamud and Kindah, etc., but that's not really the point. It has to be much more concise. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I will try to make it shorter by deleting unnecessary info, that could be transferred to the article of Saudi Arabia's history. I will do some adjustment following your advices by making it concise. Nabataeus (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus:It's not clear that consensus supports your edits recently, as several different editors seem to have reverted you. Suggest more discussion of history page would be advisable before edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please, like whom? I am genuinely Interested on the ones that reverted my edits? There's actually none. Only Oxfordlaw that revert a version preferred by multiple users, here[6]and here[7], and me (while the former version was not preferred by anyone). I tried every measures possible and made the effort to cooperate and resolve the issue instead of edit warring. My recent DRN case is an example, he refused to participate and continued editing after it was closed. If he want to restore infos or add additional content, I have no problem. But the layout and its inconsistent nature that need serious attention since it was dumped indiscriminately long time ago without minimum caring (Just copy and paste from articles leads) see[8]. Best regards Nabataeus (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's possible I misread the logs. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. No worries. The talk page is quite disorganized which is easy to misread. Nabataeus (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture spam

We really need to fix the picture spam in the tourist section. Should discuss the 2 or 3 images that are best. It’s a mobile view nightmare that needs to be fixed ....this is not a picture book.--Moxy (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of dispute at DRN

Good morning everybody, there is currently a dispute resolution case open at the following link [9] if you wish to provide feedback on a path to a mutually agreeable solution. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shaybah from the dunes by lugh23s-d4v2i5l.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Original-Threads-Najd Khobar 2017 AA.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the manual of style

Should every kingdom/state of pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia be separated into different sections as in here or should it be under one section labelled "pre-Islamic" (period) as in here. Moreover, what is suited and preferred manual of style between these two versions? Nabataeus (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Nabataeus (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

One section@Nabataeus: I like how the article looks without subsections for each kingdom of pre-Islamic Arabia, especially considering that the various dynasties of the "Middle Ages" are all merged into one section. The Manual of Style doesn't have any specific guidelines for subsection headings MOS:BODY, and it seems like none of the WikiProjects associated with this article have published any style guidelines of their own. Rosguill (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)07:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Different sections it seems easier to read that way. A {{TOCLIMIT}} can hide them from the top table-of-contents, it feels slightly excessive there. I doubt the Manual of Style will have anything useful to say on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Different sections. As Rosguill notes, there don't seem to be guidelines on this. As power~enwiki notes, different sections are easier on the reader. From personal of working on broadly similar articles at GOCE or assessing for GA, sections seem to be much the commonest approach. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit weird to have separate sections for the pre-Islamic era, but use paragraph-form for "Middle Ages and the rise of Islam"? If we think that sections are more accessible to readers, shouldn't we also split the "Middle Ages" section between Rashidun, Ummayyad, Sharif of Mecca, Qarmatians, etc. ? Rosguill (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding, most of it due to my wording, I tried to be neutral in presenting both cases to the point where it didn't address the sub-sections version problems and expose it to the viewers. For example this version, Kingdom of Lihyan, Kindah, and Thamud don't exceed couple of sentences. Which shouldn't be the case. As this version was indiscriminately dumped by Saudi2828 long time ago here. The problem is, are those kingdoms worth their sub-sections? Or should we merge them together, and please take a look into both versions and assess it accordingly. Nabataeus (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: As someone who has studied the country (and language) and then lived and worked there, as well as being a fairly serious Wikipedian, I found the former option more informative and easier to digest. Modern nations do not lend themselves to rigid approaches to recounting their histories, as I found the latter option. The former shows that today's Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as successor to a long history of diverse part and periods. (However, the latter is reasonably readable, etc.) (NOTE: I did not dig down into specific periods, as granularly Rosgull did above.) If you are looking for votes, I vote like this. Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made due the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia not having a direct line of succession from the pre-Islamic kingdoms. It is misleading to present these states as direct forerunners to the modern state, as while they shared some geographical territory in common, they were not completely coterminous, and the modern state does not stake its claims to legitimacy on the history of these previous kingdoms. For comparison, look at Egypt, Jordan, United States, and United Kingdom: none of these articles split the history of previous cultures into sections with a sentence or two on each dynasty (or equivalent multi-generational sovereign entity) that inhabited the region, but the articles are nevertheless informative and accessible. I maintain that this content is best presented as a prose summary that more clearly provides due weight to various chapters in Saudi history. It's rather silly that Version 1 presents more information about the Al-Magar than about the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates combined, despite the latter having almost unquestionably greater importance to the modern state.Rosguill^talk 18:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• "For comparison, look at Egypt, Jordan, United States, and United Kingdom: none of these articles split the history of previous cultures into sections with a sentence or two on each dynasty (or equivalent multi-generational sovereign entity) that inhabited the region, but the articles are nevertheless informative and accessible."

Exactly! Nabataeus (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• One section. Splitting it into separate sections is just lazy and at best pseudo-WP:PROSE. It gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to aspects of history that historians have already contextualized according to their real weight. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Moving my comment here: @D7oom021: per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, when your changes are reverted you are expected to first reach consensus on that article's talk page before restoring them. I can start that discussion for you by courtesy. Let's also get input about what should be there. The material you are removing is sourced. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible new paragraphs based on Recent political and economic changes section

Hi, this section started as a subsectionof the Women section above it, and later included a number of other developments (e.g. cultural and entertainment), hence later it became a new section and was renamed. As most of it is still about women, I wonder if this could be reworked back as a subsection at the end of the Women section, perhaps titled ‘Reform’, and the other topics – such as Qidiya, cinemas, restrictions on religious police – worked into the relevant sections, e.g. Tourism, Arts and entertainment, Religion in Society. I’ve drafted a possible ‘Reform’ subsection for the Women section, plus some new paragraphs for those other sections, here in my user space.

Just to be clear my suggestion is to redistribute and build on what’s currently in Recent political and economic changes and then to remove that section. If someone has time to have a look and get back to me here that would be much appreciated. As I’ve tagged above and on my userpage, I have a COI as an employee at the Ministry of Media in Saudi Arabia. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Copy pasting

Looks like we have some copy pasting from another article....but the full sources were not moved over properly. Should we try and find them or just remove the additions that are currently causing reference errors?--Moxy (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you to solve this frequently common problem, by making a referendum; about which paragraph should be deleted from the article. Zozr789 (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: I assume you’re talking about the section I mentioned above? Yes and just to clarify for other editors here, apart from the three paragraphs which were a subsection in the Women section, it comes from Mohammad bin Salman (not 100% word-for-word but more or less). The missing sources are from the New York Times (477) and New York Post (478). While it is copied and pasted, the information is important and in my view would be best distributed across the relevant sections in the article. Since most of it is about reforms in women’s rights, those specific paragraphs could be redrafted into a subsection titled ‘Reforms’ at the end of the Women section. That’s what I’ve tried to do here under Reforms (and above that are two sentences which might go above this new subsection, i.e. following on from the current closing paragraph on women in medicine).

The other sentences that were copied across (restrictions on religious police, the General Entertainment Authority, etc.) are also important, and those sentences might also be incorporated into sections where they are relevant, i.e. tourism, arts and entertainment, and religion in society. I fully appreciate that I’ve proposed quite a bit of new material for these in my user space, but it is well sourced and concise, and I hope it can be reviewed and discussed by editors here in time. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Update GDP Ranking to 16th from 14th List of countries by GDP (PPP) Philtheskid (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Danski454 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Turkish/Saudi incident

@OxfordLaw and SharabSalam: : Would suggest to both of you guys to discuss on the talk and avoid edit warring.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Mr.@OxfordLaw: has been arguing that Turkish sources aren't Trusted and that the case is still hasn't been solved yet. My problem is that the photos description doesn't imply that Saudi Arabia has committed the crime and it states what the Turkish police has revealed the investigation is still going but that's the result of the Turkish investigation and it should be addressed. SharabSalam (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The disappearance of a journalism is not enough to be included on a country page. Yet to see anything similar on Wikipedia on any country page despite 1000's upon 1000's of journalists worldwide disappearing, getting killed and silenced on all continents by governments in power. Moreover unfounded claims are that. Unfounded claims. Reducing this disappearance to only the "Turkish policy angle" is greatly biased. The President of Turkey, as recently as yesterday, did not make such a unfounded claim and one would believe that he is up to date.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record here are some sources. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/saudis-accused-of-killing-journalist-jamal-khashoggi-in-consulate-j26flg8gq

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-concludes-saudi-journalist-khashoggi-killed-by-murder-team-sources-say/2018/10/06/31ee4f86-c8d9-11e8-9c0f-2ffaf6d422aa_story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/08/jamal-khashoggi-turkey-search-black-van-carried-body-saudi-arabia

No Al-Jazeera just the result of the Turkish investigation. SharabSalam (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oxfordlaw: the section is about human rights violation in Saudi Arabia. Whataboutism argument is not enough reason to support your deletion of sourced information. SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Which are all quoting the same unfounded and unproven claims.

This was already exposed in this article below:

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2018/10/08/Jamal-Khashoggi-mystery-Deleted-tweets-unnamed-sources-and-fake-funeral.html

You are only showing one angle of this story which is some unnamed Turkish "police official" whose claim appeared on Turkish-state media.

In any case, there is zero reason for that person to feature on a country page unless numerous other country pages will feature journalists that have been jailed, have disappeared or been killed. From China to Latin America.

In Turkey itself, there are 50.000 jailed journalists.

As for human rights violations, this is arguably not fitting on the country page as a separate section as seen on almost every single Wikipedia country page. Similarly the outdated "women section". I don't see anything similar concerning Iran for instance (that faces many of the exact same problems) and numerous other countries in the region and outside of it. It's an "interesting" development.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: Alarabiaya is not a reliable source, DO YOU HAVE ANY SECONDARY SOURCE??!! It's a pro-Saudi newspaper. Plus, the article doesn't imply that the Turkish police investigation result was that the Jamal isn't killed. The article does just mention some tweets were deleted by Qataris and other stuff honestly I don't even know how does this article support what you are saying, besides it's not a reliable source.

The whataboutism argument doesn't also support your deletion of sourced informations as I mentioned before. SharabSalam (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya is a respected media.

But biased Western newspapers are the gospel that all quote some unnamed Turkish "police official" that made (apparently) a completely unfounded claim of some absurd 15 death squad team, several day long torture, that was tapped, being cut into pieces? Haha, OK.

The absurd claim remains unfounded and sounds as complete and utter bogus for many various and logical reasons. Sourced material is not alfa and omega. I can find you sourced material deriving from Davic Icke's website that claims that reptiles rule planet earth and similarly absurd claims from Smoloko.com. It's the source that matters. Not whether it is sourced.

Erdogan did not support the unfounded version that you have ONLY decided to include. Not to mention that his disappearance is not relevant to be included on a country page as one of the few nations if not the only one on Wikipedia.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: how does respect change anything with reliability? what you are saying is that Al Arabiya a Saudi-owned media is right and all of western media is biased? Shouldn't that by your logic be disrespectful to western media? You already admitted that you believe all of articles I showed you are biased even though they are from reliable sources and that you only want to add what al-arabiya stated even if it's an unreliable source and pro-Saui regime. You are clearly biased!! Also you keep repeating whataboutism again and again even after I told you that doesn't go e you any permission to delete sourced information in related section. If you have a problem with the whole section in the article then add that to discussion but now this is irrelevant. SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya is a respected media that enjoys one of the largest audiences in the Arab world and the Middle East. It is not owned by the Saudi Arabian state either.

How many times do I need to repeat myself? The UNFOUNDED and BIASED (The Erdogan regime in Turkey are not exactly on the same wavelength with Saudi Arabia in regards to regional policies, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Kurdish issue, Iran etc.) CLAIMS from a SUPPOSED UNNAMED Turkish "police official" being repeated by Western media, does not change the main and key fact, which is that you are spinning a history only using one unfounded claim. If I am biased, what are you? Neutral? You don't strike me as very neutral to put it mildly.

You have not answered why a disappearance of a journalist (1 out of 1000's each year in the region alone) deserves an image on a country page and why such a case is only found on the Saudi Arabia country page and not for instance on the Turkey country page despite that country jailing 50.000 journalists. More than any other country in the world! Another neutral editor (just like me), :@Moxy: removed your addition as well for the exact same reasons that I have been raising here and when editing. --OxfordLaw (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: Al Arabiya is a Saudi owned media. Again you keep talking like if Wikipedia is owned by Saudi Arabia. This shows how biased you are: The fact that you keep attacking Turkish sources and western media. Meanwhile I am trying to put and keep things that are related to the section in the article "sourced and clear" and I provided reliable sources. Al-arabiya is not a reliable source regardless of being respected or not(maybe respected by you). You are biased because you refused all of reliable sources and start disrespecting them by saying they are biased meanwhile trying to show that the Saudi-owned media Al-Arabiya(we call it AlYahudia in the Arab world btw) is a glorious respected media. SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have little interest in further discussing this issue with an anti-Arab and anti-KSA individual who takes completely UNFOUNDED and BASELESS ACCUSATIONS as facts. I am sure that this will be dealt with accordingly either be me or another editor as done earlier today as well.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)