Talk:Human rights in Saudi Arabia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

If there is a specific, ongoing, NPOV dispute that justifies the tag on the front page then this should be made clear on this page or else the tag should be removed. 152.91.9.115 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the neutrality tag, as this question hasn't been answered in 3 months, and there is nothing else in the talk page pertaining to the it. Khukri 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

women work[edit]

"Implementation of a government resolution supporting expanded employment opportunities for women met resistance from within the labor ministry[3], from the religious police [4], and from the male citizenry[5]." the links doesn't exist i hope someone bring the References or it will be deleted and not from memri because it's famous for being anti-arabArabian soul 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider "Anti-Arab" is irrelevant, there are approved sources that can be used if they state something relevant to the section2605:6001:E39D:C900:6054:3330:45BD:C5EC (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding westerners eating during Ramadan[edit]

"Foreigners are forced to conform to Muslim practices in public, ..." It is only a reasonable courtesy to the Muslim people to refrain from smoking, eating, and drinking in public during Ramadan. Is this so unreasonable? From sun up to sundown, these people go without food or other refreshments. To partake of these in front of them is truly unfair. It's just typical western (especially American) arrogance to say that you are being forced to accept another culture's practices when you are merely being asked to behave decently and responsibly in a foreign culture. --LesAldridge 21:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are advocating their strict laws which is irrelevant to the article which simply states that the laws are strict. Whether the law is justified is out of the scope of the article but to call a spade a spade it is in fact humar rights violation not to allow basic needs such as eating or drinking no matter how obsessed the subjects of the country are in keeping with their traditions. It's simply the lack of choice that renders it so, because the locals choose to starve but the foreigners are forced to eat and drink in hiding. All countries have traditions but none of the developed ones force these traditions upon the foreigners. You would be allowed for instance to consume meat during fasting period in a Western country. The article therefore stands correct that foreigners are forced to conform (because they do) and there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about it. - Nick 15/07/06 15:20 GMT

I would like to add, by the way, that although Israel is a Jewish State, it does not incorporate into its law that non-Jews must fast on Yom Kippur, or any of the other Jewish fast days. To say that it is unfair for foreigners to eat while the natives cannot is unreasonable. If someone is a Muslim, he is so because he wants to be Muslim. Therefore, fasting during Ramadan should be something that he or she is honored to do, whether others fast or not. Non-Muslims should not be forced to fast simply because they happen to be in a Muslim country. Perhaps taunting that they are able to eat can be outlawed (Although I am against this as well, in a country, such as Saudi Arabia, this is not so bad), but to outlaw eating in its entirety is discriminatory.
Yes we westerners, especially us Americans (I am kind of American, wish I was but am more British) expect to be free when to eat and when not to eat. In the Western world, we practice a policy of not forcing others to follow a certain religion or its principles. That is why, us "arrogant" westerners do not understand why we should be forced to do something that is against our will. As an individual from the Middle East, I can understand the lack of understanding from your view. Tourskin 02:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@LesAlridge, 'merely being asked', seriously? This has go to be the joke of the century! The are indeed forced and if the authorities so much as see you taking a small sip of water, you will get a fine and probably get your head shaved and get your photo published in the newspaper. Trust me, they make a big show of their fasting and pretend that they are the most religious people on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:7900:ADE1:A1DE:250:56FF:FEA6:404 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SA is worse than Taliban Afghanistan??[edit]

"... this place is worse than the past Taliban Controlled Afganistan ..." In what way is it worse? Hotter in summer? Yes. More sand? Yes.

But, to say this has a worse human rights record than the Taliban is patently nonsense. The writer does not make any attributable references to prove this crazy assertion. Has the writer spent any time, as I have, in Saudi Arabia? While Saudi Arabia does have a poor human rights record, especially in it's treatment of women, overall it is far freer than the Taliban regime. --LesAldridge 21:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Earlier this year, King Abdullah was ranked number 7 in PARADE Magazine's annual listing of the world's ten worst dictators [1], and this was not his debut in the listings. Scott S 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LesAldridge, that it is quite simply a lie to say that Saudi Arabia is worse than Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. If that were the case, why are there tens of thousands of Westerners and other foreigners currently living there? Many foreigners, including Westerners, have lived in Saudi Arabia for decades. While I will not deny that Saudi Arabia has a poor human rights record, it is not nearly as bad a place as JoeHenzi alleges it to be. I know this for a fact as I lived there for several years.

  • The reason is that economics tends to trump principle. Foreigners are living there because they are employed there. Scott S 04:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think that ranking places in terms of "worst" is kind of irrelevant and unencyclopedic. I have a friend who went to SA and worked for a few years, avoiding US taxes, to make money to put away for retirement. She didn't think it was bad. I personally woudld not be allowed to go there at all because of my religion. What is good from one person's pov is bad from another. I think we just need to describe the human rights conditions based on good sources using neutral language. The rest is just commentary. Elizmr 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This last reply is from someone from the Saudi government. Your "friend" was obviously so far removed from actual Saudi society as to make her 'commentary' useless and laughable.
"Overall much freer?" "Overall" is such a nice word - covers all kinds of nasty, nitty-gritty specifics. How are Saudi women or Saudi religious minorities any "freer" than the same groups were under the Taliban?
Whether you're free or not depends largely on what segment of the population you're in. Rich, Arab Sunni males are good to go. So are the resident Westerners who are usually tied to them in some way, shape or form. Everyone else, though, would like to hear from the al-Sauds why they're considered less than human by the legal system of the country. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious freedoms[edit]

"It is absurd ..." Crown Prince Abdullah ... in New York City, New York on 6 September.

But which year? --Liberatus 23:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 2000, because the article says "Millenium summit". By googling there was apparently a summit in New York between 6 - 8 September, 2000. But maybe there are others.- THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibiting Sattelite television?[edit]

I don't know where the writer found that Saudi Arabia prohibits Satellite TV. I'm a saudi arabian living in Saudi Arabia, the goverment itself airs four diffrent satellite channels. Burning phoneix 09:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please edit using verifiable sources. Elizmr 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have also lived in Saudi Arabia and I'm of South Asian descent. Satellite dishes are commonplace and people watch channels from the South Asian subcontinent without penalty. (UTC)

Quality issues in Introduction[edit]

Please clean up the introduction. Seperate your run-on sentences. Should the West be discussed in the first or second line? Does that represent a worldwide view? I don`t mean to reprimand or anything, but I`m honestly not sure where that stands with Wikipedia policy. Also I doubt ``The Muslim World`` supports SA completely, as laws in the Muslim world are generally far more lax than to justify that sweeping statement. (Jiggssaw)

Also, human rights are human rights, and international standards for these were set by a United Nations resolution. If one means to say that Saudi laws are based on Sharia, that is one thing. I find this lead paragraph to have a tone of special pleading to excuse Saudi Arabia, and not an appropriately NPOV. 72.49.43.222 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights[edit]

The testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. The reasons women are forbidden to testify in criminal proceedings are (quote):

No source is given for this quote. Also references 1-4 lead to unavailable pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakashi10 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here is a source: http://www.jeansasson.com/LawandGovernment.htm just do a google source.

P.S. sorry i'm not very good at editing wikipedia :( 68.104.246.73 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more sources i found that looked pretty good: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1286471 and http://www.yourish.com/2006/10/23/2176 68.104.246.73 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
Perhaps the article emight say something like, "According to Jean Sasson, an American writer who lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for 12 years from 1978 until 1990 and who has written several well-received books on middle-eastern society and culture:
and support this by citing your first source. -- Boracay Bill 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the merger discussion here[edit]

Thank you--Victor falk 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging from Apartheid in Saudi Arabia[edit]

To discuss the proposed merge please go to Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Proposal Lothar of the Hill People 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women and driving[edit]

Women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles on public roads in large cities. However, most women are capable of driving...

What are we talking about here? Physical capability? Or actual knowledge? I doubt the latter since you don't learn to drive without practice. So unless someone brings some reference for that (and possibly even: how) women learn to drive, I'll delete the phrase. (It's already marked with "citation needed", but those tend to be in articles forever before anything ever happens...)

As for apartheid, I don't see any reason for having that section in its current form: It's some odd assortment of different topics, partly already covered in other sections of the article. And I simply don't see what informational value it has whether something is called "apartheid" (or "holocaust" or whatever). What interests is, in my opinion, whether the human rights are infringed (which they seem to be here) rather than what somehow calls that. If anyone believes that the section on women somehow profits from adding that this is considered apartheid--feel free to add it there. Else I would simply delete that part and all that talks about "apartheid" and rename the entire section "Religious and ethnic minorities".

I feel that the first section is actually an intro to the article, so I'd like to delete the section header (so that the section becomes the article intro). If someone has objections, please suggest a different header as the current one seems misleading, being identical to the article title--logically, it would suggest that the rest of the article talks about something else.

As always, I'll be happy to hear different views and/or get convinced otherwise, else I wouldn't write these lines.--Ibn Battuta 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point need to be made clear. Legally speaking, there is no law in Saudi Arabia prohibiting women from driving, and women do drive outside of big cities. They even drive large trucks. The main objection to women driving comes from Saudi families who do not accept the possibility of the their daughters being arrested or jailed for traffic accidents and violations. It is thus a matter of a specific local culture and not a matter of law. Most of the discussions presented here seem to just be fishing for bits of information designed to bash the Saudis, Arabs and Islam for no apparent reason other than them being preceived as the alien other which is safe to attack, making us feel better about our shortcommings, and justify our atrocities against others.173.74.22.141 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy[edit]

The article makes a note of literacy between men and women under "Women's rights". What does this have to with women's rights? Women are allowed to learn. If they choose not to because of social circumstances, that is deplorable, but it is not like their rights are being violated. Bless sins (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are women allowed to learn, their education is compulsory up to a certain age just like it is for males. Further, if you think about it a little, if some muslim clerics make it necessary for a female to be educated by another female, or for a female to see a female doctor if available, etc., then it holds to reason that these same clerics have no objection to women working in these fields and in many cases encourage it to fulfill a need in the society.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is:[edit]

In terms of human rights, in some aspects Saudi Arabia is more dictatorial and backward than North Korea (in Kim Jong Il’s tragic kingdom, at least formally, there is an elected parliament, political parties, secularism, freedom of religion and equality between men and women).

The fact that sometimes Saudi Arabia appears “more modern” or “beginning to achieve political openess” is because the country has a very good international PR, and it has always been one of the “staunch allies” of oil-hungry United States (first, against “Godless Communism”, after 1991 against “Middle East Instability”, and after 2001, against “International Islamic Terrorism”).

I know the declaration above is POV, but anyway, I think that at least some of these aspects could be included in a NPOV way inside the article.

Couple of counterpoints. As far as I know, there is neither secularism nor freedom of religion in North Korea. Instead Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il have essentially replaced all religions as demigods of sorts. While freedom of religion is officially recognized, religious beliefs in practice are either stamped out or so tightly controlled that they become another extension of the state's ideology.
Political parties; there is only one that matters, the Korean Workers' Party. And in practice, only one man's opinion controls it. There are no liberals or conservatives, moderates or hard-liners, leftists or rightists in North Korea. There is whatever Kim Jong Il decides.
Elected parliament; it has no power and everyone knows it. The only institution other than the Beloved Leader that has any power is the military, not any branch of the government - hardly democracy at work.
Gender equality; probably true, but all that means in this case is that everyone is repressed equally.
Agree on everything else you said... the only reason Saudi Arabia can come out smelling like a rose is because they sell us oil (not even strategic reasons - who do you think's been funding the Wahabbi movement and extremists like the Taliban for the last thirty years?) And certainly they're in the top five worst regimes in the world. I just wasn't sure why you were elevating North Korea - the two, though poles apart ideologically, are at about the same place morally as far as I can tell. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bravo, well discussed. Tourskin (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However this is meant to discuss about the article. Wikipedia talk pages are not chat rooms. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

I'm not sure if the politics and government template should be here.

If we look at articles like Human rights in Albania, Human rights in Canada, we see the template is not present. Other articles, though, have it: Human rights in India, Human rights in Turkey. Still others have a totally different template: Human rights in France.

"Human rights" is generally not an article on the template.

Thoughts?

VR talk 18:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslims and Religious freedoms[edit]

Should these two sections be merged?Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lumped together so needs cleanup. Also removed rebuttal line (however is WP:AVOID BTW) but added up top with a fact needed tag since reasoning is important. Clarified Jews coming in line. Added two sources and a line.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards, sorcerers , shaman, and headshrinkers[edit]

Beheading is the punishment for sorcerers, apostates, wizards, murderers, rapists, drug traffickers and armed robbers, according to strict interpretation of Islamic law.

In D&D, a wizard studies magic, while a sorcerer casts spells through innate powers, like dragon's blood. I don't think this is what is being referred to. Can we replace both of these with "witchcraft?" In the Christian tradition, a witch is a blasphemous magic-user (no offense to the wiccans, etc.)

Is the use of these two different words a reference to some finer points in Sharia law. I know that fortunetelling is specifically forbidden in Islam, but I don't know which, if either refers to this. I think both sorcerer and wizard are poor word choices for describing blasphemy or what in English is usually called witchcraft.

I think "blasphemy" would be best, since this covers a wide variety of crime from divination to magic missiles... Modinyr (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources make a distinction between sorcery and witchcraft in Sharia as practised in Saudi. See for example: [3], [4], [5]. This source [6] suggests that in Sharia witchcraft is a sub-set of sorcery i.e. sorcery = the practise of any magic and witchcraft = specifically black magic. The wording in the text does seem loose and unsourced so I've amended it with sources. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was some good editting. Excellent sources, especially Twilight in the Kingdom. Putting Wizards and Sorcery together was a good idea. I'll retract my recomendation of the words witchcraft and blasphemy. My hat is off to you, sir. Modinyr (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid[edit]

A ban on Jews being in Saudi Arabia makes that country an apartheid state, so why not label it what it is, an apartheid state? 198.151.130.37 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid implies racial/ethnic segregation of a group of people within the same country, and you would be correct if you were a Saudi Jew and they curtailed your movement and limited your rights. However, having a ban on Jews from entering the land (which I have never heard of before and I am sure that just the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia must have at least a couple of Jews in it), might be wrong but is not apartheid. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is formally in a state of war with Israel, a self declared Jewish state, and thus can be justified in denying Israeli nationals entry to their country.173.74.22.141 (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Migrant dies in Saudi detention centre riot >> Saudi accepts 181 UN human rights proposals(Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

human rights organisations - ESSHR[edit]

There seems to be a new Saudi human rights organisation, presumably partly based (presumably for security reasons) outside KSA: the European Saudi Society for Human Rights - http://esshright.blogspot.de . If RS's exist, it should be worth an article along with other Saudi human rights organisations. Boud (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ESSHR blog seems to have stopped in 2014. Al Jazeera English claims (archive) the existence of yet another Saudi human rights organisation: ALQAST, an independent Saudi human rights organisation, rejected the government charges against the human rights activists in a statement published on its website on Saturday. "ALQAST insists communication is a basic right of civil society, and the authorities are trying to criminalise human rights work," the statement said." No URL is provided - the reader has to accept by faith that the website exists... Boud (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights = ESOHR - https://euh.global.ssl.fastly.net/en/ - seems to be quite active in Arabic and has a modest amount of blog items dating back a few years. Boud (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC) - It seems to be quite active in a similar way to some of the big international human rights organisations: https://euh.global.ssl.fastly.net/en/?p=428 "ESOHR submits written statement on Saudi Arabia to the Human Rights Council, June 17, 2016". So probably notable enough for a separate article... Boud (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Boud (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Boud (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How the rest of the Muslim world views Saudi Arabia[edit]

You'r likely not going to believe me, but I found an article that states that even the Muslim world actually is disturbed by the public beheadings that occur in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps and article could be made on how the rest of the Muslim world views what goes on in the country. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth mentioning. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/19/7559007/saudi-arabia-punishments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bible-importation death penalty rumor appears to be false[edit]

I just removed a sentence from the article that said that importing Bibles (actually, it said "bibles") into Saudi Arabia or carrying them carried the death penalty due to a newly passed law. This cited a December article in an evangelical Christian web site and a November article in an anti-death-penalty web site, which both derive from a November article in a Christian missionary web site, which says in bold letters at the top, "The information in this article is not confirmed by any official sources," and only says that "[the] government may have imposed new laws requiring the death penalty for the illegal smuggling of Bibles into the country." It, in turn, derived its information from an article in Arabic at CoptsToday, a site for the predominantly-Christian Coptic ethnic minority in Egypt, which, if Google Translate is to be believed, cites a statement which doesn't mention Bibles at all by the Egyptian consulate in Jeddah about a new Saudi law, "الصادر بالمرسوم الملكي رقم م 42 بتاريخ 18/10/1404هـ", and is addressed to Egyptian travelers in Egypt. It would be very helpful if someone who speaks Arabic could tell us what that law actually says. The original missionary-site article now includes a note from a Saudi Arabian Christian explicitly denying this claim, but the other sites have not updated their articles to reflect this.

The human-rights situation in Saudi Arabia is genuinely bad, particularly with respect to freedom of religion, but we should be very careful to avoid the inclusion of this kind of inflammatory falsehood, especially at times like this.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a revert of my deletion of this inflammatory falsehood by 192.43.227.18, which seems to be a shared IP for a school in Australia. If you actually want to restore this content, please make an argument for why it's not simply a falsehood here. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is apparently the same user has unreverted my revert and added an unsourced Canadian Times column repeating the same rumor as a "source", without bothering to justify it. The Canadian Times is not a reliable source; it is a sensationalistic ultra-right-wing web site which, although it claims to have been publishing since 1904, doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I am reverting the new edit. Please discuss future attempts to restore this accusation about Saudi Arabia here before just adding them to the page. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

proposed move[edit]

would it be more accurate to move this article to "Lack of human rights in Saudi Arabia"? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Human rights in 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Human rights in 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Human rights in 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Human rights in 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mass use of deprecated source[edit]

Hello all. The article currently contains a high number of citations to Press TV, an Iranian-state sponsored media outlet that has been deprecated by the community, as it has been shown by editors to publish false and fabricated information, as well as to publish conspiracy theories. I also see at least one citation to RT's youtube account; RT is similarly deprecated by the community. It might take a bit of work to rewrite portions of the article without these sources, but currently it may well be the case that the page contains claims that are not supported by reliable sources. I'm going to remove the items for which I can't find citations to reliable sources, though I want to leave this note here just to explain this before I do so. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you tell me which paragraphs has Press TV or RT sources ? Aziz bm (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1207666401"