![]() | 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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
Doesn't the basic law make Saudi Arabia a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one?
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.
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 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
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
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
I think this article deserve class B.Abrnkak (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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