Talk:Ibn Saud/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Untitled

Forgive me; the edit of 01 Dec 2010 was mine. Bloody public terminal. Dak06 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


The Wives of Ibn Saud (and more)

There are two different birth dates listed. Which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.243.111 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

This site ( http://www.medea.be/?page=0&lang=en&idx=0&doc=271 ) identifies the mother of Crown Prince Abdullah as 'Fahda bint Asi al-Shuraym' and the mother of King Faisal II as 'Tarfah bint Abdullah al-Shaykh Abdul-Wahab'. This site has 7 out of 16 of his wives, and i'm looking for some sort of backup on mothers of Faisal and Abdullah. RobbieFal 01:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC

Fuad Hamza also Fuad Bey Hamza, a foreign affairs minister or deputy minister in the 1930's; anyone have biographical information? thx Nobs 19:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

photo of brother??

This website: http://images.rgs.org/imageDetails.aspx?barcode=26005 identify the man in the photo taken by Shakespear as the brother of Ibn Saud...--145.94.41.95 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it's strange; there's one source that states he is ibn saud; one that states he is his brother; an independent 3rd source would help... (but at least it's a high quality PD-photo. Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 20:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) :))

Hi, he's the younger brother of Abdulaziz Ibn Sa'ud, named Sa'ad Ibn Sa'ud. He was killed in 1915 in the battle of Kanzan fighting against the Al-Ajmaan tribe, north of the town of Hasa in northern Arabia. Abdulaziz himself barely survived that battle, being injured by a sword thrust to his stomach, he was carried away by his bodyguards. Needless to say, the Saudi coalition of tribes lost that battle.

-Source "The Bedouin Album"-by Ibrahim Al-Khaldi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.108.196 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 March 2006

There's an article about him here: Sa'd bin Abd al-Rahman. Khoikhoi 05:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
But this photo is used for Turki (1), his eldest son, in Wikipedia. Egeymi (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ibn Saud ?

hey guys,, the King's name is Abdulaziz Al-Saud, why is the article's name "Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia" and not "King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia"

The answer lies in the first paragraph of his biography.

Can anyone shed any light on actually why almost every english-language reference to this king written before the 1970's refers to him as "Ibn Saud" ? The reason for it is very obscure to me. Other Arab leaders do not seem to have been referred to in this way.Eregli bob (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Ibn Saud" is a wrong abbreviation of this king's more complete name Abd-al-Aziz Ibn Abd-al-Rahman Ibn Faysal Ibn Turki Ibn Abd-Allah Ibn Mohamed Ibn Saud, which perhaps was a little too long to fit to newpapers titles ;-) It's a non-sense, since Ibn (pronounced bin) means son of and not of the family of Saud which is Al Saud. A correct abbreviation is Ibn Abd-al-Rahman Al Saud or simply Al Saud or Ibn Abd-al-Rahman. I guess that once the mistake was first made it was too late to correct... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.124.203 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Ibn Saud his WP:COMMONNAME? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well it certainly was his usual name, in english language publications, during his lifetime and for a long time afterwards. But why, is not obvious. Other Arab rulers of the mid 20th century managed to get refered to by more logical parts of their long names. And "ibn" isn't even a plausible syllable in english.Eregli bob (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Funnily enough I was just starting to research this point because I think it is something that needs to be explained in the article. It's not that easy to find decent sources on the point, but what I've seen so far is as follows:
(a)it seems to be limited to English-speaking publications, and is seen as dated. Arabic sources never seem to use it and modern English one's no longer do.
(b)it literally means "son of Saud", which he wasn't.His father was Abd-al-Rahman. It seems to be a traditional Arabic way of referring to tribal leaders. His family was, of course, the Al Saud, and the leader of the family was therefore referred to as Ibn Saud. So,his father, during his lifetime, was also called Ibn Saud. I've seen it likened to the chief of a Scottish clan being referred to as, for instance, The MacGregor. The leader of the rival Al Rashid of Hail at the beginning of the 20th century was called Ibn Rashid. I've seen this format called a "kin name".
But the problem is (a) and (b) don't fit together. If (b) is correct, why is it only outdated English sources and not Arabic ones use it, and vice versa? I'm having difficulty in finding a decent WP:RS to back up any of the above! DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Well to address this point, it's not just the english paradigm but also the arabic which was changed. He went from being a tribal warlord to a sultan and then to a king to be on an equal status footing with foreign royalty. So the comparison to some antique scottish usage to modern usage is apt. Eregli bob (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not really a question of being "dated" or "outdated". The multitude of newspaper references to the King under the name "Ibn Saud" were very contemporary in their time, and since he has now been deceased for a long time, he is rarely mentioned at all except in a historical way. His full name was so obscure, that when a mosque and a school were named "King Abdulaziz ...(school)", it was entirely non-obvious which King was being refered to.Eregli bob (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Purely because the western (english) media had a penchant for using Surnames to refer to people, so in all the cultural ignorance, it would have taken the last part of the name (Ibn Saud) to refer to the king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.245.132 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No. It's not the "last part of his name" and it was, at the time but not now, used in Arabic as his name. DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So if it is an issue of "western cultural ignorance", they seemed to have no trouble referring to King Farouk or King Hussein or King Faisal of Irak.
I just wish people would standardize one way or another across the wiki. Having him called King Abdulaziz in some paragraphs and pages and then Ibn Saud in others is confusing and unnecessary. 75.130.155.203 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?

A whole lot of this article has been cut out, including a good picture of Ibn Saud himself and alot of useful info. Why?

Personal Physique?

Hi,

can anyone with good sources buff up this article please, with perhaps a section regarding King AbdulAziz'z physique. One thing I could say, is that he was 6'5"...

Well not many of his sons see to be 6'5. The present King is not that and neither was Fahd, Khaled etc... Genetics plays 50% in determining one's height. So Ibn Saud may have been tall but he does not seem to have been 6'5. 85.3.111.66

He was very tall. Gertrude Bell described him as being 'over 6'3"'. (I'll post that in the article if I can find the reference). Judging by photos of him with T E Lawrence, whose height was known, we can deduce he was around 6'4" - but I dare not post that in the article or someone will scream 'original research!' :) Anjouli 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And he would be right to do so. Find us a photo of Saud with TE Lawrence.

This contemporary newspaper article says he was six foot four inches:[1]

Something strage

It is written:

"By Haya bint Sa'ad al-Sudairy (1913 - April 18, 2003)
1. Moosa (born 1923)"

This Moosa was born when his mother was ten years old!? I guess there is some mistake here, and also that Ibn Saud wasn't a pedophile or something like that. HustonJMarble 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

- - Oh, yes, sure! Why shouldn't he? It's called 'pedophilia' only in the West. LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.241.250 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


A valid source, datarabia.com does not mention many of those children that Ibn Saud had with this wife. Some of the names may have beena added just like thta by a jokster.

- - What wife? According to some reports he had 300 wives and 2000 children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.106.113.138 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Wars

Someone should something about Ibn Saud's war with Yemen.

I have recently upgraded the article about the war with Yemen, I will add a link to it here.Eregli bob (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Family Tree

It is pretty well detailed with date of births and date of deaths for the children of Ibn Saud. But some of the names was not found in saudi sources on Al saud family tree. For instance Hiduhl has no full siblings according to those sources.

Majesty?

Was he styled His Majesty? From which time?

- - Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.241.250 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


"..seeking arms in Germany."

Hello.

In accordance to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased, I have deleted the sentence under Ibn Saud#Foreign wars, which reads:

and, in 1939, it was reported that his emissary was seeking arms in Germany.[2]

As it references an unknown source by the name of "Nicosia", and even links a YouTube video that doesn't prove anything, nor is it verifiable.--Kray0n (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "' '".
  2. ^ Nicosia, p. 190 & as can be seen here

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Talal of Jordan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of destruction of Janatul Baqi and Jantul Mualla

There is an unrefernced line saying in 1925 the Saudis destroyed the Janatul Baqi and Janatul Mualla,the Holy Graveyards housing graves of Sahaba.This is false.These holy garveyards are still there.

Dammam conference

The Treaty of Darin remained in effect until superseded by the Jeddah conference of 1927 and the Dammam conference of 194 during both of which Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud extended his boundaries past the Anglo-Ottoman Blue Line.

Could someone supply a better date for the Dammam conference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjemond (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Many members of the Saud ruling family have their religion listed as "Islam". While no one can dispute that they are and were indeed Muslims, they did adhere to the quite distinctive and unique branch of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism. Perhaps the religion section of each of their articles should be changed to reflect this. I have also noticed that Bashar al-Assad's page and those of his family have their religion listed as Alawi despite the fact that Ayatollah Musa Sadr, Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Sistani have declared all of them Shia. As well as this, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has his religion noted as Usuli Twelver Shia Islam rather than simply Shia islam. It would help Wikipedia as a foundation that supports the facilitates the growth of knowledge to have the Saud family religion listed as Wahhabism or at least Wahhabi Sunni Islam. Brough87 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on only the members of House of Saud. The others may want to emphasize their religious beliefs. Yes, the religion of this family is given as Islam, since Wahhabism is not a division in Islam. There are, in fact, only two dominant approaches in Islam, Sunni and Alawite. The others are minor and need not to be given in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, these people are rulers, not Islamic figures like some of your examples cited. So please follow the established way on the articles. Also, religion is very personal, and "wahhabi" is a term developed by the Western people. You may refer to related articles in WP.Egeymi (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"There are, in fact, only two dominant approaches in Islam, Sunni and Alawite. " What ??? Such a bizarre claim! Or do you not consider Shia to be Islam, at all ?Eregli bob (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hope you can understand this time. My proposition does not imply what you have written above. Stating X and Y are dominant parts of something does not mean W is not part of it. Secondly, it is talk page, not a forum to discuss such issues. Thirdly, Alawite is part of Shia that is very apparent.Egeymi (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"There are, in fact, only two dominant approaches in Islam, Sunni and Alawite. The others are minor and need not to be given in an encyclopedia." That is obviously incorrect. Alawites are minor. I think it was just a typo and you must have meant "Sunni and Shia". DeCausa (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, DeCausa, you expressed my belief better than me, thanks. Sorry for it. Egeymi (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There's also Kharijite which is completely different from the two, and I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be used. Also, I don't see why only "first level" (Islam) and "second level" (Sunni/Shia) should be used, without further subdivisions. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely we can agree that Wahhabism is a very distinct form of Sunni islam. And I also must point out that various Muslim political leaders have their particular brand of Islam noted on their article. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has his listed as Usuli Twelver Shia Islam for example. It is also kind of Irrelevant whether Wahhabi is a western term or not (even though it clearly isn't), our duty as editors of wikipedia is to provide as much information about people of note as we possibly can. Brough87 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I put a view of insider with a ref: Muhammed Issa who is a islamic scholar and Saudi Justice minister argued in a lecture at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh in 2012 that "Salafism is only an approach and that it should not be viewed as Islam. He further emphasized that Salafi approach is moderate and that it means following and obeying the ancestors’ belief and values in regard to the understanding of Islam."[1] Since you are not an insider and not put a reference, stating that there is a religion named Wahhabi Islam, I will revert your edits.Egeymi (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your ref is about supporters of bin Laden, not house of Saud. Also in your edit summary, you refer to the discussion above as if there was an agreement. It is not fair.Egeymi (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"Salafism is only an approach and that it should not be viewed as Islam."??? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to have a discussion on the subject, you need to answer the talk page when there is a new post. There had been no response from you, or anyone else since the 21st of August, so I guessed that you were no longer interested in the discussion. You have no knowledge whatsoever about me and whether I am an insider or not, so I suggest you stop making assumptions. Your assertion that Wahhabi as a religious movement does not exist, is somewhat undermined by the fact that most wikipedia articles that talk about the religious aspects of the Saudi State always mention Wahhabism as a religious fact. Brough87 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Brough87, the starting point is can you provide a source that specifically describes Ibn Saud's personal religion as "Wahhabi Islam"? I think it doubtful that you can for a number of reasons. Certainly there is no statement in the article that that is his "religion". I say it's doubtful that you will find a source to back up what you want to do for two reasons: Wahhabism isn't normally treated as a "denomination" in the way that the Shia sects are. It's more a school of thought within Sunni Islam. A Christian analogy would be along the lines of "traditionalist"/"progressive" Catholic or "evangelical"/"high church" Anglican (in, eg, the UK). You wouldn't expect an individual's religion to be labelled in that way - just the broader one of Catholic or Anglican. The Shia sects are different as they have very distinct doctrinal differences. Secondly, there is no doubt that the Al Saud are supporters of Wahhabism etc etc. But is there direct evidence that Ibn Saud considered that to be his "religion"? I doubt it. But if you have a source that describes his personal religion as "Wahhabi Islam", then it might be helful to post it so it can be considered. There is also an issue around self-identification, which is relevant but perhaps more of a BLP issue. As Wahhabis deny that "wahhabism" exists it is problematic to give them that label. It's like "Moonie" appearing in the infobox as a religion. DeCausa (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW I am not talking about Brough87's personal status, I am talking about whether or not the authors of the refs are insiders.Egeymi (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@DeCausa are you saying that Wahhabism is not distinct in its beliefs from other 'main stream' Sunni Islamic schools? The Wahhabi article on wikipedia notes it as a "branch of Sunni Islam" and as a "religious movement". Also, any articles that reference Religion or Islam in Saudi Arabia, always mention Wahhabi as a defining feature the religious landscape."While what is now Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of Islam, it was also home to various sects and strands of the religion until the rise of Salafism, also known as Wahabbism, a fiercely puritanical strain of Islam that gained patronage of the primary rulers of the Arabian peninsula." (Taken from Islam in Saudi Arabia) is but one example. The fact of the matter is, those of us who take an interest in the politics of the Saudi State know that the country only sanctions the Wahhabi brand of Islam and only that to practiced freely. Whether or not they identify themselves as such, the rulers clearly are adherents to Wahabbism by their actions. It can also be argued that most Muslims who practice a particular strand of Islam would almost certainly identify themselves as Muslims rather than by their particular school. @Egeymi whether the authors are insiders or not does not discount entirely the points they have made within a particular article, so long as it is well researched that is all that should matter. Brough87 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Be careful on using Wikipedia as a source! (Btw, I wrote probably the majority of the current Saudi Arabia article.) I'm not saying that wahhabism doesn't have distinctive features. I'm saying two things: (a) it's not generally thought of as distinctive enough to be considered a separate "sect" or "denomination" to the extent that would be necessary for the Infobox "religion" parameter - just as the Hanafi or Malaki traditions aren't; (b) you need to cite a source that describes Ibn Saud's personal religion as "Wahhabi Islam". Can you provide a source? If not, I don't really see that this can go much further. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
@Brough87, I've just noticed that your account is new and you may therefore be a new user. Had I realised, I would have, in the above post, pointed out WP:CIRCULAR in relation to your referencing of other WP articles, and referred you to WP:CAT/R - extra caution is required in ensuring verifiability when attributing a religion in biographies. I think you may also want to be aware of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in reaching the conclusions that you have. DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"the country only sanctions the Wahhabi brand of Islam" That is not true. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Shrine?

Doing some research into railways in Saudi Arabia, I came to this article.

I see in the second sentence of the "Later years" section, the line which says "The shrine was regarded by all of the advisers living in the country as an old man's folly.". "shrine"? That's surely not right is it? CoeurDeHamster (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed it. The whole section is unencyclopedic, by the way. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Lovely - thank you. CoeurDeHamster (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Saud and Palestine - reports of secret promise to Britain

I have seen a few articles based on a single old news article on this topic, e.g.:

I don't think any of these are WP:RS though, and i can't see from the picture where the old article came from.

Any ideas?

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture taken 50 yrs after he died.

Picture claimed to be own work taken in 2008.

Ibn Saud died in 1958. Either this is not ibn Saud or the photographer is telling porkies.

Would humbly suggest the rights on the main photo are in question.

Sorry too tired to find logon details.

Steve shomer -x at x- cix.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.41.137 (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent move

I have reverted a recent move to "Abdulaziz ibn Saud" because the name Ibn Saud is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. This is the result of the Google Ngram which clearly shows that "Ibn Saud" is the common name in English. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a fair comparison, but he is most common as Ibn Saud. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ibn Saud. 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) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

this article needs more references

The sections "Rise to power", "Oil discovery and his rule", and "Successor" all have paragraphs without any citations whatsoever. —howcheng {chat} 18:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification Edits that need to be made

I don't have the wiki-permissions to make this edit, so I hope someone else will do it for me.

Under the section "Rise to Power" the last sentence of the second paragraph, currently, "The victory of Ibn Saud in Rawdat Muhanna, in which Abdulaziz died, ended the Ottoman presence in Najd and Qassim by the end of October 1906" should be edited to clarify that "Abdulaziz" in this context is referring to Abdulaziz bin Mitab aka Ibn Rashid and *not* to Ibn Saud aka Abdulaziz.

and when the fourth paragraph of the same section references waging war against Ibn Rashid, it should instead say "House of Rasheed" or the Rashidi dynasty or the specific emir at that time (Saʿūd bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz). Saying Ibn Rashid, while almost as correct, is unnecessarily confusing in context.

Thanks Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ibn Saud. 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) 03:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Please link "Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai" (Found under "Foreign Wars", specifically "... he built very strong ties with Prince Sheikh Rashed Al Khuzai from the Al Fraihat tribe, one of the most influential and royally established families during the Ottoman Empire.") to the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rashed_Al-Khuzai.

Thank you!Mcampany (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)mcampany Mcampany (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Spintendo ᔦᔭ 04:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2018

There is an error in the oil discovery paragraph. It should read "Petroleum was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938 by American geologists working for Standard Oil Company of California (SOCAL)in partnership with Saudi officials." It presently indicates the geologists worked for Standard Oil Company of New York which is incorrect. 82.167.209.62 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I've added a {{citation needed}} notice to the sentence for now. — Newslinger talk 21:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Change "Petroleum was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938 by American geologists working for Standard Oil Company of New York (SOCONY) in partnership with Saudi officials." to "Petroleum was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938 by American geologists working for California-Arabian Standard Oil (CASOC), a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company of California (SOCAL) in which the Texas Company (Texaco) had purchased a 50% interest." 2601:C6:C700:8CF:F572:47F9:878C:356B (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We cannot make this change without a reliable source to back it up. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

Please add {{POV|date=August 2019}} to the article. The article needs to be rewritten to address bias. Problem issues with NPOV, such as "He was a charismatic leader and kept his men supplied with arms," and "bn Saud was sober enough to see the folly of provoking the British by pushing into these areas," abound. Zkidwiki (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zkidwiki: I have removed the extended-confirmed protection and you can now edit this article. GoldenRing (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia → Ibn Saud – The current name is rarely used in reliable sources. Ibn Saud is the common name for this individual. Given that there was little discussion of the page title on the talk page, I think it is worth discussing. Interstellarity (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ibn Saud → Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud – Although Ibn Saud appears in several sources, it is merely a nickname and does not accurately represent Abdulaziz's name. This person's full name is Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud. The fact that "Ibn Saud" is only used in the West does not imply that it should be the standard name for him. Every other region that is not part of the West, including the Arabian Peninsula, refers to him as "الملك عبدالعزيز" or literally "King Abdulaziz"/"King Abdul-Aziz" in English. In one of the above-mentioned discussions, I saw someone say, "Even in his home country, he is known as ibn Saud." Where does this person get his or her information? Everyone in Saudi Arabia calls him "King Abdulaziz"/"King Abdul-Aziz". Saudi royals such as Prince Turki bin Faisal and Prince Khalid bin Salman, refer to him as "King Abdulaziz"/"King Abdul-Aziz" in the English language. Many Saudi Arabian facilities use the name "King Abdulaziz" and not "Ibn Saud" (eg. King Abdulaziz Gate in Mecca and King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah). Many Muslims call him "King Abdulaziz"/"King Abdul-Aziz". Every Saudi based media source, including Al-Arabiya News and Arab News call him "King Abdulaziz"/"King Abdul-Aziz".

In other Wikipedia articles, I've see title style similar to the way "Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud" is used. For example, King Abdulaziz's father's name for an article is Abdul Rahman bin Faisal Al Saud, which is absolutely correct.

Again, the fact that "Ibn Saud" is a common name in the West does not indicate that it is an accurate representation of the person's true name! That is the point I'm attempting to make. Xpërt3 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - note that I've assisted Xpërt3 in setting this up as a proper RM, per request on my talk page and also done a relist, as it had been running for almost a week without appearing on the RM boards. As to my own opinion, I'm leaning to oppose this move, for the reasons given in the RM above. The WP:COMMONNAME in English sources appears to be clearly "Ibn Saud". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. This is an obvious COMMONNAME case, as he isn't known by his full name in English-language sources. O.N.R. (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the common name in the English language is Ibn Saud. Векочел (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Children's birth order

The articles for Khalid and Nasser say that they were his fifth and sixth sons, respectively. But this article for Ibn Saud lists Nasser before Khalid, and Nasser's article says he might've been born as early as 1911, while Khalid wasn't born until 1913.

Similarly, the articles for Fahd and Mansour say they were his eighth and ninth sons, respectively. But this article for Ibn Saud lists Mansour before Fahd.

Similarly, the articles for Bandar and Abdullah say they were both his tenth son. Abdullah's article also says he was born in 1924, but the article for his brother Musa'id says Musa'id was the twelfth son, and he was born in 1923. And this article for Ibn Saud lists Musa'id before Abdullah.

Similarly, the article for Faisal says he was his third son (born in 1906, after Turki I and Saud). But the article for Descendants of Ibn Saud says there were at least two more sons born before him, both named Khalid (in 1902 and 1903), and maybe also another one named Fahd (also born in 1906). 2603:9000:E408:4800:5C0F:EF17:ED93:7B0B (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibn_Saud/Archive_1&oldid=1120829164"