Talk:Saudi Arabia
|
|
| Contents |
Discussion
The wording Culture section is too colloquial. "For those rare days when it gets a bit chilly, Saudi men chuck..." and "...only their family gets to see them in all their glory..." sounds like a 10-year-old wrote it.
That kind of writing has no place in Wikipedia. I fixed up the whole section. Barfooz 08:12, 19 March 2005 (UTC))
More Saudi-bashing under Saudi culture I see. How about some positive aspects to give balance? And why here anyway, since there is a separate Saudi culture page. Anjouli 05:47, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- (Now it's fixed Anjouli 07:18, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC))
On further reflection, should this be under culture at all? Would a section on Saudi law not be better? Anjouli 06:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the Culture section: "Saudi religious police incarcerated foreign workers because they owned a rosary." Is there any attribution known, or more information? BCorr¤Брайен 21:29, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
- You are mistaken: no religion is tolerated in Saudi, but Islam. Saudi Religious Police cannot look everywhere, but do not confuse this ineptitude with tolerance (Thomas Ludwig)
- First I'm not aruging that I know it's untrue, so I don't think I'm "mistaken" per se -- I'm just saying that it's an example that's taken out of context and doesn't give any backup. The website you give as a reference seems to be a pro-Christian site -- I don't think it's a very good reference -- is there something that comes from a major wire service or newspaper?
I have lived in Saudi Arabia for 20 years and can tell you that much of what Thomas Ludwig has inserted, although no doubt done with honest intention, is totally inaccurate. There is a huge amount of anti-Islamic and anti-Saudi propoganda on the web and references must be chosen with care. If you based an article on Israel or the USA on similar propoganda, it would start by saying that Mossad and the CIA were respopnsible for 911! Saudi Arabia has a long way to go and I am not an apologist for their many shortcomings - but we should remain NPOV and anything controversial should be carefully sourced. The Mutawwa ("religious police") in Saudi Arabia are a spent force. Any influence they had with the government vanished with 911. They are now seen as a disruptive anti-(Saudi)government organisation and suspected supporters of terrorism. "Religious police" is in any case a bit of a misnomer. These people have no more legal authority than do the "fashion police" of New York. They are small in number and are basically thugs. Religious vigilantes would be a more accurate description. The government is now replacing all major religious post holders with their own Islamically-moderate stooges and the extremists are mainly in jail. It is many many years since amputation and flogging have been practised in Saudi Arabia, other than in a few remote areas where the local fundamentalists do manage to slip one past the authorities from time to time. There are regular Christian services in Saudi Arabia for the many Christian ex-pats. These take place mainly in Consulates and Embassies, but are certainly not secret from the Saudis! What is usually described as "flogging" in Saudi Arabia mostly refers to a ritual punishment in which a fully-dressed person is stuck on the back with a light stick by a person (usually an elderly cleric) who must hold a copy of the Qu'ran under his armpit whilst delivering the blows. It is mainly a matter of shame and certainly causes less pain that the corporal punishment used in American private schools to this day. This is not to defend the practice, but it is almost unknown these days and the Saudi government is doing its best to stamp it out completely. It should not be confused with the practice of the Taliban, where people were flogged almost to death with a bullwhip. Saudi Arabia has a long way to go, but they are trying their best in the face of a small minority of Islamic fundamentalists who by no means represent the majority of Saudis. Inaccurate and NPOV Saudi-phobic articles on WP do nothing to encourage progress or understanding on either side. Anjouli 08:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that Mme. Anjouli maintains considerable financial interests in Saudi Arabia, which makes it important to her that the current state of affairs stays as is. Human rights must step back a bit in the process. (added by Thomas Ludwig)
- Anjouli is a respected and longstanding editor who is an authority on Saudi Arabia and Islam. As she says, she is not a Saudi apologist and quickly points out their errors. If you look at her home page you will see she is in fact of Jewish ancestory! I would be interested to know where you obtained information about her financial interests. Or are you just making it up as you have made up the other information you have posted. SpellBott 13:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You flatter me. But it does not take much of an authority to see that "public beheadings can be observed on a daily basis" is a lot of rubbish. Anjouli 15:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Thomas Ludwig: Your repeated edits of the article to include you opionion about what is wrong with Saudi Arabia are not in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Phrases like this one are factually inaccurate and inappropriate: "public beheadings can be observed on a daily basis" -- please respond to the facts that Anjouli mentioned, as opposed to you "analysis" or her motivations. -- BCorr¤Брайен 12:50, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Hello Thomas. Your personal remarks about me on Talk:Saudi Arabia are inappropriate, as are your constant reversions. There are many bad things about Saudi Arabia that could properly be included on this page. But your current edits are not only POV, they are factually inaccurate. If you want to use Talk:Saudi Arabia to discuss with other WP users how the page should look and come to a majority agreement, then you have my full support. If you keep blindly inserting your own "facts" and refuse to discuss them, then people will think you are a vandal and you will get blocked. Another user has already listed you as a vandal, but I have asked that you not be blocked yet. Please remember that if you exaggerate and include obvioulsy inaccurate information, nobody will take the "information" on the page seriously and the credibility of WP as a whole will be damaged. I am sure that is not the outcome you desire. Let's work together to make this article fairly represent both the good and bad things about Saudi Arabia. What do you say? Anjouli 16:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Legal system and punishments
The punishment meted out by the Saudi Arabian court are unusual and certainly deserve to be noted. Rmhermen 15:47, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
I do agree completely. But let's keep it accurate and NPOV. Public beheadings on a daily basis is utter nonsense. Saudi Arabia executes fewer people per year than the State of Texas and the government is trying (with great success) to stamp-out amputations - but it is a mistake to think the government has complete control of this, anymore than the Kennedys could stop all racial segregation instantly. I did try to edit-in a fair and NPOV paragraph about this, but as you see all my edits just get reverted. I'm happy to cooperate on this if Thomas will cooperate with other users. Right now it's pointless. Anjouli 16:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thomas Ludwig: The exact number of beheadings is not known. Browsing the net, I frequently find numbers close to 100 per annum http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/27/saudi.beheadings.ap/
I was quite astonished to see the Saudi Arabia article free of any mentioning of human rights abuses, and someone who obviously profiteers from the status quo in this country acting as a "respected" editor of this article, who sanitized it from any criticism. Those who see no wrong in this must ask themselves serious questions about their political education.
Otherwise: 1. There is a set of UNDENIABLE Human Rights 2. To discuss Human Rights in a "cultural context" is a tactic heavily used by perpetrators and dictators 3. The first instituion responsible of what happens to human rights in a country is the government of that country. Arguing that the super-rich Saudi clan unfortunately cannot control the violation of human rights is very weak defense tactics. 4. Wikipedia users, in ther strive for "Neurality" must not revive the odious Appeasement policy approach of the Nazi era.
Friendly Dialogue
Hello Thomas. Well now we are talking together, which is a start. I am sure we are both good people who want the same thing. You will probably be amazed to hear that I am a paid-up member of Amnesty International, which perhaps illustrates the degree of misunderstanding between us. And I lost a lot of my family in Hitler's concentration camps - so I understand what you mean about appeasement.
A few points:
- Please sign all your posts with ~~~~. This inserts your signature and the date - otherwise we need to look in the page history to see who wrote what.
- Edit wars solve nothing. Note I have not edited the current page, although I disagree with much of it. I want to come to agreement with you first, since this is obviously something you feel deeply about.
- No personal attacks or vandalism of my home page please, whoever it was. NB I'm not saying I think it was you, but it was apparently related to this discussion.
General matters:
- Whilst totalitarian regimes should be criticised for their abuses, it is important that this criticism be accurate and factually-based. It should not be unverified personal opinion or rumour. Above all it should be NPOV. It is also important that reforms and progress be given due credit. If not, and a country is painted blacker than black whatever they do, then they will not be sensitive to world opinion and will feel any efforts at reform are pointless. You will find this opinion is shared by almost all human rights organisations.
- There ARE still human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.
- There has been a great deal of progress in recent years. Most criticisms leveled against Saudi Arabia are historic and do not reflect the current situation.
- Saudi Arabia is about to join the WTO and is restructuring much of the judicial and legal system to comply with WTO requirements.
- This month a completely independent Saudi human rights organisation was formed, with full government support.
- Most abuses are not condoned by the government, although they must bear responsibility for lack of oversight of prisons etc.
Wikipedia country pages:
- Wikipedia country pages should match the format of other country pages. It is not appropriate to include large quotations or to have hot links to Google searches - whatever your politics. This kind of thing should be handled via short links to sub-pages, e.g. Human rights, Judicial system etc. This is the proper way to do things, whatever your opinion.
- Anything on WP should be verifiable from reputable sources. It should not be personal opinion or conjecture. If not, it should be removed.
- Anything on WP should be NPOV (Neutral Point of View). "Spiders eat flies" is acceptable. "Spiders are horrible creatures because they eat flies." is not.
The Saudi Arabia page:
- Much to talk about, but let's start with something simple. The present page says Saudi Arabia carries out crucifictions. I propose to remove that as I think it is factually inaccurate. Would you object? If so, can you provide a reference to substantiate this? I'll agree to leave it in if it is a sensible reference.
And that's how we do things on Wikipedia. Your move. Anjouli 15:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thomas Ludwig - I was very annoyed to see human rights abuses COMPLETELY missing - just compare the article about North Korea, which is "undisputed".
I also subscribe to proper investigation (I did NOT insert the sentence that SA is behind the 9-11 attacks)
<< Above is by Thomas Ludwig. Ok. I have moved human rights to a separate page as the present article looked like a bit of a mess. Please note that I have not changed the content at all. Before we get into verifying facts, let's at least get the format tidy. (Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. ) Anjouli 04:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
'Culture has only very narrow avenues of expression and is heavily censored. It has to be "traditional"and has to serve Islam.'
Where does this information come from? Deus Ex 23:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is the "factual accuracy" of this page still in dispute? It seems fine now... Quite a good page, in fact. user:J.J.
Religion
Amazing... no prominent mention of Saudi Arabia's role as the country which is home to Mecca; no major header section on religion at all for a country completely dominated by a religion, and the center of the world for that religion. Wahhabism is mentioned in the political section, and then only buried in the middle of the text. A country where everything is influenced by religion, and the article barely mentions religion ChessPlayer 05:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- I refer you to the "edit this page" link at the foot of the page. - Montréalais 02:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is a modern political entity. Mecca is an "old" holy site. The country of S.A. itself is not considered "holy".
To many or most Muslims, Saudi Arabia is considered special because it is home to the holiest sites of Islam. The government of Saudi Arabia accepts its responsibility as keeper of these sites and, accordingly, applies strict religious laws to everyone who spends time within its borders. In the U.S., many states try to impose Christian values on their citizens. Paramus, New Jersey, last I heard, still refuses to allow anyone to work on Sunday. And is there anything, anything at all, special about Paramus, New Jersey (religiously speaking, of course). --LesAldridge 22:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia
If anyone thinks the title of the article Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia is not neutral .. please go there and vote OneGuy 01:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is SA singled out for its abuse of Human Rights?
If one goes to the main page for China, one does not find 'Human Rights' as the third heading. China has a horrible human rights record. Witness Tienammen Square. Even today, dissident voices are stilled. But China is a most-favoured nation with the U.S. It's a trading partner with billions of consumers, a huge army and arsenal. Saudi Arabia's human rights record may be bad but it doesn't deserve to have its record discussed as a primary (or tertiary, I guess) item. It is a great culture with many positive aspects which may be discussed ahead of any discussion of its rights record. This is like finding a discussion of Guantanamo or Abu Graib on the title page of an entry for the United States. --LesAldridge 21:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with LesAldridge. Better to have the main page for Saudi Arabia non-disputed and more about the country and its people, and give the disputed human rights issues their own article(s). Bashing doesn't solve problems. 4 Feb 2005
"Oil Legitimacy"
I was amused to read in the current text that the discovery of oil "has given the kingdom great legitimacy over the years"! Political weight, the effect of strategic oil and the weight of money, these are the equivalent of "legitimacy" it seems.....
Think about the important stuff!
I see that most of the discussion topics are small priorities, if people don't like the human rights there or discrimination, they should think of reform, you see there is a case in which three men called for changing the political systen to a constitutional monarchy, but since this IS S.A., instead of humoring them, they were arrested instead, them and others for signing a statement asking for it, but rest were set free except for them.
I am a Shi'tte Saudi, and being so I know what matter's most to the country, most people here are thinking of political reform and you guys are debating over oil legitimacy and beheading? What the hell is this? People you need to think of the important stuff here.
Here are links about that case here http://www.cdhr.info/pressroom_news.asp
This is another page but I couldn't find the original page so I disclaim it.
"U.S. quietly following trial of democratic activists in Riyad
Want to see the real test in future U.S.-Saudi relations? Try monitoring the trial this week of three Saudi democracy leaders in Riyad on charges that they published literature that called for political reforms in the kingdom.
Ali Al Domaini, Matrook Al Faleh and Abdallah Al Hamed are not oil barons or Al Qaida guns. Al Domaini is a poet and Al Faleh and Al Hamed are professors — all of whom were arrested March 16 with eight other democracy activists. The eight others were released but barred from travel or public comments.
The Saudi indictment charges the three with the kind of activities encouraged daily in the United States. The charges include collecting signatures on a petition calling for reform and holding meetings to coordinate pro-reform efforts. None of the charges involved violence.
But here's how the indictment translates calls for reform. The three Saudis were charged with "damaging the reputation of the Saudi government," "justifying violence and terrorism," "doubting the independence of the Saudi justice system," and "pressuring the government and influencing public opinion to pressure government leadership." In Saudi Arabia, where there are no elections and the king is the keeper of Islam, these are all crimes.
The Saudi royal family has not been immune to U.S. pressure. In an unprecedented move, the trial, which began on Aug. 8, was open to the public and attended by the relatives and supporters of the defendants.
The United States has been careful in dealing with the Saudi trial. No statements have been released by the administration and State Department and U.S. Embassy officials have not attended the trial."
Think about the important stuff!
I see that most of the discussion topics are small priorities, if people don't like the human rights there or discrimination, they should think of reform, you see there is a case in which three men called for changing the political systen to a constitutional monarchy, but since this IS S.A., instead of humoring them, they were arrested instead, them and others for signing a statement asking for it, but rest were set free except for them.
I am a Shi'tte Saudi, and being so I know what matter's most to the country, most people here are thinking of political reform and you guys are debating over oil legitimacy and beheading? What the hell is this? People you need to think of the important stuff here.
Here are links about that case here http://www.cdhr.info/pressroom_news.asp
This is another page but I couldn't find the original page so I disclaim it.
"U.S. quietly following trial of democratic activists in Riyad
Want to see the real test in future U.S.-Saudi relations? Try monitoring the trial this week of three Saudi democracy leaders in Riyad on charges that they published literature that called for political reforms in the kingdom.
Ali Al Domaini, Matrook Al Faleh and Abdallah Al Hamed are not oil barons or Al Qaida guns. Al Domaini is a poet and Al Faleh and Al Hamed are professors — all of whom were arrested March 16 with eight other democracy activists. The eight others were released but barred from travel or public comments.
The Saudi indictment charges the three with the kind of activities encouraged daily in the United States. The charges include collecting signatures on a petition calling for reform and holding meetings to coordinate pro-reform efforts. None of the charges involved violence.
But here's how the indictment translates calls for reform. The three Saudis were charged with "damaging the reputation of the Saudi government," "justifying violence and terrorism," "doubting the independence of the Saudi justice system," and "pressuring the government and influencing public opinion to pressure government leadership." In Saudi Arabia, where there are no elections and the king is the keeper of Islam, these are all crimes.
The Saudi royal family has not been immune to U.S. pressure. In an unprecedented move, the trial, which began on Aug. 8, was open to the public and attended by the relatives and supporters of the defendants.
The United States has been careful in dealing with the Saudi trial. No statements have been released by the administration and State Department and U.S. Embassy officials have not attended the trial."
--Nay1989 21:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)Abduljabbar 14/2/2005
Source of terrorism in the world
Plz consider the fallowing passage:
- "The women chosen by the BBC on its web page [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4397615.stm) are special people... the common Saudi women are living a life beyond our imagination... Under the global pressure, if the Saudi regime is opening the doors of freedom of thought, speech and expression in that conservative society, it will not only benefit the common people but will nip the roots of terrorism around the world as well. We the common Muslims in Pakistan are directly affected by the traditional conservative policies of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes... Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been financially supporting their agents in Pakistan and thus sectarianism and terrorism has been nourished in our land. These terrorists never let us common Pakistani women to walk around freely and try to through acid on our faces or stop marathon races by force and they want to show us the model of Saudi Arabia and Iran... (Sick). If Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivated by the world community to be a part of the world community then the world can get rid of terrorism and extremism.
- The Saudi man has all the privilege...they can have 4 wives at a time... many trips around the world, especially 'moral holidays' in the West but their women live a life less than human beings...it should change now!
- Just 4000 princes (from the King to the police officer) of a family are ruling the poor Saudi people with tyranny and it is not only affecting them but every one in the region, especially in the Muslim world…
- These things should be included in the main article of Wikipedia in a balanced way!"
- LOL, so you're from pakistan? and you know all these things about Saudi Arabia and Iran just by the attempt of a "pakistani terrorist" to "throw acid" at your face? so your government is a "terrorist" government and Benazir Bhutto never been a "prime minister" (or maybe she is not a woman =D)?
- As for the "four wives" thing .... what I know is that the quran allows polygamy, not the SAUDI GOVERNMENT ... and you said that you're a muslim =D.
- Quote: "The most impressive thing about this piece is that you have Saudi women talking about what it is like being a Saudi women. It is sad that this notion is revolutionary in the world today. If we want to know about someone, some place or some people we should ask them instead of formulating our thoughts based on secondhand information. Why is it that most of the experts on Islam in the media are themselves not Muslims?" -- Joe Bruin, LA, USA, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4398295.stm#abla --212.138.47.16 11:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mutaween
I beleive there was loss of life in the incident about the girls in the fire. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Nobs 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, if you can get exact figures and source them then that would be good.Yuber(talk) 00:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yuber is being a POV pusher again: he removed the LINK TO THE ARTICLE with that information in his earlier edit.KaintheScion
Factual corrections
Yuber, I have made the following factual corrections:
1 - The Saudi religious police have the authority to enforce certain punishments without court order, and to ban "un-Islamic" consumer products (music, videos, barbie dolls, etc) from being sold in the Kingdom.
2 - Mutaween or similar groups exist in Iran, existed in Talibanic Afghanistan, and exist in various African nations where Shari'a is enforced. Your assertion that they only exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia is flat-out wrong.
3 - Fixed your formatting on the deaths of the 15 girls(references go in the reference links, please!).
4 - Re-added the fact that the Mutaween are the focus of many human rights reports on religious persecution: this is A FACT.
5 - Added mention (and included link in References section) that they recently opened a website for people to anonymously report "un-Islamic" activity.
- They do not have greater power than secular police, so I removed that part. They only exist in Iran, they don't exist in Afghanistan anymore, so I removed that part. If you think that religious police exist in african countries please source that. Other than that it is fine.Yuber(talk) 00:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Then make edits instead of being a POV-pushing Revert Monkey.KaintheScion
- I did make the edits, it's a NPOV section now. Read it over again and tell me what problems you have with it. I included almost everything you put in except the non-factual parts about the mutaween existing in most muslim nations and that they have more power than secular police.Yuber(talk) 01:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Religious Police exist in just about every Muslim nation, whether part of the national government or on the level of local police. Further, they enforce a larger body of law than do normal police, and have the authority to enforce punishment on the spot.
- As far as Africa, you might want to look to Egypt (where they have an authority set up with the power to ban "un-Islamic" products and enforce religious oppression on Christian churches), and to the Sudan, and to Nigeria1 (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aminalawal.htm)
. Now stop being a POV-pushing revert monkey. KaintheScion
- You've called me a monkey about 10 times, I don't see the humor in it. Just about every Muslim nation? Please source this claim. I don't see any religious police harassing people such as tourists in Egypt. As for the genocide in the Sudan, it is Muslims killing Muslims. Perhaps you would like to give your expertise on that article, I'm sure it is much needed.Yuber(talk) 01:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Where does the Anglo-centric assumption that Saudi Arabia has "secular police" come from? Nobs 01:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know, but KaintheScion seems to want to label them as secular police. They should be differentiated, as the mutaween doesn't literally mean police in Arabic.Yuber(talk) 01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, stop being a revert monkey and stop pushing the blatant lie that religious police are only to be found in Iran. I am including in my next edit a link to one of the exploits of Egypt's religious police as well. ALSO, stop murdering my formatting, there is no reason for you to try to stuff everything into one unreadable paragraph. No other section of the article is formatted the way you are trying to format things. KaintheScion
This article isn't about Egypt, and besides, there ARE no mutaween in Egypt. Here is the source [[2] (http://www.syz.com/rasc/venustransit2004.htm)], control+f mutaween.Yuber(talk) 01:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Link right here, Yuber: Egypt authorizes force to police 'unuthorized' Islamic tracts (http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_egypt_06_13.html). Yes, they have more limited range (thankfully) than the Saudi Mutaween, no doubt due to Egypt's own issues in policing groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. KaintheScion
- You need to work on your reading comprehension. It clearly states in that article that "Egypt has bolstered the authority of state-employed Islamic clerics in what could be a prelude to the formation of a religious police force." Therefore, there is no religious police force, but merely a law that may be a prelude. Nice try though.Yuber(talk) 01:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thus the NPOV words "VARIOUS FORMS" in the article, POV pusher. Iran, it is true, is the only other nation to call theirs "Mutaween". Not even the Taliban called their religious police Mutaween, but you at least admit they HAD them. Egypt enforces it as a special division of state-employed clerics. Yemen uses theirs to enforce the state's version of Islam as well. Now stop trying to insert factual inaccuracies into the article! KaintheScion
- Kain, please calm down and review the section. It is NPOV now and you have contributed much to it. Egypt does not have religious police, stop lying. Ask anyone who has been to Egypt if they are supposed to cover up or are restricted from socializing or even showing public affection.Yuber(talk) 01:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- The power to make seizures is a police power. The clerics definitely are in the employ of the state. As the article says "supervise and seize", i.e. investigate and make seizures, to use Western idoims. Nobs 02:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Stop stripping out factual information Yuber, and stop introducing lies. The concept of religious police and police forces dedicated to religious enforcement is NOT unique to Saudi and Iran and you damned well know it. KaintheScion
- Yuber, if you keep trying to insert that Iran is the "only" Muslim nation which employs police forces as religious enforcement, I'm going to have to keep pointing out that you're lying. It's been proven to you, not just by me, but by Nobs as well. Repeatedly pushing factual inaccuracies into an article is vandalism and you KNOW that. What is amazing to me is that you ignore this and keep on trying to POV push anyways.
- The only reason I put in the stuff about Egypt is that YOU kept whining about adding qualifiers, wanting sources, and kept reverting the wording. But since YOU won't accept "and in varying forms in other Muslim nations" as being sufficiently non-POV, we have to get specific.KaintheScion
I would tend to agree the information about the mutaween in Iran, Eygpt, etc, while interesting, is extraneous to Saudi Arabia. That information simply needs to be inserted into a mutaween page. Nobs 02:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yuber, whether the WORD Mutaween is used or not is immaterial. The concept of a division of police - whether folded into the normal police forces or their own separate entity - dedicated to the enforcement of religious law IS in place in Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What about the phrase "in varying forms" are you having trouble understanding? KaintheScion
- Once again, provide proof. There are no mutaween in Egypt, all you have shown is that there are Islamic clerics that were given more power over a year ago (that article is out of date). I am sure that with up to date sources that would be proven wrong as well. In Sudan there is a genocide going on, where are the Mutaween there? As for Nigeria, provide proof, I see nothing of your claims on the Nigeria wiki article.Yuber(talk) 02:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Right here, POV pusher (http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/Nigeria/next%20hotbed%20of%20radicalism.htm).
- Also Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/marshall200402030858.asp).
- Zamfara state maintains an "Islamic Unit" similar to Saudi Arabia's "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice," otherwise known as the Muttawa religious police. One of its officials, Alhaji Bello Kuceri, defended their practice of raiding Christian quarters to enforce "Islamic" standards on the grounds that "we are paid to do so, and anybody caught will face the wrath of the law."
- Get it YET, Yuber?KaintheScion
- As for the word mutaween, is it of Arab or Persian origin, seeing supposedly it exists in both Iran and the Arabian Penninsula. A mutaween page could be started, with the idea of explaining it as a "religious police" or "clerical police", begining with the Saudi Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, than listing all other quasi-governmental-clerical bureaus in other Islamic states entrusted with enforcing al Sharia Nobs 03:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the etymology of the word has much to do with it; the idea of religious police is pretty common on one level or another in almost all Islamic countries. It takes various forms depending on what the government decides to do, naturally; the more religious-theocratic the government, the more likely it'll be a full branch of the police or even its own group. Take its incarnation in Saudi Arabia and compare it to the village enforcement groups found in northern Pakistani villages, for instance. Or the versions in Egypt and Yemen, which have (at least at this point) more to do about making sure that the only version of Islam practiced is the state-sponsored one. Overall, the fact remains that MANY Islamic nations have religious police of some form or another, and leaving out the fact that it is NOT an institution unique to Saudi Arabia is inaccurate, as is claiming that it "only" exists in Saudi Arabia and Iran. KaintheScion
- As for the word mutaween, is it of Arab or Persian origin, seeing supposedly it exists in both Iran and the Arabian Penninsula. A mutaween page could be started, with the idea of explaining it as a "religious police" or "clerical police", begining with the Saudi Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, than listing all other quasi-governmental-clerical bureaus in other Islamic states entrusted with enforcing al Sharia Nobs 03:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- You have YET to explain what about the phrase "and in varying forms in other Muslim countries" you find objectionable, POV pusher. KaintheScion.
There I began the mutaween article; now I need help with it. Thx. Nobs 03:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Since there is now an artice on the Mutaween (thanks Nobs), the material about religious police in other countries can be removed, are there ay objections to the following appearing in this article:
- An institution found in Saudi Arabia is the mutaween, or religious police. The Saudi Mutaween also go by the name of Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
- Their duties consist of enforcing religious doctrine (Muslim Shari'a law as defined by the Saudi government) and rooting out "Un-Islamic" activities. They have the power to arrest any unrelated males and females caught socializing. They also have the power to ban consumer products and media as "un-Islamic", such as the Barbie line of dolls and various Western musical groups and television shows. The Mutaween of Saudi Arabia recently launched a website where people can anonymously file tips about "un-Islamic" activities in Saudi Arabia.
- An incident attributed to the mutaween occurred when they prevented girls from escaping a burning building because they did not have proper headgear on. Fifteen girls died as a result. There was widespread public criticism and the Saudi government condemned the Mutaween for their actions. The Mutaween have also been the focus of many human rights reports on religious persecution in Saudi Arabia.
I will change the text and unprotect if this text can be agreed upon. --nixie 04:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'll agree now that the mutaween article exists.KaintheScion
- Text looks good except for a question whether they enforce Sharia law as defined by the "Saudi government" or the Koran (assuming the Saudi gov't claims its interpreation is Koranic). Also I'd like to perhaps include minor details of the fire incident, "prevented schoolsgirls from escaping from a burning dormitory". Thx. Nobs 05:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- The article about the fire is listed in the reference section for further information, as for your other point, I really can't comment on the technicalities. I'll make the edits I suggeted (just removeing the detail now in the new article) and unprotect the article--nixie 05:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
3RR rule
That's FOUR for you today already, Yuber. I'm assuming good faith and not going to report you on it yet. Knock it off. KaintheScion
- You have 5 or more reverts. My last edit was not a revert, I simply put what you did into paragraph form and removed a redundant sentence. Like I said, your edit was pretty NPOV.Yuber(talk) 01:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, Revert Monkey, I have precisely three Reverts and two Edits today. Though it's about to be THREE EDITS because you insist on trying to bastardize it all into one paragraph, despite the fact that no other portion of the article has been given that treatment.KaintheScion
- I have no idea whether English is your first language or not, but a sentence should never be shoehorned into the end of a paragraph if it does not fit the paragraph's topic. Just something to keep in mind.
Protected
I've protected this page following Kain's latest report of vandalism, and because one or both of you is going to end up being blocked for 3RR. Kain, Yuber's edits are not vandalism, any more than yours are. I can't honestly see the big difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&diff=13592937&oldid=13556574) between your versions. I'm going to leave it protected for a day or so, so please sort out your differences here in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I also don't see a huge difference between the two versions. But I do think that User:KaintheScion's actions - specifically, false reports of "vandalism" and repeated namecalling - are unacceptable and must stop. Firebug 04:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yuber is trying to alter a section that was agreed upon by group consensus after an earlier revert war that he started (see last version by Admin user Petaholmes here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&oldid=13462458) right before he unlocked the article). This is operating in bad faith and counts as vandalism. KaintheScion
- I don't seen evidence of group consensus. It should be possible to resolve this dispute by both of you citing authoritative sources for your edits. Kain, someone inserting material you disagree with doesn't make it vandalism. He just disagrees with you, that's all. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think that there's value in giving the names of the countries that have a mutaween, as Yuber has it, rather than saying in some other Muslim nations, which is rather open-ended. If we can source other places, then they can be added. I think that's quite fair. Grace Note 06:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see why any other country has to be mentioned, if it's causing a dispute. This is about SA. Why not say they have religious police and leave it at that? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- As KaintheScion has been temporarily blocked, I've unprotected the page, but Yuber, please don't take advantage. And note that Kain is likely to be back. Try to provide a reference if you're going to make an edit you think someone will dispute. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Grace Note sees it my way. I was the one who originally added the mutaween section!!!! Then Kain came here and changed it to found in MOST muslim nations. I told him that's totally false and he got into an edit war with me. I told him only Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi have religious police and he still wouldn't believe me.Yuber(talk) 21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yuber, just make sure you source whatever you add. If you want to say only these countries have religious police, try to find an article that backs you up. Also, another of the disputes was whether to use the word dormitory or building regarding the 15 girls who died when the religious police wouldn't let them leaving their burning school because they weren't wearing headscarves and abayas. School would be more accurate than dormitory or building. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Mutaween in Malls in Saudi Arabia (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/webspecials02/saudiarabia/day4/story2.shtml)--Sheikhu 06:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Trafficking in Persons Report 2005"
NPOV would consist of well-referenced information that trafficking in persons is not permitted in Saudi Arabia, that those who engage in trafficking are prosecuted, that victims of trafficking are protected, and that concrete and effective steps are being taken to prevent trafficking. Fred Bauder 15:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) See Human trafficking in Saudi Arabia Fred Bauder 15:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Asking Yuber to back up his edits is a lost cause, Fred.Enviroknot 02:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BBC Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm)--Sheikhu 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)