Talk:House of Saud

message: Last true monarchy:  This claim was removed because the King of Saudi Arabia is joined by the Sultans of Oman and Brunei, the Kings of Tonga, Swaziland, Morocco, and Bahrain, and the Emir of Qatar, as monarchs with not necessarily absolute, but very real governmental power. Shimmin 22:39, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Why don't the Sauds from Saudi Arabia have bullets before their names? -gren
The link at the bottom of the page is blatantly prejudiced. While that is not necessarily grounds for removal, the fact that it is obvious propaganda may be; there is no factual basis for these claims. Also, this article needs to be expanded quite a bit. I'm sure there is plenty of common information on the House of Saud to be found. --Kaelus 11:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sons of Abd al-Aziz are from the Abd al-Aziz line of the family, and are the only members allowed to serve as King or Crown Prince. As this generation will not last forever, a future King will eventually have to decree a new generation to eventually replace the Abd al-Aziz line and thus provide new heirs to the throne. Members of this line are referred to with the style "His Royal Majesty" or "His Royal Highness."
So is this a "line" or a "generation". I guess that the terms "line" and "generation" here are refering to patrilineality, ie, everything is inherited from the male line. After all, it's not inconceivable that everyone in the Saud family is eventually part of the line or that this line never runs out of members. How will we know a future King will need to decree a new line?
It should be rephrased as a possibility or perhaps even ignored. I recommend the latter since this sort of transition is likely to be chaotic and unpredictable just like dynasty changes have historically been. That's even assuming that the King in question properly plans for a new line to replace him. KarlHallowell 04:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously, your first guess is the correct one, not the second one. "Line" just needs to be replaced by "generation" in this paragraph. СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: older commments

message: I don't see a link to the Arabic Wikipedia for this. Is there an equivalent article there? Can somebody please link to it? - 07 November 2005
:No, the Arabic encyclopedia is missing a lot, no, I mean a LOT of articles. As far as I know, there is no equivalent article. -- Eagleamn 03:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we link this to Arabic Wikipedia?

message: I believe this section is relevant to the article and seems placed in an appropriate section (or perhaps as a subsection of a new "Criticisms of the House of Saud" section). Some work needs to be done to make it NPOV, but I strongly disapprove of its outright removal. -- KarlHallowell 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No mention of "Bandar Bush"?  Agreed.  There are many interesting facts and facets that would lend nuance and historicity to this article. 50.54.225.180 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Corruption section 

message: There is no reason for these two links to be included on this page. Nevermind the fact that the links are in the wrong section, but the content of the two pages - yes, I've read them - appear to have a strong biased slant. I am quite certain they do not belong here and am equally tempted to remove them but am waiting for someone else to agree less I do something disagreeable. Thoughts?Ultatri 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. It appears that 71.231.234.227, the user who created the links has had a bit of a problem with inappropriate edits to a page (see here). And as the links do not contribute anything but bias and misinformation, I've went ahead and deleted them. To find the addresss for the external links in question as to judge for yourselves, if anyone feels inclined, visit edit history page  and . Feel free to revert my deletes but I'm pretty sure the links do not belong. Ultatri 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also Section: Links to House of Saudi protected and Saudi Air Force Paper Tiger 

message: :Image:Saudi-logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Saudi-logo.jpg

message: Just to be clear - the House of Saud is not descended from the prophet Muhummad or from his tribe, the Banu Quraish, correct? Just curious. --Brasswatchman 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No , they belong to "Banu Wa'el" from Nejd. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ammar is correct.  I'll try to add a section on their origins and their early history soon. -- Slacker 05:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be great. I look forward to reading it. Thank you both for the info. --Brasswatchman 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification: House of Saud descended from Muhummad? 

message: In 1994, Osama bin Laden accused "the Crown Sultan" of supporting Yemen's r123evolt with the approval of Fahd. Is that a reference to Abdullah, or another? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UBL

message: Why isn't there any mention of them in this article? What is known about them? Or was it there at some point and someone deleted it? --Dministrator (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the last line under the "Succession" section and the seventh line under the "Wealth" section.  They're mostly active in business enterprises and don't hold any official government positions as far as I know. -- Slacker (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queens and Princesses of the al Saud Family? 

message: :this section needs references and assigning  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.69.20 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   the "Wealth" section 

message: genealogy of the kings of Saudi connection to the prophet Muhammad, but there are also said to connect to the son of Ibrahim, son of Moshe Mordakhai the Jews, perhaps there that can display up to genealogical descendants of this lineage saud longer and more complete?  
arif jogja-jambi INA talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.175.141 (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All this is through female lines. What is the point? All of us have such connections... СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  a more complete family tree 

message: Obviously the Al Saud family tree is extensive and complicated. I just wondered where this individual, who has been in the UK press extensively recently, fits into the picture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11492867
Is he at all from a notable part of the family tree, or is he just one of the thousands of princes? KeithWhittle (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Deletion is entirely justifiable. Because this person is not a grandson of King Abdullah, but of late King Saud on his maternal side. His mother's name is Fayiza bint Saud bin Abd al Aziz Al Saud. His father Abdulaziz is a son of Nasser, one of King Abdulaziz's offsprings. Related web page is http://www.datarabia.com/royals/famtree.do?id=176480. Egeymi (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Nasir al Saud

message: Random Arabic question, S is a sun letter, so why isn't it As Saud rather than Al Saud? --AW (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --AW (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here Al (ال) doesn't mean "The" at all. But, it means "The family of ...." (آل). So Al Saud means: "The family of Saud".  Where in your case, "As Saud" means "The Saud", which is totally wrong!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.148.232 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it Al Saud and not As Saud? 

message: "By the time Saud died in 1814, his son and successor Abdullah had to contend with an Ottoman-Egyptian invasion seeking to retake lost Ottoman territory and destroy the call to return to pure Islam."
What is "pure islam"? Isn't this wording a POV? Ottomans thought their version was pure Islam, while House of Saud thought their version was pure. This part should be rewritten. Khutuck (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure Islam? 

message: In studying the histories of TE Lawrence, Faisal and Auda, I find little references to the house of Saud and its role in the revolt, even though the Arab revolt started on the west coast of the Peninsula (with help of the British fleet in the Red Sea) and headed across the peninsula to Akaba and to the North-East, ending in Damascus. The House of Saud must have been influential at that time but there is only a sporadic mention of them in the Internet sources on the Arab Revolt.
In the Wikipedia article about Al Saud I find little reference to Lawrence and Faisal and the Arab Revolt. 
What were the relations between Faisal and Al Saud? What was their role in the revolt?
Is there a source about it on the Internet or is it a good suggestion for further research?
GeoKem  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoKem (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Saud and the Arab revolt against the Ottomans 

message: I edited to clarify the three phases bit in the lead, originally appearing as follows
:The House of Saud has gone through three phases: the First Saudi State (1744–1818), marked by the expansion of Wahhabism, the Emirate of Nejd, the Second Saudi State (1824-1891), marked with continuous infighting, which wields considerable influence in the Middle East.
I assumed that the Second Saudi State does not wield considerable influence anywhere in the present if its timespan was 1824-1891 so I left that part in after the modern Kingdom, as it seems to be an accurate description of the modern Kingdom.
I feel obliged to say my edits should still be reviewed by an expert, but then again, so should the entirety of Wikipedia. Mattman00000 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the "three phases" in the lead 

message: This is basically not standardized for common use. Nevertheless it should be consistent for one document.
Re: History/ Origins and early history/ p'graphs 2 & 3, Migrin or Muqrin? Either would really do but then a moderator would demand "Reliable Sources".SBader (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling and transliteration of names. 

message: Your Ministry, I have no idea how to say America can use all the help you have. I was in America Navy help train. I visit your country, butiful in all aspects. I just a little man in Navy, but your country people if u will where so if I can say great full at all times to me. I only wish that big shot people would some time learn a lesson. By the way thank you for my Meadel in gold u gave me. PS: Your Land is Most Butiful. Hope Mr. Russian doesn't take your land some day? 184.81.118.146 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Praetorius 

message: "Although other members of the Al Saudis hold political positions in the Saudi government, it is only the king and crown prince who legally constitute the political institutions"
This does not seem correct - the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia makes no mention of the crown prince and seem to give all formal power to the King. --PolyCreator (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal power of Crown Prince