Talk:Abdullah of Saudi Arabia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Current event?

It's been a week since his coronation. I think that it no longer warrants as a current event.--ttogreh 05:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Since I have not gotten a comment in a couple of days, I would assume that this page has fallen off the radr. I am pulling the current event tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttogreh (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

His royal majesty

royal title re-added. I personally am not too fond of HRM King Abdullah as a person, but his royal title should be stated, just as it is stated that elton john is a knight. --Ccosta 00:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Life and policies

He's heir to the throne of an important nation. Can we find some information about his life and policies, at least basics like date of birth? Vicki Rosenzweig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicki Rosenzweig (talkcontribs) 13:40, 11 September 2002 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia was an extremely poor nation back then so I seriously doubt there is a date available for CP Abdullah or any other Prince/Sheikh that was born around the 1920's. Even the year 1924 is conjecture. This is also why some of the senior members of the ruling families of the Middle East have no or little knowledge of English unlike the younger princes because their education is based on the Holy Quran and largely on the experience they acquired by following their fathers and brothers on various missions both back home and abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:40, 28 December 2004 (UTC)

  • In fact, Saudi Arabia wasn't a nation at all in the 1920s. Saudi Arabia was formed on September 23, 1932. And the Saudi house did not wield any appreciable amount of wealth or power until 1939, when they began exploiting their oil. Before 1932, Ibn Saud was just the Emir of Najd and Hasa.

King Abdullah was born in 1924. He is 84 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have fixed the year of my birth. HotMushroom 15:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OPEN LETTER OF THE KING ABDULLAH AL SAOUD — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter

OPEN LETTER OF THE KING ABDULLAH AL SAOUD — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

King Abdullah?

Is he king now? Alphaboi867 07:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Reuters. yes. [1] -- The Anome 09:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions for monarchs, I believe the artice should be "Abdullah of Saudi Arabia", similarly with his predecessor King Fahd. PatGallacher 10:23, 2005 August 1 (UTC) In Parade magazines annual list of the world's ten worst dictators, King Abdullah was ranked number seven behind China's Hu Jintao and ahead of Cuba's Fidel Castro. This is what Parade said about King Abdullah, "Although Abdullah did not become king until 2005, he has ruled Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, Fahd, suffered a stroke 10 years earlier. In Saudi Arabia, phone calls are recorded and mobile phones with cameras are banned. It is illegal for public employees “to engage in dialogue with local and foreign media.” By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. According to Amnesty International, police in Saudi Arabia routinely use torture to extract “confessions.” Saudi women may not appear in public with a man who isn’t a relative, must cover their bodies and faces in public and may not drive. The strict suppression of women is not voluntary, and Saudi women who would like to live a freer life are not allowed to do so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks?

The article states that "Since 2003-05-12, Saudi Arabia has faced several serious terrorist attacks. King Abdullah vowed to crack down on the insurgency and to fight terrorist ideologies within the country."

Does anyone have any more specifics on these attacks and/or insurgency (who perpetrated them and why, what are the specifics of how he "cracked down", etc.) I looked in the Saudi Arabia article but the only thing mentioned was that they were against workers and happened in 2003 and 2004. Is this an anti-monarchy movement? A source would be nice as well. CSharpMinor 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE. Somewhat answered my own question. I had missed the link to Insurgency in Saudi Arabia. I updated the article with some of this information. Additions / modifications would still be welcome, of course. We're still pretty lacking in citations too. --CSharpMinor 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moderate lifestyle?

The article says that he has a moderate lifestyle. Yet Abdullah has over 30 children which is more than Fahd. He may be a decent man bt to say that is lifestyle is moderate is stretching things a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. There's nothing specific nor sourced - I don't see any value in this section so I'm just going to go ahead and delete it wholesale. 09:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Arnaud de Borchgrave must have had a bad day...

This story (referenced in the article) by Borchgrave is simply not reliable. Borchgrave refers to the mother of the Sudairi Seven as "Al-Fadha bint Asi al-Shuraim", this is clearly wrong, Al-Fadha was a Rashidi, Ibn Sauds wife nr 8, and the mother of King Abdullah.

The mother of the Sudairi Seven was Hassa bint Ahmad al-Sudairi (Ibn Sauds wife nr 6).

I am therefore removing the ref. to beeing "his favorite wife". Regards, Huldra 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Abu Mutib

King Abdullah's eldest living son is Khalid, not Mutib. The king is known as "Abu Mutib" because he had another son by that name who died as a child. The living Mutib was named after him after his death of course. I cannot give you a source, but I know this for a fact, and therefore I changed the order of his sons. Najdazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najdazy (talkcontribs) 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


This is not way to refer to living, breathing human beings. They are not animals, they have dignity and deserve respect as the 'children' of Abdullah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I removed the following uncited weasel words "He is viewed as a liberal and progressive ruler in a strongly Islamic country." I couldn't find any reliable sources for this. Indeed I replaced it with a quote from this mornings independent on the position of women in the country which does not make him sound particularly "liberal" or "progressive". 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I guess my log in session had expired! Thehalfone 12:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • User removed the part of the quote about "uniformed thugs", which I think is fair enough. I have inserted an ellipsis to indicate that part of the quote is missing and corrected the grammar. Thehalfone 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Music played when visiting Queen Elisabeth II

I was watching the 7 pm Channel 4 news (UK) today (30 Oct 07). As Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah arrived at Buckingham Palace, the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards played The Imperial March (Darth Vader's Theme). I speculate that this was an in-joke, King Abdullah of Jordan is an avid Star Trek fan. Todays Channel 4 News, including that video clip, can be viewed again online tomorrow.[2] --Diamonddavej 19:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

image for king abdullah

i think you should put tjhis image for king abdullah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl0o0m (talkcontribs) 13:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, as criticism of Saudi Arabia mounted, Abdullah said "The vicious campaign being waged against the kingdom in the Western media is nothing but the manifestation of a deep-rooted hatred directed against the course of Islam. Commitment to Islam and the homeland is not up for debate." [3]

Could someone explain what this quote means and how it's relevant to terrorism?

  • Was the Crown Prince coming out for or against the terrorist attack of 9/11?
  • Is there a context which links criticism of Saudi Arabia with support of terrorism AND was Abdullah implying that terrorism is good by dismissing or rejecting this criticism?

This quote raises more questions than it answers. In fact, it doesn't answer anything at all that I can see. As such, it's unsuitable for the beginning of a section on such a hot-button topic as terrorism. Uncle Ed 14:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Abdullah is not a proponent of terror. If anything -- though surely in these times anything we "know" mustn't be taken as fact -- he has been a positive influence, both on the Middle East and on the Islamic faith. His place in the Israeli conflict has been that of a compromiser, something otherwise sorely lacking. He turned against the Taliban every bit as quickly as the US did after 9-11. But for all that, he is still a Saud, which means he is rich and political, has a lot of people around him (some sane, others not) to make happy and has an awful lot to lose. I imagine that, despite the money and the cars and the influence, being in charge of a heap of conflict as large as Saudi Arabia is not an enviable position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I'm going to quote the news article a bit more fully here:

  1. One indication of his toughness came in reaction to recent US press reports critical of Saudi cooperation in the investigation of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in New York and Washington. Many of the hijackers were Saudi citizens, a fact the Saudi government is reluctant to acknowledge.
  2. "The vicious campaign being waged against the kingdom in the Western media is nothing but the manifestation of a deep-rooted hatred directed against the course of Islam," Abdullah said. "Commitment to Islam and the homeland is not up for debate."

I think this provides a bit more context, but I'm still not sure how (or even whether) this expresses his attitude towards terrorism. It seems much more about his defense of his country's reputation than anything else. Uncle Ed 15:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Has he ever made any statement on waterboarding?

[4] Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 15:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Names of wives

I know that he had 4 wives in 2006[5] and has had over 30 in the course of his life.[6]

However, I am unable to find a source for the names of even one of his wives.-- 04:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Double standard on sex life

If any other head of state had 4 wives simultaneously, then there would be an article for each wife or some mention in the main article. Here there isn't any mention of Abdallah bin Abdul-Aziz's wives. What I added was taken out and dubbed "vandalism".-- 04:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This fact has been proved by the [UN.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyoyo9 (talkcontribs) 02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Interfaith Dialogue

The last paragraph in the Interfaith Dialogue section makes no sense and has very strange punctuation. It would be great if someone could fix it. If not, it should probably just be deleted. Tad Lincoln (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed Bagbesh (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

I believe the link on the embassy website is broken. I am also unsure as to why there is a link to an equestrian club on there. Surely there must be more in-depth biographies of a head of state on news sites. MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


I changed the link from "insurgency". It had pointed to "terrorism in Saudi Arabia". That is clearly POV. Rebellions and terrorism are clearly different things. Thehalfone (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be accurate to say, however, that the rebellious movements currently in Saudi Arabia resort to terror tactics? The oil facility bombings come to mind. MezzoMezzo (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"relationship with the US"

I renamed that section, as it was nothing but a list of meetings with the US presidents. I'm not sure that list needs to be on this page at all, but I'll let it live for now. Jalwikip (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Governance and foreign policy

What is the meaning of this odd statement:

Abdullah also serves as Prime Minister and Commander of the Saudi National Guard.

In a constitutional monarchy, the prime minister is the 'first minister' of the monarch, i.e., he is _nominally_ appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the king. Likewise in a parliamentary democracy, where the prime minister is appointed by the head of state. But Abdullah _is_ the monarch / head of state. How does he 'serve' as first minister to himself?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryLarsen (talkcontribs) 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Abdullah is both head of state, and head of government. Same as President Obama Manormadman (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The section on Governance and foreign policy says,

He liberally funds Islamic education around the globe which, apart from spreading Islam, has helped remove misconceptions about the faith... A liberal and progressive ruler, he continued most of the reform policies that he initiated as Crown Prince.

I think the function of Saudi-funded madrassas is at least open to dispute, and I'm not sure how one can flatly describe him as a "liberal and progressive ruler". (Do "liberal and progressive rulers" usually enforce a death penalty for religious apostacy?) Regardless, this doesn't seem to conform to NPOV to me. -- Narsil 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Is establishing libraries philanthropy, or is it something else?

ttogreh 21:96, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The article on Andrew Carnegie seems to treat it as such. siafu 00:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the labelling of and absolute monarch as a philanthropist. The section on the twins can stay but I find it wrong to put philanthropy in the see also box, so I'm going to delete it. --Horses In The Sky 15:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that apropriate either, especially considering the lack of detail. One could write a whole article on the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie, or even Kim Jong-il for that matter(if opening a library makes one a philanthropist.) All that is listed is a standard action of a statesman and a single generous act.
I'm also concerned about the statement
"He liberally funds Islamic education around the globe which, apart from spreading Islam, has helped remove misconceptions about the faith."
Several issues I have;
1) using "liberally" to describe the funding of schools teaching relatively conservative material, even by islamic standards, might be somewhat misleading. (although technically correct)
2) much of this Islamic education is in areas already considered "Islamic." Many of this education is simply educating non-saudi muslims on Wahabism
3) How has this removed misconceptions? I would think the average muslim would be the first to point out there are more misconceptions about Islam than ever before, mainly based on recent events (read as terrorism) and western ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4) Those might even be minor details of how misleading the statement in question could be when compared to the following which casts light on the content of the "education"....
October 30, 2007, an article by the Guardian:
"The controversial state visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia prompted new criticism today over his regime's alleged role in distributing hate literature in British mosques. The Policy Exchange thinktank found extremist literature in a quarter of the 100 mosques and Islamic institutions it visited, including London Central Mosque in Regent's Park, which is funded by Saudi Arabia. Some of the literature advocated violent jihad, murdering gay people and stoning adulterers, its researchers found."
Indeed, he "liberally funds Islamic education around the globe". --Euanthes 13:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree to all of the above - why is the passage still in this article? --Astat (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with the United States

According to this section, he last visited the US in 2000, but in the same section there is a picture of him with George W. Bush in Crawford. What gives? Primium mobile (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is good to talk good about the royal family especially King Abdullah because of his generosity and peace initiaties whoch the world is need of. How eer,the Goernment of saudi Arabia should open a web site or an eami of the king,so that the people can adise him or interact with him or request for help or request for assistance. The uniformed personals of saudi arabia are damaging the image of saudi arabia as wel as the image of royal family.The approach of the uniformed personals of suaid arabia is inhumane ,mannerless and cowardice,this will directly reflect on the image of AL saud family. how to bring such things to the knowledgte of the king in the absence of any contact of the king or his office? Hope the king's office take this write up of mine seriously and post the email of the king on the website of saudi Goernment. I would like to remind the king about my request to his predecessor. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Trial of gay Saudi prince for murder

BBC announced that gay prince of Saudi is being tried for murder! I think the article should mention something about that! ttp:// —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone regarding Crown Prince section

I've added an inappropriate tone tag for the "Crown Prince" section.

It's written in a fairly poor form, with little context. This is also in violation of the Wikipedia policy for biographies. If this section is not improved, it will be removed. Beetle B. (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is unbelievably awful. The article simply doesn't contain a summary of Abdullah's life. At all. If it isn't the worst article on a G20 leader, it's got to be close (Naoto Kan has only been around for a few months, and his article is far, far superior to this one). What a complete embarrassment. john k (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

His Royal Highness

King Abdullah frowns upon using this term to describe him, and is known to punish his retainers who continued to use this term even after he issued a royal decree never to use this term again, only to use the "custodian of the two holy mosques" to describe him. It is now illegal in Saudi Arabia to use the term HRM to describe the King officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Source? --Horses In The Sky 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (at least that he is called that) Arlen22 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia

Shouldn't we mention in the opening paragraph, the King also holds the position of prime minister? GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Which is the Royal Residence? (King' s residence or palace?). In which neighbourhood, street or square? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image Consensus?

There seems to be two good images we can use for the info-box of this article. I don't know why people insist on changing it, they both seem fine to me. Could we get a consensus on which one is better for the article?

Both are in the public domain, both are cropped from larger photos.

"Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.jpg" was taken in 2002. "King Abdullah bin Abdul al-Saud Jan2007.jpg" was taken in 2007 and so is a more recent image.

I prefer "Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.jpg", the other one seems too awkwardly focused in on just his face.

-AlexTG (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and George W. Bush.jpg
I prefer the second, because it is more recent.
If we're going to stick to the first, I think the caption needs amending, to state that it was taken in 2002.
If we did use the second in the infobox, perhaps the other could be used elsewhere. A further option would be to use the uncropped version (shown here, File:Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and George W. Bush.jpg), if we could add some cited fact about that meeting - presumably within the "Crown Prince" section.  Chzz  ►  15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is he really 86 years old?

Is King Abdullah really 86 years old? He looks much younger in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlen2 (talkcontribs) 02:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That picture was taken in 2002; there is a discussion, above, regarding the best way to clarify that.
The article states hist date of birth is (1924-08-01) August 1, 1924 (age 93) - but there is (currently) no reference, so I tagged it as [citation needed].  Chzz  ►  15:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article was flagged for copyright investigation on February 26th, but the section was not blanked and contributors were not notified. I have blanked the section accordingly, as investigation reveals that it does duplicate content from that source. For instance, this material at insertion:

Some princes were said to prefer Sultan, Fahd’s oldest full brother, who had served as minister of defense and aviation since 1962, as next in line, instead of Abdullah. Fahd himself was believed to prefer Sultan as well and was backed by his other full brothers, known as the al-Fahd or the “Sudairi Seven” after the tribe of their mother. Together they were the largest single group of full brothers among the sons of Ibn Saud and often appeared to act as a group; Ibn Saud’s other wives had produced only three, two, or a single son, as was the case with Abdullah.

The source says, at page 6:

Some princes were said to prefer Sultan, Fahd’s oldest full brother, who had served as minister of defense and aviation since 1962, as next in line, instead of Abdullah. Fahd himself was believed to prefer Sultan as well and was backed by his other full brothers, known as the al-Fahd or the “Sudairi Seven” after the tribe of their mother. Together they were the largest single group of full brothers among the sons of Ibn Saud and often appeared to act as a group; Ibn Saud’s other wives had produced only three, two, or a single son, as was the case with Abdullah.

Other content, too, is copied from that source. In order to use this material, we would need to verify compatible license; it is current published under these terms:

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2009 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

The copied section has been removed, the template placed to notify contributors how to proceed if they are able to verify permission or where to go if they would like to rewrite it. I will run the article through a mechanical detector to see if other instances of copyright concerns are found. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All copyright violations mentioned above have been corrected. Please check the article for other violations and point them out. I will correct it asap. Thank you for your help in improving Wikipedia.(Mni9791 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Horribly one-sided bio of an autocratic dictator

Where is the criticism section? How can we talk about his 'philanothropy' without talking about the people publicly mutilated and executed under his rule? Other national leaders are not spared criticism in Wikipedia, why this man? I am going to put together a basic criticism section, using some of the British press reaction to his recent visit to the UK as a starting point. I'm sure there will be plenty more to draw on after that. Damburger 18:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is still a one sided article someone is favoring him and trying to make him look good in fact I have done research to add and he is actually close to being a despot (he's a dictator) someone is trying to make him look better than he really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yroubros (talkcontribs) 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you perhaps considered that he might be a good person? -- Zyido (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too one-sided. I added to the criticism section a little and reinstated the NPOV tag. I'd like to be able to remove the tag soon once the article has been improved.Rppeabody (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Faulty Missoruced Statement

Abdullah's regime came under heavy international criticism for its handling of the Arab Spring protests, resulting in a chilling of relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States.[1] During many of the demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, government forces arrested large numbers of the protesters.[2] Additionally, the Saudi government sent troops to Bahrain to forcibly suppress a peaceful protest.[3]

"heavy international criticism" — Source only mentions U.S. criticism of Saudi intervention in Bahrain. Not only that but "The US, which counts both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia among its allies, has called for restraint, but has refrained from saying whether it supports the move to deploy troops." — Al Jazeera English source. So there is a definite lack of specificity here.
"a chilling of relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States" — copyright violation
"During many of the demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, government forces arrested large numbers of the protesters." — — "government forces arrested large numbers of the protesters." - 'forces' is a weasel word. 'large numbers' is ambiguous and weasel word. the government arrested 100 Shiite protestors. sentence has an intentional lack of specificity
"forcibly suppress a peaceful protest" — bias, Al Jazeera clearly mentions there was not a visible presence of Saudi troops on the streets. Saudi troops did not come for riot enforcement or street fighting. Source states "Saudi-led troops entered Bahrain on Monday to help protect government facilities". No mention of GCC endorsement of Saudi-led intervention.

All of this is especially important because this is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. (Mni9791 (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

Need to update "Succession" section

Now that Sultan has died, I imagine Nayef would be first in line. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister

I thought the King is remaining Prime Minister & that he appointed crown prince Nayef as First Deputy Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

His "true" age

I just noticed an anon's edit has been reverted citing the source's questionable reliability. However we are already using some of the leaked cables as sources in the Guantanamo Bay section. I suppose the "true" age mentioned in the recently released cable could be mentioned somewhere (although perhaps not in the lead)? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern with the cable is that the author him/herself did not confirm if the information was correct ("He is in fact older if this information is correct."), whereas the original source is a form of scholarly work. If information from the cable is to be used, it must by qualified as such (e.g. "A 2008 cable sent from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh leaked by Wikileaks claimed that Abdullah was in fact born in 1916"). Such use of primary sources is also discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I know this is late, but this link here: states the cable directly said he was 92 years old, born in 1916, as per his medical report? Would this not be evidence enough? Irandill (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The cable was originated by chief of mission Amb. Fraker, and sent for fairly wide distribution, so the doctor's report must have seemed credible. However, Egeymi (talk) pointed out in a discussion on his talk page:
Concerning birth date, the given year (1916) is not reasonable since his mother Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim was married to Rashidi emir at this date. He was killed in 1920, then she married to King Abdulaziz. .
I replied:
"Perhaps the confusion came from the fact that she had a son named Abdulaziz in 1916 from her marriage with whichever Rashidi Emir she married (Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim#Early life is quite confusing). If she was married to the tenth Rashidi Emir, Saud bin Abdulaziz (which is what Rashidis#Amirs of the House of Rasheed says), that would make the son born in 1916 Abdulaziz bin Saud (bin Abdulaziz). This is quite similar to Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud (particularly to a westerner, looking at a file he's not supposed to see, etc.). Perhaps the doctor confused the two, and actually was given the file of Abdulaziz bin Saud."
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Any more info on hospitalisation claim?

There's a 25 Aug 2012 twitter claim " #BREAKING: Abdullah Alsaud, the #Saudi king, was transferred urgently to the #US as his health situation is deteriorating. #Qatif @RT_com ". Two hypotheses (not theories): the source is much better informed than the world's media, or maybe reports on the medical operation on the Foreign Minister mutated wildly (s/Minister/King/ | s/Jeddah/USA/ | s/successful operation/detiorating health/).

In any case, the King is not immortal. People interested in improving the quality of this particular article should probably not wait too long if they want Wikipedia to look good when the topic hits the headlines. I'm not volunteering, sorry. Boud (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC) (Just to clarify: I meant that I might make some minor improvements to the article, but I'm not volunteering for major improvements, which would require too much work... Boud (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

Partial support for hypothesis 1 (ROEP twitter is well-informed): official Saudi + western mainstream media confirmation that Abdullah has left KSA "on special leave":
Reuters hints that the leave might really mean a serious health problem, but the hint is too weak to be used in the Wikipedia article IMHO. Boud (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Now (Monday 27 Aug) in Morocco for "private visit", but met at airport by "senior Moroccan dignitaries." Boud (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"bin" vs. "ibn"

There is no such word "bin" in Arabic, except as a dialectal form in south Yemen (c.f. "Bin Ladin") and North Africa. That is why the article on King Abdullah's father is entitled "Ibn Saud", not "Bin Saud." The reason for the confusion is that the "aleph" in "ibn" is omitted when the word occurs between two proper names (ibn > bn), but that is merely an orthographic rule -- it has no effect on pronunciation (Arabic grammar 101). While I will grant you that the erroneous spelling is widespread in journalistic and other less scholarly sources, "ibn" is widespread in academic and specialist literature. For example, Vassiliev's History of Saudi Arabia, widely recognized as THE standard and most comprehensive book on Saudi history uses "ibn" uniformly. So does the eminent scholar Madawi Al-Rasheed [7] (who is also a native speaker of the language), the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Library of Congress Country Study [8], Robert Lacy [9], Winder, in a well-known academic work [10], and, last but not least, St. John Philby, who lived in Arabia for decades as an adviser to King Abdullah's father (Ibn Saud) and spoke the language fluently [11]. Interesting that the word "bin" does not show up in Philby's book at all. If anyone knows what he's talking about on these things, it would be Philby. Once upon a time, "ibn" was widely used in wikipedia articles until people like yourself (with the best of intentions, no doubt) began changing it to "bin" simply because that is what they're more familiar with. But just because it is more commonly used on google or by journalists does not make it correct. In any case, even if you insist on rejecting "ibn", you should at the very least accept the change in the pronunciation guide at the top, where it currently claims that the name is pronounced "bin" in Najdi Arabic, since the reason you've cited is irrelevant to how the word is actually pronounced by the locals. The pronunciation guide should also say "Su'ud" (plural of "Sa'd") instead of "Sa'ud", as can be seen from the Encyclopedia of Islam. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A few other academic sources: -- [12] -- [13] -- [14] -- [15] -- [16] -- [17] -- [18] -- [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the page is maintained by many people. With due respect for the work you've done above, you may want to look at WP:MOSAR and its talk page for a description of the current standard, rationale, and discussion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you demonstrate that 75% of English references use "bin"? "Examples of references include the FBI, the NY Times, CNN, the Washington Post, Al-Jazeera, Encarta, Britannica, Library of Congress, and other academic sources ... Google searches can be useful in determining the most common usage, but should not be heavily relied upon". So not every usage in English counts as a reference, and a google search is not determinative (most of the results copy from each other anyway and the WP usage ultimately influences what shows up in google, so we get an infinite loop of error).

Basically, you're rejecting the transcription used by Britannica [20], Encyclopedia of Islam, Library of Congress, Alexei Vassiliev, LA times [21], Washington Times [22], Saudi state television [23], the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs [24], Al Riyadh Newspaper [25] and the numerous other academic sources I've listed above because of an unproven assertion that 75% of references use "bin".

Since you've not addressed my point on the pronunciation, I'll go ahead and fix that bit for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And here is what the US embassy in Saudi Arabia used to translate the official biography sent to the US embassy from the King's office (when he was crown prince): [26]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Did Abdullah marry his cousin?

Does anyone know if King Abdullah is or ever was married to one of his cousins? This seems to be quite the trend for the world's richest royals; he is the only one of the top six that I am unable to confirm as having done this. 贾宝玉 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

cousin marrige is comman in medale east it is normal thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

I've removed the NPOV tag for now. If someone is going to claim NPOV, he/she should post specifics here. At the moment, all he/she provided was a comment that there should be more criticism, and that the philanthropy aspect is overstated. However, he/she needs to make the case. For example, what objective criticism has been omitted? Without knowing, the article cannot be improved. Consider this a gentle suggestion to be a bit more proactive (if you know of specific criticism, it's better to add it with citations than to merely hint at it). Beetle B. (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The abuses of the Saudi regime under Abdullah are numerous, well-known, and well-documented. Recently, the Saudi regime has arrested Arab spring protestors and sent troops to attack protestors in Bahrain, but these are merely the most recent examples of human rights violation in a very repressive country, where restrictions on women's rights, alcohol use, and free speech are some of the strictest in the world. It is embarrassing that an article on a famously repressive autocrat has virtually no criticism. This is almost certainly the result of biased editing, probably by Saudi officials. I will reinstate the tag and start a criticism section, which I hope other users will expand.Rppeabody (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's silly to throw around emotionally laden statements like "embarrassing". You're no less at fault than others are, and if you know of various criticisms, it behooves you to contribute to the page! Beetle B. (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, missed the criticism section (because it was very small). But I stand by the reinstatement of the tag.Rppeabody (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. Could you please cite specifics. For example, female suffrage is an example. But at the same time, keep in mind that prohibition of alchohol is not "repressive".. was the United States ever considered "repressive" during the Prohibition in the United States or is the United States considered "repressive" for banning marijuana? you see what i mean.. prohibition of a drug/alcohol is not "repressive"-- especially in the case of Saudi Arabia which enjoys a history of prohibition of alcohol since the advent of Islam. I request that you be much more specific in your argument and to defend it with sources. I stand by Beetle's assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mni9791 (talkcontribs) 05:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that alcohol prohibition is not as severe a human rights violation as some of the others in Saudi Arabia, but I believe Prohibition was widely considered a very repressive policy in at the time, both in America and abroad. Furthermore, there is a meaningful difference between America's Prohibition and Saudi Arabia's--American Prohibition never entailed public lashings for drinking alcohol, which is the practice in Saudi Arabia [27]. Other issues I did not list above include persecution of religious minorities like Christians [28] and Shiites [29], absence of democracy, mistreatment of migrant workers [30], and the existence of the religious police.Rppeabody (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of these are valid points, but I do share Mni9791's concern about your references - some of which seem more biased than this article. Additionally, in a "Criticism" section, you have to provide documented criticisms, and not just documented events that you criticize. An example would be a human rights agency filing reports complaining about it, or another government criticizing him. Also, the existence of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) is hardly problematic. Perhaps their actions are, and you can document those. However, at the same time, I feel any criticism mentioned should be linked in some form or other to the king. If the CPVPV has done horrible things, it is more appropriate to put it in their wiki page than on Abdullah's, unless you can show that Abdullah supported those particular actions of the CPVPV. I know it's a fine line when you have an autocrat, but at the same time it's silly to list all immoral and unethical events in Saudi Arabia at the hands of the king. Beetle B. (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I would rather get a public lashing than 6 months in an American jail. The point is you can't analyze punishments and decide what is human rights violation and what is not. Some may say death penalty is inhumane. Some say it isn't. Different cultures have different legal reprimands. Stop attempting to impose your own view of the world on others.(Mni9791 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
The point is that lashing is an absurdly strict punishment for alcohol consumption. Under Prohibition, no one was imprisoned for six months for drinking. Plus, just because America did something doesn't mean it's okay.Rppeabody (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also like you to note that some of your sources are very biased unreliable news sources. For example, I am not surprised that Christian Today, which advocates proselytizing Christianity, finds Saudi Arabia oppressive. (Mni9791 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
I just read this article -not to critique it, but to learn from it. My first impression was that the text is disjointed, and the article is poorly orgnized. My second impression was, "Well, when will we declare him a saint?" After that I read the talk page, where (typical of controversial articles), I found multiple, circular arguments leading to no real improvement. I don't have the knowledge to fix it but I'd say you still have a significant NPOV problem, here. --Carmaskid (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is he alive? I hope this rat goes soon, but has he gone yet? (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Philanthropy Revisited

I find it hard to believe that it is an oversight that the only reference to the King's medical philanthropy refers European conjoined twins. If you open the pages of the above link you will find valuable information on conjoints and their demographics, never mind the extensive medical and surgical separation plans for numerous cases. In all cases the King has bankrolled the entire medical-surgical care for twins and, frequently, their mothers during their high-risk pregnancies. Perhaps you don't like his politics, or his absolutist powers, but a bit more recognition of this aspect of a clearly complex person is called for. You will find that the most recent surgical separation of twins was on May 4, 2014, that even seriously ill twins have been successfully treated, and that this generosity extends to calling in a highly skilled pediatric neurosurgeon from the U.S. (home of medicine-for-profit - one such surgery was offered to the Polish conjoints - cost $1.5-million). (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Daughters' Imprisonment

I believe that the fact that four of his daughters are under house arrest should be mentioned in the introduction, for example, somewhere around "Abdullah has also pushed toward more rights for women in the kingdom by giving them the right to vote and to compete in the Olympics.[9]" There are no pages for them or their mother.Maurizio689 (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of date of death

This article states H.E's death as 23 January 2015, BBC reporting his death since 22nd January. Is this a typo, or does the date of his death refer to the date in SA at his death? CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) -This date refers to the Saudi date using the Gregorian calendar. BBC is correct to say that the king died on 22 January when one looks at British time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDPhil (talkcontribs) 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Also, date of birth is debated. leaked cables from wikileaks put his birth in 1916. see:


He had 11 wives, but theoretically a Muslim can only have 4 wives at any one time, correct? So did he follow this rule or did his number of wives ever exceed 4? 2602:306:3707:C140:E0F3:5E84:B049:A8B6 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

propet muhamed had 13 wives. as many as you can buy — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Koran made exceptions that Muhammad could marry as many as he wanted. I can only assume Abdullah also thought of himself as more than equal '''tAD''' (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't married to all at the same time, I mean he outlived some for one thing so it could be he never had more than 4 at one time. But even though the Quran or Koran or however you spell it sets a limit for 4 wives (Arabs would often have even more in Muhammeds time, probably pandered to the crowd by giving them permission or whatever) it's not that common, only about 5% of Islamic marriages are like that, some like Abdullah I suppose could have decided who gives a damn and did it anyway, 95% of all religious people probably don't follow all the rules, especially richer or more powerful ones. I guess it might be more of a power thing as well, why I'm so great, even god should make exceptions for me, of course I don't know anything about it, so I am just giving educated guesses as to what it is, I'd bet he just broke some rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

flags at half mast

In Saudi Arabia flags are never flown at half mast even on the death of the monarch. The reason being that the flag bears the "kalima".... La ilaha illalAllah" which is kind of an oath of being a Muslim hence being held as sacred.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasimsayeed (talkcontribs) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of death.

Date of death was 1am local time on 23 January 2015.[31] as announced by Saudi TV. Could people please stop changing to the 22, or supply references supporting that change. The local time is important, not the date/time in the UK/US or elsewhere. Martin451 01:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, UTC is what we go by. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. We go by local time. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where you got that idea from GoodDay. We always list the day people die from what time-zone they are living in. For example, if someone died at 11:00 PM (Pacific Time) on January 30, their death date would be listed as January 30, not January 31 just because a new day had arrived in Eastern Canada, Britain, etc... Canuck89 (what's up?) 08:17, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Russia Today says he died on the 22nd. It also says explicitly that 23rd is wrong. cagliost (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We should have a better source for date/time of death. The Reuters article is silent about time, no source is given for Saudi TV announcement, and Russia Today isn't saying how they know that they're right. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


What about the hadith? -- (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Useful link. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This link seems useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive links (#1, 3, 4) work and seem useful. Didn't check others; shouldn't be a need. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Abdullah's sense of humor

Something should be mentioned about his sometimes very funny jokes. They were mentioned in the leaks as "dry" (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What leaks are those? What are your sources? Am I right in thinking that you're referring to King Abdullah? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think they may be on about King Abdullah of Jordan. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture

@Blopii9: Has been changed the infobox picture to an unusual one away from the previous version. Please help gain consensus on which to use. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


@Egeymi and GoodDay: Hello. I requested a copyedit for this article in the hope that it could receive a GAN. It appears as if you two are some of the largest contributors to this article and I was wondering if you could help fix the little issues with this article, before co-signing the good article nomination or nominating it yourself or at least giving me support in my nomination. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fully familiar with the Saudi monarchy, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: That's understandable. I asked you as you were the largest non-bot contributor who is not blocked to this article according to Σ stats, after Egeymi of course. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Egeymi: What do you think? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I support your attempt Emir of Wikipedia, but I may not contribute as much as it is needed since I do not have enough time. But I will try to fix the issues, though I do not know what you mean. Maybe you can clearly state these topics. --Egeymi (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, and I understand that you may not be able to contribute. The issues are minor problems like some citations needed for non controversial or exceptional claims, some possible reorganisation of sections etc. I am a much more experienced editor than when I first proposed the idea of a GAN, so hopefully I will be able to do as much as I can on my own. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • ^ [32], "Miami Herald", Warren Strobel, March 27, 2011.
    • ^ [33], "Reuters", March 23, 2011.
    • ^ [34], "Al Jazeera English", March 25, 2011.