Talk:Saudi Arabia Voyage Tips and guide

For future reference Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Saudi Arabia/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

Hey pal, pretty sure comedy is illegal in Saudi Arabia and why did you remove the stuff about Chevy Chase being denied access into the country when this is well known?

Please note that, while the offences and sentences listed in this section are technically correct to the best of my knowledge, the harshest sentences are very seldom applied, with jail and lashes being the preferred way to deal with most violations of the law.

I have also removed a line claiming that Jews are not allowed in the country, as this is false, both from an official and a practical point of view. Officially, a number of statements have been issued over the years by the authorities to the effect that there is no law preventing Jews entering the country. In practical terms, openly professing a religion other than Islam is bound to attract unwelcome attention, and it is generally advisable to keep one's religious adscription to oneself. Having said that, and anecdotically, this contributor has intimated his semitic origins to several Saudi acquaintances during time spent in the Kingdom and was surprised by the warm and respectful response received.

To remove that information is misleading; the Saudi government has publically stated that Jews are not welcome in the kingdom no matter what their views on Israel or zionism. Do a search on google and you will find many, many news stories affirming this fact.209.213.214.242

Yet there are Jews in Saudi Arabia. As with many things in Saudi, just because somebody somewhere says something doesn't make it true... (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:36, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

All the facts in here are real, but unfortunaley you are exagerrating in all of them. And you might have to know that Saudi Arabia is recently changing everyday and what you might say today could be wrong tomorrow. I'm not asking you to take facts from me as a Saudi but take from honest people who had the experience of living in Saudi.

NO one is being excuted today for talking about the royal family, I've seen many western women walking in public places without wearing Abaya or so, I have a bible and other religous books and I have never been asked about them !!

Please just make sure that what you are saying is today not in the past.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/saudiban.html 24.226.20.87 22:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

The Stay Safe section says "Adultery is punishable by death if you are married, and lashes if not."

The definition of Adultery states that at least one of the partners having sex is married. So what does "if not" refer to? Does it mean that if one of the two involved in Adultery is unmarried, that person will receive lashes? Or was the author of that line unaware of the exact definition and meant that sex between two unmarried people is punishable by lashes. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:39, 30 December 2006 (EST)

I noticed that as well, doesn't make sense. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 70.240.185.8 (talk • contribs)

I thought it was pretty obvious that it meant you as the traveler to the country of Saudi Arabia, being unmarried, and having an affair with a married person in Saudi Arabia, would result in you receiving lashes. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.166.150.166 (talk • contribs)

Your definition of adultry is very very different from the Islamic definition.

Anyways, as of the page itself, it is clearly aimed at nonmuslim intending to visit (for which reason is far beyond me). It's rude then that the tone taken is one of saying that there is no fun in the kingdom. To a nomuslim, sure. but I don't know why you'd be there in the first place. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 76.227.101.141 (talk • contribs)

Wikivoyage isn't aimed at anybody in particular, but it necessarily reflects those who have contributed to the guide. If you have different perspectives, or can add information for visiting Muslims, please plunge forward. --(WT-en) inas 23:56, 20 February 2010 (EST)

I removed the suggestion that non-essential travel should be avoided... this is baseless, as far as I know. – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 00:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT) Some Confusion

Seems as if this article was written in the context of what it was like in the middle ages.

Are you saying something is inaccurate? Saudi Arabia itself is designed as a replica of the Middle Ages. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:22, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

(it was recently stated by an Arab Satellite media that over 2 million Muslim citizens converted to Christianity discreetly. This makes over 7.4% of the citizens being Christians.)

this is absolutely not true ! saudi citizens not allowed to change Religion ! i am saudi and some of my frined are atheist but they CAN'T announce that for public.

Hmm, when did that sneak in there? I've removed it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:30, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I know from a strict Wahhabi belief that not only that forbid imagery of Muhammad, but also imagery of people and animals. As such, I added that in there. And can anyone confirm that Pokemon and video games (or the Wii) are banned in Saudi Arabia due the implication of one of the Saudi beliefs?--(WT-en) Dark Paladin X 11:51, 15 December 2008 (EST)

See, this is why you shouldn't write about places you haven't personally been to...

Just because some mullah says something doesn't mean it's against the law, much less that said law is enforced. There is no prohibition against imagery of people or animals, and this is a common sight in the Kingdom. The super-ultra-conservative town of Buraydah is known for spraypainting over faces, but even there it's just local yahoos, not government policy, and other Saudis laugh at them. Video games and Pokemon goods are very widely available, there are entire shops devoted to them. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:11, 15 December 2008 (EST)

And as for "travelers wanting to show pictures of Muhammed", tell me, where on earth would a traveler find such a picture, and why on earth would they "want" to show it off? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:33, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Shouldn't one say "Anta Muslim" instead of "Inta..."? Is it the saudi dialect? And why would it scare anyone away?

While Internet in Saudi Arabia is cordoned off by a filter, it aims primarily at pornography, non-Islamic religious and domestic political sites in Arabic, and (from the traveller's point of view) is nowhere near as strict as, say, China's.

I don't think we should be comparing the censorship in Saudi Arabia to China's. There are some people who think that the Saudi censors are more strict than China's and I'm one of them.

Yes, you think all sorts of things, most of which are wrong. Most Wikivoyagers write things based on actual experience.

So: based on my half-dozen visits to the Kingdom and a whole lotta surfin' while there, Saudi Arabia's internet filter, which is nowhere near as strict as China's. China blocks all sorts of semi-random sites because of political content (CNN, BBC, Wikipedia, Wordpress, Livejournal, Flickr, etc etc); Saudi Arabia only blocks porn and some Arabic-language dissidents. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:54, 19 January 2009 (EST)

The fun doesn't end when you get the visa, since visas do not state their exact expiry date.

This statement is a bit on a sarcastic tone. A few rewording might remove on sarcasm.

No, it's not sarcastic. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:54, 19 January 2009 (EST)

While first-timers in Saudi Arabia are often regaled with tales of beheadings, amputations and whippings, the full harshness of Saudi law is reserved for true criminals like drug smugglers.

Don't they reserve the harsh penalties like death penalty not only for criminals, but also committing apostasy, witchcraft, idolatry, and blasphemy, even doing such is unintentional?

How do you unintentionally commit any of those? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:54, 19 January 2009 (EST)

And speaking of which, I know the Saudis punish homosexuality by deaths, but should we tell gays and lesbians not to travel to Saudi Arabia whatsoever, since I'm afraid they may use death penalty on gays and lesbians if the Saudis find out that a foreign traveler is gay.

Sorry for asking these kinds of questions, but I feel stupid for asking these.--(WT-en) Dark Paladin X 17:01, 18 January 2009 (EST)

The most likely outcome of Saudis finding out that a visitor is gay is getting hit on by lots of horny local men. According to Wikipedia, even convictions for homosexuality (which require four witnesses etc etc) do not result in the death penalty, unless rape/pedophilia is involved. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:54, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I'm just checking to make sure I got the regional boundaries correct before moving this map into the article. I used the administrative province boundaries with only one exception—I cut off the southernmost strip of coastline from Hejaz and added it to Asir. I noticed that these divisions place Madain Saleh in Hejaz, not in the North. So, comments? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 08:41, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Looks good to me, but you've mispelled "Hejaz" as "Hezaz" on the map. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:10, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

I wonder if I've ever managed to make a map that didn't have at least one of those silly errors. Anyway, fixed. --76.197.167.146 01:26, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

just some changes to the highways like now there is a high way from Hail to Aljouff and there is new high way connecting Tabouk to Al-ula. and you may need to check more where transportation connections are expanding all over the king dom. I am a licened Tour Operator in Saudi and if any one want to know any thing related to tourism in Saudi please do not hesitate to send your inquireis to [email protected], where we are uthorised to issue tourist visa and we arrange weekend programs for expacts in saudi such as ( desert safari, desert camping , desert wonders, diving programs, cultural programs , hunting programs, city tours, and more )

Please plunge forward and update highways etc, but don't tout. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:12, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

"Catholic visitors must not be members of the Knights of Columbus"

Is there a source for this? Just had a quick look on the internet - just for personal curiosity - but to no avail. (WT-en) Phonemonkey 17:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Seconded, anyone have a cite? I have never heard of such a thing in all my time in the Kingdom. While certainly the KSA is the land of rumor, this article is full of wild claims. The lowest rate of crime in the world? Says who? No Jews? Zero, zilch, nada? Frankly you can really see why Wikipedia went to requiring cites. (WT-en) Paul in Saudi 22:24, 4 November 2009 (EST)

While adding footnotes to a travel guide would be silly, asking on the talk page for citations to back up dubious claims is precisely the way to go on Wikivoyage. Since no one has defended the statement, I recommend you plunge forward and remove it! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 02:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)

So, as a woman, I am subject to scrutiny for being single, can't drive or ride a bike, could be castigated for being driven by a taxi driver, have to have special permission to check into a hotel but must not dare to use the facilities, must wear a headscarf even though I am not a Muslim, must avoid cafes and restaurants, may be accosted by police and am subject to heavy punishments if I dare to drink alcohol?

Yes, hmm. Okay, Saudi Arabia, you lovely country, that's you off my travel list. :)

Correct conclusion, especially since they do not issue tourist visas anyway. Some of the details are wrong, though. Head scarves are not always required, and some cafes are open to women. By striking it off your list, you do miss out on some interesting architecture and scenery, and a culture with an interesting history.

For whatever it is worth, my (now ex) wife coped with Saudi Arabia but found many things there quite irritating; she finds Dubai much more congenial. (WT-en) Pashley 08:44, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I read on the lonely planet thorn tree forum that tourist visas are not being issued anymore is this true? if so we should change it on the page

Just to be ready for some Star nominations (I hope) and to prevent unproductive reverts, I have proposed at the above page that I think we should add Saudi Arabia to our list of countries that prefer US English. Before I add it, does anyone object and, if so, why? --W. Frank^email_talk 17:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since more than one year has now elapsed with no objection, I have now made the appropriate amendments. --W. Frank^email_talk 17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the banner appears to depict the city of Mecca. My understanding is that this city is strictly off limits to non-muslims, therefore I am just wondering if we should we not use a banner image of a location that everyone can visit? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the face of it, and all else being equal, I would vote to keep of photo of Mecca for the banner, as it is by far the most famous place in Saudi Arabia, and although non-Muslims can't visit Mecca, they will constantly see pictures of the Kaaba in every Muslim country. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that by far the majority of passenger traffic to and from Saudi Arabia is from pilgrims on the Haj or Umrah. This guide serves them, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree with above. --Saqib (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I prefer your banner, Saqib. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I thought worth asking the question. The ersatz-banner is also much better. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Andrew, one thing to keep in mind is that Saudi Arabia is not a place that can be visited by tourists, anyway. Unless I'm very much mistaken, people have to either go as Muslim pilgrims or by invitation for work, business, diplomacy, or military service. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Who and what is ersatz? OR where is ersatz-banner? --Saqib (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I presume in this case ersatz means the replacement banner (so your new banner above). And although Andrew makes valid points, I agree with the others that the banner should show something recognizable and iconic. James A ▪ talk 13:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back, James! --Saqib (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Saqib, I missed your question before. James A is correct in that 'Ersatz' is the German word for replacement, sometimes used by English speakers in the West because sometimes it just sounds better. Still I should avoid on an international site like this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think of "ersatz" as meaning "fake," and dictionary.com agrees with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, dictionary.com doesn't actually use the word "fake", but rather "serving as a substitute; synthetic; artificial" (for adjectives). The usage is however definitely not exactly the same meaning as the German original. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've also understood it there's a little difference in meaning. A direct translation of Ersatz (or ersats in archaic Swedish) would be replacement - any kind of replacement or substitute. It's for instance possible to ersetzen/ersätta a person (fire him and hire somebody else). On the other hand in English ersatz is more like or "artificial (inferior) substitute" just as Ikan said. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

In German, "Ersatz" can be used with a neutral connotation. In English it cannot. This may be due to American POWs getting to "enjoy" wartime replacement products labeled and/or called "Ersatz-whatever" which by and large are awful. However, yesterday's ersatz is today's health trend, with all manner of "ersatz" coffee now consumed as "healthier" caffeine free alternatives... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is a very informative article, so it would be nice to make it Usable. However, all regional articles are Outlines. Riyadh is a Guide and has been featured as Dotm. Jeddah and Taif are Usable. All the other linked cities - including, embarrassingly, Mecca - are Outlines except Jubail, which is a red link. Hajj is Usable, but is not really categorized correctly under "Other destinations," as this pilgrimage is of course an Itinerary. Madain Saleh is an Outline and Empty Quarter is an Extra-hierarchical region. So if anyone knows Saudi Arabia well and would like to get this country-level article up to Usable status, the most obvious task would be to bring all the linked cities and the Madain Saleh article up to Usable status, but it seems to me that every regional article should also be above Outline status. For your reference, here are the requirements for Usable status for country articles:

Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better), a valid regional structure, and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. Information about the country's currency, language, cuisine, and culture is included. At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Saudi Arabians used " Shabab" or " Afrad " to describe single men areas in malls or restaurants; " Bachelor " is not arabic word . In Arabian world , they used "Bachelor " to describe Bsc like " Bsc of Engineering , ..... etc " Omda4wady (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please plunge forward and edit the article as appropriate. Also, please give whatever explanation will be of most practical use to foreigners coming to Saudi Arabia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

But the English word "bachelor" is used extensively in English signage in Saudi Arabia. Jpatokal (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Correct - but never in the sense of "bachelor girl". --222.127.76.207 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article currently states that bringing in non-Muslim religious material like a Bible for personal use is technically illegal but overlooked. But the UK Foreign Ministry says it's allowed, period (as long as it's for personal use). Should we update our text? Powers ^(talk) 02:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It seems sensible to update with the latest information, with any words of caution that seem appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. I was asking, though, which was correct, because I don't know what the latest information is, nor what words of caution might be appropriate. Powers ^(talk) 02:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Barring any more authoritative information, we can simply mention that the UK Foreign Ministry says it's allowed, and that anyone in doubt should ask the Saudi authorities directly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apparently a new rail service has just opened a few months ago. Maybe this should be mentioned where appropriate. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

And the next one seems to be in the pipeline: http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/middle-east/saudis-conduct-first-vip-run-on-haramain-high-speed-line.html Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

As people have posted links to interesting travel news on articles' talk pages, I will now do so too: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-01/saudi-arabia-unveils-plans-for-mega-red-sea-tourism-project

While Saudi Arabia still doesn't let in foreigners for plain tourism, to visit this place "Tourists will either not require a visa or will be able to obtain one online."

--ϒpsilon (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jeddah montage 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Once every year or so there are news about Saudi Arabia intending to start issuing visas for tourism "soon". Let's see if it will actually become reality this time...--Ypsilon (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This looks to be a shift in policy, as BBC also covered it, See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49850056 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jeddah at night.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The information in this page is so out-of-date. Women are no longer required to wear abaya and cover their face. Men and women are no longer segregated in public places, even not in the coffee shop outside Mutawwa HQ in Deira Square. —The preceding comment was added by 2a00:5400:e017:112:3985:5092:a995:961c (talk • contribs)

Anyone can edit a wiki, including you. If you know information is out of date, plunge forward and update it. But you might want to provide links here on this talk page to demonstrate the truth of what you're saying, because it sounds dubious. (Also, please sign your edits on talk pages by typing 4 tildes [~} in a row at the end.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe can @Pashley: confirm? Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I lived in Saudi in the early 1980s, do not have up-to-date information. At that time, segregation was widespread but not complete. At least in Jeddah & Taif, foreign women without abbayas were accepted. Pashley (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I tried to edit the page but it was blocked. The problem of these wiki pages is that it is mostly written by people who either only been the place 20 years ago, or never even been to the place and writing things base on what have been heard from friends or internet. Segregation is not even practice in Riyadh (from photo below), next to Mutawwa HQ on the left. Shops in shopping malls are not even closed in prayer times.

MEnomad (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC) MEnomadReply

I'm just looking at this thread over 2 years later. Was this issue ever resolved? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The relevant sections have been rewritten, see Saudi Arabia#Sex segregation and Saudi Arabia#Women. But if the photos represent "mingling" in Saudi Arabia, I think some warnings about a very different culture are definitely in place. –LPfi (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

We now say that "Women are not required to and increasingly commonly do not cover their face in public places". But are they required to cover their hair? That would not at all be obvious for a Western visitor. The dog2 added that it is mandatory to Respect#Everyday clothing. We should add it here too (especially here) if it is still true. Are there other requirements? None are mentioned. –LPfi (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

To my knowledge, in Saudi Arabia and Iran, wearing a hijab is mandatory for all women. As for covering their faces, from talking to some Saudis, apparently Jeddah is a little less conservative, so the women there just wear a hijab, but Riyadh is more conservative, so the women there will usually wear the full face veil, but that does not necessarily mean it is mandated by law. In Afghanistan, it was reported in the news that the Taliban has made the full face veil mandatory for all women. The dog2 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cf Iran#Dress, where requirements for foreigners are explicitly addressed. We should have something similar here. What locals do is less important, as Western women wouldn't want to follow conservative examples. The important thing is what you need to do not to offend, not to get stopped and questioned, and not to get harsh punishments. –LPfi (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems the issue is covered quite well now in Saudi Arabia#Women, although whether covering your hair is a legal requirement isn't told. Now the wording is "strongly advised". –LPfi (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I usually agree with the argument that "expat" is a code word for "white immigrant" that has racist connotations and should be dropped, but in the case of the Arab Gulf, people from around the world, and by no means only white people come to work, make money, and (if not held hostage by their employers) go home. Contract labor is not the same as immigration, and therefore, I believe that calling anyone who comes to Saudi Arabia as a contract laborer an "expat" is justified and more accurate than calling them immigrants. I know that pings of IP users don't work, so I'll go to User:86.20.53.154's user talk page to point them to this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you all prefer, we could just change the word "expat(s)" to "foreigner(s)", but that's a broad term that would include people on the Haj or people on a quick business trip, so it all depends on what the intended meaning is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

People who move to a country temporarily with the intention of leaving when the job is done are called "migrant/guest workers". "Expat", like "immigrant", has a wider meaning that also encompasses the possibility of permanent settlement.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You could also use "temporary workers", to be even more specific.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

How about "foreign workers and their families"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That would work too.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to make those changes tomorrow. Thanks for helping to talk through this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's okay. I hope it's an acceptable solution for 86.20.53.154 as well.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That's fine too. At least in the Singaporean context, my impression is that an "expat" is someone in a high-paying job (eg. bankers, consultants, managers) who has been temporarily posted to Singapore by their company back home, while an "immigrant" is someone who has settled in Singapore permanently. Usually, people on temporary visas to do manual labour are just called "foreign workers", and their work permit conditions explicitly forbid them from settling in Singapore permanently (though it's still possible if you get promoted to worksite supervisor for instance, in which case your company will apply for another type of permit called an S-pass for you, which allows you to apply for permanent residency). It is unfortunately the case the traditionally, expats have been mostly white or Japanese, while immigrants have mostly been from the poorer Asian countries, but with China's recent rise and the increased presence of Chinese companies in Singapore, there are both Chinese expats and immigrants in Singapore, in which case the rule I mentioned applies; someone temporarily posted to Singapore by a Chinese company is an expat, while someone who moves to Singapore permanently is an immigrant. I'm not sure if such a distinction is made in the rest of the English-speaking world. The dog2 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the way you define expats (Wikipedia: "In common usage, the term often refers to educated professionals, skilled workers, or artists taking positions outside their home country, either independently or sent abroad by their employers"). Using this or that word depends on what is being said: if a sentence is about something that actually specifically relates to expats, say expats; if it specifically relates to migrant workers say migrant workers (...if it somehow relats to both expats and migrant workers say "expats and migrant workers"); if it relates in a general way to foreigners, sure, say foreigners; if it relates to people who want to settle permanently, say immigrants, etc. Wholesale word substitutions across a whole article don't fit any purpose in this regard. Twsabin (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe one of you guys would like to look through the article and see what form of words works best in each instance. I'm actually going to be pretty busy tonight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did it for "expat" specifically. First of all after reading the article bit more carefully, it's clear that it is closely aligned to an expat or a "prospective expat" perspective. The scope feels kind of narrowed by this hyperfocus on the expat experience, but I don't have a well-formed opinion about this yet. So yeah, in context, it was obvious to me that all the mentions of the word expat did really talk about expats, very specifically. One should not just replace expat with any other word in any of the current instances, without changing the meaning of the sentence/paragraph. Twsabin (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Do you think English-speakers all understand the word the same way, or close enough to understand the meaning? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: What's your understanding of the terms "expat" and "immigrant" as an American then? I just gave you the Singaporean understanding. People may assume that a white person is an expat, while a non-white person is an immigrant, which is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that the richest and most developed countries in the world mostly have white majorities (with a few exceptions like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan), but it's certainly possible that those two terms actually have distinct meanings that are not related to race, and the racial association is just a stereotype. But that doesn't mean we should shy away from those terms so long as they are used in a way that reflects the dictionary definition. The dog2 (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, in the context of Singapore, a Chinese immigrant would typically send his kids to a local government school, while a Chinese expat would typically send his kids to the Chinese international school. That's another difference in behaviour you will notice. The dog2 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't use the word "expat", and I don't remember hearing anyone use it to describe anyone in the U.S.; I would simply talk about immigrants, foreigners on work visas (not the same as permanent residents), undocumented workers and foreign students. I normally see the word "expat" referring to white people who go to countries other than Europe or countries with a majority of European-origin people, either to work or to retire, and left to my own devices, I would call them foreign workers in the first instance and retired immigrants in the second. Before I read the word being used, I thought of "expatriate" as being synonymous with "exile": someone who leaves a country, probably as a refugee or due to expulsion, and can't come back until or unless conditions change in their country. If I were forced to leave my country, I think I'd call myself an exile. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ah, I see. I guess the terms have evolved different meanings in different areas then. For me, an exile would be as you described, but an expat would be someone who intends to only stay temporarily. Of course, it's not always so clear cut, and many people who only intended to stay temporarily at first end up loving a place so much that they end up staying for good. And conversely, there are people who intended to settle permanently at first but ended up going back to their countries of origin when they realised that things weren't so rosy in their new home after all. The dog2 (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jeddah Fahne.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The concern is that a copyrighted building is included in the image. The nominator claims that this is not allowed. It is unclear whether de minimis really does not apply there, or is interpreted that much stricter. The Commons page on Saudi copyright law has little info on the matter. Anyone who wants to check the situation? –LPfi (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This photo is not visible on the page, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Roovinn: In my edit Special:Diff/4757880/4757882, I asked "is there evidence that harsh sentences cause a low crime rate in this case? generally they do not".

It is about these sentence versions:

1. Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, owing to a notoriously harsh justice system.
2. Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, but also a notoriously harsh justice system.
3. Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, due in large part to a notoriously harsh justice system that severely punishes crime.

I believe that the consensus among the experts in the area is that harsh punishments and low crime rates are not strongly correlated. Indeed, the correlation may be negative. There is very little evidence that e.g. changing the length of prison sentences or removing or reintroducing death sentences would have any significant effect on crime rates.

The general public, however, tend to think hasher punishments have an effect – which would sound logic but has little support in the research. I very much dislike our perpetuating this misconception, as it is about an important political issue in many countries.

I don't think we need to say anything about the relation between the two. We still do want to tell both things. If they need to be decoupled to avoid controversy, so be it, although I like the way I coupled them :-)

–LPfi (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @LPfi

Appreciate the concerns, and I fully respect them.

In light of your concerns, how is this: Saudi Arabia is a safe country; the country has one of the lowest crime rates in the world and you are unlikely to encounter problems.

I removed the bit on Saudi Arabia's justice system. I believe the warning box makes it clear that you shouldn't do anything silly in the country. Roovinn (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am concerned that warnings have been toned down from what I remember them (I cannot find those versions though). The problem is about what "respecting" local customs and not doing "anything silly" entails. I don't know the country though, so it is difficult to me to know whether the current advice is enough, and I am not now going to do any thorough check. Removing the one warning about harsh punishments was OK. –LPfi (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

One more down-toning I am concerned by: "the full harshness of Saudi law is reserved for those actually seeking trouble". Does this sentence cover homosexuals, those criticising the regime etc. I would say "those not being cautious enough" for those cases, but I think my wording "offences seen as serious, and repeat offenders" would cover it (the repeat offenders part was there before, but now removed). –LPfi (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The bullet on the elderly was significantly shortened. Have the expectations changed? Earlier you were advised (at least in some contexts) to stand up when an elder person enters the room, and to give your place to them in a line and on public transport. –LPfi (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"isn't the death penalty for criticising religion an unobvious risk to life or limb? what about drugs put in your baggage or pornography on your computer?" No? I mean you're not allowed to do or have those things in a lot of countries in the world. Like really a lot, ignore the Americas, take everything east of Europe and call Africa a crapshoot. If there's a precedent I've missed let me know (you'd know better than me) but I think generally we don't support giving obvious obvious warnings. If you want to walk around critising Mohammed and shooting heroin I personally do not give a shit but you also probably should not be traveling for any purpose, and this seems obvious to me. Brycehughes (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion the death penalty for criticizing religion is a non-obvious risk, and honestly I don't really understand where you're coming from here. Is your view that people should not travel unless they already know all about the country they're visiting, even before they open a travel guide? In that case what's the point of the travel guide? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

My view is that generally, for most countries, you can't really criticise religion, government or other idols without getting into trouble, and that this is the norm for much if not most of the world. We are simply privileged that are not subject to that in the West, assuming that's where you're from. So, yeah, I think it's an obvious thing that people would already know, much like they would know that you shouldn't also punch the immigration officer. Brycehughes (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've heard people criticize religion and government in many countries, including non-Western countries. If this is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, I think that is something most people in the world don't know. Even if it were true (and it's not) that people only criticize religion in "the West", our travel guide aims to serve a global audience which includes Western readers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah fine put the death thing in a warning box. Brycehughes (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ibaman? –LPfi (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

no objection. Ibaman (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this post. A warning box should suffice IMO. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Cities and other settlements do not belong in Other destinations, but Madain Saleh isn't a settlement. It was a city, but I don't think it would qualify for Cities any more. I think Other destinations is the right place for archaeological sites. I don't know the relation to al-Ula, 20 km away, which with 60,000 inhabitants does qualify as a city; the mentions outside Get in are confused. –LPfi (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll restore it if you or someone else hasn't already done so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pretty much by default, we have adopted the 24-hr clock as the standard for Saudi Arabia. Is this correct? Can anyone confirm this? Ground Zero (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply