Talk:Formation of Saudi Arabia

Requested move 7 August 2026

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) msk 17:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Unification of Saudi Arabia → Formation of Saudi Arabia – "Unification" implies that an entity known as Saudi Arabia already existed previously, and this campaign only brought it into re-existence. This is not the case, Saudi Arabia was a new invention. The proposed title would be more accurate and neutral. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how this is different than Germany or Italy. Jessintime (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Because the concept of a German people and Italian people existed before the countries themselves did. However, there was no concept of a "Saudi Arabian" people, only a concept of an Arab people. There was also a narrower concept of a gulf Arab, but Saudi Arabia did not unify these people. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Support sources either use words like "Formation", or describe it as unifying Arabia. The latter is not possible for us, since "Unification of most of Arabia" isn't a good title. I concur that there is a difference with the Risorigimento or German unification, which were ventures at creating a nation-state. The people of Saudi Arabia were not Saudi Arabians before Saudi Arabia. Would not be opposed to "Creation" or other words with equivalent meanings. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the relisting comment, of the sources in use in this article, we have:

(1982). Arabia Unified: A Portrait of Ibn Saud.

(1981). The Cohesion of Saudi Arabia.

(October 1934). "The Unification of Arabia".

(1976). The Birth of Saudi Arabia: Britain and the Rise of the House of Sa'ud.

So, we have two sources talking about Saudi Arabia forming, and two sources talking about Arabia unifying. As I alluded to above. This interesting paper, which is probably reliable, notes that the term "Unification of Saudi Arabia" is usually used for the 1932 declaration, but that the Saudi government (c. 1980s) had begun pushing its use to refer to the scope of this article. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: How about we move this to Formation of the third Saudi state, so as not to confuse it with the previous two states? (first Saudi state, second Saudi state) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

That would radically change the scope of this article, which is about the 30 odd years between the Third Saudi States beginning and the declaration of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The title does not imply what the nom says it does. (The word 'reunification' would, but that's not the word in the title.) The proposed title is fine, too, but without a reason to change we should leave it as is. Srnec (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Unification and reunification are very similar. If something 'unified' it implies that it is a shattered whole, which is ahistorical. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. It is a unification. There were two Saudi states that actually unified and ruled over various emirates, city-states, and nomadic tribes of the Arabian peninsula. I highly recommend that anyone who disputes calling it a unification to go and read about the first and second Saudi states. The unification of Saudi Arabia is no different than the German or Italian unification. Also to my knowledge, the Arabic sources also use the term unification instead of foundation. OKMG-1200 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Sources please? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME as shown in the Ngrams. The term "Unification of Saudi Arabia" doesn't even show up in there 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Actually it does appear. All you have to do is to select the Case-insensitive option to show as you can see here so you may want to change your opinion about supporting the change based on just Google Ngram Viwer. OKMG-1200 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps its geo-restricted, but I personally see "No valid ngrams to plot". HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@HerrHeulsuse: Sorry but did you click on the option Case-insensitive? OKMG-1200 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Formation of Saudi Arabia is still more common 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: That's true but we don't move articles in Wikipedia based on the results of Google Ngrams. Unfortunately Google Ngrams doesn't allow search in Arabic language otherwise you would see the term Unification of Saudi Arabia far more common in Arabic literature. But I believe as native Arabic speaker you wouldn't find it hard to search for it through other means. Again I still support the term Unification instead of Formation because of 1) the existence of both the first and second Saudi state before and 2) the use of the term Unification in both English and Arabic but especially Arabic. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@OKMG-1200 that's not true? We do move articles based on the ngrams per WP:COMMONNAME. It's literally a policy. As for the usage of the Arabic-language term, I'm not going to dispute the fact that Arabic literature refers to the event as the Unification of Saudi Arabia, but WP:COMMONNAME says that "[...]Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)[...]" (emphasis mine). Trust me I had to learn this the hard way back when I first joined this project 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: I am fully aware of WP:COMMONNAME but I don't think that Google Ngrams is the tool used to determine which name is considered more common. Is there any official Wikipedia policy or rule regarding the use Google Ngrams to solve such matters? I personally don't know. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@OKMG-1200 Ngrams has been the community's go-to method of finding the common name of an article because of how it searches through academic stuff. Unless you have a better way of finding the common name, ngrams it is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:59, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment Here are some books that use the term Unification of Saudi Arabia in their title:

• Unification of Saudi Arabia: Historical Narrative (published in 2002) in Google books here
• The Unification of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Its Impact on Scientific and Social Renaissance (in Arabic, published in 1998) in Google books here

@HerrHeulsuse: @Maltazarian:I believe there are dozens more of books and articles the uses the term Unification of Saudi Arabia. OKMG-1200 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it's in use (I had assumed our article wasn't so bad as to not even mention those sources). I suppose the question is whether we should title the article so when many sources make the pointed distinction to not use Unification and when we have sources stating another event is usually referred to as the "Unification of Saudi Arabia" and that this series of events being called "Unification" is a result of the Saudi regime's desire to build national identity. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7: I don't think there is any thing that tells us not to use the term Unification. Again as I said in my first comment in this discussion the existence of both the first and second Saudi states makes the use of the term Unification more accurate as it describes the re establishment of the same historical entity again. I would support the use of the term Formation if we were talking about the first Saudi state because it was a novel entity. OKMG-1200 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Should any editor come to close this discussion I would like to reaffirm my opposition to move the page for the following reasons:

1) The existence of both the first and second Saudi states before the establishment of modern-day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia makes the use of the term "Unification" more preferable than foundation as both Saudi states had effectively unified and governed many Emirates, City-states, and nomadic tribes across Arabia before both collapsed.

2) The use of the term "Unification" is well established in both English and Arabic (especially Arabic) literature and here are two examples:

• Unification of Saudi Arabia: Historical Narrative (published in 2002) in Google books here
• The Unification of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Its Impact on Scientific and Social Renaissance (in Arabic, published in 1998) in Google books here

There are more book and articles the explicitly use the term Unification

3) The similarity between the process of establishing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other modern nation-states like the Kingdom of Italy and The German Empire where the term "Unification" is usually used. OKMG-1200 (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I added some additional that might be also considered

4) The official use of the terms "unify" and "Unification" by the Saudi government and other government sources like:

The Saudi Foreign Ministry in its English language official website has article titled KSA History refers to the day of proclamation of the kingdom with the phrase "unification of the country".

The Saudi encyclopedia (Saudipedia) which is published by the Saudi ministry of media has a similar article titled the "Unification of Saudi Arabia" in English and in Arabic.

of course there additional official sources the use the term "Unification"

5) The term "Unification" isn't in conflict with any official policy in Wikipedia that mandates its change. OKMG-1200 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Saudi Arabia and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support, the commonly known cultural identity was Arab, Saudi was a recent construct which is confirmed by sources. -Dympies (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

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