File talk:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg

 

Text

Could anybody translate that text into English?--Sanandros 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See en:Flag of Saudi Arabia. --Pmsyyz 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Green

I don't think the green is this dark. I actually saw a Saudi flag outside a mall yesterday, and it looked much more like the 11 March 2010 version. Are you sure the FOTW flag is accurate? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

According to SASO 402/2009, the standard on the fabric for the national flag, the colors are in CIE1931 (head desk) as follows: x (0.2508) y (0.4313) and Y (12.76). If I ran it through http://www.easyrgb.com/index.php?X=CALC#Result it got me 00734F as the hexadecimal colors. This is honestly not too far off from what we have right now. However, I am still trying to confirm the size of the Sahadha and the sword. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Correct" Version of the Flag

Comparison between the Saudi flags on FOTW and VM

@Alhadramy Alkendy, Aziz bader, and SeifED23: Hello. I've noticed you all engaging in a series of edits and reverts to the Saudi Arabian flag. I just wanted to point out that the flag uploaded by Alhadramy Alkendy, the Vexilla Mundi (VM) flag, appears to be the official version currently in use by the Saudi Arabian government. In case the difference isn't clear, I made a rough comparison highlighting the main differences between the VM flag and current flag on Commons, which appears to be based on Flags of the World (FOTW). The most obvious things to spot are the differences in styling the لا in إلا and the و in رسول.

I've tried to gather examples of the flag in official use: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10. As you can see, the VM version appears inside the royal court, when receiving dignitaries, and on flagpoles in the country. In addition, here, you can see a video shot inside the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO), the body responsible for maintaining the flag specifications, with the VM version flag in the office. On the other hand, there are, at least, some examples of the FOTW version being used in an official capacity, but they are fewer in comparison: Example A, Example B. In both instances I could find, the flags have been hoisted on the wrong side, indicating they've been set up by the non-Saudi counterpart.

Given all this evidence, I am led to believe that the VM version is at least an official, if not the official, current version of the flag. The FOTW version does have an official origin though: It appears to be based on one of several diagrams in the appendix of the 1973 decree (Page 10, Page 11, Page 12) which established the basis of the current flag law. I've been looking through documents all day trying to find a definitive answer on where the VM version came from. It is my understanding that an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984. I'm still trying to hunt down this document.

I am curious to know everyone's thoughts and how we can proceed with this information, and what the relevant Commons/Wikipedia rules are. My proposal is for both flags to appear on the Wikipedia page as alternatives/variants in some way once we decide which one is the "main" one. Thanks. -- Zyido (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alhadramy Alkendy, Zyido, and SeifED23: Hello, with full respect to Alhadramy Alkendy, what he did by uploading the Saudi flag from unofficial website is considered as a violation of rules, this is wikipedia the free encyclopaedia, Where every informations/flags and sources must all be accurate 100%, by the way, This saudi flag version is currently used by the government officials and it’s media, it is also used universally such as football/organizations/media ect..., thanks Aziz bader (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not a violation. We upload revisions and improvements of our flag files all the time, from a variety of sources official and otherwise. The revision by Alhadramy Alkendy absolutely appears to be a massive improvement. Add to that the nonsense excuse by SeifED23 that "We don't do that here", when we very clearly do, and the evidence provided by Zyido, I must fully support the revision by Alhadramy Alkendy. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t care whether it’s massive improvement or not, can you tell me how many flags in wikipedia has been uploaded from that website ? It’s only saudi arabia, this version has been in wikipedia since 2013 and it’s used worldwide. Aziz bader (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg

{{Edit Request}}

The flag should be changed from the current version to the Royal decree 1973 version — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz bm (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: Hi, and welcome. Where may we find that version, and why is it better? See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the version can be found on [1] on page 10, Wikimedia has also that version. File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg Aziz bm (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: Please use internal links like File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Did it Aziz bm (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Any Updates ? Aziz bm (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to upload warring between Aziz bm (talk · contribs) and Xpërt3 (talk · contribs), and because Aziz bm's version is identical to another file on Commons, I am requesting that the version by Xpërt3 (which is also the status quo version) be split off as their own file. See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Upload_war_over_the_flag_of_Saudi_Arabia. I will likely be starting an RfC once this is done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: You are correct. Please correct the calligraphy on the construction sheet; some other variants and derivative works of the Saudi flag may need correcting as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That's why I notifed COM:Help desk. Any incorrect flags can be taken to COM:GL. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi :@LaundryPizza03: , I’m not very experienced on designing so someone should do these instead. Aziz bm (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Version of Saudi flag to use

In the past few weeks, there has been a heated edit war between Aziz bm, Xpërt3, and possibly others on which version of the flag to use:

• 
  Type 1
• 
  Type 2

I am opening this RfC to allow discussion on which version of the flag should be used by default at File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. Please be civil and do not revert or upload new versions of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg while the discussion is in progress. Note that Type 1 was in place before the edit war and Type 2 is currently in place, but this should not be regarded as an endorsement of either version. The version with the most support will be enacted at File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg at the end. (But note that File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg and File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg should never be changed to the other version, even after the conclusion of this RfC, in order to maintain consistency of references to "Type 1" and "Type 2" in the course of this discussion.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, waiting for the discussion Aziz bm (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

hello everyone, i'm here to clarify everything regarding this issue from A to Z, the issue is not about whether the flag is supported by the majority or not., it's about how much the flag is accurate and identical to it's official source "the Royal Decree 1973 page 10" [2] and as it appears, the type 1 calligraphy does not match the official description of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg as type 2 does , the type 2 flag matches royal decree [3] while the type 1 matches Vexilla Mundi [4] so there's a big different between the two websites in terms of credibility. when @Xpert3 started reverting this file, i appealed to the Administration Noticeboard and the admin @LaunderyPizza3 supported my version [5] [6] so my position is very clear and legal. The problem is not here, the problem is that the flags on the Crown Prince office (which Xpert3 has been using as his argument) doesn’t actually resembles Type 1 at all as the thickness of the white script looks thinner and overall less proportionate to the green background frame. Xpert3 has been engaging on this reverting war for his own speculations without providing official sources that can match his flag with it’s description, his arguments are all based on specific images from different news outlets which is considered (No Original Research) per Wikipedia’s policies and it is prohibited. If I’m going to use Xpert3’s arguments then here are some pictures I have and you judge

1- [7]

2- [8]

3- [9]

4- [10]

5- [11]

6- [12]

7-[13]

8- [14]

9- [15]

10- [16]

11- [17]

12- [18]

Many of these pictures are part of Royal court or government meeting and as it appears, many of them (along with Type 2) are identical or share similar calligraphies to royal decree 1973 page 10 [19], The only differences are styling of لا in إلا and the و in رسول otherwise the flag’s calligraphies doesn’t resembles Type 1 at all. when we look at other flags, it appears that many of them match the official description of their flags and both are from government sources such as File:Flag of Argentina.svg, File:Flag of Qatar.svg, File:Flag of Japan.svg, File:Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg. right now File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is on the same situation. What I’m doing is following wikimedia’s policies by uploading flag with it’s official source. One of the reasons why I’m using this version is because there is no unified calligraphy for the Saudi flag and therefore accrediting into an official document which is the royal decree may be the best way to end disputes in the future, I think i did all my best to explain my opinion regarding this issue. Aziz bm (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: , can you please revert the flags back to the previous version before User:Aziz bm started to initiate the edit war? I don't view it as fair that the versions of the flags he reverted are still there. Thanks. Xpërt3 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This information is pulled straight out of a now-deleted post, but here is an overall summary of the issues:

I have pledged from a previous post that I would stop edit warring as it is unconstructive, but I would like to state a few things in summary:

• File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg is used in governmental settings by the Saudi Arabian Government, as evidenced by pictures of this version of the flag in use in Saudi offices and most meetings out of KSA (eg. [https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106819633-1609918195681-gettyimages-1230433807-AA_05012021_241268.jpeg?v=1619586969], taken in Al-Ula during the Qatar-GCC reconciliation in 2021, [https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/ly/uploads/images/2022/07/15/218658.jpg], taken on 7/15/2022, during Joe Biden's visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Additionally, it has been seen in civilian settings (eg. [https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2018/09/22/ea9b567b-959c-407f-9368-d555dcd2b581/ea9b567b-959c-407f-9368-d555dcd2b581_16x9_1200x676.jpg?format=jpeg&width=960], taken in Saudi Arabia). You could do a quick Google search and find what I'm saying is true. The problem is that Aziz bm attempted to delete this file from Wikimedia Commons which would've been a disastrous move.
• File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is used in most civilian settings and therefore is not an illegitimate flag. However this flag is not seen in Saudi government offices, only rarely ever seen in official meetings with other country officials in different countries (eg. [https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Trump-Saudi-Arabia-MBS-salman-img.jpg], taken in Washington during a meeting).
• Just to clarify, I believe both flag versions with the different calligraphy's are both legitimate flags that should be put on the Saudi Arabia country page, but that is not what Aziz Bm thinks.
• Now regarding Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg, which is the King's flag, a quick Google search would reveal that Aziz Bm is lying about how the current state of the file is in use by the Saudi Government (eg. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/z2J5ozVJKaNQZqH0dDZUXqyOf30=/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost/public/PGZVSHTBIAI6VBC54NNQENFRGY.jpg] [https://saudigazette.com.sa/uploads/images/2022/05/08/1974453.jpeg], taken in the Royal Court in Riyadh in 2020). The version I was reverting back to is the official version. I cannot believe Aziz Bm has gotten this far in terms of reverting this file to an alternate version not seen before he started the reverting war. He has absolutely ZERO proof of this flag being used, I have done an image search myself and found nothing.
• The royal decree he is using as "proof" is simply outdated, evidenced by the contents of the file (eg. colors of flag not matching the flags from today, coat of arms design not matching the flags from today, etc.) I would think that another royal decree would have been released at a later date, but that royal decree has not been found yet. Regardless, using a 1973 decree does not state anything about the new flags with different colors and designs being used today, which is why I do not believe it is to-date.
• I copied and pasted this from Commons:Help desk, as this happens to fit in this context. That is all I have to say, thank you. Xpërt3 (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Xpërt3, keep in mind that the flags of Saudi Arabia are different from each place because it’s based on how the calligraphers design, also, keep in mind that brining photos from different news outlets will not determine the legitimate flag as long as your version doesn’t match the description. Also, Keep in mind that the 1973 royal decree isn’t outdated because the bureau of experts at the council of ministry [20] states that the decree was issued on February 4, 1973 and it’s law statue is still active , And finally, remember when uploading any flag on Wikimedia it should be reliable sources and match it’s description and the current one matches the description which is actually a government document. I believe that arguments is not your strong point and therefore you need to work hard on improving it.

EDIT : you said that “colors of flag not matching the flags from today”, our discussion is about the calligraphy not colors , the colors is known to be solid green since the first Saudi state, the printing at that time is different from today so the colors seems to be more light green in the document. You still haven’t provided a government document that can match your “Vexilla Mundi” Version and instead you’re arguing by showing Washington Post pictures, this doesn’t make sense at all.

Aziz bm (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I just showed a picture of Joe Biden and MBS meeting, and it shows the calligraphic difference that I'm arguing for. Also, since you are reverting constantly, the original version of the File must remain until you are able to sufficiently get votes. So these files should be reverted back to before the edit war. Xpërt3 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Xpërt3, It seems to me that your comprehension is slow and I don't know when you will realize my words, I will repeat it again :

When you upload a flag, you need to add a source in the Description and the flag must match the description, the source must be reliable source or official government document, for example : File:Flag of Argentina.svg, File:Flag of Qatar.svg, File:Flag of Japan.svg and File:Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg are all identical to government documents and all match their descriptions. You didn’t do that, you’re trying to prove your claim from specific pictures and that doesn’t work, and as I said, pictures cannot determine the rightful flag as long as you didn’t showed up an official government document. And again, the flags of Saudi Arabia are different from each place because it’s based on how the calligraphers design, for example : the Saudi flag at the U.N [21] appears to be 100% identical to Type 2. Most of the pictures I uploaded above are also identical or share similarity to Type 2 so you can’t depend on some pictures because there are dozens of flags that also share my version, in this case, the only way to end the dispute is to Accredit on an official governmental document and that’s what I did last month. Aziz bm (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aziz bm: do not revert to personal attacks. This is to be a civil discussion. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not lie Aziz Bm. That flag at the UN changed and here is a more recent photo with the calligraphic difference that I'm arguing for [22]. Additionally, here is a picture at UN headquarters, provided by the Saudi Royal Palace on March 27, 2018, showing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General at the United Nations headquarters in New York [23]. You shouldn't use outdated documents to show that this isn't the main flag that Saudi Arabian officials use. Xpërt3 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Any update on this one way or the other (also, if the current version is chosen for use, there is a more precise/sharp vector present at File:Al-Liwaa.svg)? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 17:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gdh6 and Dylmur: Please participate in this constructive discussion rather than reverting the file to your preferred version without explanation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Please consider overwrite protection.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Until the most recent edit(s) described above, there has been no further comment regarding this debate since 18 July (three weeks ago). Is there any conclusion that can be made given the evidence posted by each side above (also including a sharper version of the currently existing design here)? The argument essentially boils down to: do we use the version as stated in the online version of the original 1973 decree (but with uncertainty as to if any update to that decree can be found) per Aziz bm or do we use the version that appears to be in use in photos as stated in the news articles posted above per Xpërt3, but which does not match said original decree. If necessary a file with whatever version is not chosen can remain as another upload and listed in the "other versions" section of this page. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@HapHaxion:I think both flags should be used on the Saudi flag related Wikipedia pages but this has to be implemented correctly. I would say that the government flag is "Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg" and the civil use of the flag is "Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg". So, on the main Saudi Arabia country page, type 1 and type 2 should be used, as well on the pages about the Saudi flag. Files like "Naval base flag of the Royal Saudi Navy.svg" and "Air Force Ensign of Saudi Arabia.svg" should only use type 1 flag since these are government flags.

I saw the sharper version of Al-Liwaa.svg and everything looks good except the big space in between two of the characters on the right side. If that is fixed, we should use that shahada on the type 2 flag, which would look nice! Xpërt3 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: do you believe there has been sufficient evidence towards one of the proposals above, or are we still at an impasse? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: I think both users' arguments are equally legitimate, and neither is more policy-compliant than the other. In order to achieve a consensus, other people will need to read through their arguments and decide which one they are more convinced by; unfortunately, it seems that no one else is interested in discussing this matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: so what's next? Since the conversation has essentially ended at this point do we close the RFC as no consensus? Do we update the current file per Al-Liwaa and leave it at that? Another idea would be to try and contact anyone active over at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Saudi Arabia/Members or its respective counterpart on arwiki to see if they have any input or to somehow get in contact with a Saudi Arabian official who would have knowledge of the matter, perhaps at an embassy or consulate or at the relevant ministry (there are probably contact e-mail addresses listed). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: Good idea, could you try contacting WikiProject Saudi Arabia? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can do. I have invited several members to participate in the discussion via their talk page. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@HapHaxion I am really trying not to get into an edit war but Aziz bm keeps undoing edits for Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg, which is actually pissing me off. I have provided accurate evidence for the version he keeps reverting and it's just making me angry. He keeps using the reason why you reverted the Crown prince flag and other government ministry flags back and it is just infuriating. This person needs to be stopped. Xpërt3 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I could try talking to them, but ultimately I lack the authority to do anything. That would probably be more in @King of Hearts' department if applicable. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think a discussion with a Saudi Arabian official would be an absolutely great idea, maybe emailing them would help. Xpërt3 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What users don’t get is that Saudi Arabia doesn’t have unified script style, some flags are more similar to Type 1 and others to Type 2 and others to none of these, it all depends on how calligraphers design so the claim over flag for government settings and flag for civil settings is irrelevant because the “civil settings” matches Royal Decree 1973. My point which Xpërt3 didn’t understand is that I’m following Wikimedia’s policy by matching the flag into it’s official description (Royal Decree 1973) like the rest of flags does, for example File:Flag of Argentina.svg File:Flag of Qatar.svg File:Flag of Japan.svg File:Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg are all identical to their descriptions, Xpërt3 didn’t liked it and started reverting for his own speculations, he said that the Royal decree 1973 is outdated which is not. According to the bureau of experts at the council of ministry [24], the decree was issued on February 4, 1973 and it’s law statue is still active. so I don’t know what outdated he was referring to. King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives (Darah) uses the same style script [25], Saudi embassy in Washington D.C also uses the same style script [26], The Royal decree itself uses that style [27] reliable sources like Britannica [28] CIA [29] GCC [30] also uses that script, international sport organizations like ESPN [31] and FIFA [32] all appears to be 100% accurate. so it all points out that these sources are a strong indicator to use the current version per Wikimedia’s policies. Xpërt3 wanted to use the other flag just because the styling of لا in إلا and the و in رسول are similar to the royal court despite the flag itself does not accurately resembles to the ones he wants as the thickness of the white script looks thinner and overall less proportionate to the green background frame. Let’s assume that the crown prince went to another royal court and the flag there looked similar to Type 2, will Xpërt3 change his mind ? That’s what I was referring to, when we upload flags, we add official sources not pictures from news outlets or individual pictures. I could never imagine people saying that the official source for USA’s flag should be the Oval Office from Washington post or UK the Windsor Castle from Daily Mail. If the calligraphies on Royal decree matched type 1 I would have uploaded it by myself, I’m not here to undermine or stubbornness anyone who disagrees with me but to follow Wikimedia’s policy. If Xpërt3 was able to find new Royal decree where the flag matches Type 1 then I will support the decision otherwise there’s nothing we should do. Aziz bm (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If the Government of Saudi Arabia uses Type 1 as a flag, that is the government's flag. There is more than adequate proof that it is in government offices, most of all the sources you are using are limited, outdated, or American-related organizations. For example, Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg has been seen in government offices as the version I revert back to with media [33] [34], yet you still revert it with ZERO evidence. The royal decree you are referring to is outdated, proven by recent photos in Saudi offices, so I don't understand why you don't understand. NEWS OUTLETS help us see things and notice if something is outdated, and the news has proven that the royal decree you keep using is outdated. Even another user by the name of Zyido in the section above labeled '"Correct" Version of the Flag' speculates is confident that "an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984."

Answer these questions and I await a response in your next response:

• Why don't you think that famous and accurate media reports can be used to verify the script of the Saudi flag? I can show you many more sources than you in this regard that are new.
• In the 1973 royal decree, there is the King's flag, known as Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg on Wikimedia. However, the royal flag in that document does not match the new royal flag which has been seen much more in royal court. If you are really confident in the accuracy of the 1973 decree, find me the exact royal flag in that document used by the Saudi government in a new source.
• Where is your proof using modern media that type 2 flag is used in Saudi Gov. offices in the whole of Saudi Arabia? Please give me 10 sources of this, as I can give you 10 sources of type 1 being used in Saudi offices. Do not provide sources of these flags used in America or any nation outside of Saudi Arabia.
• Why are you taking word per word of other users responses from Talk:Saudi Arabia? You are just copying their arguments and copying and pasting them here because you don't have any strong idea to present.

You have no proof that it is still active. I have emailed Saudi Standards, Metrology, and Quality Org. about this issue, and they will respond as they sent automatic email. Through my research, type 1 flag is governmental and type 2 is in civil settings, and there is outstanding proof of this. Xpërt3 (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You also copied words from Zyido several times so I don’t know who’s copying words without providing sources, another thing, what sources are limited or outdated ? GCC ? CIA ? Royal Decree ? Britannica ? King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives ? Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C ? They are all reliable or official sources, do not try to invent your own standards to determine which flag should be used

If the Government of Saudi Arabia uses Type 1 as a flag, that is the government's flag : The government doesn’t use type 1 because the calligraphy doesn’t resembles the one you’re pointing it. Type 1 is very thin and small while the government is thick and big just like Type 2. The only differences are styling of لا in إلا and the و in رسول .

Why don't you think that famous and accurate media reports can be used to verify the script of the Saudi flag? : Because when we upload flag, we put source not media or individual photos. This is Wikimedia’s policies not my.

Where is your proof using modern media that type 2 flag is used in Saudi Gov. offices in the whole of Saudi Arabia? : My point is not whether the government offices use type 2 or 1, my point is which source can we provide to match the official description, this is the point you still didn’t understand. I have no problem using type 1 or type 2 or type 3 or type 4 but at least I want government sources to match the flag’s official description just like the rest of the flags does. The Royal decree is still active and this is alone strong proof unless a new Royal decree was replaced and supported the type 1 that time we can all agree on this issue.

You have no proof that the flag is still active : well the Bureau of experts at the Council of Ministry is alone strong proof.

You said “through my research, type 1 flag is governmental and type 2 is in civil settings..” you said it (my research) not reliable sources. This is considered no original research because you haven’t provided official sources where it states that government and civil has their flags. Aziz bm (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Saudi Arabia General Authority for Statistics maintains both English and Arabic versions of the Saudi Arabia General Information web page.

I have pointed this out before but I will repeat: the English version of the web page uses a Type 1 flag copied from Wikimedia Commons. The Arabic version of the web page uses a Type 2 flag copied from Wikimedia Commons.

• English language site [35] with exact (byte for byte) copy of a 2020 version of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. The specific version was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by user:FDRMRZUSA on October 27,2020.
• Arabic language site [36] with a PNG image that appears to have been converted from a 2006 version of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. The specific version was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by User:Denelson83 on February 16,2006.

If one of you can convince the General Authority for Statistics to use a common image on both web pages, it would provide some cheap entertainment to us all... even if it does not resolve the current Wikimedia edit war. MapGrid (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Any further movement on this one way or another? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, a new variant was posted in a tweet by the official Saudi press agency today. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI: The new variant in the twitter feed has an aspect ratio of 591:866. It should be 2:3. And the shahada dips significantly below the horizontal centerline; this is in conflict with the 1973 legislation. The position and dimensions of the sword look to be about right. MapGrid (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to justify my moves in changing the flag, but the edits were not going through. There is an official Saudi Flag Day account that is on Twitter but I cannot find it at this time. They have a flag sheet for this variant of the flag. Today is the first Saudi flag day, and they announced it days back, which is why it has been circulating. Saudi Press Agency, the Governmental agency, puts this version as the official version: https://www.spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?lang=en&newsid=2430539. Additionally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia has put this flag version as the official version: https://mobile.twitter.com/KSAmofaEN.Xpërt3 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also same flag can be found of Ministry of Education page: https://twitter.com/tc_mohe/status/1634525808717856768?s=19 Xpërt3 (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the version we ultimately end up going with, the other non-historical and non-variant flags listed in "other versions" should be updated to reflect any changes, as well as the construction sheet. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I went to Saudi Arabia, and they do not care about the multiple variants of the flag there. But I can tell you that the current version of the Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 1).svg is the main flag. They hang that flag the most and also the Royal Court adopts that version. I never saw the current version of Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg hanged anywhere in Saudi Arabia but they used it on flag day the most because it is decorative. Xpërt3 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@HapHaxion Just to let you know, when do you plan do update all related files, and the construction sheet? 24.12.3.153 22:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)