Talk:Saudi Arabia–United States relations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saudi Arabia–United States relations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Saudi Arabia High‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I added an I article I wrote before I found out that this topic has been already written, I didnt delete any of the previous contents but made small changes on topic names

I added an I article I wrote before I found out that this topic has been already written, I didnt delete any of the previous contents but made small changes on topic names --173.22.255.133 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research (2013 update)

This edit is what the IP is referring to, and it was a massive expansion of the article that basically laid out the framework of the article as it is today. Unfortunately, it contained things we would consider original research here, such as supposed e-mail interviews with related figures. I have deleted any text that references such private communications, but there may be other work that relies on OR. Something to keep in mind. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has some serious issues

I don't have the knowledge or time to go through and fix this entry, but this article is poorly laid out, poorly sourced, and is filled with bias views of the author. Someone knowledgeable needs to overhaul this page so it doesn't remind me of a 9th grade history report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.80.8 (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a piece of poop. Very biased and unprofessional. Fix.

Missing information about the Petro dollar agreement, THE most important US-Saudi issue.

File:Azizfdr.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Azizfdr.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Healing a Rift, U.S. Agrees to $30 Billion Fighter Jet Sale to Saudi Arabia. resource

With $30 Billion Arms Deal, U.S. Bolsters Saudi Ties by Mark Landler reported from Honolulu, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, published December 29, 2011 NYTimes.com. A version of this article appeared in print on December 30, 2011, on page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: Healing a Rift, U.S. Agrees to $30 Billion Fighter Jet Sale to Saudi Arabia.

99.109.125.85 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

made above more readable. 99.181.141.49 (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights

This article does not mention human rights in Saudi Arabia. Right now, it only focuses on military and oil interests in both countries. For anyone unfamiliar with Saudi human rights, the country's Sharia law judiciary system discriminates against women, religious minorities, and homosexuals. For example, women are not allowed to travel without a man (or drive cars), and it is illegal for Christians to meet in prayer. The government of Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy based on Sharia law, and the country cracks down on political dissident and public demonstrations.

The article Silenced in Saudi Arabia discusses the merits of Obama staying silent on human rights in Saudi Arabia in exchange for supplying arms to Syria and pumping more gas. The article Washington's Double Standard criticizes Obama for condemning Iran, Libya and Syria for human rights while ignoring violations in Saudi Arabia, such as when Saudi Arabia sent troops to Bahrain to crush dissent during the Arab Spring. In addition, Amnesty International provides annual reports about the state of Saudi human rights and those in other countries.

I propose creating a section about controversies or criticisms, in which the article compares the U.S. approach to Saudi human rights with how other regimes with human rights violations are treated. --128.220.159.83 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> Obama to try mending ties during Saudi trip(Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

"cites" like (Wafa, 2005)

The article as more than a few names followed by years, which are in parentheses -- e.g. (Wafa, 2005). I have attempted to find the articles they refer to, and have found some
(e.g. Hart, Parker T. (1998). Saudi Arabia and the United States: Birth of a Security Partnership. Indiana University Press. Retrieved 23 October 2014.),
but many resist searches in google. (Irvine, 1981), (Alnabrab, 2008)
Possibly they are untranslated Arabic, who knows.

Don't know what to do about them. -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misidentification of the United States as a Democratic Republic

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic Republic.

Organization

The first section is History, the last seven subsections of which could also fall under Controversies, the second section, and one of which, the 2017 arms deal, is also under the section Military Relations. The 2019 arms legislation subsection could also go there. I'll rename Controversies to Other Controversies. I'd suggest eliminating the Military Relations section and incorporating that info under History. I think the last seven subsections of History could be put under a heading of Trump Presidency. Any thoughts on this? Seananony (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]