Talk:Arab–Israeli alliance

Bad name

@Greyshark09:, Hi, Israel is a country and Sunnism is a branch of Islam. As if we say cooperation of a company with an artifact. Sunnism is not an entity which can participate in a coalition with a country! I suggest to move it to "Israel-GCC Coalition.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that could be a good solution, even though most media sources use "Israeli-Sunni" or "Arab-Israeli". If you can find a source using this term - this would be great.GreyShark (dibra) 13:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are some sources. For example according to CFR there is Israel-Sunni Arab states Alliance [2] and another term is "Israeli-Arab axis against Iran"[3].--Seyyed(t-c) 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Alliance/Membership

Wouldn't Cabal/Associates as terminology or something similar be more appropriate as this is an unofficial "open secret" grouping among states?Doyna Yar (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

In general, I think the article is overegging the pudding (coordination group? Is there one? Do they meet up on Zoom?). Certainly there is a current confluence of interests but it is in the nature of these things that they are fragile in changing circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the improperly removed, citations needed tag. Citations are still needed in this article, in particular for the "membership" of this fictional alliance. The source just added does not mention the alliance, it is about the Abraham Accords (which Sudan and Morocco have not signed). It seems that some editors think the only qualification needed to join this group is a dislike of Iran. Adding two new members as was just done is pure synth. There is no foundational source for the membership. The other points raised in the Afd continue to exist, when was the group founded, what were/is its goals, when do they meet, have they made any joint announcements concerning plans/actions taken? No answer. Even the title of this article makes no sense, it says "Israeli Arab" or "Israeli Sunni" which is already a contradiction. This group does not actually exist, I could just as well write the Russia-Chinese alliance versus the US by way of comparison.

Yesterday UAE, Bahrain call for joint stand with Israel in approaching US on Iran threat If the UAE and Bahrain are already members in an "alliance" with Israel, why do they need to call on Israel to join them?

Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge this somewhere

Please. This synthesized fiction should not exist in Wikipedia mainspace.Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it is full of opinions and original research Shadow4dark (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

An editor is edit warring the tags despite being warned about this, the source added to support the members list is completely insufficient, it mentions only Saudi, UAE, Israel and Iran. Since this "alliance" does not actually exist, I expect that it will be quite difficult to discover a single source mentioning that alliance and listing the members but we can wait a bit longer to see if it can be done, if not then a merge should be proposed.Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

More evidence of alliance non existence https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210204-netanyahu-seeks-anti-iran-alliance-parallel-to-biden-administration/ According to this article, Israel already has an anti Iran alliance with Bahrain and the UAE so why is Netanyahu seeking one? Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Run Parallel means to run alongside or in this case continue under Biden as it was done under Trump. Once again, the alliance is proven to exist. Learn to read something that isn't anti-semitic and or has an anti-Israeli bias. And the MEM is a pro-Hamas outlet for nonsense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Added article wide tag, article fails verifiability.

Specifically:

"All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article."

"Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy."

No source exists in the article to demonstrate the existence of this alliance and the list of its members. Inferences HAVE been drawn from multiple sources. The article therefore fails WP:V.Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the tags yet again. They need to stay there until the identified problems have been resolved.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: As you already know, there are other editors (including myself) who strongly disagree with you on this matter. Accordingly, I don't believe that it was proper for you to have repeatedly added these tags unilateraly. I know that you have very strong opinions on this article but you need to respect other editor's viewpoints. I am going to remove the tags. If you wish to restore the tags, please obtain a concensus for it beforehand via a request for comment. Thank You!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2021

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: PAGE NOT MOVED OR RENAMED Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran → Arab states–Israeli anti-Iran grouping – The article, subject of recent deletion and merge proposals, currently fails WP:V for the reasons stated in the preceding section. In the absence of any source detailing the fact of an alliance and listing its members but given the desire to retain possibly useful content, it is proposed to remedy the policy deficiency via a rename that does not require such specific sourcing. (Note: Since the grouping is informal and membership of the group appears to fluctuate or is otherwise not specifically known, an infobox is not appropriate. Pinging participants in the prior discussions @Huldra, Steamboat2020, Sliekid, ImTheIP, Shrike, Vici Vidi, Mr.User200, WikiCleanerMan, and Chefallen: Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier You need to stop. This article does not fail meeting verifiability or notability. You have been told countless times through the deletion discussion and your merger proposal for this article. What is changing the article's name going to do? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As stated, the previous section explains exactly why the article presently fails WP:V and quotes verbatim the policy requirement. I am not making a mere assertion. This is the root of the problem with this article, you are attempting to formalize via an infobox something that is exactly the opposite of formal, a loose grouping at best.(btw, can you explain to me how the purpose (in the infobox) of this grouping is two different proxy conflicts? I cannot even begin to translate that into an English sentence).Selfstudier (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The most accurate name could be Israeli-Arab alliance on Iran. Since not all arab states are openly allied against Iran.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier Probably because you haven't read the two articles on Israel's and Saudi Arabia's proxy conflict with Iran. Both are allied against Iran. Iran is the mutual adversary of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Quite clearly established for anyone who follows current affairs. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: That's a bit better I guess, I would like to know which is right, "Arab states" or "Sunni Arab states"?Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Let me try again, compose a sentence in English explaining what the "purpose" of the "alliance" is.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The purpose is to counter Iran. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

NO MOVE- @Selfstudier: I agree with @WikiCleanerMan that this proposal has no more merit than the previous "delete" and "merge" proposals which were both rejected--Steamboat2020 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment OK, I have amended the purpose per above, "To counter Iran". Next problem, the article says "The roots of the alliance are believed to have started in the 2000s" and then goes on to say "The coalition emerged by November 2017" so these two statements seem to contradict one another. Any clarification there?Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Roots mean the starting ground. The coalition emerged means that's when it took a more formal shape. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

More formal how? The given BBC source is a discussion about a developing Israel-Saudi relationship? It doesn't mention the alliance at all. And 2017 is only the date that the source article was written, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not just Saudi Arabia, other countries listed in the infobox are part of it. The alliance is cited everywhere in the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Eh, no it isn't. I just checked. In case I missed it somehow, give me a quote, please.Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with @WikiCleanerMan on this. ----Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I admire your passion and perseverance but I think that it's time for you to just let this go!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for any argument that this article complies with WP:V. By the way, I don't know why you are addressing your comments to me, this is a page move discussion not a thread between you and I.Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, I addressed my comments to you because you are the only one advocating for the the move/name change. I see no reason to pretend otherwise!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment The most informative and authoritative source I have found so far is a recent journal article (https://www.athensjournals.gr/mediterranean/2019-5-4-2-Zisser.pdf) about this subject written in 2019 by Eyal Zisser, a Mid East history professor from Tel Aviv U. I think we can consider him to be a reliable source on this subject even if possibly a little biased. In his conclusions he refers to the alliance as an "alliance" in scare quotes (because it isn't actually an alliance) and several times refers to it as "a co-operation", one that has the potential to develop if obstacles (detailed) can be overcome. Nor does he specifically identify a list of members (so it doesn't help with WP:V) but speaks in generalities like most of the other sources we have already. Still, overall this is a much better source than the sources we currently have and would work well for a properly constructed article.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: You can twist Zisser's words to try to bolster your argument but I see nothing in his article to warrant the name-change/page-move that you are proposing--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Just close this discussion. This is all pointless. And this is the first time he has provided a source for his argument, unlike the previous two times. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, the applicant has a problem inviting me to this talk and the previous one. In any case, I support keeping the name as it is, because there is really an alliance between the regimes of Egypt, Jordan and the UAE with Israel--Sakiv (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2021 (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.

Possible alliance

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210226-israel-in-talks-with-gulf-states-to-form-defence-alliance-report-claims/ If it comes about, then this is what an alliance would look like, not the synthesized rubbish that is in this article at the moment. However this may be just more made up nonsense, we will have to wait and see.Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely WP:NOTJUSTYET Shadow4dark (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This actually proves the existence of the alliance rather than disprove it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "alliance" in this article, which is just a synthesis of might be's, could be's and maybes. It is a discussion of a proposed actual alliance which may or may not happen, we will see.Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And yet if there isn't a covert alliance, then why is Israel reaching out to Saudi Arabia and a few other gulf states to form a more formal and open military defence coalition somewhere in the likes of the GCC? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says why, it doesn't mention anything about any preexisting arrangement, only possible covert ties but those are not in dispute. Covert ties is a thing, there are sources for those but not for an existing alliance. Nor is it necessary for an alliance to previously exist in order to propose the one mentioned in the article. I am not saying there is no alliance, I am saying there are no sources that we can cite for its existence. I still think the material can be made into a good and interesting article but it should be more about the nature of the relationships and things that can be clearly sourced.Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But this alliance as stated in the article does exist. How could it not if we all agree that Iran has proxy conflicts with Israel and Saudi Arabia? Why wouldn't Israel and the Arab States have an alliance to counter Iranian aggression, influence, and interests in the MENA region as this article states? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as WP is concerned, if no reliable secondary sources confirm its existence, then it does not exist, our personal beliefs are irrelevant. What is required is as in https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210226-israel-in-talks-with-gulf-states-to-form-defence-alliance-report-claims/ ie these are the members, this is the function and if it was actually being formed, the date of formation. Just because Israel made a deal with UAE to formalize prior covert relations, does not mean they have agreed to an "alliance" against Iran (although neither likes Iran). Saudi is actually talking to Iran by the back door right now, doesn't mean Saudi and Iran have an alliance. It's not correct to take normal international dealings and relationships and "manufacture" an agreement that actually isn't there.Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That was one of the reasons Bahrain and the Emirates signed a more formal agreement. And what secondary sources aren't cited in the article? I added plenty of them. Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't speaking since the attack on the Saudi embassy in 2016. Also would the Axis of Resistance not count as an alliance existing even as it's unofficial just as the one Israel and the Gulf States had prior to the Arabharm Accords? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We are going around in circles, the problem remains the same, there are no secondary sources for the existence of an alliance, there are plenty of secondary sources about relations between one or more states but there isn't one that specifies an alliance between the ones listed as members or when it was formed. I will repeat what I already said, there is a good article to be has here but it's not this one which is just a bunch of disparate sources synthed together to produce a conclusion not justified by any of the sources individually.Selfstudier (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We could do the same about the article called Nuclear weapons and Israel. But the fact remains the sources provided are related to the article's concept. And none of it is disparate. It just seems you are just picking this article apart, whether it is to deny verifiability, or to move, merge, or delete, maybe it doesn't fit your view on this subject. You have to provide evidence for your claim. This is something I'm doing on the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict article's talk page while disagreeing with the existence of what the article alleges. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

My claim is that there is no verifiable secondary source confirming this alliance so it fails V. To refute my claim, show me one. Until you do, the article is OR and synth.Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-israel-is-strengthening_b_11946660 --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please be serious, I already showed you an example of what it should look like. If this alliance really did exist there would be multiple readily available sources saying so, the fact that it is not easy to find even one should tell you all you need to know. My recommendation remains the same as it has been since all this discussion began, redo the article but not using an infobox claiming this one and that one as members simply telling it like it is, I even gave you a very good source to use for doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is clear on this. You're just in denial for whatever reason. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to delete, to merge or to move it. There is presently no consensus to fix the V problem.Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan is correct there already was a consensus on this matter because @Selfstudier presented the alleged "V problem" as the rationale for supporting the proposals "to delete", "to merge" and "to move" this page. The "v problem" was rejected together with those proposals!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Those proposals would have fixed the V problem but they were rejected, that does not mean the V problem is fixed, it isn't and I have suggested yet another way to fix it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@selfstudier's alleged "V problem" was discussed at length and rejected in those three proposals. Please see the archived discussions for those proposals. There really is no need to keep repeating the same old arguments again and again--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

ping:Sakiv--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The V problem was not rejected, the solutions for it were. You can't reject a V problem, you have to fix it. The problem here is not liking the solutions. If you think that there isn't a V problem, then start an RFC for removal of the tags saying that there is a V problem and we will see what happens. That way we will get a wider pool of editors into the process.Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The majority of the editors who discussed your multiple proposals clearly didn't believe that the tags which you added to the page were warranted. An alliance is merely "a relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not explicit agreement has been worked out among them." There is more than enough reliable references to establish that on some level such a relationship already exists between these nations in their mutual desire to counter Iran.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The solutions have been provided by the rejections of your three proposals. All this time you've said the article's subject matter doesn't exist could have been spent on improving the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article has gotten better than before, but I do not think it is appropriate to include Morocco as a member while it is located far from Iran. What matters to Morocco is that it obtains recognition of the sovereignty over Western Sahara. I agree with the removal of Morocco and the addition of Egypt. The verifiability problem can be easily solved by conducting a search and you will find several articles talking about the development of a military alliance.--Sakiv (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Morocco is concerned about Iranian involvement in Western Sahara -see here--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

They may well be, that doesn't mean they are in any alliance. France is concerned about Iran, so are a lot of countries, they are not in the alliance either.Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Western Sahara was the entire basis for Morocco restoring ties with Israel. Iranian involvment in Western Sahara is therefore obviously an integral part of those renewed ties.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Same comment as before, does not follow that they are in an alliance. You can say, A+B (source 1) and you can then say A+C (source 2) but you can't then say = A+B+C because that is exactly what SYNTH is. You need a source 3 that says A+B+C.Selfstudier (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The article I referenced above claims that "Morocco’s policy is also bringing it close to the Israeli position on Iran and the warming of relations between Israel and the Gulf states." - That's not synth - it mentions, Israel, Morocco and the Gulf Nations!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a long time now since I looked at all the sources and I did look at them all. I keep asking for a foundational source and the latest one given (just up above) was https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-israel-is-strengthening_b_11946660. Note that this article does not even contain the word "alliance" and is principally about Israeli UAE ties. So that's no use. If one of the sources specifically refers to an alliance of (some number of specified countries) then that could form a foundational basis for the article instead of what is there now. The only reason there is a V problem is because no source says alliance + countries as listed in the article. That's yet another suggestion for resolving this.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you insist that an alliance has to be a formal treaty between countries to achieve a specific goal. If you accept the more mild definition of an alliance which is merely "a relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not explicit agreement has been worked out among them then it really doesn't make a difference if any of the sources actually specifically state the magic word "alliance"--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be formal, just sourced. You see that the article says the alliance is Israel + (Arab States) with the implication that all the other states have agreed to cooperate with Israel (versus Iran), right? As if Israel is the leader. For me, this was the first warning sign, an alliance/relationship should be between equals, usually. Anyway show me a source mentioning the countries in the list of "members" (specifically, not "Gulf states") as being in any kind of cooperation versus Iran. You can't do that either, right?Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"an alliance/relationship should be between equals" Where do you get these requirements from???--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at this edit on 17 January by the article creator. He removed the US Morocco and Sudan from the list of members leaving Israel, Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Now Morocco and Sudan are back in (synth). As far as I can see the members list is a movable feast and even the article creator could not establish the list to his own satisfaction although at least he removed the US, which was obvious nonsense. If you do not want to accept any of the 5 possible fixes I have suggested up till now then the best thing is to start an RFC at the end of which a neutral editor may decide if V is satisfied or not.Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

U.S. participation in the Iranian opposition under the Trump administration certainly wasn't "nonsense". Even the Biden administration has pledged to work together with Israel on regional security issues such as Iran and the Biden administration notified Israel in advance about the airstrike against an Iranian-backed Shiite militia base on the Syrian-Iraqi border. You can debate whether this rises to the level of an alliance but it certainly wasn't nonsense--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the US (and many other countries) have issues with Iran. The "nonsense" was that the US was a member of an Israeli led alliance against Iran. It wasn't and isn't.Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can't prove this doesn't exist. So it's best you drop it if you're not going to help. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not I making the assertion that it exists. The ONUS for inclusion of disputed material is on those making the assertion and V is a requirement for inclusion. I have tried to help in every way I can including provision of the best sourcing I was able to locate, it is not my fault if my suggestions are not taken up.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There is more then enough references to substantiate this unofficial alliance. We are just going in circles!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

As I have stated multiple times now, I just want a single reference that will satisfy V. If multiple references are needed, then they are being combined to produce a conclusion not contained in any of them, synth in other words. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A true "synth" is, for example, if you were to have a reference to an Israeli-Moroccon alliance and another reference to an Israeli-Baharani alliance. If there is nothing to bind these two seperate references and despite that an editor writes a page about an Israeli-Morrocco-Bahrani Alliance then that would be a classic synth. That is not the case here. There are numerous references to a broad alliance of Israeli and Arab Sunni States in their opposition to Iran. Those references establish an aliiance between numerous states but they don't identify exactly who all of the participants are. You then have numerous individual references which reveal the different states. That isn't synth.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research... If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." This is clear cut. If you don't agree, commence an RFC and at the end a neutral editor will determine which argument is correct.Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the synth, I provided an up to date scholarly rs (Zisser), a specialist in this area, casting doubt on the existence of an "alliance" (his scare quotes) and referring to it as a "cooperation" and even he is unable to give a list so why do you, a WP editor, think that you can? Why is Israel privileged in this alliance? (as in the title, Everybody else + Israel). I'll tell you why, Israel puts out loads of stories for propaganda purposes, especially about Iran, this is well known, the oil spill being the latest example (it was Iran!) and this whole article probably originates via that route if I know anything.Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Please keep your anti-Israel propaganda out of this discussion. I already discussed Zisser's article with you in response to one of your previos proposals. You are twisting his article to serve your narrative. What surprises me is that you claim to be familiar with the region and everybody in the region knows the alliance exists unofficially. Even the Saudis who officially are opposed to Israel and vehemently denied reports of an impending peace treaty with Israel never denied reports of the anti-iranian cooperation/alliance. Nobody in the region disputes it. The Sunnis want the Iranians to know about it as a detterent and the Iranians want everybody to know that their enemies are collaborating with the Israelis. Nobody seems to want to stifle reports of this alliance/collaboration except for you.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No one denying it doesn't prove it exists. On WP, rs determines what exists.Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It has been widely reported. I was just pointing out that you are the only one trying to deny it.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Last but by no means least https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mesa-egypt-exclusive/exclusive-egypt-withdraws-from-u-s-led-anti-iran-security-initiative-sources-idUSKCN1RM2WU, how does this fit together with your "alliance"? In addition to the United States and Saudi Arabia, the MESA participants include the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Jordan. The so-called "Arab NATO". Note that Israel is not a proposed member of it. Also note that assuming it ever got off the ground, then this article would be a founding source for the pact satisfying V, exactly that which is missing for the current article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This page discusses a covert alliance. The article you referenced discussed the possible creation of another more formal "NATO-like" alliance which obviously never materialized. There really is no contradiction here.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's covert, meaning no-one knows anything about it except WP editors? Yea, right.Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's well known and has been extensively reported but nations who are officially opposed to Israel still don't want to have a formal "open" alliance--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

They are still talking about Arab NATO https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-israel-joining-pentagon-arab-nato and Israel joining it! That can be synthed into the article along with everything else.Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That article is just an opinion piece about what Israeli participation in Centcom could potentially ultimately lead to. It doesn't claim to be anything more than speculation--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/how-iran-has-brought-israel-and-arab-states-together-quicktake "Q5. Apart from Syria and Iraq, are all Arab governments united against Iran? A. No. Oman and Kuwait remain friendly with Iran, as does Qatar" This rs directly contradicts Oman membership of the alliance. Don't tell me, Oman is a "covert" member?Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Many countries maintain ties with adversarial nations--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oman is just not united with the rest of them in terms of completely cutting off ties with Iran, that doesn't mean that they still aren't working to undermine the Iranians. Foreign relations between countries are usually extremely complex -- don't try to over simplify it.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I am usually criticized for making things too complex, I can't win. I would agree that there is a complicated web of interlocking and sometimes contradictory ties between the states mentioned in the article and not just in relation to Iran and that's what I think the article should actually be about. It should as well cover Turkey, the Israel-Palestine conflict, great power relations, Mediterranean gas and any other matters that impact on these ties. So, perhaps 3 or 4 states are involved in one thing and only a couple in another but that's a more realistic portrayal than trying to suggest a constant uniformity of interest that does not actually exist.Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This page is about their mutual Iranian opposition. I doubt there has ever been nation-allies that have agreed on every issue in the history of the world.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The page claims to be about an alliance that there is no evidence for. Obviously we are not going to agree on this. Btw, the list of see alsos navbars and cats looks ridiculous for a stub article.Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I addressed all of your concerns. With regard to the article being a stub - Nobody is going to invest the time and energy to build up this article as long as you continue to try to destroy it and deny the alliance's existence--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that my concerns have been addressed, in particular no evidence has been provided that V is satisfied. Hand waving will not suffice. I deny and destroy nothing, what I have said and continue to say is that there is no reliable source establishing the existence of an alliance between the states listed in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

we are going around in circles--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the improperly removed verifiability tag and note here that you and editor WikiCleanerMan are "teaming" to force the removal of properly applied tags.Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Actualy, you improperly applied the tags to begin with. You should have sought out a consensus on the tags before you initialy applied them to the article. You knew very well that other editors strongly disagreed with you and yet you chose to act unilaterally.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not how tags work, they should stay absent a consensus to remove them. nableezy - 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"RfC on verifiability of this article"

Should this article remain tagged for Verifiability? The prior discussion is on the talk page preceding this RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ping:WikiCleanerMan, Sakiv--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment here

• No Tag - I have explained my views at length above--Steamboat2020 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• No Tag - I have also explained my views on this above numerous times in length above. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• The tag should remain until the problems in the article are remedied, at a minimum the alliance infobox needs to go along with its list of members. Constant requests have been made for a foundational source for this article and as can be seen in the discussion above none has been forthcoming. The only response has been to offer up completely inapplicable sources see above discussion, 4 March or else handwaving per above - "There is more than enough reliable references to establish that on some level such a relationship already exists between these nations in their mutual desire to counter Iran." and "There is more then enough references to substantiate this unofficial alliance." I have tried to clarify what appears to have happened in my further comments below. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note: @selfstudier cherrypicked and quoted a line out the dozens of comments that I made, in which, I addressed his concerns at GREAT length. Please see the FULL discussion above, (as well as the other discussions which rejected his merge and move proposals) to understand my views in their full context. I take great offense to him dismissing my views as "handwaving"--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Tag and/or Delete - This article has the rank smell of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ESSAY. I don't think I've ever seen a "Party Y-Party X alliance against Party Z" article on WP. Extraordinary. Until some of the fundamental issues w/ the article are resolved, we should probably add all the tags we can to this thing. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

NickCT, if you take the time to read the sources provided, you will see this article isn't synth. It would've been if the proposal to delete, merge, and move, were successful. All the article needs is more information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

NickCT, A true "synth" is, for example, if you were to have a reference to an Israeli-Moroccon alliance and another reference to an Israeli-Baharani alliance. If there is nothing to bind these two seperate references and despite that an editor writes a page about an Israeli-Morrocco-Bahrani Alliance then that would be a classic synth. That is not the case here. There are numerous references to a broad alliance of Israeli and Arab Sunni States in their opposition to Iran. Those references establish an aliiance between numerous states but they don't identify exactly who all of the participants are. You then have numerous individual references which reveal the different states. That isn't synth.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• No tag, unless . . . The sources precented in the article easily meet WP:V. However, if there is significant sourcing that there is no such alliance, it should be presented, and that might lead me to re-evaluate. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The idea that Oman, a long time friend of Iran, is in alliance with Israel against Iran is completely ridiculous, the citation for it is an article that mentions that Netanyahu and then some Israeli officials visited Oman, duh. On the contrary, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-11/oman-foreign-minister-optimistic-about-return-to-iran-deal and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oman-politics/oman-content-with-current-israel-relationship-foreign-minister-says-idUSKBN2AB1XB Editor Sakiv, canvassed above by editor Steamboat2020, says in the recent RM discussion "I support keeping the name as it is, because there is really an alliance between the regimes of Egypt, Jordan and the UAE with Israel" and he also says above "I do not think it is appropriate to include Morocco as a member" so he thinks Jordan and Egypt who are not in the list should be and Morocco who is in the list shouldn't be. The list is sheer fantasy.Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking around on the web, I agree that there is sourcing to the contrary in regard to Oman.[4] I am therefore going to be bold and remove Oman from the list of included countries. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• No I do not understand this RfC. The question should never be "should this tag remain," it should be "how do we fix the issue." This follows a failed deletion deletion discussion. Adequate sources are provided to establish notability and all of the article's claim. Objections here do not hold up. If there are specific sentences that are challenged, an inline is preferable to quickly and efficiently identify which claims are unsupported. An article wide tag as a badge of shame for an article an editor is unhappy they were able to get deleted is not good form or in any way useful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Some on this page who were disappointed with the deletion discussion seem to think the options are either a) delete the article or b) leave a tag as a badge of shame permanently affixed to it because those same editors will never be satisfied with the answer rendered in the delete/merge discussions. I'm going to be frank and call this what it is, disruptive. Tags are meant to identify and ultimately fix issues in an article, not a banner for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there are specific claims in the article that fail verification, there is no reason why an inline cannot be used. I, admittedly quickly, reviewed the first 5 cites and found no issues. I do not see an article-wide problem to remotely justify this tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion here

• Comment - Obviously nothing substantial has changed since @selfstudier initially applied the tag, so the question isn't merely if the article should "remain" tagged. The real question is if @Selfstudier should have unilaterally applied the tag to begin with, even though he knew other editors disagreed with him--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I will supply my comments for the substantive issue a little later on but with regard to the various tags, editor WikiCleanerMan was blocked for editwarring in respect of these tags per complaint here. The first such removal of a tag in the article was on 26 January, a tag that had been placed by editor Sakiv asking for additional citations and in that same edit Morocco and Sudan were added to the list of "members".Diff. Morocco and Sudan had been removed from the list (along with the U.S.) by the article creator, Greyshark09, an experienced editor inactive since then, a week earlier. Diff. At that time, editor Steamboat2020 was not and had not been involved with the article.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

At least my edits and contributions are sourced, not Synth, as you claim, and I have nothing to regret for being blocked for alleged edit-warring. Only one person has been not contributing and just wants to remove the entire existence of a well-sourced article because of the bias against the article subject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comments Clearly this article did not just appear from nowhere. On 25 February, 2019, the article creator added the following to the February 2019 Warsaw Conference article.Diff

  The Warsaw Conference became the semi-official ground for the Arab-Israeli pact against Iran, in light of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict and the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. The coalition emerged in 2017, upon warming ties between Israel and the Gulf States and received broad media attention in light of the February 2019 Warsaw Conference.

and on the same day, the last sentence of that paragraph was added to this article.Diff This claim sat in the article uncited until 4 February this year when editor WikiCleanerMan added a ref in response to a citation needed tag.Diff. This is just the same citation as is in the Warsaw Conference article, completing the circle.

If one consults the given reference it says

"This week’s global summit in Warsaw will test the main pillar of the Trump administration’s policy in the Middle East: The belief that Israel and key Arab states can form an alliance against Iran, even when peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians seem more distant than ever."

The conference was a bit of a flop, the EU, Russia and Turkey refused to attend due to the single issue focus (Iran). According to the conference article,

"The first day of the meetings, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote on Twitter that the meeting with Arab leaders was to reach a “common interest of war with Iran", repeated in a press release. Later the tweet was deleted, and the press release amended to "common interest of combatting Iran".

This is what is apparently being used as the founding material for this article and then multiple sources have been layered on top of this, almost any source mentioning any of the countries in the list and not liking Iran sufficing. Subsequent events are known by now, the Trump peace plan tanked and so the Israel Palestine issue remains an issue and not a non-issue as the Trump administration had hoped. In any case, Oman has good relations with Iran and both it and Saudi Arabia remain concerned about the Israel Palestine issue, even if Saudi has no liking for Iran. The fact that some of these countries have issues with Iran, as well as unofficial relations with Israel, is well known and they had them well before the Warsaw Conference came about so all this article is doing is trying to parley Iran issues into the existence of an alliance.

When the article was created, the alliance infobox was not present, it was first added here on 28 May, 2019 and described as an "unofficial military alliance". This was immediately reverted here with edit summary "Infobox organization is completely unsuitable for this loose quasi-alliance. Bahrain and Kuwait unsourced and not mentioned in article. Membership? Legal status? Official language? Nonsense!". It was then reintroduced on 12 September last year here with list of members United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman. How the U.S. could be a member of a supposed Israel Arab States alliance was not explained. On 1 November last, WikiCleanerMan made his first edit to the article. By then the members list had expanded to include Sudan and Kurdistan(!!) and I made my first edits on the 15 November, one of them being to amend military alliance to unofficial alliance. The list of members continued to fluctuate without rhyme or reason. Subsequently I realized that the whole article was built on sand and here we are, no reliable list of members exists and there is no foundational source for the simple existence of any alliance.

Apologies for the length of this, needs must.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification - I think I did not spell something out clearly enough above, the article claims an alliance since 2017, citing the covert Saudi Israel relationship for this claim (obviously insufficient) but the Warsaw Conference/Haaretz citation confirms that no alliance existed as of the time of the conference ie February 2019 which was when this article was created.Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Please Note - The lengthy unsigned comment above didn't raise a single relevant issue to support his/her realization "that the whole article was built on sand"....". #1.) The article says that this alliance "received broad media attention in light of the February 2019 Warsaw Conference". The fact that the the EU, Russia and Turkey refused to attend the conference is completely irrelevant. #2) The article says that the alliance formed in part "due to the decreasing importance of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as a wedge issue" that was historically so significant that it prevented Arab countries from working together with Israelis on mutual interests. The article does not claim that the conflict became of no importance to the members of the alliance. The fact that the proposed Trump peace plan wasn't successful and Saudi Arabia's continued commitment to the Palestinian cause is completely irrelevant. #3) Oman was looking to hedge their bets by maintaining good ties with the Iranians while simultaneously participating in the alliance's efforts to thwart the Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. Just because Oman shares the same mutual regional security interests as the rest of the coalition doesn't mean that Oman has the same level of hostility towards Iran as the rest of the alliance. The fact that Oman officially maintains good ties with Iran is completely irrelevant. #4.) The United States, Kurdistan and Kuwait aren't currently listed as members of this alliance, any discussion of them not being members is completely irrelevant. IN SUMMATION: The comment above, didn't raise a single relevant issue that challenges the existence of this alliance or disputes the validity of this article. I encourage anybody with doubts about the alliance to just google it for themselves!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In an addendum to his lengthy comment, @selfstudier further falsely claims that, the "Warsaw Conference/Haaretz citation confirms that no alliance existed as of the time of the conference ie February 2019 which was when this article was created". The aforementioned Haaretz article clearly states that "for years, Israel's clandestine intelligence and security ties with these Sunni states were kept away from the public eye." There are numerous forms of alliances in varying degrees of coordination, both official and unofficial. An alliance is merely a relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not an explicit agreement has been worked out among them. Israel's clandestine intelligence and security ties with those Sunni States in opposition to Iran, "for years" prior to the conference, was by it's very definition "an alliance". The focus of the Haaretz article was merely that the goal of the Warsaw conference was to advance and strengthen the unofficial clandestine alliance into a more formal and official alliance.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Signed now, thanks for letting me know.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As well as the Haaretz article, there is the Reuters article about the same conference which has been used as a cite for the nurturing by the U.S (line 2, cite 11). Quote " aimed at building a coalition against what Washington sees as the threat posed by Iran also produced signs of a warming of ties between Israel and some Arab countries on Wednesday." and "Netanyahu - who has been trying to play up his diplomatic gains ahead of Israel’s April election - has frequently hinted at warmer ties with Gulf Arab states." (my emphasis)Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@selstudier: please clarify exactly what is your point????--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not my point, it's the point demonstrated by reliable sources. Seems clear enough to me.Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad it seems clear enough to you but I assume you are not trying to just talk to yourself, so you may want to elaborate for the rest of us!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources establish that there was no alliance as of February 2019, "warming ties" is about the size of it. The article creator understood that which is why there was no infobox. I understand you would like to frame "alliance" in a very weak sense but any reader stumbling across this page is going to see the infobox and say Oooh, look at that list of anti Iran states when the reality is no-one is even able to say which states are supposed to be in the list!Selfstudier (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

1.)Thank you for clarifying but the Reuters article actually clearly stated that the anti-Iranian coordination existed before the conference. The article quoted Brian Hook who said that "Arab nations and Israel faced (note: past tense) a common threat of Iranian regional aggression and Washington was (note: past tense) working closely with these nations to counter this". The Haaretz article in essence says the same thing as I explained above. 2.) Furthermore, I pointed out that this relationship is an "alliance" by it's very definition and provided a link as my source. How either of us may or may not "want" to define this relationship is completely irrelevant. 3.) All of the members of the alliance listed in the info box are referenced throughout the article. We already discussed in a previous discussion why this is NOT a synth. If you insist I'll be happy to repeat it again here.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I already said there were covert ties between some countries for a long time but this article was created as a result of the conference in 2019 with a self referential circular reference between it and this article. With your desired definition of "alliance" we could include half the globe and well before 2019. I repeat I have no problem with an article discussing these covert ties and the various goings on but not in a way that suggests it's anything more than an informal co-operation so the infobox with its invented list of members needs to go, that's why I tagged it as OR, it's completely unsourced and everyone keeps adding countries in and taking them out. This will stop once there is no infobox and the article will need to explain what exactly is meant by "alliance" in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have already responded to this and clearly at this point it's quite apparent that nothing I say will change your mind. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want. However, there is no point in repeating the same arguments and going around in circles. If you raise a new issue then I will be more then happy to respond. As an aside, I have a serious issue when you constantly cherrypick and quote a line out of a cited reference that out of context would appear to bolster your argument and then you ignore other parts of the same reference that contradicts your argument. This doesn't allow for an honest discussion.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is why we are having an RFC, is it not? To gain outside input. Although not very successfully so far.Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said yesterday [6 September 2020] that "the United Arab Emirates and Israel could form an alliance against Iran to protect American territories and the Middle East." https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200907-pompeo-uae-israel-could-form-anti-iran-alliance/ ie no alliance as of 6 September 2020.Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Selfstudier is disruptively edit-warring to re-insert a tag into the article, based on no specific claim in particular, other than an open RfC about whether "there should be a tag." This is clearly an attempt by a frustrated user to mark an article with a badge of shame, and then misuse process arguments to keep it there. This "RfC" is not meant to foster any useful discussion, but serve as an anchor for a user to continue raising the same issue that has long since been disposed of. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is void of substance, the wording itself misleading. One of the dominant meanings of 'alliance' is 'a confederation of nations by treaty.' There is no treaty, the ground shared by a few Arab nations and Israel cannot be put over as an 'Arab states' and Israel alliance without suggesting, against the realities, that this is a position common to Arab states, rather than being restricted to a few. In other words, it needs a tag requesting serious additional sourcing to corroborate the theory that there is an alliance, rather than a single issue point of convergence between Israel and a handful of Arab states regarding Iran.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Our approach lies in understanding Israel’s ties with many of the Gulf monarchies, notably Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, not as some formal alliance but rather as a manifestation of a Tacit Security Regime. This regime allows for the evolution of ties between Israel and the Gulf monarchies to be explored and analysed while allowing us to be mindful that these relations have rarely been linear, let alone underpinned by any shared normative values." Clive Jones; Yoel Gozansky (April 2020). Fraternal Enemies: Israel and the Gulf Monarchies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-752187-8.

Even if there are issues in the article that can be hammered out, the consensus of involved participants is that a permanent badge of shame is not an appropriate way to identify those issues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you would think the well explained V problem is a badge of shame, the idea is that it should be fixed and this way we will get a decision on how to fix it, not your personal opinion on the matter.Selfstudier (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How "well-explained" you believe your view is is utterly irrelevant, there is broad consensus against maintaining the tag is irrelevant. It's not a matter of my "personal" opinion versus yours, it's a matter of you versus everyone on this page, and your agenda, personal or not, to disregard that consensus and continue to promote your claims that this article should be moved/deleted/merged/etc. Those requests were turned down at every step, and this is just the latest instance of you refusing to accept the outcome decided on by the members of the community who monitor this page. I suggest a different track. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Now we are duplicating arguments here and in the below section as well. And duplicating arguments already made in the RFC before so if there is nothing new under the sun...?Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment After some fixing up of the article we can take a closer look at things. The lead phrase "Arab-Israeli alliance" (slightly different from the article title, which says Arab states) has a scholarly citation dated 2016 predating the post Warsaw conference intent to create such an alliance and multiple sources indicating that no such alliance existed in the usual sense pre-Warsaw (this is not the same as saying that were no ties between Israel and some Arab states). Totten says "the Sunni Arab world, unofficially led by Saudi Arabia, is quietly forging a de facto alliance with Israel against Iran." so he is speaking of an alliance in the making and does not otherwise specify who is in it other than Saudi Arabia/Sunni Arab states. The current cites in the lead appear to provide more support for Sunni Arab states rather than just Arab states.Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The title claims that there is an alliance. Now, for those familiar with the area, this does look odd on the face of it. The WP:V subsection (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) states as much. Why is this an exceptional claim? Wikieditor cited a snippet in the introduction to a book by Clive Jones and Yoel Gozansky, just published. They don't appear to have got much further than the first few pages. On p.199 the authors write:

‘Israel policy makers seem to believe that the Jewish state would not benefit from a multilatreral approach to the Gulf monarchies, even one that could be institutionalised covertly. This reflects a continuity in Israel’s attitude towards peace negotiations and a continued preference for bilateral relations. Multilateral engagement where the collective weight of Arab opinion can be brought to bear have always been anathema to israel. Clive Jones, Yoel Guzansky Fraternal Enemies Israel and the Gulf Monarchies, Oxford University Press 2020 ISBN 978-0-197-52187-8 p.199

Guzansky should know. He has been a key policy advisor on the Gulf to Netanyahu. What we are saying asserts something that is 'anathema' to Israeli foreign policy practice - for underwriting a multilateral agreement or alliance with several Arab countries would expose Israel to unwanted pressures. That is why the tag is needed.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Results of the discussion

There is virtually unanimous agreement against maintaining the article-wide verifiability tag, yet Selfstudier has restored the tag yet again. At what point does this disruptive behavior become actionable? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND & WP:NOTAVOTESelfstudier (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Not every discussion requires closure when the consensus is obvious, WP:CLOSE, nor does the "consensus is not a vote and therefore I am correct" hold much water when the party who consensus is clearly against is making it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You are "involved" (an understatement) so best thing is to wait for a close, I'll ask for one myself if that becomes necessary. We are at last seeing a proper article emerging thanks in part to this discussion, you could contribute instead of sniping from the sidelines. Morocco next...Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Involved?" Selfstudier, virtually everyone in the discussion has opposed you on this. Is that really the process argument you want to be raising in order to repeatedly restore an unwanted tag into the article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, I tried to find common ground with you and would still be happy to do so, but I find the behavior here as far as the tag really a turnoff and a sign you are not ready to work together. I agree the Morocco addition on the list needs a better source and should probably be removed until one is provided -- however, the reason I advocated for in-line citations as opposed to an article banner is to more precisely identify those issues and help with the article's improvement. You seem to perceive this instead as undermining you and are digging your heels in for reasons I do not fully understand. My offer to work with you to improve the article remains open. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If the infobox were not there, the tag would not be necessary because then we would no longer be constrained by the need to demonstrate the existence of an "alliance" and it's supposed membership. Recall that the OR/Citations tag on the list of members was already removed and I chose not to return them and rely only on the article wide tag for my argument and I only started this RFC because they were removed. But at the moment the subject of the RFC IS the tag and it is a rule that we should not mess with the material subject of an RFC while it is running so strictly speaking it is not a case of my putting it back in, you should not be taking it out and then I wouldn't have to put it back in.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to recognize that "RfC" is a bit of a WP:SNOW situation and move on. Also, just FYI, when I initially removed the tag, I had no idea there would be any controversy associated with it. I removed it because a verifiability banner without any in-lines just doesn't make sense and I assumed the issue had been resolved. Any other editor visiting the page would presumably have the same conclusion (and they almost all have). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a vote, V is a policy issue. OR is verboten and there needs to be valid foundational sourcing for the article so where is it? Oman is gone, correctly. I am almost sure that Morocco and Sudan should go the same way. Even if we let it go at Saudi, Bahrain and UAE, it's still a stretch for an actual alliance. It's not as if I am the only one saying this, there are two other editors saying the same thing as I am and others who said the same in prior discussions but have not contributed to this one at least so far. Note that one of them says "Delete" and the initial delete proposal was not mine either.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This was opened a week ago. RFCs run for a month. Relax, sheesh. nableezy - 19:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's very interesting how quickly the two of you are willing to dismiss opposing viewpoints as "votes." WP:V is indeed policy, but there is no support for the notion that the tag you keep reinserting serves any useful purpose. A "delete" vote in an RfC over a tag is wholly irrelevant, considering that the deletion discussion already was closed in favor of keeping the article. The desire to keep a deletion discussion going or revive one is not proper usage for tags. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? I have never proposed deletion. I said what I wanted in my opening statement, infobox gone. Do that and everything else can be solved. It can always go back when there actually is an alliance (one is under discussion). The V tag or some other tag was there for months and was first placed by a different editor altogether. The tag is there because I assert the alliance is not verifiable. Admittedly, other editors claim that it is verifiable, therefore dispute resolution, right? The simple solution is to produce the evidence that it exists rather than trying to force me to prove that it doesn't exist but if that's what I have to do, c'est la vie.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The subject of a page being unverifiable is an argument for deletion. That discussion failed. It's time to move towards how to improve the article. I agree with you that this is clearly an informal alliance at best and at worst just an informal grouping by certain commentators based on perceived shared motives. This can be addressed with language changes, but this "verifiability" argument you are making just seems like an intractable debate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To make it clear, I am NOT arguing for deletion. But neither will simple language changes do the trick, I would have already done that if so.Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree. It seems more like the Saudis are keen on promoting it than the U.S., if not just as much, based on the two cited sources in the opening. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry what? I told you an rfc runs for a month. And you take from that what exactly? That you should double down on something silly? nableezy - 21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

An RfC should not be an anchor for a tag that virtually all participants have declared unnecessary. See WP:SNOW. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Its been a week. Relax. nableezy - 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Relax??? This RfC may only be a week old. But @selfstudier has been waging an endless battle against this article with multiple proposals and discussions. This "week" is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back! Please see the article's edit history as well as this talk page in it's entierty and you will understand why we are fed up with one editor defying a majority of editor's who disagree with him--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, relax. I personally dont see why this article has this kinda heat, I dont really get why anybody cares about this so much. But we have a process here, and if somebody wants to go through that process let them. And when the RFC concludes, and if it concludes with a consensus in your favor, make the change you want and move on. There doesnt have to be this kind of urgency to do anything really here. Somebody wants to go through formal dispute resolution even if you feel it unnecessary? Mutter some swear words under your breath, type your reasoning sans swear words, press save, and check back in a month. It really does not have to be this hard. nableezy - 02:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, for you to weigh in as the steady-handed voice of reason that advocates policy be followed, and gloss over/enable Selfstudier's disruption at this page, is disingenuous. There is no support for maintaining a verifiability tag, nor has this "RfC" even indicated which specific claims it refers to. A tag is not meant to express a generalized grievance about an article -- evidenced through repeated, and failed, attempts to merge, delete, and then move the page. The fact that there has been universal pushback on this tag is a sign it's time to drop the stick and move on. A tag should never be the focus of an RfC, it should always be the underlying issue, but Selfstudier is so obviously focused on creating simple disruption that they actually made the RfC about the tag itself, which is a blatant misuse of the process. Any obstacle to article progress or disruptive activity indeed creates an urgent issue, and Selfstudier's behavior at this page has created exactly that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Im not going to respond to personal attacks and other violations of the talk page policy. Good luck. nableezy - 03:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and youre edit-warring. Smart. nableezy - 03:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, again, you must be joking. Selfstudier restored a tag four times depsite a 7-1 RfC against them doing so and over the objections of two editors, and without specifying any issue to actually validate the tag, and yet your only complaint is that people objecting to this "relax." You are not here to improve the article, you are here to stir the pot, and perhaps you should do so elsewhere. Steamboat2020's frustration is completely valid and something I share. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have run through the article and cite-checked each of the in-line tags. One of them simply didn't belong -- it was a "failed verification" tag even though the cite accurately supported the proposition. The other was a "citation needed" tag, and fortunately a cite from the Marshall Center was available to incorporate -- so I did. Finally -- to make clear that I am listening to the objections here -- I added a "better source needed" in-line in the infobox next to Morocco. Selfstudier asked for a better source; I am not clear what that would constitute, but maybe someone else can figure it out. In that case, the tag should be much more helpful in at least identifying which part of the article requires additional sourcing, rather than an article-wide banner. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC tag removed

I have removed the rfc tag. I do not propose to engage further with this article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Morocco

Can somebody provide a single source that says Morocco is a member of an alliance with other Arab states with Israel, official or unofficial, covert or overt, against Iran? The JPost source comes closest in saying that Like the Gulf states, Morocco views Iran as a threat, but it does not say anything about any alliance with Israel and those other states to counter Iran. It does not say anything beyond that Morocco and Israel have normalized relations following the US recognition of Western Sahara as being Moroccan territory. The NYT piece doesn't even mention Iran once, much less any other Arab state being in an alliance with Morocco and Israel. Per WP:SYNTH, a single source connecting Morocco to the topic of this article is necessary. Absent that source I intend to remove Morocco from the list. nableezy - 20:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a single source listing all of members is required to avoid this becoming a SYNTH. Allow me to explain: If we were to have a reference to an Israeli-Saudi alliance and another reference to an Israeli-Moroccan Alliance and an editor came along and created an article entitled "Israeli-Saudi-Moroccan Alliance" then that would be a classic SYNTH because there is nothing binding those two referenced alliances. However, if you have references for a broad "Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran" and then you have multiple references that specify the different members of that alliance then that isn't a SYNTH.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, a single source listing all members isnt needed, that isnt what I meant. But a single source saying Morocco is a member of some such alliance is needed. Right now there are two sources for saying that Morocco has normalized relations with Israel. Nothing to say that it is involved in some wider alliance opposed to Iran. nableezy - 00:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this suffice for you? "Abroad is where Morocco’s decision [to restore ties with Israel] has the most potential. Within the Gulf Cooperation Council, Jordan, and Egypt, the decision will help the kingdom strengthen ties — or, at the very least, it will not hurt already strong alliances."--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont think so, no. It doesnt talk about any alliance against Iran, it basically says that it will either help or not hurt existing alliances it has with Gulf states. Not that it is engaged in one with Israel and those Gulf states against Iran. Restoring diplomatic ties is not entering into an alliance, and a source that actually says that Morocco is in some sort of alliance with other Arab states and with Israel opposed to Iran is still needed. nableezy - 02:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I understood it was referring to Iran. According to your understanding, if you take Iran out of the equation then exactly what part of the renewed Morocco-Israeli ties would potentialy help Morocco "strengthen ties" with GCC - the majority of whom themselves don't have official ties with Israel?--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if it were the case, which I dont know and absent a reliable source saying so doesnt matter, that Moroccan ties with Israel would strengthen ties with Gulf states due to being more distinctly opposed to Iran does not equate to Morocco being in any alliance with those states to that end. nableezy - 03:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What about this?--Steamboat2020 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, thats about Morocco being invited as a prospective member of the GCC, which Reuters refers to as an anti-Iranian bloc. Not about it being in an alliance with Israel and other Arab states against Iran. nableezy - 03:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the time to keep sifting and reading through mostly irrelevant search results to find whatever source prompted the editor to add Morocco. I suggest that if no other editor provides a source after a few days then just slap a citation tag on Morroco instead of deleting it. The number of editors reading this talk page is extremely limited (in fact,right now, it may even be down to just the two of us). A tag provides more possibilties for editors to correct the lack of references and is certainly preferable to just deleting content. --Steamboat2020 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I generally dont think unverifiable material should be in an article, but Ill tell you what. Ill tag it now and in a few days if nobody adds something suitable then Ill delete it. nableezy - 17:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A few days is nothing, this isn't exactly the most frequented article on wikipedia to put it mildly. Give the tag a couple of weeks. If I thought it was actually unverifiable then I would agree with you. But I believe that if I had the time/patience to search through the endless search results for "Iran-Morocco-Israel" then I probably would find a source for it. There are certainly enough sources that say that Iranian support for the Polisario Front in Western Sahara was a major reason why Morocco sought closer ties with Israel, and there is a history of Morocco working clandestinely with Israel on security matters. So this strikes me as something that is likely to have a source and will not be ultimately unverifiable. Obviously it needs a source and I am not suggesting otherwise but you should give the tag a real chance for a few weeks before deleting it.-The same goes for Sudan --Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever thats fine, but for the record material without a verifiable source can be removed immediately. Ill wait at least a week though. nableezy - 19:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

True enough but I once knew an editor that said to relax and asked what the rush was :)--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

lol, fair. Will wait a bit. nableezy - 20:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr IP, where in either source cited does it say Morocco is a member of an alliance? nableezy - 19:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree there are currently not any sources that says Morocco is a member of an alliance (official or unofficial) with other Arab states with Israel against Iran. Including it is SYNTH; it might be true or obvious to some, but it is still SYNTH. Adding the cn tag for a while (a week) to give others time to find sources is fine, however Nableezy it would be best to let another uninvolved editor remove the material, unless a reasonable long period (a month) has gone by. This will make it easy to remove if someone adds it with inadequate sourcing in the future.  // Timothy :: talk  21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ill wait a week or so, but Im not going to censor my edits when those edits are fully justified. Ill certainly be on my p's and q's in terms of civility but no, I dont think I will be waiting for somebody else to remove unverifiable information when I see it. nableezy - 21:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, Then I object to the premature removal of the information without giving editors a chance to find sources, which it is very possible will happen. I don't think you get to decide unilaterally the time table given to other editors. Steamboat2020, what do you think?  // Timothy :: talk  01:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

missed ping Steamboat2020 (see above).  // Timothy :: talk  01:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Theres nothing premature about removing material that fails verification and by all appearances appears to not even be true. I'm willing to wait a week, but beyond that I see no reason to a. retain unverified material, or b. call the removal premature. The very lowest bar that material in Wikipedia needs to have is a a verifiable reliable source supporting it. And WP:V is pretty clear that absent that All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed and Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. nableezy - 01:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying if there is a consensus of editors that feel a month as opposed to a week is a reasonable time frame for finding sources, you will edit against that consensus?  // Timothy :: talk  01:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I am saying a local consensus of editors on this talk page cannot overrule Wikipedia policy, namely V. And Wikipedia policy says, explicitly, that material that fails verification can be removed by anybody, and should not be restored without a verifiable citation to a reliable source. Im not entirely sure why this is an argument, are we not all on the same side of WP:V or something? Do you really think that material that may be false should be retained in an encyclopedia article because a set of editors on one talk page wants to give the content a chance to be sourced? Ive challenged the statements as not having a verifiable reliable source supporting them. You apparently agree that the sources cited do not verify the material in the article. Policy says that I can remove that material at any time, and it should not be restored without a source that verifies it. I said Id wait a week to do that, even though I really dont need to. What exactly is the problem here? Just because material has been removed from the article does not mean it cannot be restored if and when a reliable source supporting it is located. It isnt as if this is being banished to the shadow realm never to be introduced again. If there is no source supporting the material in a week, then yes I will be removing it. If somebody restores it without a source supporting it? Well, I guess we can see what happens then. nableezy - 02:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I previously raised the issue of whether or not this is likely to be true. It would be extremely bizarre if these anti-Iranian countries weren't coordinating their Iranian opposition. Furthermore, there are sources that say that the goal of the Trump administration in facilitating the restoration of Israeli-Moroccan accords was in order to create an anti-Iranian coalition. It's precisely because it's extremely hard to believe that it isn't true that I asked you to give an editor a reasonable amount of time to stumble upon the citation tag and provide a solid source. I would like to believe that our mutual goal is to improve this article. Rushing to delete material that is extremely likely to be true will not achieve that goal. Yes, you are within your rights to delete unsourced content but just because you could do something doesn't mean that you should do it.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry but that is OR. We dont publish things based on what Wikipedia editors think is bizarre or not. A reliable source has to say these things for it to be included. I said I'd give it a week, and I will. Im looking as well, but if nothing is brought by say next Wednesday then I will likely remove the things that fail verification. nableezy - 03:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, there are two sides to the argument here: some editors are arguing that the material is verifiable, and others are not. What TimothyBlue is saying is that he agrees with you on the substance, but is willing to allow the other side more time to find adequate sourcing to affirm their arguments. He is offering a bone to one side while indicating he will side with you if no such sources are provided. This is an obvious compromise and a perfectly reasonable one at that. No one is arguing for maintaining false information in the entry. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody besides an IP removing the tag has said the material is verifiable. Nobody. And if somebody would like to say that it is they can. Then Id ask for a quote verifying the material from one of those sources. Absent that the material remains unverified and may be removed. nableezy - 03:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, Very poor response. If you cannot see your way to work with other editors on very small issues, but demand everything be on your terms, I see very little chance you will be able work with others on large and contentious issues. The above displayed attitude is ultimately self defeating.  // Timothy :: talk  03:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Listen, its nice of you to try to bring some outside perspective here. Thats great, I appreciate it. But ultimately this is not a social network, and while I can and will try to be more collegial I do not intend to just ignore our core policies because somebody thinks it would be more collaborative. This is an encyclopedia, and I am here to edit that encyclopedia. We have requirements for material to be in the mainspace. The most basic one is that it be verifiable and if challenged a reliable source be provided as an inline citation that directly backs up the material. If that is not the case then any editor, any editor, may remove it at any time. WP:V is clear on this. Unless you are saying that the material is in fact verifiable to the sources cited, and in which case I'd ask for a quote and if we disagree we can move to OR/N. But I am totally justified in removing material that fails verification, and per WP:BURDEN any user who restores it will need to meet that bare minimum requirement of including a reliable source that directly supports the material. nableezy - 03:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The source provided could reasonably support the position that the material is verifiable, so you coming in and saying it isn't is a subjective call. It may be one that prevails in the end, but that'll be achieved by winning consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you even saying? What source? Are you claiming that the two sources cited in the article verify Morocco is in alliance with Israel and other Arab states against Iran? If you are saying that, please quote what from the sources directly support that. nableezy - 03:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Unofficial alliance. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok? What source directly supports that Morocco is in an unofficial alliance with Israel and Arab states against Iran? Quote please. nableezy - 03:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you'll need a good case that doesn't depend on SYNTH and gain consensus, and if it is an an "unofficial" alliance this should be clear. I'm skeptical but I will keep an open mind until you present your case.  // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

nableezy, You're understanding of our guidelines is ignoring consensus building and collaborative editing, there is no need to rush to remove this content; you have three editors that have objected to your unilaterally removing content on your timetable while a discussion is ongoing.  // Timothy :: talk  03:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:V is site-wide consensus. And that policy explicitly says that unverifiable material may be removed at any time. If anybody would like to reinsert it they may do so if they meet the requirement of including a reference that directly supports the material. WP:V is not a guideline, it is core policy. nableezy - 04:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is also site wide policy. We'll see how this plays out.  // Timothy :: talk  04:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But consensus is not based on a vote, and a thousand people saying it doesnt matter if it fails WP:V do not make a consensus. nableezy - 04:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No single editor is the sole interpreter of policy and how it applies to content. You've made your position clear. There are others who disagree and the consensus is currently in favor of keeping the material in. Scales may tip in the other direction if TimothyBlue decides the side supporting inclusion has failed to meet that burden, and then you'll be able to have at it. I suggest holding off until then. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If and when I remove material that fails verification and somebody reinserts it without a reliable source directly supporting it we can indeed see what happens. Will see in a week. nableezy - 04:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with this source from Al Jazeera?

With Trump to leave office on January 20, the Morocco deal could be among the last his team, led by Kushner and US envoy Avi Berkowitz, is able to negotiate before they give way to President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration. Much of the momentum behind the deal-making has been to present a united front against Iran and roll back its regional influence. I suppose this may turn on how you interpret "momentum," but this would seem to fit the description of an alliance against Iranian interests fostered by the U.S. that is the central subject of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesnt say that Morocco is in any alliance against Iran, only that the US hopes that they will be part of one. nableezy - 23:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera source is vague, the "momentum" isn't attributed to any particular party, and in addition the "momentum behind the deal-making" may not have actually resulted in something concrete beyond the actual deal (which is normalizing relations). starship.paint (exalt) 08:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Given a week has passed, I am removing Morocco and Sudan from the infobox. If somebody finds sourcing that supports their inclusion then sure restore it. nableezy - 03:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

alt names

A single newspaper using "Israel-Sunni alliance" in its headline does not make this a commonly used alternative name. In fact, since this is a descriptive title without a common proper name there isnt any need for any alternative names. The title also does not have to be bolded. But if there are going to be altnames added in bold they need to be shown to be in common usage, and a single use from one newspaper is not that. nableezy - 21:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The alt names are there because of differing views on how to name it. Furthermore there were editors who insisted on a reference that mentioned an exact name.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

But that isnt a reason for including any other name. This is a descriptive title, as described in WP:NDESC, not a common name. WP:OTHERNAMES is for other names, not other descriptions. But definitely a name would have to be in common usage to be included and bolded in the lead, and a single source using it is not that. nableezy - 01:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but Sunni and Arab aren't just names they are two completely different descriptions.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but so what? If it is not a commonly used name it shouldnt be in the article presented as such. nableezy - 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I just did a quick google search and I am getting more then one result for each name: Israel-Sunni alliance, see - 1, 2, 3 Israeli–Sunni Coalition, see - 1, 2, 3--Steamboat2020 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

These arent names though, they are descriptions. The manual of style calls for the following:

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.

These aren't names, and as such they shouldn't be bolded. The different definitions of the supposed alliance obviously should be, but this is treating it like it is NATO or the GCC with a formal name for it, and that isnt true. nableezy - 03:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ok so then just change it from "also known as" to "also described as"--Steamboat2020 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as it being bolded, I don't have an opinion either way--Steamboat2020 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Significance is measured relative to the entire body of coverage, not a pre-defined number. If one source uses this name and the article depends on coverage from about 6-7 sources, then that seems significant enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesnt really address anything I said. This isnt an alternative name, it is an alternative description. It shouldnt be treated as a name. nableezy - 03:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A description is something written by an editor expressly for an article. A name is something used in a source. The sources above provided by Steamboat2020 use those names. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What? A name is something used in a source? What? Youre saying this alliance has a formal name? What? nableezy - 03:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:NDESC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What in WP:NDESC supports that view? Quote please. A name is something used in a source per WP:NDESC? Please quote what in that policy supports that position. nableezy - 22:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles How is "Israel-Sunni alliance" a "descriptive title? It seems to be a name used to refer to a specific group of countries in an informal grouping, and it is not invented by an editor (though the title is). I'm not going to argue this six ways from Sunday. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing for Israeli-Sunni Alliance (with the a capitalized to signify a proper name) is as follows:

• Melman, Yossi (2017-11-21). "The Israel-Sunni alliance". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2021-03-18.
• "Sick: Alliance against Iran". Council on Foreign Relations. 2007-01-23. Retrieved 2021-03-18.

The first JPost source contains the phrase once in the title of the article, but with the a lowercase (signifying not a proper name, especially given headlines often capitalize every significant word). It never once uses the phrase anywhere else. The second source supports the "name" even less, it never uses the phrase anywhere. I am tagging that one as failed verification as well. nableezy - 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, which of the two sources support this? You cant just remove a tag without addressing the issue, that is plainly disruptive editing. nableezy - 23:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, WP:HEADLINE is fairly clear, headlines are not reliable sources, and no source supports the second alt name. Return the tag or Ill just remove the name as failing verification. nableezy - 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The headline is just a name, and the text of the source supports the substance behind that name. Don't threaten me with what you're going to do. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not threatening anything. I am telling you I will be removing the material the sources dont support. WP:HEADLINES explicitly says that headlines are not reliable when the body does not back up the material. This so-called name appears only in the headline in one of the sources, and nowhere in the other source. It fails verification, and since the tag was removed I will be removing the content. Restoring it will require sourcing that actually backs it up and consensus per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. nableezy - 02:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It is now impossible to scroll through this talkpage without reading the same arguments at the bottom of every section, irregardless of what it was opened for. I suggest either taking steps to fix that or we close discussions no longer of use. Second, consensus favors the material. Consensus is not determined by who is the most vocal. Remove it and you will be violating the consensus on this page on a false premise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Proclaiming a consensus does not a consensus make. The material fails WP:V, and when removed if restored will require reliable sources (which does not include headlines) and consensus. nableezy - 02:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I will however say that this would justify saying also described as an Israeli-Sunni alliance (with a little a and unbolded). Totally fine with including it like that. nableezy - 02:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sudan

Same problem as Morocco, the source does not say Sudan is in any such alliance. It says that the [Israeli] Foreign Ministry believes Sudan cut its ties with Iran about a year ago, that arms smuggling from Sudan to the Gaza Strip has been halted and that Khartoum has moved closer to the axis of Sunni Muslim states led by Saudi Arabia. It does not say Sudan is in any alliance, and a source is needed that explicitly does so. nableezy - 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It suggests an unofficial alliance according to observers. That is precisely within the scope of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Quote please. nableezy - 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The one you provided? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere does that say the Sudan is in any type of an alliance. It says the Israelis believe that Sudan cut ties with Iran. Nowhere does that say anything about being in alliance with Israel and any other Arab states against Iran. It says the Israelis believe that Sudan is now closer with the Gulf states, not that it is allied with Israel. nableezy - 03:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What does "moving closer to the axis mean? The bar for an informal alliance is much lower than for a formal one and this reasonably supports inclusion of Sudan in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It means moving closer to a group of Arab states in the gulf. Nowhere does that say it is in an alliance with Israel and those gulf states. A reliable source that directly supports the material is required. Not one that you think reasonably supports inclusion. Please provide any quote from a reliable source that directly supports the idea that Sudan is a party of an alliance with Israel and other Arab states against Iran. Directly supports. The bar is what the bar has always been. A reliable source directly supporting the material. Not something that a random Wikipedia editor thinks reasonably supports it. WP:V is exceedingly clear on this point. nableezy - 03:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What is an "axis" in this context, and what exactly do you think "moving closer to it" means? The article describes an informal alliance and that is directly supported by what is described in this piece. I'm not going to keep arguing in circles with you on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote from a reliable source that directly supports the claim that Sudan is in an alliance with Israel and other Arab states against Iran? Its a simple question. Please quote any source that says flat out that Sudan is in such an alliance. I am totally uninterested in your original research as to what these sources really mean. You need to provide a source that directly supports the material. What source does that? nableezy - 04:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not my original research. An axis is an alliance or informal grouping. "Moving closer" means that it is joining that "axis" or alliance. I think the language is pretty straightforward here but why don't we let others weigh in. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Where in that source does it say that Sudan is engaged in any way in an alliance with Israel against Iran? Quote please. WP:V requires a source to directly support the material in question. If this or any other source does so then a quote should be easy to produce that flat out says what the article does. nableezy - 22:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The claim that Sudan is in the alliance fails WP:V. moved closer to the axis is not "joining the axis". In any case, it must also be stated that the axis is against Iran. starship.paint (exalt) 08:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Membership section in Infobox

I think the word "membership" is a bad choice for the infobox, since this is an unofficial group with no formal membership. I think the word "participants" better describe who is involved in the unofficial group. This is reflected in the lead and the infobox should reflect the article content. However there is no option for a participants field, so it might be eliminated altogether.

Each nation listed here has a nuanced level and type of participation. Instead of trying to use footnotes in the infobox to show this, a section "Participants" can be created with a subsection for each participant with details and sources. This will allow development of the article and if other nations begin participating, a section could be added with details and sources; as their participation changes, the section can be updated with details.

This will solve the issue of Morocco and Sudan being included in the infobox, they can have their own sections under participants that can detail the circumstances and type of involvement in the subject.

The history section could become a summary, and I believe a general background section may also be helpful to the readers.  // Timothy :: talk  05:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How about "Involved parties" or "Involved countries/Countries involved" Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties is a good suggestion at first glance, but its not a field in the infobox. The article adapts Template:Infobox organization (a very generic infobox used in all kinds of articles); we might be able to customize it to add a field if a consensus emerges on a phrase. I need to look to see if there is an existing template that better fits the fields the article could use.  // Timothy :: talk  06:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain how "participants" or "involved countries" would solve any verifiability issue here? There is no sourcing for either country participating on any level in this alliance with Israel and against Iran. nableezy - 06:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

These are the same arguments that were raised and rejected in two12 prior discussions. I don't think the problem was that no one heard them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be purposely antagonizing here. I am not asking you anything here. I am asking TimothyBlue how changing the infobox to either participants or involved countries as is suggested in this section solves any verifiability issue. If you have nothing to add to that question you do not need to respond. Kindly stop disrupting the talk page. nableezy - 07:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources provided in the first sentence answer your question. Scholarly sources describe an alliance. An alliance is between two states, parties, individuals, or countries. So participants or involved parties fits the bill. If you want to make another argument about fundamental verifiability, then 1) that's a deletion or merge argument with this article, and 2) those arguments have already been adjudged. I don't know what else I can add there.

Now forgive me for moving on from this for a moment, but TimothyBlue raises a good point, and that's that a more flexible infobox might help if we want to change the "membership" language. We should probably settle on what we want before going about that, though, since it could be more complex and we don't want that bouncing back and forth between versions if there's any disagreement.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Which of those sources say that Morocco or Sudan are a part of that? And no, a verifiability issue with one part of an article is not a merge or deletion argument. That makes literally no sense. Saying Morocco being included, in whatever phrasing invented here, is not verifiable does not mean the article should be deleted or merged. nableezy - 07:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

nableezy, Wikieditor is actually being helpful and you are being less than helpful. As to the answer to your question, If there is no membership section, no nations will be listed. I made this clear when I stated "However there is no option for a participants field, so it might be eliminated altogether." Everything can be discussed in individual sections for each nation describing how they are involved, with all the nuance sources provide. As replacing the field in the infobox with another word, I'm open to other options. such as another infobox or customizing this one.  // Timothy :: talk  07:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice of you to feel that way, but I still have a problem with having a section of participants that includes countries without sources that say they are participants. That remains the root problem with including countries that the sources dont. nableezy - 07:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If sources describe nations taking part in something it is acceptable to state they are participants in that something.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure? I dont think I disputed that. nableezy - 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You opened four sections in the past 48 hours on separate issues, but many of these arguments are overlapping. Perhaps your arguments specific to Morocco/Sudan should be placed in those respective sections, because here the focus of TimothyBlue's inquiry is clearly the infobox generally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if WP:AVOIDYOU were followed. I am trying to focus on content, not on the players here. Thanks, nableezy - 17:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it is -- everyone should ensure their comments are responsive to the header for the sake of clarity. Thanks for understanding. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Obviously as the author of the above I agree with the suggestion. I think its a solid way to move forward that will allow for the article to be expanded with sources that includes important details and allow for more sources to be included. The simple category "Member" is inadequate to describe the nature of participation in the group.  // Timothy :: talk  05:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Regardless of how you want to phrase it, to claim that any country is involved in such an alliance requires a reliable source explicitly saying that such and such country is in such an alliance. Simply normalizing relations with Israel is not that. Whatever formula you want to use still needs sources explicitly supporting it, and there are no such sources claiming that either Morocco or Sudan are participants or members of such an alliance. There needs to be a single source for any country saying that country is involved or participating in an alliance both with other Arab countries and Israel and against Iran. nableezy - 05:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Stop repeating the same arguments in every thread. We've heard these points before. TimothyBlue is addressing a separate issue in this thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Im responding to his suggestion. He suggested using "participants". I am responding that even that formulation will need sources explicitly backing it up. If you dont get that then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 06:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If sources describe nations working together it is fine to state they are participating in something.  // Timothy :: talk  08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WINEP

WINEP has been discussed at RSN previously (here) and it is not a scholarly source, it is an extremely partisan think tank founded by AIPAC. It can be used for opinions but shouldnt be cited for facts. Im tagging that source as unreliable for now. nableezy - 07:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have asked the question at RSN about whether this is a reliable source solely for the use of the term.  // Timothy :: talk  08:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) I have also added a second source.  // Timothy :: talk  08:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That source is fine, though I dont think a source using a description makes something commonly known as something but thats a different topic. nableezy - 13:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nebleezy: Would you mind explaining why you believe this whole alliance is even a partisan issue? Previously, there was an outspoken pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel editor who was obsessed with trying to destroy this page and I couldn't understand why! Obviously, the Palestinians don't want other Arab countries establishing "formal" ties with Israel because they believe that it will hurt their prospects for statehood. I don't agree with that belief but I certainly understand it. However, I don't understand why an informal and unofficial alliance specifically limited to opposing Iran is controversial. The Palestinian Authority themselves officially coordinate with Israel on security matters and Fatah has it's own issues with Iran and it's support for it's rivals Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Even Hamas (via Egypt) coordinates things with Israel on essential issues. There is nothing partisan about this alliance. Just because it includes Israel doesn't make it a hot potato for the Palestinians--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, it isnt to me. Not even a little. I dont think it is controversial that such a covert alliance exists. I think its getting more overt than covert. I think its been obvious for years and years that this was trending this way, that the US and Israel saw animosity towards Iran as a way to create an alliance that ignores the question of Palestine. If you want to talk personal views on Middle East politics and what I might think about this subject specifically you are welcome at my talk page. But for our purposes here, I think there are adequate sources for an article on the topic of a covert alliance between some Arab states and Israel. Hell over a decade ago there were stories about how Saudi supposedly agreed to allow Israeli planes through its airspace to attack Iran (report then denied). This isnt a partisan thing to me. I just dont want things that arent backed by reliable sources in the article. In any article. I think this subject can be an article. I dont think it should be deleted. I do however think that whatever it includes must be backed up by reliable secondary sources. nableezy - 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Then if you agree that this isn't a partisan issue, why is it a problem if a source is allegedly partisan on an unrelated topic?--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats a reliable source issue, not a neutrality one. WINEP is an extremely partisan think tank that is not widely cited in scholarly works and it should not be used as a source for factual information in an encyclopedia article. We shouldnt be basing our articles on opinion pieces by partisans, we should be basing them on reliable secondary sources. nableezy - 17:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a neutrality issue - you have no reason to question their reliability on non-partisan issues--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, reliability here means something specific. We do not use opinion pieces by non-experts for our articles. Just because something shows up in a google search does not make it suitable to use as a source in an article. This piece fails WP:RS. nableezy - 22:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nebleezy I have added a second source to the above. Based on what you stated above "That source is fine" are you willing to remove the unreliable source tag you added?  // Timothy :: talk  17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

failed ping above Nableezy

Id be fine removing the tag if the WINEP source is removed. Yall fine removing that source? nableezy - 17:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There is an equivocation here based on the word alliance. If that is taken as an informal ad hoc arrangement, nation by nation, covertly negotiated between Israel and some Sunni states for specific issues such as Iran, yes. If by this one means a multilateral accord has been brokered between those states and Israel, then no. Or we do not have evidence for it. As I quoted above, such an 'alliance' would violate Israel's known geopolitical strategy.

:::

‘Israel policy makers seem to believe that the Jewish state would not benefit from a multilatreral approach to the Gulf monarchies, even one that could be institutionalised covertly. This reflects a continuity in Israel’s attitude towards peace negotiations and a continued preference for bilateral relations. Multilateral engagement where the collective weight of Arab opinion can be brought to bear have always been anathema to israel. Clive Jones, Yoel Guzansky Fraternal Enemies Israel and the Gulf Monarchies, Oxford University Press 2020 ISBN 978-0-197-52187-8 p.199

The title can't help imply precisely that there is a multilateral alliance, which is anathema to Israeli foreign policy according to one of Netanyahu's close advisors on the Gulf. That is why sourcing must be stringent, each cite making clear which of the two senses is implied, and with attribution.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani:If you read further, the author continues that "ultimately however realpolitik determines Israeli policy: the immediate need to secure the region from further political atrophy trumps the pursuit of a normative-driven regional engagement.....". The author was merely saying that the Israelis believe it could hurt them down the road but because of the immediate threat from Iran they are going to do it anyway.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, nobody is implying that there was an accord among these nations. As I have pointed out numerous times an alliance is merely a relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not explicit agreement has been worked out among them--Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the Israelis, a number of its politicians. Netanyahu for one has been trumpeting the Iran as an existential threat to Israel since 1992 (when it didn't even have a nuclear program. See Gareth Porter, 'Israel’s Construction of Iran as an Existential Threat,' Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 45, No. 1 (177) (Autumn 2015), pp. 43-62, or if you haven't the time, look it up in Haaretz) I stand by that quote, for what you add has yet to lead to any known realpolitik-driven accord that violates Israel's dislike of broad multilateral agreements. There is no multilateral alliance I know of.

By the way you should have written 'because of some Israeli political leaders consider Iran constitutes an immediate threat to Israel'. As it stands you pass off what is an hypothesis as though it were a reality, and take sides. A nuclear Israel threatening for two decades Iran inevitably will cause that country to mirror that rhetoric, strategy. This is what NPOV is about.

Yuval Diskin for one

Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak have made it clear for months that they believe urgent action is needed to stop it from building a nuclear bomb. The two men are widely considered to be the key, if not lone, decision makers on the issue,

Analysts here say there has long been a rift between the elected leaders and the defense and intelligence professionals over the urgency of the Iran threat, the efficacy of an independent Israeli strike and its likely repercussions. But while the substance of Mr. Diskin’s case echoed that made in recent months by Meir Dagan, the former chief of the Mossad spy agency, the tone was far more blunt, biting and personal.'

The ongoing conflict with the Palestinians poses more of an existential danger to Israel than Iran’s renegade nuclear program, former Shin-Bet director Yuval Diskin warned Wednesday night.

All these Iran related articles get extreme partisan, unencyclopedic coverage based on mainstream newspapers, rather than on solid independent strategic analyses. The press never mentions a standing principle of geopolitics: that all nations naturally want a sphere of security or interest beyond their strict borders. Israel does, Iran does, Saudi Arabia does. All engage in proxy wars, covert warfare, etc. That is the nature of states. All the reportage on Iran in the mainstream press singles out the Iranian reflex to the pressure from its adversaries as uniquely 'terroristic', aimed at Israel or US interests. The result is WP:Systemic bias our ostensibly encyclopedic endeavours reflect. NPOV here would require that all those clashing interests be factored in, which doesn't happen.

Israel has the capacity with its nuclear armoury to send Iran back to the stone age with almost, so far no risk of a countervailing threat from Iran. That is what Israel's intelligence authorities keep arguing. That Renegade nuclear program? Iran's advanced nuclear program was shut down by Khomeni on theological grounds as immoral, not from any external pressure, precisely when Israel's own illegal leap towards full nuclear missile power status was being consolidated. Books of scholarship will tell you this, newspapers don't. As some of these reports suggests, the idea of a strong anti-Iran axis formed by Israel and some Gulf States has as much to with burying the existential threat on Israel's doorstep by absorbing all of Palestine as it does with confronting Iran. Israel does have a strategic interest in promoting the collapse of other states in the region (Yinon Plan) and that would, if extended to the one rich oil state that is outside the Western strategic orbit of influence, also serve the interests of Saudi Arabia, that admirable exemplar of modernity. I am completely impartial on this. The only thing that interests me about Iran is its ancient history, the epic of Firdausi, and its architecture.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: #1) I was pointing out that you completely misconstrued what the author of "Fraternal Enemies Israel and the Gulf Monarchies" was saying. The author makes it crystal clear the Israeli leadership believed that it was worth pursuing a multilateral alliance against Iran even if would possibly hurt Israel in the long run. It doesn't make a difference what anybody else believes. You took a quote from the book out of context to make it appear as if the author was saying something that he wasn't. #2) What matters for this article is what the Israeli leadership with the power to make foreign policy decisions think. The leadership are the ones able to create alliances. What any other Israeli might think about the Iranian threat isn't relevant. #3) In general, articles from over 8 years ago don't necessarily reflect current events. Foreign relations all over the world are constantly changing. #4) You are entitled to believe whatever you want but there is a general consensus that Israel and several Arab nations are working together to oppose Iran--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple of these claims are factually challenged.

• Iran's advanced nuclear program was shut down by Khomeni on theological grounds as immoral This is certainly what Khameini claimed. Reports covering US and Israeli intelligence efforts since have cast doubt on the veracity of such statements.

No. 'Factually challenged' gave me a laugh! You are dead wrong. Three things here. You labour under the impression that one author wrote the book you are citing, ignoring the fact it was written by two. Do you know something I don't? Secondly, I gave a source. You did not consult it. Khomeini is not Khameini, another Iranian identity. I can't see on the few wiki pages I checked the detailed note I wrote on this some years ago, perhaps then removed as uncomfortable documentation.Look at William C. Martel, William T. Pendley, Nuclear Coexistence: Rethinking U.s. Policy To Promote Stability In An Era Of Proliferation, Air War College Studies in National Security 1994 ISBN 978-0-788-14663-3 pp.98-99; 'Khomeini dismantled the Shah’s nuclear program at the start of the Iran-Iraq War because it is said he believed nuclear weapons did not conform with Islam. However, in the mid 1980s, during the Iran—Iraq War, when it was believed Iraw was developing nuclear weapons,. Iran re-activated its nuclear weapons program in the event wthat Iraw was able to produce and use such weapons.’ Joseph Kostiner, Conflict and Cooperation in the Gulf Region, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2008 ISBN 978-3-531-91337-7, 2009 p.179; ‘Under the Shah, Iran had a nuclear program but Khomeini disbanded it after the revolution on the grounds that nuclkear weapons were un-Islamic.' Robert B. Silvers, ‎Michael Shae (eds.), The Consequences to Come: American Power After Bush, New York Review of Books 2008 ISBN 978-1-590-172988 p.69

• Israel does have a strategic interest in promoting the collapse of other states in the region WP:OR based on a 40 year old document.

WP:OR applies to articles, not to talk page attempts to clarify the contexts. So you misapply it here. Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I also don't believe much of this is relevant to the article.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, some basic facts don't appear to be familiar to editors. For example, putting in the UAE as part of an anti-Iran alliance shows zero comprehension of the long history, ongoing, of trade and investments between the two, and the fact that, despite rising tensions for several years, the UAE still walks a tightrope (it exports a lot to Iran, it has a local Iranian population, Iran has big investments there, etc. The UAE balances its sense of a potential threat from Iran (and not Iran alone) hence negotiating for military equipment, Iron Dome etc, F35 fights, with its otherwise important commercial interests. When Covid19 broke out, the UAE shipped two substantial consignments of material to Iran. The higher the level of generalization in this kind of article, the less space for nuance. The title probably should be changed to 'Tacit Security Regime arrangements between Israel and Gulf Arab states,' per Jones and Guzansky (who give short shrift to this)Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we replace the "unreliable source" with "better source needed?" I think it's OK to be concerned about a WP:BIASED source but that alone doesn't mean it's includable. It means that a claim needs multiple pegs to stand on (and biased sources are presumably structurally flawed pegs). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I added another source earlier.  // Timothy :: talk  22:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! OK, so Ben Caspit is an Israeli journalist, reasonably well-known commentator, and author. Do we have enough to remove the "unreliable soruce" tag and are complaints satisfied? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Its not that it is a biased source, it is that it is an unreliable one. It is an opinion piece by somebody who does not have any type of academic expertise on the topic published by an avowedly partisan organization. I dont know why this is even needed when another source is there. Just remove WINEP and the tag goes with it. Retaining WINEP would mean retaining the tag however. nableezy - 22:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all think tanks have a partisan leaning and can be considered biased, but I don't know why that automatically makes this one unreliable. If they have published bunk in the past, then that's one thing, but this is just analysis/commentary. There was a discussion at RSN about WINEP and there was no consensus that it's unusable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, most think tanks have a pronounced view on what they promote. I do not really understand what you are driving at though. WINEP does not have a record of being regularly cited in other reliable sources, neither does the author of this piece. An opinion piece is reliable if the author is an established expert. That is not the case here. nableezy - 22:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't require an academic source to document that a phrase is used to refer to a current issue. Nableezy based on the above do you agree the one source I added is sufficient and you will not challenge the inclusion of the phrase it supports? or do you intend to challenge its inclusion based on a lack of sources if its removed?  // Timothy :: talk  22:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont think the names are being treated properly as discussed up above in #alt names, but I already said the source you added is fine. I think the opening sentence needs to be reworked considerably though, descriptive titles dont need to be bolded and alternative descriptions definitely dont need to be bolded. Im not really sure how to phrase it though, still working that one out in my head. But I am fine with something saying also referred to as an Israeli-Sunni alliance based on that source. nableezy - 22:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on a reworded opening sentence to discuss. If you agree the one ref is enough to support inclusion of "Israeli–Sunni Coalition", remove the ref and tag you dislike.  // Timothy :: talk  22:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Im not sure I can honestly, I think my removing some of the overcategorizations might count as a revert, and removing the source might likewise count as a revert. Im totally cool with anybody removing the tag if the WINEP source is likewise removed though. But I dont really want to risk a 1RR violation to do it myself. nableezy - 22:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats fine, we can wait for a resolution at RSN, if they decide it is a reliable source for the phrase, the ref can stay and the tag can be removed. 22:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

They are not descriptive titles, they are labels used by sources. Descriptive titles are created by editors. WP:NDESC Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, those are all very much descriptions. There is no formal name for this alliance. Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran is indeed a description, so is Israeli-Sunni coalition. nableezy - 22:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 22:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Description" in what sense? Your use of the term "descriptive titles" is pulled from WP:NDESC seemingly, but that specifically refers to titles or names written by editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Description in the dictionary sense that it is describing something? Or do you seriously think "Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran" is a name of some alliance? Because there are 0 news results using that formulation. I see no books or journal articles using that as a name of anything either. nableezy - 22:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Wikieditor, they are clearly labels used by sources.  // Timothy :: talk  22:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Label? The source you added for this one only used "Israeli-Sunni Coalition Against Iran" in the title of the article. It never once refers to such a name in the body of the article. Actually, I'm not even so sure it even supports the name at all since it is only in the headline. And what source uses "Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran" anywhere at all? But its a label used by sources? nableezy - 22:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, there's room to disagree on everything. But what we are going off is the language from WP:NDESC that you cited. It provides guidelines for "descriptions written by editors." That is a very narrow and precise definition of how that policy applies. If we adopt your definition of "description," then virtually any title becomes a description. There is no workable distinction there; the only line we can draw is the one drawn by policy, and WP:NDESC describes that as being whether it was written by an editor or by a source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So if you apply that reasoning to the terms used in the article, then yes, it seems like the title is a descriptive one, which is fine, whereas the alt names in bold are indeed "names" provided by sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:NDESC does the phrase "descriptions written by editors" appear. Nowhere. nableezy - 23:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Copying over my comments from WP:RSN, as I was informed I can't post there: WINEP a partisan think-tank, but a well known one. It shouldn't be used for facts, but can be used for its opinions (attributed). If it is using the phrase, I think that is good evidence that the phrase is used, and it is fine in this context , unattributed. Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh Wikieditor19920, maintenance tage are supposed to stay on absent a consensus to remove it. Please explain that edit. nableezy - 23:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

He is entitled to one revert a day, and there are multiple editors here and at RSN that support the inclusion of the source for documenting the phrase. You have very little support. there is a clear consensus that the source can remain and is not unreliable for simply documenting the that the subject is sometimes referred to by that label.  // Timothy :: talk  00:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A clear consensus? Based on what? One user said get a better source, another user said a single source using a phrase is not sufficient. But you are claiming a clear consensus? To use an opinion piece by a non-expert? nableezy - 00:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I believe there is a consensus 5 editors in favor, 2 opposed. Plus there is a second supporting reference. If you disagree you can revert it tomorrow or go to DR boards and request mediation.  // Timothy :: talk  00:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Tomorrow it is. Will also be addressing the lines that fail verification then I guess. nableezy - 00:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I take it back on the source being good enough per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines. Usage in a headline is not sufficient as headlines in news articles are not reliable sources. nableezy - 01:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's the third time you've made the same argument about the same piece of content in another thread. And for the final time, a headline is perfectly suitable for a name, so long as the substance behind it is explained in the article It is, and this point is going nowhere. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Its different content, this is about the second alt name. Above is about the third. And WP:HEADLINES says the exact opposite of what you say here. Headlines are not reliable sources when the material does not appear in the body. The name being cited here appears only in the headline. And not in the body. nableezy - 02:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The name is in the headline, and the body goes on to describe what it labels (an unofficial alliance). Therefore that name is being used in this article, which describes the same. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES directly conflicts with that argument. What it says is News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. The body does not support that this alliance is called anything because it doesnt call it anything. nableezy - 02:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The "name" is just that. A name. The substance is what matters -- whether or not it describes a Sunni-Israeli alliance. That's precisely what's covered in the body. This is honestly starting to feel like much ado about nothing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

To say something is a commonly used alternate name requires sourcing that justifies that. I actually agree this is much ado about nothing, but the solution it to just remove the things that dont matter, like these random alternate names. And this article should also be moved to a less awkward title. But the two alternate names in the article now are based on sources that are either a. unreliable, b, only use the phrase in the title and so dont support it in the body, or c. dont use the phrasing at all. nableezy - 02:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You are making this an argument about "verifiability." This is not even the correct policy analysis. "Israeli-Sunni alliance" is the name used in the headline, and the article goes on to describe what that consists of. Verifiability is quite literally a non-issue here. The relevant considerations for an alternative title should be lifted from WP:CRITERIA for those of a main title, which are 1) recognizability, 2) naturalness, 3) precision, 4) concicesness, and 5) consistency. The fact that it is used in a headline lends it recognizability. It is also a concise and straightforward name that clearly describes what both the source and this article refer to. So this entire "verifiability" argument is a rabbit hole over nothing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot rely on a headline to support something in our article. WP:HEADLINES makes that clear. And no, the criteria for an article title is not the same as saying in the article something is a commonly used alternate name. The latter does in fact require a verifiable reliable source supporting that it is a commonly used alternate name. That does not exist here. You just saying verifiability does not matter does not make it so verifiability does not matter. All statements that are challenged require an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. The statement that this is commonly known as an Israeli–Sunni Coalition, with capital letters as a proper name, is challenged. It has no reliable source directly supporting that it is a commonly used name. It only has a headline of one reliable source even using it. That does not meet the requirement for a verifiable reliable source supporting it. You can find a source that does that, but currently none is cited. I challenge that a. Israeli-Sunni Coalition is a proper name for this purported alliance and b. that it is a commonly used name for it. You need a source backing that statement up. And usage in a headline is emphatically not such a source per WP:HEADLINES. nableezy - 03:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, it is a name that aptly describes what the article covers. It is not a claim independent of the article's focus. The fact that the author did not keep repeating the term "Israeli-Sunni alliance, Israeli-Sunni alliance" as if he anticipated an argument about it on an obscure Wikipedia talk page does not mean it isn't useable as a title. The body of the article describes an Israeli-Sunni alliance," and the headline uses that term. The two are not independent from another.

WP:HEADLINE was developed in response to breaking news stories that would claim something in the headline, and then describe something entirely different in the body. There is no such discrepancy here. And again, please, stop forcing me to respond to strawman. I never said verifiability does not matter. This is not even a halfway honest representation of what I said. I said it is so obviously and easily satisfied that it is not an issue. Unless your argument is that an Israeli-Sunni alliance is not the subject of the article (which is clearly is, I'll read it a third time and confirm it) then there are no counterpoints on verifiability.

If you want to challenge whether something is an appropriate name, as I said, refer to the WP:CRITERIA. It is a recognizable, concise, direct, and sourced name. It helps indicate to the readers what to expect and it accurately summarizes the topic of the article. To the editor who originally identified this name and provided the source, I say kudos and I say this more than passes the smell test for inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRITERIA is about article titles. This is not an article title. Material in our articles have to have reliable sources that directly back them up. No such source exists for the teo alternate names in the article currently. As such, they fail verification. We dont include alternate descriptions when reliable sources dont. I plan on correcting those issues tomorrow. And no, WP:HEADLINE was developed in response to breaking news stories that would claim something in the headline, and then describe something entirely different in the body. is based on nothing at all. What the plain language of that guideline says is that you may not use a headline as a reliable source if the material is not included in the body. And what you said, as an exact quote is Verifiability is quite literally a non-issue here. You said verifiability is not at issue here, whereas it very much is. Last time, because I dont feel the need to play the IDHT game with you anymore. You cannot use the headline of a news article as the sole support for content. Content includes the claim that there is some significant alternative name. Since no reliable source is offered to support that Israeli-Sunni Coalition is a commonly used name claiming so in our article is a failure of WP:V. As such, I intend to remove it. Restoring material that fails WP:V requires the inclusion of an inline citation to a reliable source (not a headline) and consensus per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. Full stop. You can keep arguing about this if you want, or you can go try to find a source that supports the material. But as it stands, the sources cited do not and I intend to remove it. nableezy - 03:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As interesting as it is to debate whether or not there is a spoon, an editor has already provided a source, the name is used in the title, and I do not see any "verifiability" issues because it is used in the title. We are also not in the Matrix, and removal will require consensus. This is both the long-standing version of the article and it has support from prior discussion from multiple editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

And per WP:HEADLINES a news headline is not a reliable source. Nothing on this page is long standing, and anything that does not meet WP:V may be removed. Im not playing these games with you. The material fails WP:V and will be removed. Restoration requires reliable sources and consensus. See WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. nableezy - 05:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That alternative title has been in the article since the very first version, actually. We're clear on your opinion about "failing verifiability," for a source that directly uses the provided title. I don't see anywhere in WP:HEADLINE that says we shouldn't the title of an article as an alternative name, but you're allowed your interpretation. But again, if you want to change this indeed longstanding aspect of the article, and which has been discussed previously, you'll need consensus for it. That's not a game, that's the fundamental policy that we all need to follow. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats cool, but WP:V allows for the removal of any material that does not have an inline citation to a reliable source directly supporting it. You dont see what in WP:HEADLINES says that headlines are not reliable sources? Here, Ill quote it again: News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles. A news headline is not a reliable source, full stop. You can try to play this I need consensus game, but WP:V makes crystal clear that material that is not directly supported by an inline citation may be removed (All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.). It also makes crystal clear the requirements for restoring it. I will be following WP:V. I invite you to join me in doing so. We can see what happens if WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are ignored. nableezy - 05:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ive been looking for something to include coalition and I think this works. Will retain it but not capitalized or bolded as nothing supports it being a proper noun or a common name. nableezy - 05:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"Israeli-Sunni alliance"

• Lappin, Yaakov (2021-02-04). "Biden decision on weapons sales to Gulf states 'important test' for Israeli-Sunni alliance". JNS.org. Retrieved 2021-03-19. “Hence, the decision on the weapons deals forms a test, both for the U.S.’s conduct in the face of Iran, and for the solidification and expansion of the Israeli-Sunni strategic alliance,” he said. “If they block the F-35 deal, it would mean that they do not care about this strategic alliance.”
• Gilliland, Donald (2020-12-21). "Devil's bargain: Sacrificing Yemen for a Saudi-Israeli peace deal". TheHill. Retrieved 2021-03-19. In its effort to promote regional peace and build an Israeli-Sunni alliance against Iran, the U.S. is rushing to offer Saudi Arabia a gift in exchange for a normalization deal with Israel.
• "Trump just outed the anti-Iran axis | Opinion". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2021-03-19. It is also an important step in creating a heretofore unimaginable American-led, Israeli-Sunni alliance against Iran. Given the UAE’s and Bahrain’s proximity to Iran, and the interoperability of weapons systems, one can only speculate on the possible areas of military cooperation. Tehran is very unhappy.
• "The Israel-Sunni alliance". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 2021-03-19.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The haaretz one is an opinion piece. The Jpost one only includes it in the title. The Hill is an opinion piece. JNS may come closest to being usable, but unless you want to add a third alternate description with strategic in it I dont really see the point. nableezy - 05:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually the JNS one is the one I already added, it earlier uses the phrasing From a regional strategic perspective, an American cancellation would constitute a serious blow to Washington’s commitment to the Sunni-Israeli alliance against Iran, and harm the U.S.’s own posture in the region, he cautioned. That and the lobelog source for coalition are in the article now. nableezy - 05:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: would it satisfy you if it was changed to read something like "also referred to in some media outlets as.." Adding such language would make it more of an opinion that is being quoted and would lower the bar of acceptable references.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with how it is currently phrased in the article? Things like some media outlets beg the question which and generally are avoided as weasel-worded. nableezy - 20:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't have a problem with the current wording. I was just trying to find a solution that would allow more references to be added. I personally disagree with many of objections you raised to some of the references. I don't believe it applies to a a name/description. Nevertheless, instead of just arguing back and forth, I thought I would propose a solution this solution to make everybody happy--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Im not opposed to more references, though I dont think they are needed, but if added they need to be reliable. Thats my only concern with the sources. nableezy - 20:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Rough draft of a possible rewording of the first part of the lead

This is not a final suggestion, it is a starting place for discussion. It is not a final draft, it is a rough draft.

New text ---Start of copy---

The Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran (also referred to as the Israeli–Sunni Coalition or the Israeli–Sunni Alliance), referes to the unofficial group of nations which cooperate togehter in various ways in opposition to Iran. The cooperation is based on regional security interests and concerns which are mutually shared by Israel and primarily Sunni Arab States led by Saudi Arabia. It was promoted by the United States following the February 2019 Warsaw Conference.

---End of copy---

Original text

---Start of copy---

The Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran[7] also known as Israeli–Sunni Coalition,[8][unreliable source?][9] or Israeli–Sunni Alliance,[10][11] is an unofficial coalition in Western Asia. It was promoted by the United States following the February 2019 Warsaw Conference.[12] It is based on mutual shared regional security between Israel and mostly Sunni Arab States led by Saudi Arabia. Participating Arab states form the core of the Gulf Cooperation Council. They include Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.[4]

---End of copy---  // Timothy :: talk  23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion

Your new text looks fine to me. I'd either remove the tag that says "unreliable source" next to WINEP (per my comments in the section above, it's a fine source for this, I think), or just drop the source altogether , as we have another one that support it. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The second altname isnt supported by the cited sources, at all, and the first probably isnt either as the phrase just appears in the title of the article. There is no reason to include multiple descriptions of the same thing when we are using a descriptive title to begin with. nableezy - 00:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagging

Nableezy You've added enough tags for one day, let the discussion about your current concerns resolve then you can add more tags. Continuing to add tags when we are busy multiple discussions about the current ones is POINTY and DE. Let's deal with the tags you've added already and the subjects under discussion. There is more than enough for discussion. We cannot discuss everything at once, and combined with your personal 1 week and I remove it makes it impossible to address all the tags you are adding. // Timothy :: talk  23:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont think there is any policy basis for that request. Its either tag it or remove the statement that failed verification. That Ive identified other issues does not mean I shouldnt continue to address new ones as I see them. nableezy - 23:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There are already 5 active threads discussing nableezy concerns. With the amount of discussion going on it is going to take some time to resolve these. They continue to add tags and with their 1 week and I remove it policy there will not be enough time to discuss all the tags they are adding and changes they are making before their 1 week deadline is up and they start removing things. They are creating an impossible situation and it is disruptive.  // Timothy :: talk  23:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So what if there are 5 active threads if there are 7 different statements that fail verification? Policy allows me to remove material without tagging it to begin with. It is not disruptive to alert our readers that the things we say are based on the sources cited are not in fact based on the sources cited. Including things that distort the cited sources is disruptive, and Im pretty close to reporting it. And if the tags are removed I am not going to be waiting a week to remove the material that fails verification. I will be removing the material on Israeli–Sunni Alliance tomorrow, and any restoration will require both reliable sources directly supporting them and consensus for the reinsertion. Im not playing this game, people dont get to put in things the sources dont support and additionally remove a tag alerting users that the sources dont support it. nableezy - 23:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you go request as I have the ANI thread be closed so I can open one at AE?  // Timothy :: talk  00:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Go to AE lol, I wish you good luck. The ANI doesnt need to be closed, and I already said it should be. nableezy - 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I was literally about to open another thread about the non-judicious use of tags here. Tags are meant to identify issues in the article. At the time, a shotgun approach applying half a dozen tags across the article does nothing helpful and is likely to confuse readers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I am identifying issues in the article. The tags you just removed identified where two cited sources dont support the material. Thats cool though, Ill just go with removing material that fails verification instead. nableezy - 00:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You applied a "failed verification tag" to a cite that directly supported the proposition under question. If you want to progress from edit-warring over tags to actual content in the lead, that's your decision. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you paying attention to what you are removing? I noted why I added the tag in #altnames. That was on the second altname, one in which the sources do not support that it is an alternative name. I will be removing that altname tomorrow since even a tag alerting readers that the material in question doesnt appear in the source cited is removed disruptively. And returning it without a verifiable source would be a violation of both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. nableezy - 00:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The second alt name is literally supported in the title of the cited article. That is sufficient to support usage of that name. Keep it up, though. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Except it doesnt. As explained above. nableezy - 01:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines. nableezy - 01:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop making the same arguments in three different threads. See above for my reply. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Page move

Propose taking "states" out of the title, doesnt seem to serve much of a purpose. Can do a formal request if anybody wants to challenge it. nableezy - 20:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Arabs are a race, Israel is a nation. Arab "States" and Israel however are equivilant--Steamboat2020 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like thats obviously implied, and I dont see any sources calling it this, but thats fine if it isnt unanimous I wont push it. nableezy - 00:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a note. Arab are not a 'race': at least in today's euphemism, they are an ethnic group bound by the core identity market of the Arabic language, thus Palestinians and Egyptians, though in good part descended from peoples in that area with a history prior to both the rise of the Arabic empire, are Arabs by virtue of their adoption of that culture and its language. Race is a term that should never be used.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Race isn't a deragatory term, so I'm not clear why you ended your comment with "Race is a term that should never be used". Regardless, I disagree with the concept that Arabs are just an ethnicity. Of course, Egyptian DNA is disntintive from the descendants of the Tribes of the Arabian Peninsula (the Palestinians actually do share DNA with traditional Arabs) However, I believe that arabs are a race of people who descended from people who shared a common ethnicity.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

... normalized relations with Israel, citing Iranian threats ...

In 2020, as part of the Abraham Accords, the United Arab Emirates,[1] Bahrain,[1] Sudan,[12] and Morocco[13] normalized relations with Israel, citing Iranian threats to the region as a factor.[5] The cited source at the end of the sentence definitely does not reference that every one of these countries normalized relations with Israel due to the Iranian threat. From my reading, I believe that none of the nations actually cited the Iranian threat, but I will be happy to be proven wrong if someone were to provide me the exact quote. In the meantime I will remove the source. starship.paint (exalt) 08:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The cited source refers to the UAE and Bahrain as part of an informal anti-Iran alliances. The quote is " The Accords normalizes relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel and Bahrain. ...Geopolitically, the deal strengthens the informal anti-Iran alliance in the region, increasing the pressure on Tehran". Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, so the source supports According to the Marshall Center, the normalizing of relations between I-UAE and I-BAH via the Abraham Accords "strengthens the informal anti-Iran alliance in the region". starship.paint (exalt) 15:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As a late addendum, when I wrote my comment I didn't realize that the I-UAE and IBAH part was written in an earlier paragraph. After reading those paragraphs, it seems that the source was referring to Abraham Accords as a whole when writing about "strengthens the informal anti-Iran alliance in the region". starship.paint (exalt) 08:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. that's more precise. And if we want to be precise it also says that Sudan and Morocco are likely to join this alliance.Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It says no such thing. The only place it mentions Morocco or Sudan is in saying they may be next to normalize relations with Israel. Nothing about joining any alliance. nableezy - 18:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The alliance is informal, so there is nothing to "join". But the context is clear. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not make inferences, per WP:OR/WP:SYNTHNishidani (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No inference is made here, the context is clear, from a single source. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Well perhaps you have a better analytical term to describe how this passage

On September 1, 2020, when a jubilant Kushner predicted that “all other Arab countries will gradually follow the United Arab Emirates in normalizing ties with Israel,” he was met with skepticism. Certain vindication came as only a few weeks later Bahrain followed on the heels of the UAE. Other countries, including Oman (as mentioned above) and possibly Morocco and Sudan, may be next

meaning Morocco and Sudan may be next to 'normalize ties with Israel' actually means, without making an inference, that 'normalizing ties with Israel' signifies automatically joining an ad hoc anti-Iran alliance.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It also means Morocco and Sudan may be next to "follow[ed] on the heels of the UAE", which was earlier described to be part of the anti-Iran alliance. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope.Classic WP:OR inference hence no go. Don't push it any further. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope yourself. clear context from a single source. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Kenosha Forever--Steamboat2020 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it explicitly says may follow them in normalizing relations. You cannot make inferences the source does not explicitly support. If this is added as a source for Morocco or Sudan we can take it OR/N, but this is very obviously not directly supporting the idea that Morocco and Sudan may be next in any coalition. Thats a reading completely unsupported by the source. Instead of trying to twist the pretty clear wording of the source to meet some pre-determined outcome one wants in the article it would be more useful to actually find a source that supports that outcome. nableezy - 13:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not opinionable in my view. I gave the text. If anyone can find an experienced wiki grammarian who is neutral to the topic (preferably at the appropriate noticeboard), who endorses that patent misreading of the source, by all means enlist them. When you are dealing with plain grammar (which does not allow that inference) 'voting' is pointless. Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

we're going to disagree on this, and you're welcome to get additional opinions. The context is clear. Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement requires a reason. Where does the source say anything about Sudan or Morocco being next in joining any alliance? WP:V requires sources to directly support the material, not depend on some context that a Wikipedia editor sees. You cant make leaps that the source does not explicitly make. As far as more views, dont really see the need to yet. WP:ONUS still being a thing. I still intend to remove Morocco and Sudan on Wednesday absent a verifiable source directly supporting their inclusion. Saying the context is clear is an admission of OR, since it is effectively saying that there is nothing that directly supports the material and it depends on your reading of the "context". nableezy - 13:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The article talks about Morocco and Sudan normalizing ties with Israel in the future tense - normalizing ties with Israel ... possibly Morocco and Sudan, may be next - and does not mention whether the anti-Iran alliance will be further strengthened by Morocco and Sudan, therefore, no conclusion can be made, using this source, on whether Morocco and Sudan are part of this alliance. starship.paint (exalt) 08:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The article was written before those two countries normalized the ties, so naturally it was written in future tense, but it provided the reasoning on why this is likely to happen. It can certainly be used to describe the reasoning given prior to the event actually happening. Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesnt really answer the request for a quote on where it says anything about either country joining an alliance in any way. Absent such a verifiable source will be removing tomorrow. nableezy - 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It addresses the non-issue of past tense vs future tense. There is no formal alliance to join, but the article does say these countries will be following the UAE, which was described as part of the informal alliance. Announcing you are going to edit war over this when multiple people disagree with you is not a good look. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it says Jared Kushner believed that other states would normalize relations with Israel, and that the author of the piece believed that Morocco and Sudan may be next in doing so. Nothing about any alliance, formal or informal. Im not announcing any intention to edit-war, kindly dont put words in my mouth it is quite rude, I will be removing material that fails V. And per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS restoration will require a verifiable source that explicitly backs up the text and consensus. Sorry, but I do not intend to play games with you or anybody else here. We have requirements for content and this content does not meet it. I said I'd give it a week about a week ago. Will see if a source can be located before the week is up tomorrow. nableezy - 14:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The text "Other countries, including Oman (as mentioned above) and possibly Morocco and Sudan, may be next" is not presented as Kushner's belief, but as the article's position. We can attribute it to the source, to clarify. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

What is that a reply to? I said the author of the piece believed that Morocco and Sudan may be next in doing so. Doing so being a reference to Kushner's statement about normalizing relations with Israel. The source does not directly support that Morocco and Sudan are engaged in any way in an anti-Iranian alliance with Israel, formal, informal or whatever. And if it does you can provide a quote that directly supports that. Absent such a quote the material remains unverifiable and will be removed. nableezy - 16:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

i.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.The only imaginable motive for persisting in not grasping what several editors tell you is a policy abuse is to stir exasperation and via repetition to provoke a state of aggravation which then can serve the purposes of making a complaint against other editors. We've already witnessed this recently. Stop it.Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Negev Summit 2022

Are there sources indicating that the states at this summit are in an Arab-Israel alliance against Iran? This article suggests that Saudi Arabia is in this alliance but they are not at the summit. Isn't this more to do with the Abraham Accords? Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)