Talk:Arab–Israeli alliance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1] and another term is "Israeli-Arab axis against Iran"[2].--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)

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.

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)