Talk:Arab–Israeli alliance/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

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)