Jump to content

Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Military cohesion on the Iranian side

After finding this article it reminded me of an news piece I read about how the armed forces in several Middle Eastern countries are aligning to Iran, according to the Head of the Revolutionary Guard, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari. Thought this would help other contributors. Jonjonjohny (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous infobox

The article, and its infobox in particular, oversimplifies things. Iran has no "involvement" in Bahrain, there's no proxy conflict over there, Iran's vocal support for Shia Bahraini opposition is beyond this so-called Saudi-Iranian rivalry. Iran's role in Syrian Civil War is also a direct result of Iran-Israel enmity. --Z 11:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Iran has been accused of meddling in Bahrain for decades--regardless of whether or not this is actually the case, it is still relevant to the Saudi-Iranian rivalry because it directly affects their relationships and behavior. Much of the rivalry is based on Saudi Arabia's concern of Iranian power and Iran's political exploitation of that fear. Kdowns1453 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

ISIS

Where does ISIS fit into this proxy conflict as they are not a proxy of either side, Iran or Saudis? 174.95.4.78 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

They don't. --FPSTurkey (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia supported ISIS for quite some time, however that was before large scale Iranian support for Assad - so it doesn't fit the purview of this article Smalltime0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. After investigating the page history, this is the stable title before several rounds of move warring. In conflicts such as these, I much prefer to see a stronger consensus before closing, but because the RM requests a move back to the stable title, before the warring happened, I think this is suitable and that the arguments presented are policy-based. I will note that because of the low participation, this is a weak consensus. Given the past move warring, I'd also recommend that the admin who moves the page keep in place move protection. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war → Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict – This is the previous title, which was changed without consensus. As I've said previously, it is more accurate to call it a "proxy conflict" as opposed to a "proxy war." It seems minor, but the conflict involves a series of proxy wars, especially in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. It also involves proxy conflicts in countries that aren't wars, like in Bahrain. I realize that it's been referred to both as a "proxy conflict" and a "proxy war" depending on the source, but the Saudi Arabia-Iran situation itself is a state of conflict, not a proxy war. The list of proxy wars article (although imperfect) acknowledges this with separate entries for each war that falls within the scope of the Saudi-Iran conflict. However, since the conflict has been referred to as both names, I think the intro should be similar to the Iran–Israel proxy conflict article, which acknowledges both names but keeps the more accurate "conflict" title. KD 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quincy pact

There is a point missing (in english version of wikipedia), for the global understanding.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_du_Quincy

(Check the talk part.. "U.S in Syria

La fin n'est plus d'actualité, les États-Unis arment les rebelles en Syrie, à l'avantage de l’Arabie-Saoudite.

https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_Crime_and_Corruption_Reporting_Project

Les accords U.S / Iran sont potentiellement sur le point d'être annulés. http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2017/09/20/bras-de-fer-a-l-onu-autour-de-l-accord-nucleaire-iranien_1597579 http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2017/09/19/01003-20170919ARTFIG00254-l-avenir-de-l-accord-nucleaire-iranien-suspendu-a-la-decision-de-trump.php

Pastounak" )

Pastounak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F1C:90A0:B148:A91F:AAF7:8DD2 (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Nigeria

Nigeria has become the latest battleground in the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, after violent clashes between Izala movement which is backed by Saudi Arabia, and Islamic Movement in Nigeria which is backed by Iran.
Source:
Saudi Arabia Takes Proxy War With Iran To Nigeria As Shias Are Brutalized
Saudi, Iran stoke Sunni-Shia tensions in Nigeria
Is Nigeria’s Crackdown on the Shiites a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Saudi-Iranian rivalry stokes sectarian tensions in Nigeria
Saudi-Iran row spills over into Africa--Qrmoo3 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Israeli - Palestinian conflict

KD53

Greyshark09, please explain and obtain consensus for your removal of the entire section on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. You have done this before while I've been watching the page, and you were reverted. I personally also think the section should be retained. KD53, since you have been doing much of the work on this page, I'm also interested to hear what you think.

Thank you, CMV512 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth keeping, since the Iran-Israel conflict is directly related. The section should be included, if not under the conflicts section, then somewhere else in the article. KD53 12:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The sources don't link this with Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Exactly the opposite- Ghattas claims that the Saudi-Iranian conflict neglects the Palestinian issue. Just saying that the Iran-Saudi conflict is neglecting the Palestinian issue is not "involvement" in the conflict. If you do not have sources specifically mentioning Iran-Saudi conflict as active involvement in the Palestinian issue in this regard, it is WP:SYNTH.GreyShark (dibra) 14:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. The Palestinian issue is not a theater of this conflict. However, the Newsweek article cited in the second paragraph has a quote from Lieberman where he says essentially that he wants Israel to join this proxy conflict on the Saudi side, or work with Saudi Arabia against Iran. I think that statement is connected to the topic.
Perhaps this even warrants a new section, called something like "Potential Israeli Involvement", if this section is removed? CMV512 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Potential involvement is something having to do with wishful thinking. Per Wikipedia WP:CRYSTALBALL policy it is not allowed to present "possible" future developments as items and titles based on opinions and statements alone, which may confuse the reader to think it is a fact. Moreover, if there is a "possible Israeli involvement in the future", so it is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather about the Israeli support to the Saudi side, so perhaps we can mentioned this issue if we create "Involved parties" section and mention Israel under others subsection, along with Palestine's Mahmud Abbas administration which is also reportedly in covert relations with Saudi Arabia.GreyShark (dibra) 07:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explaining. If you are fine with my most recent edits, where I moved some information to your new section, I no longer object to removing what is now left in the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" section. Thanks, CMV512 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the collaboration - it is a fair compromise, retaining much of the information without misleading the readers. The conflict subtopic was removed.GreyShark (dibra) 13:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Libya

Could we please remove it from the belligerents section? An IP keeps re-adding the Libyan conflict even though it has nothing to do with this topic (as of yet) and is more related to the Qatar-UAE rivalry. In this edit they cited two sources, but the first one is just quoting a military official and doesn't mention this "proxy" conflict, while the second one is a propaganda source and doesn't even mention Iran. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A third power

Well, this article itself accepts a presence of a third power: Turkey. It also mentions that indeed Turkey also wishes to spread its influence on the region, and that both the parties fear this influence. A similar scene was also seen during the Cold War, when a few countries like India, Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana and Yugoslavia led the 'non-aligned movement', where they wished to side with neither USA nor USSR, though these countries didn't want to spread their influence and weren't seen as a threat. (Courtesy: NCERT 'Our Pasts - III, Textbook in History for Class VIII', Chapter 12, 'India after Independence') Overspeeding Gorilla (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is great that people seek to understand the increasingly assertive and aggressive role of Turkey here. There are ignorant people who are trying to delete the Saudi Arabia–Turkey proxy conflict just because it is "not enough" and Saudi Arabia has "good relations with Turkey", which is hilariously untrue nowadays under Erdoganist regime since 2010s. Hopefully we can make more researches, I think it is not enough. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Map colors

Can someone change the colors on this map? It's extremely difficult to tell the difference between Saudi Arabia and the proxy warzones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.102.114 (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey

Is Turkey (and by extension Azerbaijan/TRNC) really on Saudi's side? They seem to have improving relations with both Iran and Russia (see the Astana Process); they are openly allied to Qatar, oppose the Sisi regime in Egypt, had a sort of power struggle with KSA over Sudan, and had a very public spat with them over the murder of Khashoggi.

To be clear I'm talking about the presence of Erdoğan in the leaders in the Saudi side. I also think that Tamim bin Hamad al Thani should be added to the Iranian side due to Iran's very public support of Qatar during the Saudi-Qatari diplomatic spat.

I mean, there's really a three-way power struggle with Turkey as the third party (with Azerbaijan, TRNC, Libya, Qatar as allies) but that's another discussion. Angele201002 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Turkey, Qatar, Azerbaijan, TRNC, etc, are not allied with Iran or Saudi Arabia - it's more of a wild card. However, if we had to choose, I think Turkey still remains closer to Saudi Arabia than Iran. Recently, Turkey and Saudi have been working on improving their relations, and Israel, an ally of Saudi Arabia, openly backed Azerbaijan in its war with Armenia, who was supported by Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arandomguy12345 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, Israel and Azerbaijan are openly allied, but that had less to do with the Iran-Saudi conflict. Turkey and Iran are also improving their relations, Turkey-Egypt relations are at an all-time low, Turkey expressed a desire (an empty threat but that's not the point) to withdraw diplomatic recognition of UAE. Turkey (and Azerbaijan, TRNC) and Saudi may both be friendly to Israel but that's not within the Iran-Saudi context. I think we agree that Turkey, Azerbaijan and TRNC are not allied to either and Erdoğan should really not be in Saudi's column. I do, however, think that the Qatar diplomatic crisis should be added to the infobox under the Yemeni civil war as Iran did back Qatar publicly. Also, if I remember well, one of Saudi's demands was for Qatar to reduce diplomatic relations with Iran.Angele201002 (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Iran-Azerbaijan

Turkey accused Iran of helping Armenia, but after the war Azerbaijan sent the deputy of prime minister - Shahin Mustafayev- to thank Iran for their support of the Azerbaijani side in the conflict. Iran should be recognized as a supporter of Azerbaijan in this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasFalsafi (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkans and Caucasus

Reading this talk page, have just become aware that WP:1RR applies here (my apologies), so seeking consensus before reverting to status quo again.

Please see this diff for the two versions of this page in question.

I suggest there is no verifiable source that allows moving away from the page's status quo. What are you views, please?

FWIW, there's a brief discussion at User talk:Sweetkind5#January 2021.

Thanks, Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Discussion at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict § Balkans and Caucasus. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Supporting Collapsible List readded

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have re-added the supported by section in the infobox after someone removed it from the article since it had no sources/references. This time, I found references. I am considering to find references for the supporting section in the Iranian side of the Infobox. I also have a problem with a reference. Just wanted to let you guys know.

Thanks, Mausebru (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for protection

I've requested the protection level be raised to semi-protection due to constant back and forth of synth being added and removed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Just start the damn thing over

WP:TNT: Just destroy it and do it all over, ok. Go to the deletion pageMausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 00:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Map

The current map showing major proxy area highlights Bosnia and Herzegovina, however there is very minimal mention of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkans.

Title

I'd argue that the previous title referring to it as a "proxy conflict" is more accurate than "proxy war." It seems minor, but the conflict involves a series of proxy wars, especially in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. It also involves proxy conflicts in countries that aren't wars, like in Bahrain. I realize that it's been referred to both as a "proxy conflict" and a "proxy war" depending on the source, but the Saudi Arabia-Iran situation itself is a state of conflict, not a proxy war. I think the title should be changed back. KD 13:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KD53 (talk • contribs)

I agree. There was never an explanation or a consensus for it to be changed from "proxy conflict" to "proxy war." Earthscent (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't ever heard proxy conflict. Just proxy wars.--TZubiri (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism committed by سيد ح (talk · contribs)

This user has been doing such edits as this and this, and has given no explanation to as why. He has also done the same thing in many Bahraini-related articles and this page. All of them, with no explanation. I think he could be a bot, but I don't know, but we should block him. --Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 00:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Syrian Democratic Forces

Why exactly is SDF on both sides, I understand the Syrian government and Iranian backed organizations cooperated with them in Afrin and a few times in Aleppo but it doesn't really seem to make sense here placing them on both sides and it is rather confusing.

Mainly is neutral, uses Iranian support against Turkish forces and IS, but also uses Saudi and American support against the Syrian government, so likely more against Iran since they weren't allied until 2015, plus Iran support guerilla insurgent groups across Rojava to undermine SDF authority. SDF uses Saudi and American support to fight these insurgents.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 22:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proxy conflict zone

Why is Bosnia and Herzegovina depicted as a "major proxy conflict location" in this map? Saudi Arabia and Iran fought hand-in-hand during the Bosnian War and there hasn't been an armed conflict in the country since. Am I missing something? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Most likely political Mausebru (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume that it was misplaced mark for Albania. Albania is mentioned within the body text of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict#Albania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.197.242 (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Likely. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 22:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

@WikiCleanerMan:. Please specify why these edits were "Disruption":

We can deal with the next edits after your problem with these two are resolved. Pahlevun (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mausebru: You have been active since the time I have asked you opine here. Please answer the questions above. Pahlevun (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mausebru: I am going to report you, if you revert my edit and don't answer me here. Pahlevun (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Pahlevun, I must have made a mistake. I assumed you were removing all the information without cause in a sense. I thought it was a mass removal without expalniantion. Apologies for any confusion. Mausebru said it was disruption on my talk page. I shouldn't have done so considering this user has refused to listen many times and has been reported by me once already. I think you should take it one section at a time and explain it in the edit summary. The conflict has been going on since 1979 so that part shouldn't be removed as tensions began after the Iranian Revolution. I'll take a look at the links you provided just so we're on the same page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan I did five edits and wrote edit summaries for all of them. And I don't think that any of those edits were disruption. Anyway, I think I am educated enough on the subject to know that a proxy conflict did not start in 1979. In the 1980s the tensions were high but there is no contemporary source that says there was a "proxy conflict" between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Yes, the Saudis were involved in the war against Iran (I should keep in mind to develop User:Pahlevun/Saudi support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War), but technically it was no proxy conflict. From the mid-1990s to mid-2000s, the relations between the two countries were warm enough that both sided avoided irritating the other by supporting dissidents (they even signed a security pact in 2001). An old version of this article (which was created in 2016), mentions the start year as 2011, which corresponds with the Arab Spring. Can you find a source that explicitly says there was a "proxy conflict" between the two before the 2010s? One of the sources used to support that the conflict started in 1979, is WP:IBTIMES which is generally considered unreliable. The other source, the BBC, only says "The recent rift between Iran and Saudi Arabia can be traced to the Iranian revolution of 1979, which saw a pro-Western leader toppled and Shia religious authorities taking over." It is not mentioning a proxy conflict since 1979. On another piece, the BBC says "Fast-forward to 2011 and uprisings across the Arab world caused political instability throughout the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia exploited these upheavals to expand their influence, notably in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, further heightening mutual suspicions." Pahlevun (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mausebru Would you please answer me? Pahlevun (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Edits regarding User:Pahlevun an others.

Recently I have noticed multiple disruptive edit made by Pahlevun. According to BBC, OWP, and Haaretz, the conflict does in fact date back and started in 1979. The map you put is unreliable because what the hell does Bosnia have to do with Saudi Arabia and Iran. You get my point now? Plus, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain are confirmed to have been supporting Saudi Arabia against Iranian proxies. (according to multiple sources within article). I brought this up to prevent an WP:EDITWAR or escalation. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 21:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the BBC does say 1979. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@StellarNerd Would you please quote the BBC part? Pahlevun (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
BBC link above: "The recent rift between Iran and Saudi Arabia can be traced to the Iranian revolution of 1979, which saw a pro-Western leader toppled and Shia religious authorities taking over." --StellarNerd (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in the map

The map is shown as wrong. Several nations are being represented as Saudi Arabia. Please fix this. 90.203.56.123 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the key, not the map.The previous one had diff colours.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 01:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

About Western Sahara

No evidence has been put forward and no objective and neutral experts and observers have proven any Iranian involvement in the conflict in Western Sahara. Tarek lb (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of MEK material

@ParadaJulio: This removal that you are attempting to perform is borderline disruptive. You can't simply delete/blank large volumes of stable page material without adequate explanation. Please detail in this discussion why you are attempting to removed this material. Currently, it appears like you are simply tendentiously censoring all mentions of the MEK. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Why are you referring to inappropriate edits made by a sock user ([ABC]) as "stable page material"? Those sources don't say anything about a proxy. What is mostly bewildering is your post containing more hostility than actual sources supporting that User:Mausebru's edits have anything to do with the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. ParadaJulio (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

How do sources clearly articulating Saudi support for a notorious Iranian opposition group not articulate proxy conflict? That the user who added the material was blocked in November for a period for copyright issues and socked briefly in December is entirely irrelevant to their edits in July. The material stood unchallenged for 6 months, so yes, it was pretty stable. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
'Support' is not analogous to 'proxy'. If the sources don't say proxy, we don't say proxy. Read WP:NOR. ParadaJulio (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Providing support to third parties is exactly what proxy conflict is. You literally only have to read the lead of proxy war to grasp this: "In order for a conflict to be considered a proxy war, there must be a direct, long-term relationship between external actors and the belligerents involved. The aforementioned relationship usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort." I'd also observe that you clearly haven't gone through the entire page ripping out any other content and sourcing where it doesn't state the word 'proxy' explicitly - your efforts have been confined solely to tendentiously removing MEK-related content. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It is original research to say this is part of a proxy conflict when sources don't say this. ParadaJulio (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Two editors have now restored this material and told you that your justification is bunk, so the consensus is against the content's removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa, I removed the edits by Vanserver because I found original research in a lot of it. Iskandar323 was saying that the edits shouldn’t be removed because it was 2 vs 1 count to keep them (which is a strange excuse to keep WP:OR in the article), but now that the editor has been blocked, there is no longer that 2 vs 1 vote. Iskandar323, if you want to implement these edits, you need to provide sources that say they are part of the Iran-Saudi Arabia conflict. ParadaJulio (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There are several reasons why much of the material should remain in place, including that is sourced and has stood unchallenged on the page for around six months, making it relatively stable. It is at the very least worthy of proper discussion and not summary deletion, as you have been trying to effect. However, I have left your most recent removals from the infobox stand, as I agree that the material could arguably be undue there. For the remaining material, there are clearly sources, so perhaps you could explain what problems you see in the sources provided? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ParadaJulio: I saw your post on the MEK talk page about this. Good catch! Indeed there is a serious WP:POVPUSH problem throughout Wikipedia against anti-Iranian regime activists such as the MEK. Iskandar323, the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Since the sources don’t support that MEK is linked to a proxy conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, then it’s you who has to justify adding this to the article. Many countries or groups support other countries or groups, but that doesn't mean they are involved in a proxy conflict. Now two editors have reverted this material and told you that your justification is bunk, so the consensus is against having this in the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Map

The colours representing countries on the map make no sense. Please someone fix this. 135.0.17.180 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran–Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict/Archive_1&oldid=1219143155"