Jump to content

Talk:Arab–Israeli alliance/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"RfC on verifiability of this article"

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

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

Comment here

  • The tag should remain until the problems in the article are remedied, at a minimum the alliance infobox needs to go along with its list of members. Constant requests have been made for a foundational source for this article and as can be seen in the discussion above none has been forthcoming. The only response has been to offer up completely inapplicable sources see above discussion, 4 March or else handwaving per above - "There is more than enough reliable references to establish that on some level such a relationship already exists between these nations in their mutual desire to counter Iran." and "There is more then enough references to substantiate this unofficial alliance." I have tried to clarify what appears to have happened in my further comments below. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Please note: @selfstudier cherrypicked and quoted a line out the dozens of comments that I made, in which, I addressed his concerns at GREAT length. Please see the FULL discussion above, (as well as the other discussions which rejected his merge and move proposals) to understand my views in their full context. I take great offense to him dismissing my views as "handwaving"--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Tag and/or Delete - This article has the rank smell of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ESSAY. I don't think I've ever seen a "Party Y-Party X alliance against Party Z" article on WP. Extraordinary. Until some of the fundamental issues w/ the article are resolved, we should probably add all the tags we can to this thing. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
NickCT, if you take the time to read the sources provided, you will see this article isn't synth. It would've been if the proposal to delete, merge, and move, were successful. All the article needs is more information. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
NickCT, A true "synth" is, for example, if you were to have a reference to an Israeli-Moroccon alliance and another reference to an Israeli-Baharani alliance. If there is nothing to bind these two seperate references and despite that an editor writes a page about an Israeli-Morrocco-Bahrani Alliance then that would be a classic synth. That is not the case here. There are numerous references to a broad alliance of Israeli and Arab Sunni States in their opposition to Iran. Those references establish an aliiance between numerous states but they don't identify exactly who all of the participants are. You then have numerous individual references which reveal the different states. That isn't synth.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No tag, unless . . . The sources precented in the article easily meet WP:V. However, if there is significant sourcing that there is no such alliance, it should be presented, and that might lead me to re-evaluate. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The idea that Oman, a long time friend of Iran, is in alliance with Israel against Iran is completely ridiculous, the citation for it is an article that mentions that Netanyahu and then some Israeli officials visited Oman, duh. On the contrary, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-11/oman-foreign-minister-optimistic-about-return-to-iran-deal and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oman-politics/oman-content-with-current-israel-relationship-foreign-minister-says-idUSKBN2AB1XB Editor Sakiv, canvassed above by editor Steamboat2020, says in the recent RM discussion "I support keeping the name as it is, because there is really an alliance between the regimes of Egypt, Jordan and the UAE with Israel" and he also says above "I do not think it is appropriate to include Morocco as a member" so he thinks Jordan and Egypt who are not in the list should be and Morocco who is in the list shouldn't be. The list is sheer fantasy.Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking around on the web, I agree that there is sourcing to the contrary in regard to Oman.[2] I am therefore going to be bold and remove Oman from the list of included countries. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No I do not understand this RfC. The question should never be "should this tag remain," it should be "how do we fix the issue." This follows a failed deletion deletion discussion. Adequate sources are provided to establish notability and all of the article's claim. Objections here do not hold up. If there are specific sentences that are challenged, an inline is preferable to quickly and efficiently identify which claims are unsupported. An article wide tag as a badge of shame for an article an editor is unhappy they were able to get deleted is not good form or in any way useful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment Some on this page who were disappointed with the deletion discussion seem to think the options are either a) delete the article or b) leave a tag as a badge of shame permanently affixed to it because those same editors will never be satisfied with the answer rendered in the delete/merge discussions. I'm going to be frank and call this what it is, disruptive. Tags are meant to identify and ultimately fix issues in an article, not a banner for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there are specific claims in the article that fail verification, there is no reason why an inline cannot be used. I, admittedly quickly, reviewed the first 5 cites and found no issues. I do not see an article-wide problem to remotely justify this tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion here

  • Comment - Obviously nothing substantial has changed since @selfstudier initially applied the tag, so the question isn't merely if the article should "remain" tagged. The real question is if @Selfstudier should have unilaterally applied the tag to begin with, even though he knew other editors disagreed with him--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I will supply my comments for the substantive issue a little later on but with regard to the various tags, editor WikiCleanerMan was blocked for editwarring in respect of these tags per complaint here. The first such removal of a tag in the article was on 26 January, a tag that had been placed by editor Sakiv asking for additional citations and in that same edit Morocco and Sudan were added to the list of "members".Diff. Morocco and Sudan had been removed from the list (along with the U.S.) by the article creator, Greyshark09, an experienced editor inactive since then, a week earlier. Diff. At that time, editor Steamboat2020 was not and had not been involved with the article.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
At least my edits and contributions are sourced, not Synth, as you claim, and I have nothing to regret for being blocked for alleged edit-warring. Only one person has been not contributing and just wants to remove the entire existence of a well-sourced article because of the bias against the article subject. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
and on the same day, the last sentence of that paragraph was added to this article.Diff This claim sat in the article uncited until 4 February this year when editor WikiCleanerMan added a ref in response to a citation needed tag.Diff. This is just the same citation as is in the Warsaw Conference article, completing the circle.
If one consults the given reference it says

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

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

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

This is what is apparently being used as the founding material for this article and then multiple sources have been layered on top of this, almost any source mentioning any of the countries in the list and not liking Iran sufficing. Subsequent events are known by now, the Trump peace plan tanked and so the Israel Palestine issue remains an issue and not a non-issue as the Trump administration had hoped. In any case, Oman has good relations with Iran and both it and Saudi Arabia remain concerned about the Israel Palestine issue, even if Saudi has no liking for Iran. The fact that some of these countries have issues with Iran, as well as unofficial relations with Israel, is well known and they had them well before the Warsaw Conference came about so all this article is doing is trying to parley Iran issues into the existence of an alliance.
When the article was created, the alliance infobox was not present, it was first added here on 28 May, 2019 and described as an "unofficial military alliance". This was immediately reverted here with edit summary "Infobox organization is completely unsuitable for this loose quasi-alliance. Bahrain and Kuwait unsourced and not mentioned in article. Membership? Legal status? Official language? Nonsense!". It was then reintroduced on 12 September last year here with list of members United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman. How the U.S. could be a member of a supposed Israel Arab States alliance was not explained. On 1 November last, WikiCleanerMan made his first edit to the article. By then the members list had expanded to include Sudan and Kurdistan(!!) and I made my first edits on the 15 November, one of them being to amend military alliance to unofficial alliance. The list of members continued to fluctuate without rhyme or reason. Subsequently I realized that the whole article was built on sand and here we are, no reliable list of members exists and there is no foundational source for the simple existence of any alliance.
Apologies for the length of this, needs must.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Clarification - I think I did not spell something out clearly enough above, the article claims an alliance since 2017, citing the covert Saudi Israel relationship for this claim (obviously insufficient) but the Warsaw Conference/Haaretz citation confirms that no alliance existed as of the time of the conference ie February 2019 which was when this article was created.Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
Please Note - The lengthy unsigned comment above didn't raise a single relevant issue to support his/her realization "that the whole article was built on sand"....". #1.) The article says that this alliance "received broad media attention in light of the February 2019 Warsaw Conference". The fact that the the EU, Russia and Turkey refused to attend the conference is completely irrelevant. #2) The article says that the alliance formed in part "due to the decreasing importance of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as a wedge issue" that was historically so significant that it prevented Arab countries from working together with Israelis on mutual interests. The article does not claim that the conflict became of no importance to the members of the alliance. The fact that the proposed Trump peace plan wasn't successful and Saudi Arabia's continued commitment to the Palestinian cause is completely irrelevant. #3) Oman was looking to hedge their bets by maintaining good ties with the Iranians while simultaneously participating in the alliance's efforts to thwart the Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. Just because Oman shares the same mutual regional security interests as the rest of the coalition doesn't mean that Oman has the same level of hostility towards Iran as the rest of the alliance. The fact that Oman officially maintains good ties with Iran is completely irrelevant. #4.) The United States, Kurdistan and Kuwait aren't currently listed as members of this alliance, any discussion of them not being members is completely irrelevant. IN SUMMATION: The comment above, didn't raise a single relevant issue that challenges the existence of this alliance or disputes the validity of this article. I encourage anybody with doubts about the alliance to just google it for themselves!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
In an addendum to his lengthy comment, @selfstudier further falsely claims that, the "Warsaw Conference/Haaretz citation confirms that no alliance existed as of the time of the conference ie February 2019 which was when this article was created". The aforementioned Haaretz article clearly states that "for years, Israel's clandestine intelligence and security ties with these Sunni states were kept away from the public eye." There are numerous forms of alliances in varying degrees of coordination, both official and unofficial. An alliance is merely a relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose, whether or not an explicit agreement has been worked out among them. Israel's clandestine intelligence and security ties with those Sunni States in opposition to Iran, "for years" prior to the conference, was by it's very definition "an alliance". The focus of the Haaretz article was merely that the goal of the Warsaw conference was to advance and strengthen the unofficial clandestine alliance into a more formal and official alliance.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Signed now, thanks for letting me know.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
As well as the Haaretz article, there is the Reuters article about the same conference which has been used as a cite for the nurturing by the U.S (line 2, cite 11). Quote " aimed at building a coalition against what Washington sees as the threat posed by Iran also produced signs of a warming of ties between Israel and some Arab countries on Wednesday." and "Netanyahu - who has been trying to play up his diplomatic gains ahead of Israel’s April election - has frequently hinted at warmer ties with Gulf Arab states." (my emphasis)Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@selstudier: please clarify exactly what is your point????--Steamboat2020 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not my point, it's the point demonstrated by reliable sources. Seems clear enough to me.Selfstudier (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad it seems clear enough to you but I assume you are not trying to just talk to yourself, so you may want to elaborate for the rest of us!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

1.)Thank you for clarifying but the Reuters article actually clearly stated that the anti-Iranian coordination existed before the conference. The article quoted Brian Hook who said that "Arab nations and Israel faced (note: past tense) a common threat of Iranian regional aggression and Washington was (note: past tense) working closely with these nations to counter this". The Haaretz article in essence says the same thing as I explained above. 2.) Furthermore, I pointed out that this relationship is an "alliance" by it's very definition and provided a link as my source. How either of us may or may not "want" to define this relationship is completely irrelevant. 3.) All of the members of the alliance listed in the info box are referenced throughout the article. We already discussed in a previous discussion why this is NOT a synth. If you insist I'll be happy to repeat it again here.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I already said there were covert ties between some countries for a long time but this article was created as a result of the conference in 2019 with a self referential circular reference between it and this article. With your desired definition of "alliance" we could include half the globe and well before 2019. I repeat I have no problem with an article discussing these covert ties and the various goings on but not in a way that suggests it's anything more than an informal co-operation so the infobox with its invented list of members needs to go, that's why I tagged it as OR, it's completely unsourced and everyone keeps adding countries in and taking them out. This will stop once there is no infobox and the article will need to explain what exactly is meant by "alliance" in the title.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I have already responded to this and clearly at this point it's quite apparent that nothing I say will change your mind. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want. However, there is no point in repeating the same arguments and going around in circles. If you raise a new issue then I will be more then happy to respond. As an aside, I have a serious issue when you constantly cherrypick and quote a line out of a cited reference that out of context would appear to bolster your argument and then you ignore other parts of the same reference that contradicts your argument. This doesn't allow for an honest discussion.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That is why we are having an RFC, is it not? To gain outside input. Although not very successfully so far.Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The article is void of substance, the wording itself misleading. One of the dominant meanings of 'alliance' is 'a confederation of nations by treaty.' There is no treaty, the ground shared by a few Arab nations and Israel cannot be put over as an 'Arab states' and Israel alliance without suggesting, against the realities, that this is a position common to Arab states, rather than being restricted to a few. In other words, it needs a tag requesting serious additional sourcing to corroborate the theory that there is an alliance, rather than a single issue point of convergence between Israel and a handful of Arab states regarding Iran.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
"Our approach lies in understanding Israel’s ties with many of the Gulf monarchies, notably Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, not as some formal alliance but rather as a manifestation of a Tacit Security Regime. This regime allows for the evolution of ties between Israel and the Gulf monarchies to be explored and analysed while allowing us to be mindful that these relations have rarely been linear, let alone underpinned by any shared normative values." Clive Jones; Yoel Gozansky (April 2020). Fraternal Enemies: Israel and the Gulf Monarchies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-752187-8.
Even if there are issues in the article that can be hammered out, the consensus of involved participants is that a permanent badge of shame is not an appropriate way to identify those issues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why you would think the well explained V problem is a badge of shame, the idea is that it should be fixed and this way we will get a decision on how to fix it, not your personal opinion on the matter.Selfstudier (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
How "well-explained" you believe your view is is utterly irrelevant, there is broad consensus against maintaining the tag is irrelevant. It's not a matter of my "personal" opinion versus yours, it's a matter of you versus everyone on this page, and your agenda, personal or not, to disregard that consensus and continue to promote your claims that this article should be moved/deleted/merged/etc. Those requests were turned down at every step, and this is just the latest instance of you refusing to accept the outcome decided on by the members of the community who monitor this page. I suggest a different track. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Now we are duplicating arguments here and in the below section as well. And duplicating arguments already made in the RFC before so if there is nothing new under the sun...?Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment After some fixing up of the article we can take a closer look at things. The lead phrase "Arab-Israeli alliance" (slightly different from the article title, which says Arab states) has a scholarly citation dated 2016 predating the post Warsaw conference intent to create such an alliance and multiple sources indicating that no such alliance existed in the usual sense pre-Warsaw (this is not the same as saying that were no ties between Israel and some Arab states). Totten says "the Sunni Arab world, unofficially led by Saudi Arabia, is quietly forging a de facto alliance with Israel against Iran." so he is speaking of an alliance in the making and does not otherwise specify who is in it other than Saudi Arabia/Sunni Arab states. The current cites in the lead appear to provide more support for Sunni Arab states rather than just Arab states.Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The title claims that there is an alliance. Now, for those familiar with the area, this does look odd on the face of it. The WP:V subsection (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) states as much. Why is this an exceptional claim? Wikieditor cited a snippet in the introduction to a book by Clive Jones and Yoel Gozansky, just published. They don't appear to have got much further than the first few pages. On p.199 the authors write:

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

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

Results of the discussion

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

WP:RFCEND & WP:NOTAVOTESelfstudier (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Not every discussion requires closure when the consensus is obvious, WP:CLOSE, nor does the "consensus is not a vote and therefore I am correct" hold much water when the party who consensus is clearly against is making it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
You are "involved" (an understatement) so best thing is to wait for a close, I'll ask for one myself if that becomes necessary. We are at last seeing a proper article emerging thanks in part to this discussion, you could contribute instead of sniping from the sidelines. Morocco next...Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"Involved?" Selfstudier, virtually everyone in the discussion has opposed you on this. Is that really the process argument you want to be raising in order to repeatedly restore an unwanted tag into the article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
And by the way, I tried to find common ground with you and would still be happy to do so, but I find the behavior here as far as the tag really a turnoff and a sign you are not ready to work together. I agree the Morocco addition on the list needs a better source and should probably be removed until one is provided -- however, the reason I advocated for in-line citations as opposed to an article banner is to more precisely identify those issues and help with the article's improvement. You seem to perceive this instead as undermining you and are digging your heels in for reasons I do not fully understand. My offer to work with you to improve the article remains open. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If the infobox were not there, the tag would not be necessary because then we would no longer be constrained by the need to demonstrate the existence of an "alliance" and it's supposed membership. Recall that the OR/Citations tag on the list of members was already removed and I chose not to return them and rely only on the article wide tag for my argument and I only started this RFC because they were removed. But at the moment the subject of the RFC IS the tag and it is a rule that we should not mess with the material subject of an RFC while it is running so strictly speaking it is not a case of my putting it back in, you should not be taking it out and then I wouldn't have to put it back in.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better to recognize that "RfC" is a bit of a WP:SNOW situation and move on. Also, just FYI, when I initially removed the tag, I had no idea there would be any controversy associated with it. I removed it because a verifiability banner without any in-lines just doesn't make sense and I assumed the issue had been resolved. Any other editor visiting the page would presumably have the same conclusion (and they almost all have). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not a vote, V is a policy issue. OR is verboten and there needs to be valid foundational sourcing for the article so where is it? Oman is gone, correctly. I am almost sure that Morocco and Sudan should go the same way. Even if we let it go at Saudi, Bahrain and UAE, it's still a stretch for an actual alliance. It's not as if I am the only one saying this, there are two other editors saying the same thing as I am and others who said the same in prior discussions but have not contributed to this one at least so far. Note that one of them says "Delete" and the initial delete proposal was not mine either.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? I have never proposed deletion. I said what I wanted in my opening statement, infobox gone. Do that and everything else can be solved. It can always go back when there actually is an alliance (one is under discussion). The V tag or some other tag was there for months and was first placed by a different editor altogether. The tag is there because I assert the alliance is not verifiable. Admittedly, other editors claim that it is verifiable, therefore dispute resolution, right? The simple solution is to produce the evidence that it exists rather than trying to force me to prove that it doesn't exist but if that's what I have to do, c'est la vie.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The subject of a page being unverifiable is an argument for deletion. That discussion failed. It's time to move towards how to improve the article. I agree with you that this is clearly an informal alliance at best and at worst just an informal grouping by certain commentators based on perceived shared motives. This can be addressed with language changes, but this "verifiability" argument you are making just seems like an intractable debate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
To make it clear, I am NOT arguing for deletion. But neither will simple language changes do the trick, I would have already done that if so.Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree. It seems more like the Saudis are keen on promoting it than the U.S., if not just as much, based on the two cited sources in the opening. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry what? I told you an rfc runs for a month. And you take from that what exactly? That you should double down on something silly? nableezy - 21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
An RfC should not be an anchor for a tag that virtually all participants have declared unnecessary. See WP:SNOW. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Its been a week. Relax. nableezy - 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nableezy: Relax??? This RfC may only be a week old. But @selfstudier has been waging an endless battle against this article with multiple proposals and discussions. This "week" is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back! Please see the article's edit history as well as this talk page in it's entierty and you will understand why we are fed up with one editor defying a majority of editor's who disagree with him--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeedy, relax. I personally dont see why this article has this kinda heat, I dont really get why anybody cares about this so much. But we have a process here, and if somebody wants to go through that process let them. And when the RFC concludes, and if it concludes with a consensus in your favor, make the change you want and move on. There doesnt have to be this kind of urgency to do anything really here. Somebody wants to go through formal dispute resolution even if you feel it unnecessary? Mutter some swear words under your breath, type your reasoning sans swear words, press save, and check back in a month. It really does not have to be this hard. nableezy - 02:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Nableezy, for you to weigh in as the steady-handed voice of reason that advocates policy be followed, and gloss over/enable Selfstudier's disruption at this page, is disingenuous. There is no support for maintaining a verifiability tag, nor has this "RfC" even indicated which specific claims it refers to. A tag is not meant to express a generalized grievance about an article -- evidenced through repeated, and failed, attempts to merge, delete, and then move the page. The fact that there has been universal pushback on this tag is a sign it's time to drop the stick and move on. A tag should never be the focus of an RfC, it should always be the underlying issue, but Selfstudier is so obviously focused on creating simple disruption that they actually made the RfC about the tag itself, which is a blatant misuse of the process. Any obstacle to article progress or disruptive activity indeed creates an urgent issue, and Selfstudier's behavior at this page has created exactly that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Im not going to respond to personal attacks and other violations of the talk page policy. Good luck. nableezy - 03:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and youre edit-warring. Smart. nableezy - 03:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Nableezy, again, you must be joking. Selfstudier restored a tag four times depsite a 7-1 RfC against them doing so and over the objections of two editors, and without specifying any issue to actually validate the tag, and yet your only complaint is that people objecting to this "relax." You are not here to improve the article, you are here to stir the pot, and perhaps you should do so elsewhere. Steamboat2020's frustration is completely valid and something I share. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab–Israeli_alliance/Archive_3&oldid=1227983264"