Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Usage Of Warring Countries Media To Cite Casulaties

I've realized that if this situation is not permanently resolved, that this problem will continue to reoccur as the war continues to drag on and the more causalities continue to be reported on, by different state-controlled media.

My take on the situation is that no state-controlled media, (i.e. Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera, etc..) should be used in, citing casualties as obviously their will be biases involved, as each side tries to portray themselves as the victors in this war.

Now with that being said, @OxfordLaw: you attacked @Wikaviani: for being biased based on his ethnicity, yet whether you like to admit or not we all have our biases, for example you repeatedly continue to call the Houthis terrorists [1][2], even though if you go check the US Department Of State website, the Houthi movement has yet to be designated as a terrorist organization. [3] An the only faction that calls the Houthi movement a terrorist organization is the Pro-Saudi one [4], so in reality if Wikaviani has a biased Pro-Iranian position, because of his ethnicity than you (OxfordLaw), have a biased Pro-Saudi position, because your actions/words mimic that of Saudi Coalition.

Therefore, I propose that Mr.User200, Wikaviani, and OxfordLaw state your positions on the issue, and why or why not, your in favor of such position. Whereas I invite users that frequently contribute to YCW article to vote on whether or not we should use state-controlled media to cite casualties.

@Panam2014, Applodion, SUM1, Snowsky Mountain, NuclearWizard, Tdl1060, XavierGreen, Jacsam2, Chad The Goatman, and Meeepmep: Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that everything i said on this encyclopedia is in print and can be checked by everybody. I invite you all to check my editing history if you want, if you find any biased/disruptive edits, i'll be glad to self-revert. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: The point was that, if we were to speak solely from a factual sense, taking our own opinions and backgrounds out of the equation, to call the Houthis terrorists or angels would've been a factually inaccurate statement. The article needs to be updated for both belligerent sections, but without the skewed reports that have come from supporting state-owned media. That's why I proposed to just cut it off from the source, so we don't have a reoccurring problem. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Further pinging additional users @EkoGraf, Tobby72, Davemck, BiggestSataniaFanboy89, Fitzcarmalan, CMV512, GWA88, Isanae, Vinithehat, and HARevs: Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, hi guys. My only contribution in this area is fixing formatting in April. @Chilicheese22: I have no idea what this debate is about, but I'd suggest you stop pinging random users about it. Cheers! Isa (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Vote To Not Use Any State-Owned Media To Cite Casualties

Other editors: Please vote on whether or not you think state-owned media of participating warring countries should be used to cite their opposition's casualties (i.e. Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera, etc..) as an official source. Please reply below with either Support or Oppose and your reasoning in bullets. To clarify, Support means you think no state-owned media of participating warring countries should be used to cite their opposition's casualties as an official source, and Oppose means you think state-owned media of participating warring countries should be used to cite their opposition's casualties as an official source. Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would not help. I mentioned this in another unrelated discussion, but state-owned does not necessarily mean more or less biased. Yes, it can do a lot of the time, but sometimes state-owned media information can be the most reliable there is for a particular topic, and non-state-owned media can be incredibly biased. The important line to be drawn here is not state-owned vs. non-state-owned but to make sure that due weight is given to differing sources when their information is radically different. They should be represented in an impartial way, with all their affiliations made clear. OxfordLaw had the right idea with this edit. SUM1 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support for the sake of neutrality (WP:NPOV). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support proposal to exclude state-owned media of nations involved in the conflict, as such outlets would be biased in their reporting.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This sounds good, but existing rules governing questionable sources must be used; given the fact these sources' use is restricted to start, and often completely impossible if they have bad records, completely prohibiting the entire category is way overboard. Nuke (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: This is WP:NOTAVOTE! Nuke (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I consider the Houthis as terrorists (although I used rebels if I am not wrong as well) (as I do with every "rebel movement in the Middle East that wages an armed conflict against the ruling government", including in Syria and elsewhere) due to their track record, slogans (death to the US, Israel, Jews etc.) and the way they have hijacked an entire country (Yemen) using force. After all they are the ones that started this conflict by conducting a coup d'état against the Yemeni government back in September 2014 long before any non-Yemeni involvement. Moreover the Houthis also employ a "Takfiri language" against their opponents, calling them apostates in a similar manner to ISIS and other terrorist groups in the region and wider "Muslim world".

I think this is a fair assessment although people can disagree with this opinion of course.

As for who or what is a terrorist group, well you can probably find millions of people who will claim that the Syrian opposition, ISIS, Hezbollah and what not are not terrorists.

Have in mind that ISIS existed long before the US State Department decided to declare them a terrorist group. Using your logic, ISIS first became an terrorist group (I hope that we all can agree here that they are a terrorist group) the day the US decided to (officially) declare them as such.

Moreover I doubt that the US looks at the Houthis favorably given their support for the Arab Coalition, at least vocal support.

As for your question I believe that each warring party shall use whatever claims they want to as long as there are no "neutral" sources that can give us an complete overview. I used the neutral Yemen Data Project before but an editor removed it. Past or present conflicts usually use this method. As long as it is clearly stated from which source the claim derives from. Once the war/conflict ends, independent scholars will have the possibility to determine what is up and what is down in terms of casualties.

So I would say Support for now unless a better option is found. What is certain is that what was a consensus here for years (I am almost laughing while writing this), the claim of Houthis losing, what was it, only 350 fighters since March 2015, cannot ever be repeated again otherwise this article might be renamed to "How the Houthis view the Yemen Civil War" thread, with all due respect.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a guideline on WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. Why is it insufficient? Nuke (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it seems I made a minor mistake; WP:BIASED is the proper redirect. Nuke (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. per Nuke. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Your vote proposal is incomplete. Since Al-Arabiya is talking about Saudi losses not Qatari soldiers killed. You should have asked "state-owned media should be used to cite their own country casualties" or "state-owned media of countries that participate int the conflict should be used to cite any combatant casualties".

Please clarify.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Further narrowed, see vote description. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: I have a serious problem with the process here. You can't change what "Support" and "Oppose" mean after several responses have already been posted. Nuke (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@NuclearWizard: I haven't changed what "support" and "oppose" means I just further elaborated and the essences of the subject is still the same, as the user felt it was too vague. Anyways the vote looks like it's going to fail. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - your proposal would violate wiki:NPOV by completely excising certain points of view from the articles sourcing.XavierGreen (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though it is not that simple. The fact that Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen had until a few weeks ago a reading from July 2015 for the Houthis and that this article was accurately but disappointingly stating "unknown" shows that reliable data on casualties is hard to come by. I think that the average reader will understand that each side wants to exaggerate the other's casualties, and would appreciate some indication rather than "unknown", with the notice that it comes from the other side (e.g. Saudi claim or Hadi claim or Houthi claim). Therefore, my position is:
  • Claims by state media should be allowed in the event that there are no external sources available or agreed on
  • Claims by state media should be marked with their origin, as is already being done
  • The date or month of claims should be included regardless of their source.

CMV512 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fact checking sites should be used to prove them of course but it's not that simple. While there may be a chance that we may be posting false information by using state media, it's kinda the best we got and just because the state owns it doesn't mean that it's false. Qatar owns Al Jazeera but I see plenty of things sourced from there. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 04:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Semi-support and Compromise proposal - In the infobox itself, I think state-owned media outlets should be allowed to present their own side's casualties (like AJ for the overall numb. of Saudi fatalities) and 3rd party sources should also present their info on one side's casualties. I think Saudi claims of Houthi casualties and viceversa shouldn't be included in the infobox. 11,000 dead Houthi combatants claimed by the Coalition when the UN has confirmed no more than 10,000 dead on both sides (including civilians)? However, for sake of neutrality, all POVs need to be presented. Thus Saudi claims of Houthi casualties and viceversa should be rather included in the main body of the article (in an appropriate section). Of course, we would always attribute the claim to the specific state media outlet and let our readers decide whether they trust it or not. EkoGraf (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but Al Jazeera (presuming AJ is them) is not an example of "present their own side's casualties". Qatar is not part of the coalition. CMV512 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Was part of the coalition. Ekograf point is valid here, the 11,000 Houthis killed claim is misleading since UN have claimed 10,000 killed in all Yemen. Mr.User200 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, 11000 houthis killed looks like Arab coalition propaganda (3000 Saudi troops killed per The independent seems a little exagerated too);---Wikaviani (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that AJ was reporting on an official figure. But even if they weren't, Qatar is anti-Houthi in this conflict as they were part of the Coalition and engaged against the Houthis for two years. And no sources that Qatar has changed its stance towards the Houthis. EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Yemen map is badly in need of a rejuvenation due to it being inaccurate and outdated

Someone here needs to update the Yemen map as it is badly outdated and inaccurate. Case in point Hudaydah nowadays and other conflict areas of Yemen.

Not only on this page but the two other ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

In particular this page below as the map used is totally outdated by at least 2 years. The Houthis do not control a single piece of Saudi Arabian territory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi–Yemeni_border_conflict_(2015–present)

I suggest using this map instead which is kept up to date on a daily basis.

https://yemen.liveuamap.com

@Panam2014, Applodion, SUM1, Snowsky Mountain, NuclearWizard, Tdl1060, XavierGreen, Jacsam2, Chad The Goatman, and Meeepmep: Chilicheese22 etc.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I agree. If you check the border conflict page history you'll see I added a notice above the map stating it was out of date. However, looking at your suggestion, it appears your map also shows the Houthis controlling territory in Saudi Arabia, bordering Sa'dah governorate?

By the way, you might want to look at or post at the talk pages regarding the map here and also here. CMV512 (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw and CMV512: If you guys take a look at the map's module you'll realize that its very well maintained [5] the only problem is that there is only one user that actually knows how to exports the module and creates all the middle eastern conflict maps (i.e. Yemeni, Syrian, and Libyan map). An I believe he tries to update the map once every 90 days.

If you guys would like to try to update it yourself he left a tutorial (see here [6]) or if you would like to leave him a message to see, if he is currently available and able to update the map, here is his talk page [7].

As for the link you provided Oxford, I have no idea if Wiki admins will allow us to use their maps due to copywrite issues, you might have to get a written statement from the map creators, in order for us to use theirs, no guarantee . Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, if the map is updated every 90 days, then it's quite unlikely that this map is outdated, unless if one side has made a significant progress within a short time but this is also unlikely. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: I'm sorry, I should have been more careful with what I said. I have indeed looked at the module before, with the conclusion that I did not know how to update it. In addition, I don't have specific information to change. However, I would appreciate your suggestion on what should be done with Saudi–Yemeni border conflict (2015–present), which is currently using this map which is not being updated. CMV512 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@CMV512 and Wikaviani: Considering, that Пэйнчик is still relatively active and he is the only that has the template for the map, I would just leave a message in his talk page, asking him if it is possible to update the map. As for the YCW map, taking into consideration that offensives and military campaigns can be launched any day, like with the Port of Hodeidah offensive that begun mid-april, I guess one could say that 90 days is to long. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Launching the Battle of Al Hudaydah

The Saudi-led coalition announced today that its forces were engaged in clashes with elements of the "Ansar Allah" (Houthis) on the outskirts of the city of Al Hudaydah in western Yemen.

The coalition said in a statement that its forces are currently working to secure the airport, stressing the imminent launch of the next phase of operations to put pressure on the Houthis on several fronts, including coastal points and other parts of the city as well as inland port, supported by local resistance.

According to the statement, the priority in operations is to avoid civilian casualties. Maintain the flow of humanitarian aid and allow the United Nations to pressure Ansar Allah to evacuate the city as fighting intensifies and intensified shelling intensifies.

The al-Houthis spokesman, Mohamed Abdel Salam, said on Friday that the "United Nations envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffith has done nothing so far, a cover for the continuation of the war, and does not differ from the former".

The United Nations has expressed concern that the Saudi-led coalition attack on Al Hudaydah, the strategic seaport and one of the country's main seaports, could hamper the lifeline of most of the country's citizens, with 22 million currently dependent on aid and 8.4 million facing famine. Kingston, CA (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

please update

I kindly request the map to be updated... as of now, the Hadi government has captured southern parts of al Hudaydah and they have captured the airport. Please update the map, I also request the borders to change to look similar to the borders in the sources listed. This is an updated map I have made : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yemeni_Civil_War_,_Updated_June_24.png Sources are and </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altamimi579 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Altamimi579 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Drone strikes

Hello, I have made the following changes to the "Drone Strikes" section. I wanted to explain these changes to avoid any potential confusion.

• Changed "targeted killings" to "assassinations" per WP:EUPHEMISM
• Added "alleged" when referring to victims of US drone strikes. The US claims that the people killed are militants or Al-Qaeda members, but per Wikipedia policy we should not take government claims at face value. News media typically use "alleged" or "suspected" and so must we.
• Added a sentence about criticism for civilians killed in US attacks. This comes from the *Washington Post* source which mentions "...questions about why the White House has been unwilling to provide similar information on dozens of other strikes over the past decade where there is abundant evidence that civilians were killed" (emphasis mine). The article also states "The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, for example, has documented 415 strikes in Pakistan and Yemen since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The organization’s most recent estimates put the total number killed between 2,449 and 3,949. Of those, between 423 and 962 are believed to have been civilians."

As this is a controversial topic, please discuss if you object to these changes to avoid an edit war. Augurar (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Augurar:, may I remind you that you're editing in the article after an IP sock you were using was blocked ([8][9][10][11]), and looking at the range's contributions it seems this is an edit pattern that includes other topics.

The content is not sourced:[12]

• "Alleged jihadist militants in Yemen", "alleged leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula", "alleged AQAP militants": Neither in the Washington Post or in the International Business Times there is use of the term "alleged", being the only exception when the first source says that "the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command allegedly struck a wedding procession in Yemen in 2013". Furthermore, the IBT new's title is "US drone strike in Yemen 'kills al Qaeda man behind Paris Charlie Hebdo and Jewish shop attacks'", explaining that "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) said that its ideologue Nasser bin Ali al-Ansi was killed with his eldest son and other fighters in Yemen in a US air strike". This is not a claim by the US, but Al-Qaeda itself. I can't access the third reference (Charts on US strikes in Yemen), but it should be noted that there's a big difference between "killing" and "targeting". When the paragraph states "targeting alleged leaders" it suggest that the United States may be deliberately targeting people that are not militants, that means, civilians, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.

• "Since the mid-2000s, the United States has been carrying out assassinations": Part of my previous point, violation of WP:NPOV. MOS:WTW specifically warns against using loaded language, both positive or negative (MOS:PUFF and WP:LABEL), and changing "targeted killings" is changing a neutral word for a loaded term, not an euphemism. The cited source, The Washington Post, also does not make any mention of the term, unlike the term "target".

• "The United States has been criticized for killing numerous civilians in the course of these attacks.": Again, the Washington Post article makes no mention whatsoever of criticism, even if the article is about civilians casualties. It is also weasel wording since it does not state which people, organizations or countries have criticized the strikes; it's a lot different citing, for instance, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, former CIA deputy Michael Morell or the Open Society Justice Initiative, from which the latter is mentioned below.

These are violations of both WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINALSYN. I'm not very interested in engaging in a dispute since the article is outside my usual topic editing scope and because of the active discretionary sanctions, but in light of all this I strongly suggest that you self revert this edit and to be both more careful and transparent with your edits, as they can be seen as block evasion and gaming the system. Cheers. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jamez42, I'll address your comments one at a time.

• Alleged: The US government is claiming that the people it is killing are militants, with no independent confirmation. We cannot simply to take the government's claims at face value. If you want to clarify this wording (e.g. "alleged by the US government") feel free but treating these dubious claims as fact is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
• Targeted killings: Targeted killings is a non-neutral term used by the United States regime to justify state terrorism. Per WP:NPOV we should avoid this loaded term and use the factual term "assassinations" to describe the killings.
• Criticized: You're right, the source does not mention criticism. Fixed that.

Thanks for your comments. Augurar (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

AQAP ISIL and UAE

@EkoGraf, Mr.User200, CMV512, BiggestSataniaFanboy89, and XavierGreen: @OxfordLaw, GWA88, Vinithehat, Tobby72, Davemck, Jacsam2, and Chad The Goatman: @Meeepmep, Snowsky Mountain, and SUM1: @Oranjelo100 and Editor abcdef: @NightsideAEB, Ukrpatriot98, WorldRecognisedAE, LightandDark2000, Applodion, NuclearWizard, Dvbdfxgn, and Chilicheese22: per AP, should we put AQAP/ISIL with the same column than Hadi/STC? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: This column is already too long. Maybe move the STC to the AQAP/ISIL column just so it won't be so huge. Nuke (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'll take back this statement; the widened columns look much better once you remove the third one, even though they still need a lot of work. Nuke (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

AQAP possibly yes, with a possible separation line since they are apparently on-again-off-again allies against the Houthis, but fight each other as well. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@NuclearWizard and EkoGraf: Exactly, one can very well make two columns and have sub-columns, as for Syria where the rebel factions face HTS. Two-columns is better. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made a sandbox sample of what the infobox could look like with two columns. Nuke (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• No, keep the factions separate. The Jibadist groups are obviously a third/fourth party, no matter who they may temporarily fight with. Also, ISIL has never fought for any other side, as far as I know. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: according to the source, they are allied since 2016. And when the parties will again ended their alliance, we could changed the infobox, like for Saleh. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How does it make sense to put two factions actively at war with each other in the same column? It's worse for an infobox to be actively wrong than slightly inconvenient. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: they are allied. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014, I'm talking about the Hadi government and the Southern Transitional Council, which do not appear to be allied since this happened. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

3,000 Saudi soldiers kiled.

The Independent article clearly states 300 Saudi Casualties are the Oficial figure but; According to their sources a 10 times larger tally is reported (3,000). Look at the Seventh Paragraph.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

NO!!! It says civilian, clearly not military: "Now, nearly a year on, much of Yemen lies in ruins and the civilian death toll has risen above 3,000."

Please stop the nonsense - I fixed it before already once!

BenjaminKay (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thats regarding Yemeni casualties not Saudi. Please read.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Unneutral language and whispered false and unsourced claims

I can give many examples of such provocative language and unsourced claims in this article I think we need to set this issue in the page first. I will be working in this article to make it more neutral with some of your help. Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to adjudicate whether there are WP:NPOV issues with the page when you provide no examples. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Losses Problem

In the losses section, it states 10000-80000 deaths when both articles say 10k is too low. Changed it to 50k to 80k which is closer to reality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.116.204 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Original Research

Hello @Mountain157:, here I will attempt to show you why I think your edits are violating wikipedia policy WP:No original research and WP:NPOV

You have added Saudi arabia and UAE as allied to ISIS using the following references:

[13] for Saudi

[14] for UAE

Article already mentions Saudi and UAE relationship with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda is listed as Supported by in the Saudi led intervention section. Both resources mention do not show any relationship to the Islamic State. second source in particular, is cited from anti-saudi intervention source and is not a unbiased assessment and fails WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia Original research states that: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" WP:No original research.

Wikipedia NPOV states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." you are engaging in a NPOV edit since you are favoring one source than others. I hope this familiarize you more with Wikipedia policies. Wikiemirati (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop using the "NPOV" excuse to stop any talk about the actions of the Gulf States, Pakistan and China. Yes the ISIS one may not have been supported. However you went after my second source, claiming it to "biased". Now first of all if I gave sources from 2 points of view(Axios and Press TV)then doesn't that sound Unbiased? Second, you refer to Press TV as being biased. Yes, Press TV has a slightly pro-Iranian bias, but even many other news sources considered "trusted" and "unbiased" are actually the opposite. For example, CNN, NBC and CBS is claimed by many to be "unbiased", but in reality they have a huge prejudice against Russia and the Syrian government led by Bashar Al-Assad. Same thing goes for FOX which has a bias against Russia and Iran. So do you agree with those other news sources that hold biases? Are you going to question those sources due to them putting out potentially false information?- Mountain157(talk) 11:06 23 December 2018

Yes I am going to question the sources. Wikipedia policy dictates that reliable, primary and secondary sources must be included in the article. Your source is likely challenged and a better source is needed. The source itself talks about the US and the UAE and is a propaganda source and is not the best source to be used in a Wikipedia article. Please do not cherry pick information and resources to promote a particular point of view. If there are differing views please include all views on the subject in the text of the article. Wikipedia does not promote propaganda and propaganda sources will be questioned. This source makes a contentious claims about others and should not be used as a sole reference. Exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. Wikipedia does not take sides. Please read WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:REDFLAG. Wikiemirati (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. I was saying that if Press TV is a "biased" then the same standard should apply to all others including major ones such as CNN,NBC,CBS and Fox News. And as for the "propaganda" comment. So just because YOU don't agree with it that makes it a propaganda source? What you are looking for is anything that is Pro-Saudi Coalition but nothing contradicting it. I am simply providing sources and getting my information from it. How is it "cherry-picking" if I also gave Axios as a source? I believe that you are the one cherry picking articles regarding anything that has to do with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China being involved in. Wikipedia does not promote Vandalism of information based on personal opinions. I think you need to read WP:Vandalism and WP:Tendentious editing.- Mountain157(talk) 12:01 23 December 2018

PressTV has a conflict of interest, hence WP:NOTRELIABLE for this particular claim, that does not mean it is unreliable overall. I have not added any pro-saudi coalition source so do not make any baseless claims. Regardless, both of your sources (PressTV and axios) makes no mention whatsoever of ISLAMIC STATE. What is your reasoning of adding them as allied to Islamic state? Wikiemirati (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said before the ISIS one may not have been supported by the reference however the support for Al-Qaeda by Saudi Arabia and the UAE is backed by both the references. As for "Press TV has a conflict of interest", that's your opinion and that does not mean Press TV should not be included.- Mountain157 4:00 23 December 2018

Support of Saudi and UAE to Al Qaeda is already documented. You have added Saudi and UAE support to ISIS and references which showed support to al Qaeda to show support for ISIS. Your references do not back ISIS claim and are hence fake and should be removed. I believe we are done here. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it should simply be moved to the AQAP tab then.- Mountain157(talk) 4:27 23 December 2018

It has been already in the 2nd column in the infobox. Saudi led coalition Under 1000 troops (Al Qaeda) long before your fake edit. Have a good day. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox problem: Putting Al-Qaeda on the same side of as Saudis, Hadi.

So this has been added and removed several times now; people putting Al-Qaeda on the same side as Hadi and the Saudis in the infobox. It was last readded after I removed it (with the person who removed it incorrectly stating that it was an "unsupported and biased removal", when I actually supported it quite clearly in a history page note), and rather than undo it again and perpetuate the edit war, I decided to open a discussion here on whether this is appropriate. Personally, I do not believe it is accurate or appropriate for the infobox to say that Al-Qaeda and the Hadi government are on the same side. The sourced articles all describe tactical actions, like the Saudis bribing al-Qaeda to evacuate cities or bribing their fighters to join Hadi's troops. While this is true, trying to use this information to portray the two as being "on the same side" is ridiculous, since it ignores a larger pattern of conflict between them. Just because two groups cut some deals doesn't make them allies. It's also incredibly cheeky and obviously biased to put Al-Qaeda right next to the US, when the US has conducted multiple high profile and controversial raids against al-Qaeda in the war. That said, I am open to hearing other opinions.Jogarz1921 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jogarz: this isn't your first time to try to push some biased narratives. You deleted sourced information and you provided nothing to support your deletion. Here are some sources [15] ,[16] ,[17]

SharabSalam (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, cut deals with =/= allied to. I’m not the one trying to equate two different things, and you accuse me of dishonesty?Jogarz1921 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

A potential consensus approach would be to remove them from the same side and instead add note labels about these various deals.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jay942942. It seems that people who want to include Al Qaeda as supported by the coalition are all pro-Houthi, if I may say. While I understand why some people would use this information to portray as Al-Qaeda supported by the coalition, its also extremely biased. The investigative journalism reports are true in terms of the colaition cutting deals, providing arm support to Al-Qaeda linked groups, among other reports and I am not disregarding them completely. However, all this information does not indicate an alliance. This is purely WP:SYNTH and must not be included in the infobox, which is also a highly controversial edit in the first place to portray which side is fighting whom. Using "sourced material" which state coalition may or may not have cut deals with another group is as an indicative that an alliance or support is not a neutral point of view at all. It is like saying the US is allied to the Taliban because they cut deals or negoitated with them. This information can be included in the text of the article, not the infobox. Please adhere to neutral point of view. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

About Socotra

So who is controlling Socotra?The map shown here differs from another article presented in somewhere else Frost-CHN (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"and Persian Gulf monarchies"

This needs to be way more specific. It's basically a pointless statement given how many monarchies are in the region. The only use it could serve now would be to prejudice the reader.71.89.114.35 (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Start date

I recently made an edit to this article, changing the start date from "19 March 2015" to 2014/2015, with a note explaining that different sources give different start dates, placing the start in either 2014 or 2015:
BBC news: "Fighting began in 2014 when the Houthi Shia Muslim rebel movement took advantage of the new president's weakness and seized control of northern Saada province and neighbouring areas."
Council on Foreign Relations: "Yemen’s civil war began in 2014 when Houthi insurgents—Shiite rebels with links to Iran and a history of rising up against the Sunni government—took control of Yemen’s capital and largest city, Sana’a, demanding lower fuel prices and a new government."
Congressional Research Service: "However, Iran had few institutionalized links to the Houthis before the civil conflict broke out in 2015, and questions remain about the degree to which Iran and its allies can control or influence Houthi behavior."

However, my revision was reverted by User:SharabSalam, who insists that the civil war began in 2015. As the above sources illustrate, some sources do agree that the war started in 2015, but other sources say that it started with the Saada clashes in early 2014, or the capture of Sa'ana in late 2014. WP:NPOV requires that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias", so insisting that the civil war started in 2015 seems like a violation of this policy. Koopinator (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Koopinator, First of all, you need to distinguish between The 21 September revolution and the civil war. I can have sources that says the problems started since the 2011 revolution. What the Houthi movement did was a revolution at the beginning or a coup call it whatever you call it and it ended when the civil war started. There was no "civil war" at that time. Secondly, regarding the Iranian linking allegation, using only the BBC as a source is the worst thing you can do in an article like this. The BBC is biased towards the British regime which supports the Saudi western-backed coalition that is fighting against Yemen. So it is a biased source and therefore it gives undue weight to say "Iranian linked" in the lead..--SharabSalam (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spear Operations Group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge at this juncture — this proposal has now become stale. El_C 02:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

I created Spear Operations Group in draftspace, and it was copied to mainspace by someone else. I think it fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG on the grounds of lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage -- all the articles about it were written within a week or two of the initial Buzzfeed News piece in Oct. 2018, almost all of those were wholly derivative of the Buzzfeed peice, and there has been no real coverage or new information since.

That said, I think there's valuable info in the article, and Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) seem the most obvious merge target. GretLomborg (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support--SharabSalam (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• oppose --Panam2014 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The group still receives coverage from time to time, e.g. [18]. And the Yemeni Civil War article is 300kb, I wouldn't want to make it any longer. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Significant enough with adequate sourcing to merit its entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Aden (2019)

Hi

Should we create an article? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Ask SharabSalam. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya and Arabnews

Because of the recent dispute between me and SharabSalam, we are opening a discussion about the Al-Arabiya and Arabnews. SharabSalam said that these are unreliable sources. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserz, so first you are misinterpreting the source and you have not read what the source is saying, this is why we have a dispute, the source attribute to an anonymous source, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, you need to provide multiple high-quality sources to be included in Wikipedia voice. Second, you have created a category just to push your POV and it is not sourced that the Houthis are proxies of North Korea, even if there is an anonymous source said they supported the Houthis, that doesnt mean they are proxies, look what proxy mean in English . Also, Al Arabiya is a Saudi news outlet, not reliable. See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Freedom of press--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam Back in 2012 before the Yemeni Civil War happened, there was discussion regarding Al-Arabiya, you may want to look into this and if you don't agree that with the discussion you can brought this up to the RS/Noticeboard again and not everything from Al-Arabiya is unbiased. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Al-Arabiya, you can find a lot discussion about it on reliable source noticeboard on Al-Arabiya. I'd just quote one of statement on notice board about al-arabiya:
Al Arabiya is considered to be an established outlet per Wikipedia:RS#News organizations, so, in general, considered reliable for our standards. That does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. In something as emotional as the Syrian civil war, in which most of the countries of the world have expressed support for one side or the other, it is hard to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Al Arabiya stated that ...". (This also applies for Yemen civil war topic)

Regarding Arabnews, you can also found it on reliable source noticeboard. In general, it was reliable but somewhat biased. Therefore, I think that you should take similar approach for Arabnews as Al-Arabiya. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I did removed Al-Arabiya per SharabSalam's wishes. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ckfasdf, a discussion from 13 years ago is irrelevant today. Arab news is a state-owned outlet per its article. State-owned outlets are not considered reliable. I have started a discussion about the Arab news outlet in WP:RSN--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This is with no prejudice against speedy renomination to attempt to gain such consensus. The basis of SharabSalam's objection to Koopinator's earlier request was based on the assertion that the BBC is considered a biased source on this particular conflict. This argument is not supported by current community consensus, which is summarised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If SharabSalam wishes to start a community discussion regarding the reliability or alleged bias of the BBC with regards to this particular conflict, they can do so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. However, the discussion resulting from 98.221.136.220's nomination has yielded arguments which could support a multitude of views regarding the start date of the war. There is no clear consensus regarding when the exact demarcation from a rebellion to a war occurred in this particular discussion. Should 98.221.136.220 or another user wish to renominate, it would be prudent to include a rationale based on article titling policies and the related guidelines, as well as citing sources. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) → Yemeni Civil War (2014–present) – The war started in 2014 with successful attempts by the Houthis to take over land in northern Yemen and the capital Sanaa. I don't think this is part of the earlier Houthi rebellion because it marked a substantial escalation in terms of the scale of attacks and territorial gains. I also don't think this is part of a coup d'etat because the Battle of Sanaa lasted four months, and coups don't last four months, but a few days. The Saudis only intervened when the civil war was pointing towards a Houthi victory (what I mean is that the Saudis didn't start the war, they decided to intervene during a civil war). Here's a list of sources that say that the civil war started in earnest in 2014. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 06:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.lawfareblog.com/when-did-war-yemen-begin

https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yemen

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/yemenhttps://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/1019/1005376-yemen-conflict-explainer/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44466574

Anymore and I'll just be dumping links here. Plus, this link says the "current conflict" intensified in 2015, but does not say it began in 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/20/yemen-civil-war-the-conflict-explained

References

• Oppose. No, the civil war didn't start in 2014. It started in 2015. The political conflict you are referring to is The 21 September revolution. See the dates there and the result Houthi and Saleh loyalists victory leading to a civil war and a subsequent Saudi led intervention..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also note, although the Saudi military intervention started in 2015, their intervention started much earlier with the Gulf initiative in order to stop the 2011 revolution. The Gulf initiative allowed Hadi to rule for 2 years, he stayed more than what the initiative said, which is why he is actually not legally the president. The Saudi ultra dictatorship regime that is supported by the West doesn't want to have a democratic neighbor. They thought their Gulf initiative will stop the people of Yemen from asking for freedom but that didnt work well.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Strong words! I understand and accept your points though. But I was referring to explicit Saudi military intervention, like airstrikes and bombing, which started in 2015. But that's beside the point. I have four sources saying the civil war started in 2014, referring to the "Sept. 21 revolution" as actually the first phase of the war. I don't know which sources back your claim, specifically. What exactly differentiates the revolution, which was really a Houthi offensive, from the beginning of the war? (Just saying, I have no ideological interest in this conflict, just want to fix the dates) :) 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Spencer C. Tucker book [19]

Since March 2015, Yemen has been devastated by civil war. The conflict is being fought between forces loyal to the internationally recognized government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi and the Houthi rebels and their allies.

If we are going to mix between the 21 Sept. protests and the civil war we might also add 2011 protests which also resulted in a conflict between the government and other parties including the Houthis.

Also, see this chart for more understanding of when the civil war started and when the Houthi rebellion was.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

So it seems both of us have sources supporting us. I would think that the 2014 escalation, personally, would be different from 2011-2014 revolution because the Houthis actually seized territory thru military means, as opposed to the prior protesting and insurgency tactics. Your call, though. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have some notes about the sources you provided. The source from the HRW doesn't say that the civil war started in 2014. I want you to show me where it explicitly says that the civil war started in 2014 (avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The same thing -or worse- can be said about the source from the The Guardian, it does not mention the word "2014" even once in the article. The source from lawfareblog seems to be a blog and seems to be arguing against the mainstream narrative/consensus because it says (we) "We argue, based on the political facts on the ground as well as existing international legal criteria, that the war in Yemen can be dated to at least as early as July 9, 2014." In this case, we would stick with the mainstream consensus that the war began in 2015.

Anyways, here are addition scholarly sources that support my position

• [20]: [T]he current civil war in Yemen (2015-present) has regularly been discussed as being a proxy war between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It also says, Furthermore, emphasizing the escalated and internationalized nature of the Yemeni civil war since its outbreak in 2015, as opposed to the general proxy warfare narrative
• [21]: [T]his thesis analyses Saudi leadership in the first four and a half years of the Yemen Civil War (March 2015 – August 2019).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And here some reliable sources saying when the civil war began

• "The devastating civil war that began in 2015 was years in the making, but the biggest spark was lit around 2011."The Guardian
• "The Yemen civil war began in 2015, and to date more than 10,000 people have been killed with millions displaced."vice
• "when the civil war began in 2015, the party splintered and Mr Hadi was..."Financial Times--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. You've got more sources than me. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to note that i have brought this alternate 2014 start date up before. Back in July 2019, I tried to add a note, but Sharab reverted me. After a very short discussion i desisted. Koopinator (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Senegal's participation in the war

Senegal's participation seems to me vague and suspicious because it is currently not known whether it has withdrawn its forces or its still fighting in Yemen. Since its entry into the Saudi-led coalition, no official statements have been issued in recent years denying or proving its current situation in Yemen. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Date Time

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/yemen-southern-provinces-reject-separatists-claim-rule-200426160607212.html

This source says explicitly that the war started in 2014. I'll make a request to move the page later when I have time. The war didn't start in 2015. 2601:85:C101:BA30:5480:897B:4BDE:CB4 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

UAE

The United Arab Emirates is listed in the infobox as supporters of both the Saudi-led coalition and the Southern Movement. Is this an error? If they were once supporting one but then moved on to support the other this needs be clarified by listing the years (i.e. "until (insert year)"). If they are still supporting both parties, then nothing needs to be clarified. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Infrequent updates?

The updates seem to be getting rarer and rarer every single day. The map wasn't updated until 7th april 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LockyHimself (talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I thought this was a contentious topic, so I had relisted the discussion to acquire a clear consensus. Given the current discussion, being open for 20 days, there are no issues for going forward with the move. Thanks for participating, and civility in the discussion. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) → Yemeni Civil War (2014–present) – As I stated before in Archive 3 of this discussion page, it makes more sense to move the start date to the war to 2014. A host of sources point to the war beginning in earnest in 2014, and then intensifying in early 2015 with the Saudi intervention. Currently, the page says the civil war started March 19, 2015 with the minor Battle of Aden Airport, which I think is funny, because it ignores the larger events that took place shortly before. Those events include the Houthis taking over the country's capital, Sanaa, in 2014. In my opinion, that is a change from the previous Houthi insurgency in Yemen into a full-blown civil war. Look at the articles Battle of Sanaa (2014) and Houthi takeover in Yemen, they indicate a start off point for the wider civil war instead of a Houthi insurgency. It's sort of absurd for the war to start in 2015 a few days before the Saudi coalition rode in; it makes more sense for the war to have started in late 2014 when the Houthis launched an offensive and seized the capital Sanaa. Here are a few sources that give 2014 as a start date:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yemens-triple-emergency

https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/yemen-war-facts

https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yemen

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R43960.pdf

These RS I found simply by searching up "yemen civil war" in Google, so changing the start date to 2014 would essentially make this page conform with the majority of RS already out there. Any ideas, because I think this is a pretty solid case. 2601:85:C101:BA30:740B:AD6D:7437:674E (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Support, in favour of the general premise but I'm wondering whether such a move would end up creating too much overlap with the other articles you mentioned. On balance I think it would be fine, but it will require a substantial amount of work on the relevant articles to bring them in line with each other. Turnagra (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't we have to just relist those articles as "part of the Yemeni Civil War (2014-present)" in the infobox? At most I think the lede in those articles, such as Battle of Sanaa (2014), would need to state that these started the war, but not much else. At any rate, I personally can't move this page because I am just an IP. 2601:85:C101:BA30:B443:DFB7:28C7:69BC (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The actual content would need a rewrite too. The conflict begins section starts in March 2015, which wouldn't make any sense if the title said that the war started a year earlier. Turnagra (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh I could do that. I'll describe the Houthi offensive from late 2014 on. 2601:85:C101:BA30:49AA:4AB9:289D:C25A (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per sources. We will expand the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this enough consensus to make the change yet?, because I cannot (since I'm an IP). 2601:85:C101:BA30:18C6:29DA:A8EF:AA8C (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Move requests can't be closed by involved editors, and there's a fair bit of a backlog on them lately so it may be a while before it gets actioned unfortunately. Turnagra (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Support, it’s clear that the war started in 2014 following the houthi takeover. The Iraq war started with the invasion in March 2003, not after. Ehoah88880 (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-Move Edits

I am the IP who initiated the above conversation and move request. Since the move has taken place, as per the discussion, I edited this article to reflect the start date of September 2014, including the 2014 Battle of Sanaa and subsequent Houthi takeover as part of the war. This means I changed the lede to sound more concise, the background section, and the beginning of the timeline (essentially I shuffled some text around). I also changed the start dates on as many links to this page as I could find; check the Yemeni Crisis campaignbox, the infobox of the page of each battle/incident included in the civil war phase should be changed to Yemeni Civil War (2014-present). Feel free to edit my edits and check if what I edited is factual. The only thing left for me to do is ask to move the Timeline of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present) to 2014 (unless someone can do that for me ;) ). Happy to help. 2601:85:C101:BA30:6597:A8F5:EDB3:C04 (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved Timeline of the Yemeni Civil War (2015–2020) to Timeline of the Yemeni Civil War (2014–present). Swiftestcat (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! 2601:85:C101:BA30:6597:A8F5:EDB3:C04 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Start date

In the ibox it says 16 September 2014, but the date in the ibox of this article in other languages differs. The Italian article says 19 March 2015, Spanish says 25 March 2015 & French says 9 July 2014. Jim Michael (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Civil" war to Hybrid war

The war in Yemen is a case study for Hybrid war. Considering there is a full scale Saudi invasion and several confirmed US drone strikes, it is completely debatable to the degree the war can be said to be "civil". MUch like the Syrian Civil War or the 2011 Libyan Civil War, the title should refer to the actual nature of the conflict, where international interest pays a very large role - not only economically, but militarily directly. Houthi militias most often fight Saudi forces. There is no shortage of sources describing the hybrid war such as https://agsiw.org/hybrid-warfare-matures-in-the-gulf/ and https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/warning-update-irans-hybrid-warfare-in-yemen --181.26.24.244 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The USA still supports Saudi Arabia

The USA still continues to support Saudi Arabia, it has just limited the amount of support it provides, the article should reflect that. Prins van Oranje 16:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Attacks on Saudi territory

At least some of the info in this deletion looks reliable and seems on-topic. Should it be restored? Not sure why it was considered "wrong info". -- Beland (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Connorrdickinson3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

UAE commander Mike Hindmarsh

Former ADF officer Mike Hindmarsh has been a key commander of ground forces in the Yemen Civil War. I think he would be a relevant inclusion to the article. One notable comment from him according to the New York Times was describing the Houthis as akin to the VietCong.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Manpower of the cabinet of Yemen

According to this article the cabinet of Yemen has a manpower of 113,500 soldiers, citing the following source https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=yemen

If we take a look at this source we can see active personnel is only estimated to be 45000 soldiers in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Yemen_Armed_Forces

I suggest we adjust the manpower of the cabinet of Yemen to be in line with the source and other wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spenk01 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Involvement of NATO

The current article lists NATO as supporting the Presidential Leadership Council, but no source is mentioned. While individual NATO nations are involved in the conflict, NATO as an organisation is not. There is no NATO mandate and the vast majority of NATO members are not involved in any way. I would suggest to remove NATO from this list, but of course keep the NATO members that are actively involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megamoser (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Southern Offensive

Can someone update the map? It's been a pretty massive set of changes... TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

More updates are needed because reports emerged that Al Quaeda was driven out of the entire province of Abyan. Gehirnstein (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

When did the southern forces go back to war with the government?

Someone needs fix the map because the southern leader is now a Yemeni government official or a Yemeni chairman due to the saudi agreement which lead to the Yemeni government getting back control of Aden and other occupied areas in Yemen it doesn’t make sense because a few days ago the Yemeni government threw a parade in shawba and the police and the soldiers had the Yemeni flag on there shoulder And they placed a picture of Tariq Saleh on the street lights and his military flag Bombo2682 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Page does not seem neutral

This page seems to be quite anti-Houthi in outlook. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How should it be changed? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Weapons/Equipment

Can You Please Add A List Of Weapons That Are Used In This War ? 188.136.9.17 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this conflict called an ongoing civil war instead of a Saudi-Yemen war?

The civil war ended when the Hadi regime fled 7 years ago, since then it has been a Saudi war of aggression against Yemen, correct me if I'm wrong, or do I need to go check the Vietnam war wiki page to make sure it's not listed as a civil war too? Occams ied (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not Saudi Arabia against Yemen; it's Yemen & the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis, an Iran-backed terrorist group. The coalition was invited by Yemen to help it fight against the Houthis. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Describing a culture as a terrorist group is not a neutral wiki point of view. Houthis have been living there since before the Normans conquered Britain.

I do agree that this is a civil war. Civil wars often have outside backers, who are often neighbours. Unfortunately, for the local citizens, colonialism often dissolves into blended civil wars, liberation wars, and colonial wars. Vietnam started as a liberation war against the French, but had elements of a civil war, until the US escalated it back into a colonial war. Occams, I'm sure the Saudi influence will get airtime in this article.

Billyshiverstick (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Saudi Arabian soldier from the First Airborne Brigade with a UAE soldier, 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Historical context

The article seems to lack some background information on Yemen and the foundations of the war. I plan on adding a brief summary of the major events that were the precurssors of the recent developments, I think that would be helpful to people who have no previous knowledge on the issue at hand. I also want to add some information on what has been happening lately. I will try to keep it short since the article is already long. Marii29 (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Tihamah resistance

In the infobox of the article, it says that the Tihamah resistance are allied with the southern movement and it "provides a source" for that, but it has no mentions of the Tihamah resistance at all. I'll remove it if no one provides an actual source Abo Yemen✉ 07:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this page protected?

On the article, there's the {{Pp-pc}}, but I can't find information to confirm it's protection status.

In the Page information, it says that both edit and move protection are set to "Allow all users (no expiry set)". The protection log is also empty.

According to the documentation, {{Pp-pc}} appears on the page regardless of the protection status.

Could I be looking at the wrong place for the protection status? Or is the template there by mistake? LaTerreACotta (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

should i request page protection? Abo Yemen✉ 18:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Yemeni Civil War (2014–present) → Yemeni civil war (2014–present) – WP:NCCAPS. It seems @WikipedianRevolutionary: moved it without discussion, or a reasoning. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - User:Tbf69 had previously moved the page to Yemeni civil war (2014–present) without consensus and @WikipedianRevolutionary has reverted his action. Also @Tbf69 is a WP:SOCK Abo Yemen✉ 09:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

also as you can see in the Yemeni civil war (disamb.) page, almost all war related articles has the same capitalization style Abo Yemen✉ 09:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen What about WP:NCCAPS? 90.254.30.143 (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

according to MOS:TITLECAPS, the title "Yemeni Civil War (2014–present)" is correctly capitalized. It follows the rule for capitalization of titles of works (in this case, an event title), where every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized. In the current title, "Yemeni Civil War" is the main title and "(2014–present)" is a parenthetical element that doesn't affect the capitalization rules for the main title. Abo Yemen✉ 10:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen MOS:TITLECAPS is the incorrect guideline here, it's part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works covers title formats and style for works of art or artifice, not article titles. I'll forgive you for your mistake.

The correct guideline, as noted in a hat note on MOS:TITLECAPS is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). This clearly states: Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

but the proper name of this war is the Yemeni Civil War and everything in between the parenthesis is not a part of the name Abo Yemen✉ 11:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen The text in the parenthesis is irrelevant here, man.

"Yemeni civil war" is not a proper name. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

so you're telling me that the proper name and the article's subject here is Yemeni? Abo Yemen✉ 14:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen That's a dumb question, all country names are capitalized, due to them all being proper names. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

my guy, the war's name is "Yemeni Civil War" which means it is a proper name which also means that the current capitalization is correct. Abo Yemen✉ 14:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen My guy, what does that even mean? I agree, if Yemeni civil war was a proper name then the current capitalization would be correct.

Saying that it's a proper name because it's name is it's name is the dumbest thing ever.

Proper grammar would say that Yemeni civil war is not a proper name. Look at Syrian civil war for an example. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

see North Yemen Civil War, South Yemen Civil War, Aden Emergency, Yemenite War of 1972, Yemeni Civil War (1994).

I've already given my vote and I'm not changing it. Abo Yemen✉ 17:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen I'm not asking you to change your vote, I'm telling you your reasoning is wrong.

Most of those examples you listed are wrong in terms of WP:NCCPT. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

ill review it tomorrow, ima go sleep now Abo Yemen✉ 19:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen Have you reviewed your vote? 90.254.30.143 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

yes i've reviewed WP:WCCPT and decided that you'll have to start this discussion on almost every article here Abo Yemen✉ 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:NCCPT and not WP:WCCPT, you'll find. Anyway, I've started with this article as it's the most relevant. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

spelling mistake Abo Yemen✉ 07:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen No worries. This article is the most relevant to RM first. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen I'd also like you to consider WP:NOTAVOTE when talking about you so-called "votes". 90.254.30.143 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

alright i won't call it a vote next time Abo Yemen✉ 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I could not find any clear policy that favours each choice, put after checking the pages at Category:Civil wars of the 20th century I think the current name is proper and consistent with pages on the cat. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @FuzzyMagma Um, it's literally in the nom. Read WP:NCCAPS. 90.254.25.136 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah but it doesn’t support neither side. I already read the discussion above, let’s not drag/grind this the same way. American Civil War is another good example FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's arguably a proper name, similar to Iraq War. 90.254.25.136 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The relevant policy is WP:NCCAPS, and it kicks the bucket on how to determine what is a "proper name" to MOS:CAPS, which gives us "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". The term at hand fails this test. See:
  • NY Daily News (lowercase (lc))
  • CNN (lc)
  • Al-Jazeera (lc)
  • VOA (lc)
  • Middle East Institute (lc)
  • Jerusalem Post (capitalized)
  I just grabbed the first few apparently reliable news sources from a search for "Yemeni civil war". Google Ngram] suggests that lowercase is more common, though it's hard to know if the sources referenced are talking about this or a different civil war (I did limit the results to 2014 and later, but still). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and evidence (see Firefangledfeathers above) - only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Looking at ngram evidence for a broader year range, We have no good reason to capitalise Yemeni civil war for any of the Yemeni conflicts occurring since the latter part of the twentieth century that might be called Yemeni civil war. Individual sources cited above tend to confirm that this civil war is not an exception. Because some particular civil wars meet this threshold (eg ACW) does not mean that all civil wars should be capped. Per WP:DISCARD: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Comments like the war's name is "Yemeni Civil War" which means it is a proper name are circular arguments. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Firefangledfeathers and Cinderella157. This is a descriptive title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rampant lifting of copyrighted material continues at Wikipedia

Just look at the main map posted here and credited to some shady organization, and the original at. Even towns and cities are copied precisely, never mind the ethnic and religious information.

https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Yemen_Ethno_Religious_summary_lg.png

But it is the Wiki: no control over anything, accuracy of the contents or the legality of the "borrowings" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9900:5B67:B09E:B86B:700C:F77E (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The United States has provided intelligence and logistical support for the Saudi-led campaign?

I checked the first reference and it did not seem to me to support this statement. I was unable to read the second reference (neither link worked). This might be a better source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/bidens-broken-promise-on-yemen/ Funwithwords26 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Map is not colorblind friendly

For my particular type of color blindness, which is the most common type of deutan red-green (about 1 in 12 males), the difference between the part that is controlled by the Government of Yemen and the part that is controlled by Houthis is barely visible. It would be good if more contrasting colors were used. Litemotiv (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an update to the map

Previously, it was stuck in to the article in a pending edit. However, Ill post the request here on behalf of the editor DarmaniLink (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Operation Prosperity Guardian

First, the allies purpose is neither to topple the government nor to help other belligerents in civil war. Second, the Houthi involvement in Israel should be considered in context of Axis of Resistance, not by Yemeni civil war, because all the party who now support Hamas including Houthi is member/included in this group. Third, Saudi Arabia and its Arab-allies are not part participating this operation, nor supporting this operation. That's why it should be viewd as the operation is consequences of Israel-Hamas war. Wendylove (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@웬디러비: Your RfC statement fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL. I also see no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted. Accordingly, I shall be pulling the {{rfc}} tag; please discuss in the normal way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost everything in your message is wrong and you are not giving a taught to the fact that this war has been ongoing for a DECADE and many, many things can happen in that time span Abo Yemen✉ 13:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That cannot support your edit. If someone wants to add Operation Prosperity Guardian into Yemeni civil war, then he/she should prove it by giving a sufficient data. Do you have any reason to put this as a part of Yemeni civil war? Wendylove (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The Yemeni civil war and Operation Prosperity Guardian are not the same, and involvement in one does not mean becoming a party to both. It may have implications for the other, but it does not automatically follow that these parties have become a part of the civil war. RS show the actions taken have been limited to the objectives of the operation and do not have a role in the civil war. IS RS do not state that Operation Prosperity Guardian makes these nations parties, and without a consensus of reliable sources showing this it is opinion.

If proper IS RS sources can be found, no objection to adding a NPOV section on the secondary effects of Operation Prosperity Guardian on the civil war. But the added material must meet WP:WEIGHT and BALANCE and not imply what the sources do not state.  // Timothy :: talk  03:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)