Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

@Kudzu1: I noticed that you removed my edit to this article. Your edit summary was informative but please consider that some parts of the air strikes occured in the southern area hence reactions may be included here. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered if you might have put the section into the wrong article by mistake. Sorry about that. My thinking is that to keep a relatively bright line between the Houthi ground offensive and the Saudi-led intervention, we should just put reactions to the bombing campaign on that page, but if there were notable outside reactions to the Houthi advance that preceded it, then they would go here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1 and Mhhossein: I think we should make a third column in the template and add Al-Qaede to it. Please look at this news: Today, the fighting centered on the Shabwa Province, in the oil-rich Usaylan region, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Ansar al-Sharia hold sway. 38 were killed in fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribesmen.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 08:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to say let's wait on this. For one, Antiwar.com isn't a very good source. For another, I haven't seen compelling evidence to support the notion that AQAP is a significant faction in this offensive, the goal of which is the fall of Aden and the defeat of Hadi's holdouts. Clashes between AQAP and both the "official" government and the Houthis/Saleh loyalists have been ongoing for literally years, and while I certainly think jihadist groups are taking advantage of the power vacuum, that's best covered on al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen and Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état for right now. That could and very well may change, if this offensive brings the Houthis into a more direct confrontation with AQAP, Ansar al-Sharia, and/or ISIL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So obviously this article used to look a lot different. But in discussing the matter with User:EkoGraf, we agreed that the conflict has proven durable enough and has had enough impacts across Yemen, not just in the governorates targeted by the southern offensive, that it needed an overarching article. Reliable sources are increasingly describing this conflict as a "civil war", albeit one with significant foreign military involvement (there's precedent, e.g. Libya and Syria).

From now on, all casualties associated with fighting or bombing or shelling in Yemen (or across the border into Saudi Arabia, or in the waters of the Bab-el-Mandeb or Gulf of Aden) should be counted here. This article's scope now covers victims of Saudi bombing in Sana'a, Sa'dah, and wherever else, as well as violence between jihadist groups and others throughout Yemen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This "civil war" did not begin in 2015. It began way earlier than that. The Houthi insurgency in Yemen began in 2004. We need to seriously organize these Yemen articles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

They are seriously organized in a way they were not before. The Houthis are no longer simply insurgents; they now claim to be the Yemeni government, and at this point, they probably have a better claim than anyone else. The civil war didn't start in 2004, according to reliable sources that indicate Yemen was "slipping into" or "on the verge of" civil war a couple weeks ago (and now refer regularly to "Yemen's civil war" or "the conflict in Yemen"). There was virtually no armed conflict between Hadi loyalists and the Houthis/Saleh loyalists from the Fall of Sana'a last September up until Hadi fired General al-Saqqaf last month; indeed, for a significant portion of that time, there was a "unity government" in place that was led by Hadi while the Houthis were calling the shots.

As structured now: there was the insurgency from 2004 to 2014/15, when the Houthis mounted their coup (starting with their takeover of Sana'a and ending with their "constitutional declaration" of a new government), then there was about a month and a half of chess pieces moving around the board in the aftermath of the coup, and then the civil war (or whatever we want to call it) broke out. These are discrete phases, broken down along obvious chronological dividing points, of the Yemeni crisis (which was preceded by the Houthi insurgency, which had its ebbs and flows until accelerating rapidly over the past couple years and culminating in the Houthis taking control of the government). The organization is sound, and each article has a distinct scope. That's really the best you can hope for in coverage of a crisis that has been anything but clear-cut. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The 2011 Libyan Civil War began with protests, then insurgency, then the rebels took over Tripoli (the capital), then defeated Gadafi's forces once and for all. This Yemeni conflict is very similar, although the amount of time it took is different. Since there was never a break in the fighting, this has been a continuous conflict since 2004. Dividing up this conflict into multiple articles is conufusing and misleading.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

One solution is to create an article called "War in Yemen (2004-present)", similar to War in Afghanistan (1978-present).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There have been numerous breaks in the fighting, and there was actually little direct conflict between the Houthis and the Yemeni government after the 2010 ceasefire, up until much more recently. Most of the fighting in 2011-14 was between the Houthis and Sunni tribes.

It is a right mess, riddled with sourcing issues and missing quite a bit of pertinent information, but we do have the Houthi insurgency in Yemen page... I made some changes last night to cut it off at the point the Houthis announced the formation of a government, since at that point it seems like a real stretch to keep calling the conflict an "insurgency", but if you feel strongly that this current conflict should be considered part of that lengthier campaign, you can always revert my changes per WP:BRD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question - Why is this article kept separate from the aftermath one? I'm not opposed to the "civil war" naming, but people like Robert Fisk described this conflict, along with others, as such even before the Houthis' takeover in early February. I'm just wondering: why shouldn't the scope of this article be broadened to also cover both the coup and post-coup events?

However, regarding FutureTrillionaire's other concerns; the "Yemen articles" are fairly organized at the moment, and "solutions" like that are the reason why we end up with a lot with conflicts that are hard to organize in the first place. This is also the reason why we sometimes fail to determine start/end dates. Contrary to your opinion, I believe that such splits are actually helpful for readers to make a distinction between the breaks and escalations in any conflict. After all, escalations are usually notable enough to merit separate articles, something you sadly failed to realize last summer during the IS offensive in Iraq when some editors kept calling for a new umbrella article. I strongly reject having 2004 as a start date for this war unless you provide sufficient reliable sources (if there are any) that explicitly say so, otherwise we are clearly in WP:OR territory. Please don't let this topic end up like Iraq and Afghanistan, FT, and kindly wait till the developments are a little clearer to go ahead with such procedures. Thank you, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on having this article fall under the umbrella of the aftermath article, so long as that article continues to be focused on the political developments after the coup. It's difficult, as we all know quite well, to write historiography of a history that is currently in progress; it may turn out, in the fullness of time, that this conflict is a relatively brief coda to the coup, as FT suggests. Or it may last months or years, especially if Saudi ground troops get involved. At this stage, who knows? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would add, at any rate, that the coup itself unfolded pretty slowly and was largely political maneuvering, at least after al-Ahmar was beaten and fled the country; even when the Houthis took over the presidential palace, I don't think anyone was killed, and Hadi and his ministers resigned (under duress) rather than being executed or even jailed. Hadi was under house arrest for one month, and then after he fled to Aden, another month went by before the full-scale clashes broke out (at the airport, and then the offensive). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1. 1994 civil war in Yemen

2. Yemeni Civil War (2015)

Any comments on that?--93.137.158.240 (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary. ISIL has claimed (not even necessarily made) one attack that could be considered part of this conflict. It controls no territory in Yemen. It has not been a target of the Saudi air campaign. Giving it its own infobox column is WP:UNDUE and makes the page look unnecessarily messy. As one of the editors who actually got Wikipedia to allow 4+ column infoboxes in the first place, I strongly believe they should only be used when it is absolutely needed to convey the dynamics of this conflict. There is no information I have seen in reliable sources to suggest ISIL has clashed with Hadi loyalists or AQAP has part of this conflict. There is no independent verification of their claim to have perpetrated a terrorist attack in the capital. They shouldn't be in the infobox, at least not with their own combatant column. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are the order of events in the article ordered by location? It's better to have everything in chronological order. Also, the section about military intervention should be placed before events that happened after it began.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Having them broken down by location makes linking to their specific battle pages easier and more accessible. We can workshop it, but I think convenience and navigibility should be prized over simple chronology, especially as the areas of conflict have changed little since 24 or 25 March. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

in the intro paragraphs it mentions that the US provided Saudi coalition with Intel and logistics and links to an NYT article. the article does not mention this anywhere. so the citation should be removed. (citation 5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have put most of Yemen's Army on the side of the Houthis / Saleh, and I've sourced it well: my source was Mr. "President" Hadi's foreign minister, quoted by Reuters on 01/04/2015, saying:

"Although the only forces in Aden still loyal to the Saudi-backed Hadi are from local militias, some parts of the army continue to back him elsewhere including the eastern province of Hadramawt and near Marib, he said."

I also listed army units known to be loyal to Hadi one by one, adding a source for each of those. However, someone with the nick "LightandDark2000" just put Yemen's army then on the side of Mr. Hadi again without giving any source for this, deleting my sources and just saying "That section is for the military strength, not units." See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_%282015%29&diff=659268951&oldid=659266998

As I'm just a guest here, I don't want to start any "edit war." However, I would like to review someone with credentials here at this platform the reverse edit by "LightandDark2000" - which was done without any addition of sources, but deleting sources. The key question in substance is here: "On which side Yemen's Armed Forces are fighting?" Or put it in another way: Which parts of Yemen's Armed Forces are with or against whom? I think this question is a crucial one for the whole Yemeni Civil War 2015, isn't it? So I think the answer to this question shall be well sourced. --84.189.1.143 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1. 1994 civil war in Yemen

2. Yemeni Civil War (2015)

Why so??--78.0.1.237 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/05/31/did-saudi-arabia-bomb-yemens-ancient-marib-dam/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150603-Yemen-ancient-Sheba-dam-heritage-destruction-Middle-East-archaeology/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/unesco_director_general_condemns_airstrikes_on_yemens_cultural_heritage/#.VXH3AEZGR9g

http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/opinion/its-been-done-before-it-can-be-done-again-saving-the-middle-easts-cultural-diversity_32653

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/u-s-and-saudi-bombs-target-yemens-ancient-heritage/

19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a civil war because of direct external parties. Regards.

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I was going to propose the same. I think the best name is (Yemen war 2015) as we have now troops on the ground from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. not merely Aerial support 3bdulelah (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The presence of foreign troops does not change the identification of this conflict as a civil war. Se Spanish Civil War or Syrian Civil War as an example. --188.79.86.177 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/06/yemeni-al-qaeda-seizes-three-towns-near-southern-port-of-aden/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/yemen-officials-al-qaida-seizes-key-areas-aden-33247412

104.243.111.224 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

map also needs to highlight the situation inside Saudi Arabia, where there are now constant fightings and gains by both sides. --188.79.86.177 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the "more detailed map" Daish control Lawdar while Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns are controlled by Aqab. According to this map, at first blush, Dais control Saudi Arabia, Oman, Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia. On comparing greyscales and zooming in they control Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns.

We should choose a distinct colour, and ensure that the maps correspond to reliably sourced information.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

al-Qaeda gets grey for towns/villages and white for territory, and ISIL gets black for town/villages and grey for territory (on the map file). This is how the color was assigned for the other Middle East maps, so it will also apply to this map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to reach into another person's fridge without asking (especially the first PP of a highly charged issue), but I'm unclear what work this phrase does in the intro. Are Southern Separatists the largest force among all Hadi government belligerents, or among all belligerents generally? The non-pay walled reference does not distinguish among these two choices or some other, nor does the statistical data in the infobox imply that the Southern Separatists holds numbers sufficiently greater to qualify as the largest force "by far." Was there an archived discussion on this I missed with relevant pro/cons, or can I dump the phrase?

CM (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that phrase. It was clearly an unsourced POV, which inexplicably remained in the lead for months. Nykterinos (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-has-150000-troops-for-yemen-operation-report/article23628188/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151118224504/http://www.yemenobserver.com/front-page/1397-supreme-revolutionary-commission-declares-general-mobilization.html to http://www.yemenobserver.com/front-page/1397-supreme-revolutionary-commission-declares-general-mobilization.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150325238084
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article16355684.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Pakistan-says-Saudi-led-coalition-in-Yemen-wants-6180919.php
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.france24.com/en/20150418-least-27-dead-fighting-yemens-taez/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tribune.com.pk/story/871660/at-least-76-dead-in-yemen-air-raids-fighting/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150928121643/http://www.france24.com/en/20150516-south-yemen-clashes-kill-dozens-ceasefire-nears-end to http://www.france24.com/en/20150516-south-yemen-clashes-kill-dozens-ceasefire-nears-end
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151118235325/http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/04/28/3765544/saudi-king-names-counterterrorism.html to http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/04/28/3765544/saudi-king-names-counterterrorism.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Some users seem to have an obsession with adding Israel in every military infobox on Wikipedia. This time an IP did so citing an article by Veterans Today, which is filled to the brink with holocaust denial and conspiratorial theories. Unless claims of Israeli involvement can be backed by serious, mainstream sources, please stick it with your personal agenda and refrain from inserting them anywhere on Wikipedia. This is vandalism at best. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: This is very problematic all across wikipedia - mainly concerning Israel and to some degree Turkey.GreyShark (dibra) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - i invite users to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_22#Category:Turkish_airstrikes_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War.GreyShark (dibra) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Propose to split the section on GCC military intervention in Yemen (2015) into a separate article, as this is clearly a notable and differing event.GreyShark (dibra) 05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom, although I'd prefer the title 2015 military intervention in Yemen, to match 2011 military intervention in Libya and avoiding the exclusion of non-GCC nations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, since I really don't anticipate any objections, I'm going to go ahead and spin it off as a stub-class article. Please, add more to it once it's up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems you made the split too early and without an agreement on proper article naming. The result was immediate re-merge request and i guess quite a few of us may challenge your naming of the new article.GreyShark (dibra) 07:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I Support the proposal while insist on maintaining the following sentence in this article:

According to the Saudi news outlet Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia is contributing 100 warplanes and 150,000 soldiers to the military operation in Yemen. According to Reuters, planes from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain are also taking part in the operation. In addition, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Sudan are ready to participate in a ground offensive--Seyyed(t-c) 06:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Curious why you think that line needs to remain in this article when it more aptly relates to the military intervention? -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not move all of the important information in such cases. There should be something which helps the reader to understand the importance of the issue in the main article and lead him/her to the sub-article. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand -- I just don't think we need to go into the specifics like that on this article. What about mentioning the other countries that are participating in the operation, without going into detail about a prospective ground offensive or force strength? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen was split into a separate article.GreyShark (dibra) 06:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It has been proposed to re-merge the 2015 military intervention in Yemen article back into Southern Yemen offensive (2015).GreyShark (dibra) 07:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per above discussion. The apparent consensus is that these are two discrete operations, with the offensive being a Houthi campaign directed toward Aden and the intervention being a Saudi-led campaign striking targets principally in the vicinity of Sana'a. They are connected, and one has clearly followed onto the other, but they are different. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu1's reasoning seems logical to me. Mhhossein (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - just to clarify the re-merge was proposed by user:Gire 3pich2005. My position here is neutral.GreyShark (dibra) 07:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I just restored the content of this page after it was blanked overnight, about five hours ago, and redirected to the intervention page. Friendly reminder to everyone: don't blank pages without consensus, and if you see a page that has been blanked without consensus, please feel free to fix it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think these are two related issues and agree with Kudzu1.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - no consensus, long overdue.GreyShark (dibra) 06:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Accord to the article, A senior Hezbollah said that Russia is providing weapons to the Houthis. This article is not poorly written, biased or libelous. For the North Korean part, if you read carefully it stated that North Korea's military support for Houthi rebels in Yemen is the latest manifestation of its support for anti-American forces". Article made by student also counts a source. The reason why this is not biased, libelous and poorly written is because International Buisness Times and Huffington Post are good news source. UA Today has some positive views about Russia and all Russians. Based on your edits, I suspected you are from the Russian military. If am wrong, explain who you actually are. You are really misunderstanding the articles if you have not read these carefully. But since you have misunderstood these article, we must discuss this in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard FrankieL1985 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - providing weapons is defined as support, not involvement/intervention. Anyway doesn't seem Russia is in direct support of the Houthis, but rather Russian weapons are perhaps redirected to Yemen, with no Russian intention.GreyShark (dibra) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yemeni civil war (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36011794http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-led-coalition-promises-to-adhere-to-yemen-cease-fire-1460359998

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the strength section the revolutionaty committee has a total amount of 400.000-500.000 fighters on it's site while the hadi government stands with 37.500 fighters. There is no way this could be possible because otherwise the Houthis would have ran over entire Yemen a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.79.185 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The red faction does not control all of Taiz as shown on the map. Regards.

69.166.122.245 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's just terribly out of date. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Major general Prince Fahad Bin Turki Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Commander of Airborne Units & Special Security Forces)^[1]
  
• Lieutenant colonel Obeid Fadel Al-Shammari (Commander of Saudi Special Forces in yamen)^[2]
  
• Brigadier general Auni Al Qurni (Deputy Commander of Saudi Special Forces in yamen)^[3]

--Qrmoo3 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Brigadier general Hasan Abdullah Almalsi  † (Commander of Houthi special forces)^[4]
• Ibrahim Badr Al-Houthi  † (the brother of Abdulmalik al-Houthi)^[5]
• Abdullah Qayed al-Fadeea  † (senior Houthi militia leader)^[6]
• Hashim al-Barawi  † (senior Houthi militia leader)^[7]
• Major general Abdul Razzaq Al-Marwani  † (Head of Yemens Special Security Forces)^[8][9]
• Major general Ali bin Ali Al-Jaifi  † (Republican Guard commander)^[10][9]
• Major general Abdul-Qader Hilal  † (Mayor of Sanaa City)^[11]

--Qrmoo3 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I must put your attention that we do not add "alleged" parties to the infobox per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Moreover, currently only Turkish-language sources seem to support the claims regarding Iran and Hezbollah and frankly - even though sources are reliable (Hurriyet and al-Jazeera) this is not sufficient, since most English-lang wikipedians do not speak Turkish and cannot verify the claims. Would be happy if someone brings English lang sources or otherwise i delete those parties from the infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Pahlevun: i'm raising this issue following our discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• removed. Done GreyShark (dibra) 06:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yemen map: Fighting continued along the frontlines areas in Hajja, Jawf, Marib, Nihm and Taiz - no major changes in almost locked conflict https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxYE_LpUUAA3TDQ.jpg --Qrmoo3 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing it, but shouldn't this article and/or a subarticle contain a timeline of the war? This article is heavily focused on events in early 2015, with not a lot about recent changes in territory or clashes. The most recent stuff I can find is about ceasefire talk in April 2016, something which of course did not last. Is there any article with a chronology of the war? Even Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen seems to taper off around the end of 2015. PBP (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of the whole Yemeni war has been somewhat paralyzed by a petulant refusal to allow Al-Masdar News to be used as a source, despite the fact that Al-Masdar is one of the only media outlets in the world, especially in English, that frequently covers this conflict and has sources inside Yemen. Al-Masdar is already heavily used for Syria articles, but for Yemen it's not allowed for some reason. The claim is that Al-Masdar is "biased" in favor of the Houthis and against Saudi Arabia and the Hadi regime. So instead, only information from mainstream Western and Gulf Arab countries' media outlets, which in themselves are heavily biased against the Houthis and in favor of Saudi Arabia and the Hadi regime, are allowed. And even many of those outlets barely report on the Yemeni war. The result is that hardly anything is added to Yemeni war articles on Wikipedia, and when it is it's skewed against the Houthis and in favor of the pro-Hadi forces. It's a big problem, in my opinion. Since both sides are either biased or alleged to be so, it seems to me that both sides should be allowed to be used as sources (rather than just one of them) and then just compare the claims on specifics. Kawada Kira (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The article says that the US conducts only airstrikes against al Qaeda while worldwide press reported on multiple occasions that the US also gives intel to the Saudis on Huthis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.113.212 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the US provides intel to the Saudi-led Coalition on the Houthis, but that isn't really a full military intervention. The US is still airstriking al-Qaeda, and they will probabably start targeting ISIL as well, if they haven't yet already. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is still "support", rather than "involvement".GreyShark (dibra) 07:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

William Owens

Navy SEAL commando William Owens got killed in an operation in Yemen. Update this.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.117 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there was another civil war going on in Yemen in 1994, should the title of this article be renamed to Second Yemeni Civil War or should it stay the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No because since there is too many foreign governments involved it makes this civil very different from the previous one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.133 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Typically on Wikipedia, when a conflict is named the "Second" of an earlier one, there is a direct similarity; i.e. the Second Congo War happened because of the aftermath of the First Congo War. A conflict might also be named "Second" of an earlier one if historians reach a consensus and commonly refer to it as such, i.e. World War Two and Second Sino-Japanese War. Because the two Yemeni civil wars are not directly (or closely) related to each other in terms of cause and effect, and because the current conflict is not commonly called the "Second Yemeni Civil War", it has not been named such, as Wikipedia would be creating a new title for the conflict. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Other editors: Please vote on whether or not you think " Southern Movement" should be removed from the infobox (thus not being underneath "Popular Resistance"). Please reply below with either Support or Oppose and your reasoning in bullets. To clarify, Support means you want it removed or moved some where else on the infobox, Oppose means you want it to stay as it is. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This vote has been suspended due to a lack of clarity and confirmation in the above discussion. Replies to this thread have been hidden (commented out). Please continue discussing this issue above and remember to keep it civil; do not attack other users, only state your own ideas and/or suggestions. We want this minor issue to be resolved, not a needless comment war on the talk page. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Replies/Votes:

Some person named RainbowSilver again putted up this "alleged support", with highly outdated sources written by some student in 2015 claiming that DPRK, Russia and Iran are participating in the conflict. I mean seriously, alleged support is not support at all! Could anyone please remove all the alleged support section altogether? It does nothing to improve quality of the article, besides of causing unnecessary friction and demonizing the nations in question. Governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and US have long argued that Iran is somehow involved in that conflict without providing any proof whatsoever but addition of DPRK and Russia to the list is absolutely libelous and against the spirit of Wikipedia if not against some of the rules themselves, the proof against those countries is virtually non-existent apart from some article written by a student in 2015 speculating that Russia somehow could be possibly involved, I mean come on, I could write an article about United States supporting ISIS or Al-Qaeda and add it as a source justifying labeling US as supporter of those groups and that source would carry more weight than this piece of crap 78.63.161.19 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please post your arguments and discussions below my comment instead of in the edit summaries. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 06:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

---

So Chilicheese22, the SM is 1) a part of the Popular Resistance and 2) it is a participant in the Yemeni Civil War. Those are enough reasons for thus adding it to the Belligerents section under the PR label in the infobox. Now, counter me with arguments and not hypocritial ad hominem about my perceived political bias. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Chilicheese22, you have not contested my arguments for around 4 days - you've had enough time to respond, considering that you were quick reverting me. Thus, I request an editor with the necessary edit rights to make the Southern Movement visible again in the infobox. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of which side is correct (as it is difficult for a third party like myself to verify either claims with English sources) it is not strange for Wikipedia to list units or subgroups of larger organisations in infoboxes. There has also been no argument until recently that the Southern Movement should be removed from the infobox because "it doesn't make sense to put it[the Southern Movement] in the infobox twice". Thus, I am granting the request and until the other side replies to this thread and provides sources for me and other third parties to look at and evaluate, the Southern Movement will (and should) remain visible. I would also like to note that other editors must assess the purpose of removing things from articles, and what purpose it serves; "it doesn't make sense" is an opinion not a reason. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 21:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I am aware that Chilicheese22's argument is that by having the Southern Movement displayed it suggests that the Popular Resistance and the Southern Movement are separate entities; however, this issue of perception has never been brought up before. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 21:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello GeneralAdmiralAladeen sorry I couldn't get back to you I had been sick but as you know we had already discussed this in the past and just because it hasn't been mentioned before doesn't make it any less truthful also I have cited numerous amounts times. Tell me what in particular are you looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheese22 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: I just wanted clarification on why you want the Southern Movement to be removed, as it's confusing reading your old edit summaries. If you could just put down your reasons on why you think the Southern Movement should be removed from the infobox that would be great, because it allows me and other editors to clearly see your opinion and make a judgement on if it should removed or not. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Southern Movement should be inside the popular resistance tab and not underneath already had a debate about this.Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason why we need this discussion is because "debates" in edit summaries are arbitrary; we need you to discuss it in the talk page so we (other editors) can determine if you are right or not and reach a decision. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 03:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: Let me just clarify I don't want the Southern Movement to be removed but for it to be placed in the proper place where it belongs. When you look at the rest of those factions you have to ask yourself what do they all have in common which is they all support the Hadi Government either politically or militarily. Now when you look at the Southern Movement they are not political party as they do not hold any seats in Government nor do they have or hold a military under their command. After you establish this point you have to ask yourself who represents the people in the South either politically or militarily and that is the Popular Resistance which it has been representing them from 2011 back when there were protests and riots against the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The popular resistance basically took over the Southern Movement in a peaceful transition back in 2011 during President Saleh's ousting. That's why I want the Southern Movement to be put inside the popular resistance tab and not underneath it. Also on a side note I was wondering if you could contact the person who is in charge of the map for him to update it or to delegate it onto someone else as that map is very outdated.

@Chilicheese22: Thank you for your input. I now urge other editors to vote on this matter now that both sides have been clearly established. I myself will not support or oppose either side as I am the one who initiated this discussion. Regarding the map, I have left a request on the creator's talk page, but they seem to be very busy as there was a similar request left on their talk page on December 2016, and they promised to "do it in the new year". Anyhow, all the best, – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 01:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: Can you clarify what you meant by "...I want the Southern Movement put inside the Popular Resistance tab"? The wording is a bit confusing, and it seems that you did not mean "remove from infobox". – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 02:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: What I meant was for the Southern Movement to be takin out of the info box and for it to be placed in the popular resistance page because if you click on the popular resistance tab and it opens up the page there is little to no information about the popular resistance in general. I can understand the confusion due too my adversary 176.23.1.95 misquoting me and trying to use my words against me instead of trying to create an argument. Also I am asking for you to remove the Southern Movement until consensus could be reached due to my opponent clearly attacking anyone that voted to remove the SM (2-0 Clearly in favor of it being removed) and calling them my puppet. If you also don't mind to warn him that this type of behavior is not acceptable as I have takin no personal shots against him yet anyone that seems like he's on my side continues to be insulted.

Firstly, don't blame me for "misquoting" you, blame your faulty communication skills for not being able to express yourself concisely. Secondly, don't insult anyone's intelligence here by pretending your votes were legit, it's not exactly rocket science to identify sockpuppeting in action. Enough fake posturing - threatening me with sanctions on a fake basis, considering your own flawed actions, makes you deserving of any such correctional measures, that you'd wish upon me. Lastly, mentioning the SM in the Popular Resistance article doesn't exclude also mentioning it in the infobox of this article, regardless of the extent of the PR article. For it is standard practice on WP to mention notable units or subunits of belligerent organizations in infoboxes, compare infobox at Internal conflict in Bangladesh. Case dismissed. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.23.1.95: First of all your theory of me and the other user as being one has been debunked when you tried to file a 3RR violation against me and him. Second if you honestly think that any new Wikipedia user or any person that is voting for me has no right then you are more delusional than I thought. You should actually look at how many people sign up on Wikipedia daily. An last but not least how bout you reference something that is relevant to the Yemeni Civil War (i.e. Iraqi Or Syrian War) not a 15 year old conflict that is hardly edited by anyone I mean there are even years (2006-2010) where there is not even a single word about the situation. Also you have no right of closing this discussion until a vote is reached.

1) My "theory" has never been "debunked", if you cared to read the conclusion at the report. 2) You don't like my example? Here you have some other examples: Soviet–Afghan War, CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion, 1958 Iraqi coup d'état etc. - confirming that it is standard practice to mention notable subunits in infoboxes. Why would you want to violate this practice? Thus, case dismissed. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.23.1.95: You continue to give irrelevant examples to the Yemeni Civil War whether you are just providing outdated conflicts or conflicts that are not even relatable to the Yemeni War. For example the Soviet-Afghan war was not even the slightest sense close to the Yemen conflict this was when the United States backed terrorists (mujahidin)(who were called heroes at that time especially Osama Bin Laden who's picture was splattered all over American newspapers) too fight the communist threat in Afghanistan. It was two superpowers colliding to show each other who was superior in ideology and militarily. Now give a conflict that is currently ongoing in the Middle East (i.e. Iraqi Or Syrian War) and give me in detail where two entities that are essentially one are in the info box.

Well, I do actually agree with your political viewpoint of the Afghan War. It's just irrelevant for this discussion of whether to include a notable subunit or not in this article. You misinterpret my intentions of showing these examples - it's for demonstrating a wide application of this practice, spanning various times and locations. I don't see any reason why "current Middle Eastern conflicts" should be given a special status and thus be excluded from this practice. But you can have other examples of your wish: Sinai insurgency, Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.23.1.95: What I meant was not the "Middle Eastern conflicts" should be given special status or be excluded, what I meant was since Yemen and most other countries in MENA that participated in the Arab Spring and didn't prepare for post-uprisings and ousting's are facing these civil wars. That's why I am referencing the "Middle Eastern conflicts" because their conflicts that are relatable too the Yemeni Conflict (i.e. Arab spring, Arab winter, Iran-Saudi Proxy Way). Now these practices may happen in some of the pages but if we use your logic and apply it to every war and conflict (which are very vast and diverse) you're basically painting every war or conflict with one brush. For example when one Muslim does something bad in the name of his religion and people go and condemn the entirety of the religion (which is vast and diverse) instead of that one person's action then you just painted the entire religion of Islam in one brush.

"Now these practices may happen in some of the pages". Yes, the mentioned practice can indeed be applied to every conflict, even though it only is necessary for some pages. "Painting every war or conflict with one brush" is a vague statement. Without some practices, the articles would be a mess, and you'd have to evaluate basic stuff from article to article repetetively. I do neither see any reason to exempt this article from the aforementioned practice. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.23.1.95:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: You continue to evade my question and continue to take things out of context which is quite concerning because it just shows that you really have run out of ideas to base your point off of. Anyways I will repeat the question again please give me a current middle eastern conflict/war (i.e Iraq or Syrian War) that mentions two of the same entities in the info box. If you can't answer the question and are going to continue to base your argument off of that then I am calling for the vote to be continued. Your main point which you really can't back up is "well everyone is doing it this way and if it's not broke don't fix it" which is just a weak and vague point.

You suffer from WP:IDHT. I am simply describing a practice, that you'd enjoy to violate for reasons, you owe to explain. You've got enough examples of this practice, you can search further yourself. It's your burden to justify making a special exemption for exactly this conflict, what are the particular reasons for deleting notable subunits (i.e. valid information)? You should do that before wasting more time with your nonsensical vote. I'm getting really annoyed by your inability to express clearly why you'd want to delete appropriate content and thus lower the quality of this article. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.23.1.95:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: It doesn't take a genius to realize that you are annoyed you've been annoyed since day one. You've managed to take this personally which it has nothing to do with you and it has everything to do with making sure the uninformed reader is getting the most accurate information. There is nothing wrong with making a mistake but it seems like when I called you out for it you acted like I just insulted your intelligence. An it seems like your failing to understand WP:IDHT how can something that has been replaced since 2011 by the Popular Resistance be considered a "notable" sub unit. You have failed to give any evidence on this claim and still haven't managed to answer my question so that's why I am calling for the vote to be continued and if you feel that you got your point across then you wouldn't be so scared for the vote to be continued. CLEAR ENOUGH?????

I feel too lazy to correct your factual inaccuracies regarding the SM, especially when you're in such a tantrum. So take a look at the infobox now, this ought to be a sound compromise. --ContraVentum (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@ContraVentum:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: If it will be called the southern resistance and remove the other two subunits then that is a fair compromise as it meets mine and his concerns. Now it is just about him agreeing to the compromise so this topic can be settled.

Well, it's ok now. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@176.23.1.95:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: Well I think that a fair compromise has been reached and as long as both parties well not engage in edit war on this topic it is safe to close this debate.

Hello @GeneralAdmiralAladeen: if you can talk to the map maker that the map is inaccurate because Hadi forces did take the city of Mocha but they don't have control that far out west their goal was and still is just to take a very thin strip that will seal off Houthi forces from the red sea as they have been targeting Saudi & UAE ships (Hadi Allies). Also another mistake is Hadi forces don't have control of Harad again Hadi forces aim is to have a very thin strip that will seal off Houthis forces from the red sea (Midi To Bab Al Mandab) and the only thing that Hadi forces have control in that region is Midi Port. Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: The creator of the map is Ermanarich. Leave a message on his talk page and he'll likely respond. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to underline, that the creator of the map is Ali Zifan and not me. I'm only the one who currently updates the map.

The other point is, that I only use the informations given by Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map and Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map. I can't make the changes you told me, since you haven't given sources for these informations yet. If you have sources but don't know how to edit at the Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map, you can just send me sources and I will implement the changes when I find the time to.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Ermanarich: I unfortunately do not know how edit the Module: Yemeni Civil War detailed map but my source is from this reputable map maker (https://twitter.com/YemConfMaps). He updates many battlefronts weekly and is most of the time 100% accurate. If you need more information feel free to contact me. Thank you for your service.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheese22 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The map legend shows (dark?) gray as the color for ISIL-held territories. Unfortunately, because the ISIL territories are very small, and because the dark gray looks close to medium gray, at first (and second) glance it appears the Yemen is surrounded by huge ISIL-held territories.

How about picking a fourth color which *isn't a shade of gray? WikiAlto (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

the information for the humanitarian crisis happening in Yemen is from an article written in 2015; has the situation significantly changed since then?Tommyupdate (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

the refugee situation, especially for Yemen, has changed since the Donald Trump presidency, is this reflected in the article?Tommyupdate (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources that are cited are not credible at all and it is really unlikely that these two countries are supporting Houthis. So I suggest that names of Russia and North Korea is removed from the support list for Houthis. Nochyyy (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, seems to be highly biased opinion of lone writers without substantial facts, lots of fallacies and weasel words. Will remove until more credible sources are added. GroundlessAir (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - belligerents should not be added with no consensus on the talk page, especially if those are vague allegations. This is a typical case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL.GreyShark (dibra) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: What is your reasoning for removing North Korea and Russia from the infobox? I understand that some may think that it is "really unlikely that these two countries are supporting Houthis," but that is not reason enough for removing sourced information. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: The Huffington Post, The Daily Star, VICE News, alarabiya.net, www.upi.com, International Business Times and etc, none of them are reliable sources. The only reliable sources is Reuters that only indicates that "Yemen's missiles were amassed over the course of decades in legal acquisitions from the Soviet Union and North Korea", Yemen government bought them from Soviets and NK, not Houthies and it is done years ago. And almost all military groups use AK47, so should we consider that all of these groups are being supported by Russia?Nochyyy (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: The Huffington Post, International Business Times, and UPI are definitely not unreliable sources. Where are you getting that idea from? Those news outlets are used consistently on Wikipedia without problem. And, what, how is Reuters the only reliable source? The claims for Ahrar al-Najran's involvement in the war don't come from Reuters. Should we remove that too? Kamalthebest (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Read these articles, just lone author accuses Russia and North Korea without providing any evidence. Words that is used in these articles are not professional and neutral, there are lots of false news in these "sources". Ahrar al-Najran is totally a hypothetical group, it can be removed too. Nochyyy (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: But we don't require sources to justify their rationale for statements they make since they are reliable in their own right, assuming it is from a reputable and well-known source like HuffPo or UPI. Just because it's written using sensationalized language doesn't make the claims any less true. After all, what did the Reuters source claim as its source for asserting Iran is involved in the Yemeni Civil War? In the Reuters article on this topic, it simply states "Iran has stepped up weapons transfers to the Houthis, the militia fighting the Saudi-backed government in Yemen, U.S., Western and Iranian officials tell Reuters." They didn't name their sources. Later on in the article, it mentions unnamed diplomats but that's it. So how is that different from HuffPo's article where they say, "a South Korean intelligence official announced that Yemeni rebels had purchased 20 Scud missiles from North Korea... While Saudi Arabia initially believed that these missiles were from Iran, a former North Korean security official confirmed South Korean intelligence claims in an interview with the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap." It's the same thing, right? Unnamed officials? There's a reason this falls under "Alleged support:" in the infobox because they are alleged claims after all and I agree with you there that this is not concrete. Hence, the "alleged" label. Kamalthebest (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Note that Reuters report can be only used for justifying "alleged support" as Iran denies its involvement, but Huffington Post and others claim are very limited and their claim isn't even enough for the alleged support. Several countries officially accusing Iran of supplying Houthis while no country say that for Russia and North Korea, just some newspapers do that. And because it's a very controversial claim it "requires multiple high-quality sources" as it's been written in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Huffington Post and others are not exceptional sources. Also, currently Yemen is under very strict blockade, North Korea and Russia are being observed very carefully, if they done something like that, we would see a lot more on medias. For Iran's case, they claim that an Iranian ship full of weapons confiscated while trying to reach Houthis, they showed some photos too, that is enough for alleged support. Nochyyy (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: I don't know the full history of the conflict, so I don't know if Yemen is under blockade right now but if officials say that weapons were used, maybe they were smuggled in before the blockade. And, the HuffPo article did make the claim that North Korea is under "alleged support" since giving weapons is clearly "support." If this is a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, who determines what is enough evidence? Because the Reuters article never "showed some photos" that they had of Iranian intervention in that linked article that I could see. Maybe, I missed them, could you link that to me? And what about claims of Hezbollah? The Reuters article on Hezbollah only said "Yemen's Gulf-backed government on Wednesday accused the Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim militia Hezbollah of training the Houthi rebels and fighting alongside them in attacks on Saudi Arabia's border." And when it comes to physical proof, they cited "many documents and physical evidence" but never showed any. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Differences between allegations of Iran supplying Houthis and, NK and Russia support them lay in that officials of several countries officially accusing Iran of that (even before current civil war Iran is always blamed for supporting Houthi rebels) and many mainstream medias talk about that, photos are not in Reuters report, but this report is just a example of these reports about Iran, not that it is contain every thing (I saw photos on BBC), another reason that both follow the same branch of Islam, also Iran verbally support Houthis but they deny their physical support. Reasons that we can include "alleged support" of Hezbollah is also similar to that of Iran. On other hand, claim of Russian and North Korean support is considered exclusive and exceptional because not even a country formally accuse either of them of doing this, there is no religious and ideological similarity between them and if they sold weapons to Yemen government before current conflict then that is not proving that they are supporting Houthis as Yemen government was fighting against Houthis before conflict, both governments do not even verbally support Houthis, also sources of these claims are only limited to some newspapers, all these reasons contribute to WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Nochyyy (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nochyyy: Well, if the idea that Iran and Hezbollah are supporting the Houthis is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL because they share a religion, I would say that Russia supporting the Houthis is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL seeing as Russia is allies with Iran in Syria right now and they abstained from the April 2015 UN resolution calling for an arms embargo against the Houthis. It is not unreasonable that they could have interests in siding with Iran here. Also, the claim that "not even a country formally accuse either of them of doing this" is not true because South Korea accused North Korea of sending weapons to Yemen in the article I linked prior. Obviously, Pro-Hadi governments are going to accuse Iran of aiding the Houthis because they are adversaries of Iran but there is no concrete evidence they Iran is aiding the Houthis, just like there is no evidence that Russia or North Korea is. Why do governments take precedence over newspapers anyway? Journalists hold a level of certain level of authority too. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Listen, the articles claiming the crazy conspiracy theories that somehow Russia or DPKR is "supporting" Yemenis are a joke. Also, you recently said that Republic of Korea somehow accused DPRK, well it didn't, if you haven't noted there is a logical fallacy in the article called Appeal to Anonymous Authority, i doesn't prove anything, says just some mysterious and unknown south korean official said that, the writer isn't notable in any department nor his article represents any investigative journalism, he likely just made it up cause he needed to make money, many people nowadays make a living from fake articles. As you like to draw comparisons to article about Iran, I believe it doesn't belong in the list of belligerents either, but we need further consensus to remove it, since some pro-Saudi and anti-Iranian people may just pop it up in belligerents list again which would cause a string edits and reverts, nobody wants that. I have noticed similar behaviour in other articles, for example inclusion of Iran and Russia as belligerents in War in Afghanistan, I mean, seriously, there's some people in wikipedia which do not believe in WP:NPOV or WP:EXCEPTIONAL and just wanna smear and slander entire countries they simply don't like. GroundlessAir (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@GroundlessAir: All I want is consistency. If we're going to remove Russia and North Korea because "the articles claiming the crazy conspiracy... are a joke," then we should remove Iran and Hezbollah too because those articles are also a joke. They use the same "Appeal to Anonymous Authority" you point out. If you think we should keep Iran and Hezbollah, then we should keep North Korea and Russia too. I'd be down for an RfC poll/survey too if you'd prefer some more voices for consensus on this issue. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Absolutely agree with your opinion, I believe Iran and Hezbollah should be removed from the list on the same basis, however there are many, mainly gulf states which believe that these entities are involved therefore some pro-saudi invasion editor would just put them on list of belligerents if we'd just simply remove them, any ideas of how to prevent re-addition of them? GroundlessAir (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@GroundlessAir: Hmm, well we could always write a comment in that section's editing box like this: "<-- Please do not add Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Hezbollah to infobox -->"; however I'd still rather include all four entities in the infobox because I think it fits "Alleged support." Maybe the best way to move forward would be to have an WP:RFC survey with the question like "Should we include Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Hezbollah in the infobox under 'Alleged support'?" to have some consensus. That way, nobody is unilaterally removing or adding potentially important information. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Good idea about the comment, though I disagree that this "information" (more accurate term would be disinformation or slander) is in any meaningful way improtant, look at what Greyshark said, these are vague allegations by inexperienced and unqualified specific individuals without any concrete sources to base their original research on. In my opinion WP:EXCEPTIONAL should apply to Iran and Hezbollah too. GroundlessAir (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@GroundlessAir: Sorry for the delay in response, the ping never showed up in my notifications for some reason. So do you think we should move forward with an RfC? Because I don't think that we alone should be the arbiters of what appears in the infobox or not. We should probably get some consensus first. Kamalthebest (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Two to six people which have written in the talk page about this issue is enough for a consensus to form. However I think the most reasonable solution would be to keep the infobox as it is right now and end the discussion, because even with RfC, whether the addition of additional 2 belligerents or removal of currently remaining two would inevitably trigger an edit war, because this is extremely contentious issue, I understand your opinion about consistency, that alleged support is not really actual support, however lets be honest, many gulf governments believe in their own allegations, main stream media believes in it too and so does US/UK governments, we cannot convince them otherwise, they'll still continue with this narrative deliberately knowing that it is likely far from the truth. When it comes to Russia and DPRK, those allegations were thrown around by lone, possibly deranged individual editors which have wrote deliberately inflammatory articles for the respective sites, let alone those "sources" are already significantly outdated too, no major media outlet or government in its full capacity directly accused these countries of participation in the conflict, therefore these allegations are much weaker than the already feeble ones put forward against Iran and Hezbollah, they are based on highly hateful and biased personal opinion of an editor, nothing else. GroundlessAir (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Have not ISIL lost it's Controlled areas which are shown on the map? I think they already did... If they do not control any areas please fix it then.

InfiniteGreen (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi We should add that in the article. Aidarus al-Zubaidi is the new southern leader. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf, could you explain, where you got this civilian casualty number "1,630" from? You are citing channelnewsasia.com (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/yemen-truce-begins-relief/1976692.html), but there is no such number given. And you even claim it was a "UN" number, so why don't you cite the original UN source or at least any reliable source that gives "your" special number. If it exists at all. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki, source clearly says that according to the UN around half of the overall number of estimated dead are civilians. Half of the confirmed 3,261 is 1,630. PS Please refrain from using talk such as my special number...if it exists at all. Its not per WP: Civil or WP: Good faith. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just read carefully, you might understand then:

1.) Your source (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/yemen-truce-begins-relief/1976692.html) does not say "3,261", but "3,200". Why do you falsificate again the figure given in your own source?

2.) Even if it was saying "3,261" "around half of them" wouldn't mean "1,630". You give a special, a specified number, where your source does not do.

3.) You just admitted that you constructed your own number and did not use existing figures. This means, the number "1630" never existed but was your personal invention. You showed this kind of behaviour (wrong usage of sources according to the civilian death toll in Yemen) several times ago and I already recommended you to use the original figures of the UN-OHCHR. You'll find the Press Briefing Notes easily there on the home page. So why don't you just use them as recommended? It's completely improper to provide and spread private calculations via Wikipedia.

4.) There is no WP good faith existing that protects falsification of information. Instead of citing WP: Civil or WP: Good faith you should be grateful, if someone informs you when you are giving wrong figures. I never said, you are doing it intentionally. But it is too obvious that you proceed to misuse sources. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki Not seeing how its falsification when the UN says half of the dead are civilians and the latest confirmed number of dead by the UN is 3,261 (per the 1st of 2 refs cited). I did not construct my own number and I did in fact use existing figures. And its not private calculations when its per WP: CALC (calculated numbers based on sources). Instead of attacking and insulting me, and assuming bad faith from the start, you could have simply requested to change the number from 1,630 to 1,600 (which I would have gladly done as compromise). In any case, this latest report [4] which gives a concrete figure of 1,670 dead civilians per the UN makes this issue effectively resolved and done. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

UN-OHCHR never gave the figure 1,630 for a civilan death toll in Yemen. This was your very own constructed number. You'll find it in no single UN source. I'm not interestet in a horse-trade. There is a good reason, why your source did not (and could not) provide a precise civilian death toll:

1) UN-OHCHR gives precise figures for the civilian death toll since March 26th, that is since begin of the Saudi-led military intervention.

2) UN-WHO and UN-OCHA give no precise figures for the civilian death toll since March 19. From the beginning it was said: "The WHO toll does not distinguish between civilians and fighters."

3) What your source did, was to compare the UN provided overall death toll (since March 19th) with the civilian death toll (since March 26th). That's why it did not give a precise figure, because it wouldn't be correct.

What you tried to construct is simply impossible. There is no precise correct number for the civilian death toll since March 19th existing. If you insist on giving a precise number, you have to cite the UN-OHCHR civilan death toll. The recent (as of July 14 for the period of March 26 to July 13) is: 1,670. The previous figure was 1,528. But there was never a figure existing as your "1,630" or "1,600" or whatever you are trying to launch here without any source. Once again I recommend you to use the original UN websites instead of all your ABC news and channelnewsasia.com and whatever you were digging out in the past. I got the impression, you are simply not understanding the sources and how the figures were generated, what they mean and what they don't mean. I hope you'll act some more precise in future instead of trying to "calculate" formally "precise" but in fact invented figures. Read the sources well. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This was your very own constructed number. What you tried to construct is simply impossible. It was all per WP: CALC. horse-trade Nope, its WP: Compromise. In any case. An exact figure/source has been provided now. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP: CALC does not back clear corruption of a UN death toll figure. And WP: Compromise does not help you when you purport a non-existing statistic. Don't use WP rules for improper usage of sources. Better stick to the UN Press Briefing Notes as recommended and you get the civilian death toll for the period since March 26. There is no other UN civilian death toll existing. And you can't calculate a precise figure of a non-existing statistic. This is original research. And even more: it's simply wrong and when you continue to spread false information - in spite of being informed you are doing - it's even disinformation. Don't disinform the encyclopedia's readers in future. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The exact number of civilian casualties seems to be problematic. The article claims that 10,000+ civilians were killed, but just Today, the UN said: "Since March 2015, OHCHR has recorded a total of 13,504 civilian casualties, including 4,971 killed and 8,533 injured."[5] Maybe the 10,000+ figure includes wounded as well? Should we then include the lower number of 4,971 killed, as well?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Original title of this section (placed by Contraventum) was: CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything. It seems that 'CC22' is intended to be a reference to User:Chilicheese22. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I demand answers for how the following mentioned sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE" cf. your comment in edit history:

• criticalthreats.org
• middleeastmonitor.com
• alaraby.co.uk
• theguardian.com
• justsecurity.org
• etc...

To me, it seems like you're deleting WP:RS for the sake of battling against me, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. Lay down your hostile intentions, you're lowering the quality of the article. --ContraVentum (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well number one its great that you finally came to your senses that the best way to solve this problem is through the talk page, although I do wish that you would have pinged me in order for me to have responded to you earlier. As for your sources on how they are WP:QUESTIONABLE you failed to mention that you not only use the sources to manipulate the truth and push your bias onto the info box, but you use unreliable sources like worldbulletin.net that are factually incorrect. For example, its well known that UAE has a military base in Eritrea where it trains Hadi Loyalist to fight houthis, yet you continually push this unreliable source that it supports the houthis. Explain how that's politically possible?? WP:LISTEN An last, but not least I don't know how you can call your "edits" higher quality than what's already there when every time you revert you continually change the sources and information, as if no one checks what your putting in the info box.WP:DISRUPTSIGNS It seems like you are just too arrogant to admit that you made a mistake and that by you pushing your personal bias onto the info box will somehow validate that you are just that much "better than everyone." Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC) @ContraVentum:

1) Don't manipulate the headline, as I am the author having created and signed this post - you should never alter what other people state, this is dishonest behavior as well.

2) Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wikipedia is not about presenting what you perceive as "truth", but presenting what WP:RS = reliable sources state regarding a topic. Thus you may not delete such reliable sources because you don't like the content, doing so is considered WP:POVPUSHING.

So, I'll be holding your hand and take baby steps with you to ensure that you get the point. You're claiming that the worldbulletin.net article [6] is factually incorrect. Why should I, or anyone, believe you? Because you say so? Prove to me that the article is a falsehood! You cannot just claim that every source you've deleted is fake content and expect everybody to trust your statements. You have to repeat this task of demonstrating the unreliability for every source you're going to delete - i.e. justifying why you'd delete, for instance, theguardian.com which is a reputable newspaper considered WP:RS, as this appears very strange. I'm going to start out softly with you - I've inserted the following sources: criticalthreats.org, middleeastmonitor.com and alaraby.co.uk. Your job now, if you want them removed, is to prove that they're "at best WP:QUESTIONABLE" (as you put it) sources publishing fake information. If you fail to do so, but keep reverting me, I'll immidiately report you for disruptive behavior and/or edit warring. So I'll be interested in your response here before you do anything to the article. --ContraVentum (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

1) You can keep the headline as you like it only proves my point that you have a personal vendetta against anyone that calls you out for putting biased & inaccurate sources.

2) You failed to answer any of my questions and resulted to weak debate tactics, where you just tried to manipulate what I said too try to further your argument.

An last, but not least your ignorance is absolutely laughable you must have not of heard of something called WP:3RR you should read it, it's something that you violated, but I am the one that will be reported for disruptive editing "ok". An once you finished reading that go to your talk page and read the one revert rule for all articles that relate to the "Syrian Civil War" that you have also violated.WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Now if you want proof it really isn't that hard you literally had to go to google and type "UAE base in Eritrea" and you'll find [7]. Which proves my point that you did little to no research and you continue to push biased sources for your personal agenda. Now its up too you to prove everything that your trying to put because obviously you must not understand editing rules. Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Even though Bbb23 blocked ContraVentum, I feel like this needs to go on the incidents section of the administrators noticeboard. Abequinn14 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I revised the section header to 'Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org' so it would not sound like a personal attack on User:Chilicheese22. Please be aware that admins have broad authority under WP:GS to ban people from the topic of the Syrian Civil War if they don't seem to be able to edit neutrally. Anyone who continues to criticize individuals rather than trying to accurately summarize the good sources could receive unwanted attention from admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A line in "Impact on Citizens" -> "Education" which states "Education one of the basic human rights in United Nation. It is not fair the Yemen's children be deprived their opportunity of education due to civil war." is biased and non-informative. Request that it is deleted. Lyssaodr (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — IVORK _Discuss 05:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed it says Saudi-Led coalition as part of the 'main belligerents' section. The coalition is not led by saudiarabia, despite 'saudi led' becoming a popular term for this coalition, it is truly led by the British, as well as the United States, with Saudi Arabia acting simply as a base of sorts in the region for the war. This is evidenced by the fact that american and british drones are spotting targets for saudi pilots (whose equipments is most propably given to them by the brits/americans) as well as running the operational command at regional bases in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of political stance 'saudi led' is obscurantism in hiding the real belligerents of this war, namely America and Britain. I suggest to changed this to UK-Saudi-led coalition, or simplu UK-Led coaltion, with the main ally and partner being Saudi Arabia. I put this here because the subject is locked and i can therefore not attempt to edit it.

Thanks for ur time Anonmwm (talk) 6:11pm, 24 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi We should add that new political organization. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

For that I would also dominate them almost all the south Braganza (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

They should be included. Nuke (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

See here for the source https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/03/568142767/bloody-battles-waged-on-the-streets-of-yemens-capital-as-alliances-appear-to-shi?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202903. The page protection prevents me from adding the info.

"As of December 3rd, there have been clashes in Saana between Houthis forces and those loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. This follows a statement by Saleh offering to initiate talks with the Saudi-led coalition in exchange for a lifting of the blockade."

Feel free to adjust the wording of that. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit protection expires on December 4th. Feel free to add it yourself, haha. Nuke (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Well it hasn't yet....plus the former dictator for who's benefit this whole horrible mess is being waged, has just been assassinated. This is major and should be added.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears he was killed in combat rather than assassinated.XavierGreen (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@XavierGreen and NuclearWizard: After the murder of Saleh and the breaking of the alliance, we have two choices. We could add a new belligerant case for the GPC or we could also add (until 2017) mark in the botten. What do you think ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough reliably sourced information about this yet, but certainly Saleh needs to be marked "(until 2017)" as a Houthi commander, and the pro-Saleh forces should be divided in the infobox between those who stay with the Houthis (pro-Houthi security forces etc.) and those who stayed with Saleh. Notably, it only contains pro-Saleh security forces -- as if none ever supported the Houthis, bizarrely, now that I think about it. Nuke (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh was killed in action on December 4, 2017 by the Houthis for "treason". Perhaps we should switch his alliance.Thenabster126 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Please change this.Thenabster126 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Thenabster126 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terra ^(talk) 06:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why some editors are showing Saleh as a casualty or KIA in the infobox as part of the Houthi-led alliance. He died in fighting the Houthis as part of a collaboration with Saudi-led coalition. Therefore he shouldn't be shown as "KIA" or casualty under the Commander section of Houthi-led alliance section. He should be shown as a commander till Nov. 2017, when fighting between Pro-Saleh forces and Houthis broke out. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)