Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:08, 20 April 2015

Template:Shell

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

A news item involving Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 March 2015.

[REDACTED]

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Al Arabiya

It struck me that Al Arabiya might not be a terribly unbiased source for a Saudi military operation, and indeed, a story that was entitled "Saudi warplanes bomb Houthi positions in Yemen" written in a fairly neutral and objective tone yesterday has today become the decidedly more bombastic "Saudi wages ‘Decisive Storm’ to save Yemen": Right now, Al Arabiya is a fair bit ahead of most other news outlets on reporting certain information; it's also cited repeatedly throughout this article and other Yemen coverage.

My suggestion for now is that we try to find other, non-Saudi sources where possible (this goes for Iranian sources as well, which generally have a pronounced pro-Houthi bent) and use Al Arabiya where we need to. For my part, I'd like to be as little-dependent on a clearly biased source, even one that meets WP:RS criteria, as possible. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kudzu1 Due to the fact that Saudi media are the closest sources to the event I think we should consider their reports. We can use Saudi or Iranian media if their reports do not contradict with the other sources. However, we should not rely on them and narrate their reports as fact, but we can say "Saudi Media, claims ... " --Seyyed(t-c) 16:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a smart approach, at least for the time being. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree Mhhossein (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Article name

The name of the Operation is "Operation Decisive Storm" and so should be the title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.116.68 (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that name is a propagandistic one, developed, as so many others, by one of the actors in this war. From an NPV, if you ask me, it is an invasion or attack on Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Even the current title, "intervention", is a massaged one that tries not to raise conflicts. However, I think many people concurs in that no baptizing of a military attack by the propagandistic forces of an interested party in a conflict can conceal the facts. Frankly, the number of "baptized operations" in the Middle East, baptisms that only try to create a veil, looking for acceptable or optimistic titles in the evening news, is already numbing. Acting as a long time editor that is suspicious of any unsigned comments on current news that, apparently, try to paint one side of problems with an "enhanced" view, I recommend to follow the lead of the original editor, that tiptoes between strong interests as well as he can. I think we should never use names devised by one warring party without qualification (unless we're showing that fact, and then, in the article body or in redirection pages), no matter how many times they have appeared in the news sources, specially if they are, evidently, "generated operation names" that clearly try to paint a war in a way that people find comfortable. --Ciroa (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Working for their Uncle Sam?

“A NSC spokeswoman said the US would work jointly with Saudi Arabia to provide military and intelligence support while not participating in "direct military action".

“President Obama declared that he had authorized US forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the operation against Houthis as a Joint Planning Cell' with Saudi Arabia.

So perhaps the title might be changed to read: US backed military intervention in Yemen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.182.136 (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

London is supporting Saudi Arabia

94.219.102.140 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for them providing logistical or material assistance? I know the government has spoken in favor, but I haven't seen anything about military/intelligence support. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

-> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/national/11882549.UK__backs_Saudi_action_in_Yemen_/ Turkey is also not supporting Saud Arabia by providing logistical or material assistance. What's the difference to GB ? 94.219.102.140 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If Turkey isn't assisting the operations, I don't think we should include it either. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, Turkish president Erdogan responded to the crisis in Yemen. Can someone add this to "state government responses"? Thank you! (Avicenna1985 (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

In an interview with FRANCE 24 on Thursday, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey supports the Saudi-led mission to rout Shiite rebels from Yemen and criticised Iran's regional ambitions in both Yemen and Iraq.

http://www.france24.com/en/20150326-turkey-support-saudi-yemen-erdogan-interview-france-24/

The more exact estimation of Saudi's forces participates in the operation

I added Saudi's claim about the strength of its force. However, as if it is the whole of the Saudi's army and this claim is part of psychological war. In practice, a small part of this army participate in the operation and there is not any plan for sending ground troops. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a smart point. According to the sources , this statistic is presented by al-Arabiya TV station which is a Saudi-owned pan-Arab television news channel. Is there any other independent and reliable source verifying this claim? Mhhossein (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:EkoGraf; Let's discuss about this claim before removing it from the articles --Seyyed(t-c) 05:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If there are sources that cast doubt on the figure than yes, putting the word claim is appropriate, otherwise its all unsoucred conjecture which falls under OR (Original Research) on Misplaced Pages. EkoGraf (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There are sources which shows that these numbers does not relate to operational forces. For example, the 150,000 soldiers have not participated in any action yet. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

why did has the map changed so much in the last 24 hours?

I don't understand how it is possible that two of the four groups that were on the map 24 hours ago have now either completely disappeared (as in the case of the Southern Front forces) or lost almost all of the cities and territory that they had controlled (as in the case of the Al Qaeda forces). Is someone fact checking these maps because it seems clear that either someone put up maps with false information or half the entire country of Yemen was miraculously able to fall into the government's control despite the fact that it's a failed state and is so weak that until 48 hours ago they were on the brink of total collapse.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there. There are a lot of pages like this one on this ongoing conflict, so in future to ensure visibility, I suggest you either on the talk page of the png map or the module it comes from.

I agree there were massive changes. I rarely interact directly with the module, but there were massive changes to it that I wasn't confident in, so I paused my updating of png map whilst discussion was ongoing (something I don't normally advertise, but I try to not endorse edit warring). However a new user appears to have updated based on it, who also did one major revert on the module after his latest revision of the map which turned several red villages black and was quickly reverted. Had he made a version of the map based on his own edit, I would have raised this.

There was discussion of some of this at the module it's made from at Template_talk:Yemen_Insurgency_detailed_map#AQ.

Banak (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lebanon position unclear

How can Lebanon be included in the list of intervention supporters when in the 1st source article one can read: "The speech did not clearly state Lebanon’s official position on the Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen launched overnight, but Bassil said that there was more agreement than disagreement in the case."? The 2nd source is a personal opinion of a member of the Lebanese government, not a official statement. I therefore recommend removing Lebanon for the sake of preventing ambiguity. Otherwise, Hezbollah's position should also be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozion (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

UNO and Yemen intervention

Is there possibility (good action) of resolving the issue of military intervention in Yemen, by UNO? UNO may stop this by resolution of referendum (Plebiscite) whether the people of Yemen wants the previous regime or not, without intervention of any foreign nation. This peaceful solution may also serve as a tool for filtration of involvement of other nations into the affairs of Yemen.Nannadeem (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Some analysts have already pointed out that the attacks have been illegal. In fact it is illegal under UN charter to violate territorial integrity of any country without Security Council resolution, but despite all pretensions we are not really living in a world where rules and laws genuinely matter! Powerful governments act in the spirit of "might makes it right" and UN's Ban Ki-moon can at best complain like a kid or spew his typical "inviting all sides to restraint" and preaching about superiority of dialogue over war, but those are his usually non-binding pure rhetoric to keep up an image of a really mattering "United Nations"! But even that would be in cases when he doesn't practically support the aggressors and pressure the victims as he did in this case! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Strivingsoul I endorsed your point of view, but by virtue of worldwide WP say, I think it is very rational for peace loving wikipedians to step forward to request UNO to play its role as envisaged in UNO Charter. Per contents of main article two permanent members of Security Council have given their view for peaceful solution. We may offer our stance on talk page of this article. Submitted for consideration of all peace lovers.Nannadeem (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTBLOG, etc. This discussion is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Defining the coalition

Sources (including us) often refer to it as a coalition of "Gulf states" or "Arab states" but neither is right. Gulf state is wrong because Morocco and Egypt are involved. Arab states: are Morocco and Egypt considered Arab? But more so the USA has a significant role in this operation, helping to organize the coalition and providing essential satellite, logistical and other support. Excluding the USA one could call it a "regional coalition" but to get it right one would simply have to call it a "coalition" or "Saudi-led coalition of states". -- GreenC 13:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Morocco and Egypt are considered Arab (as are a bunch of North African states, and even a couple of East African states). Take a look at Arab world. As for the U.S., while it is providing non-combat support, it has declared it is not taking part in the intervention itself, so that answers that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

See the position of US in the main page which states that: spokeswoman said the US would work jointly with Saudi Arabia to provide military and intelligence support while not participating in "direct military action". Thus Enjoying the status of super power its position as a de facto supervisor cannot be ruled out. Nannadeem (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, unless you can find a reliable source (not a fringe source, including Iranian or Russian propaganda) that says the U.S. is supervising the intervention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again: If you put Turkey to the supporter list....

...then you have to put GB to this list too. I'm from Germany and in every newspaper article we can read that London is supporting Saudis intervention in Yemen.

For example: Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/saudi-arabien-bekommt-unterstuetzung-gegen-huthi-rebellen-a-1025714.html Stern: http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/jemen-saudi-arabien-weitet-kampf-gegen-huthi-rebellen-aus-2183267.html Handelsblatt: http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/eskalation-im-jemen-praesident-hadi-in-saudi-arabien-angekommen/11558344.html

and so on...

The position of Ankara and London is up to this point congruent.

94.219.102.140 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unless Turkey is reliably reported to be providing some degree of material or logistical support or committing military or intelligence assets to the campaign, its "role" is political and nonbelligerent (and therefore not meeting the standards for inclusion in the infobox). -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan

It has been made clear both by Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well by Prime Minister that Pakistan is not participating in this military intervention so please avoid adding Pakistan in the infobox and labeling it as supporter of military intervention. Pakistan was called in by Saudi Arabia to join the coalition but it decided to stay neutral and will only decide to intervene if Saudi Arabia territorial come under attack. --Saqib (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Operation name

The official Saudi Arabian news agency calls it "Determination Storm", not "Decisive Storm"

http://www.spa.gov.sa/english/readsinglenews.php?id=1343684&scroll=1

I would say that needs to be changed throughout the article.

87.173.198.98 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of variants, but "Decisive Storm" appears most common. There are, not surprisingly, some translation issues with the name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Internationally recognized government

Judging by the fact that many politicians and military stand on the side of the Houthis, obviously the government actually collapsed. Far as legitimately speak on its behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.204.86 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Yemeni Casualties

@User:ZxxZxxZ, I found you've done this edit, however I could not find the figures in this source as well as the others?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the page on Reuters has been updated. --Z 10:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Israel's position and involvement

@Kudzu1, Mar4d, Cuparsk, and Strivingsoul: Benjamin Netanyahu warned against Iran's role in Yemen and said “The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous for humanity and must be stopped,” While his position is clearly pro-Saudi intervention, Israel does not support it officially due to its political expense for Arabs. There is also unconfirmed reports of the Israel's involvement in the operation, which is frequently added and removed from the article.

How should we add this issue in the article?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources (and we're talking Reuters, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, The Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.) report that Israel is indeed taking part in the operation, it should be included. If the sources are not reliable/notable or the reports are sketchy, then it shouldn't be. Simple. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And I should add: same goes for Pakistan, Turkey, or any other country that gets mentioned. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. But what is your idea about Netanyahu's position. I think we should add it to the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be added but by attributing it explicitly to the sources claiming it. This would I think help towards keeping the article more neutral against political biases of the Western/Saudi-affiliated sources and avoid the pro-Israeli systematic bias of the mainstream media that could impede honest inclusive reporting on Western-Asian affairs. We're leaving in a much different world than painted for us by the Corporate media that control most of the Western reporting. Netanyahu's remark must also be included in the International reactions section under Support subsection. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a section regarding Israel, citing a The Guardian report. Please do not remove it for personal reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuparsk (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see why Israel's position can't be added. My previous revert was only concerned with the fact that Israel was allegedly involved in the Saudi-led coalition conducting airstrikes, and there was no credible source to ascertain this. So unless that is verified in a reliable source, it can't be added as it is a very controversial allegation. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks OK. thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Merging Neutral and Oppose

@User:ZxxZxxZ I disagree with merging these two categories. Let's discuss before merging.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think most of the ones listed in "neutral" were not neutral really, I do agree that merging the two was not the best possible alternative either. --Z 16:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose to remove the categories altogether. There is so much ambiguity from many states and classifying these on short statements imo borders on Original Research. Let the reader make up his opinion. Lozion (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan's position

@Saqib, Kristijh, Nannadeem, and Hanibal911: Please discuss about Pakistan's position here to avoid editorial war. Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I belive only those countries should be listed in the infobox who participate in the conflict in military terms. As of now, Pakistan stance is not clear given that Pakistani officials have rejected the claims of media reports that says Pakistan is part of coalition. I think its better to wait. --Saqib (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Right now, the official line from Islamabad is that no decision has been made on joining the coalition, and there is no evidence that Pakistani troops, planes, or ships are currently committed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I endorse the views of Saqib. Per my knowledge and watching different tv talk-shows noting views of political analysts, there is pressure in Pakistan to play the role of mediator Nannadeem (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there also disagreement on the Pakistan's position about the military operation in International reaction section? Saqib insists it is neutral while Kristijh believes Pakistan supports Saudi Arabia.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I prefer not to divide up international reactions by "positive" or "negative" or "neutral". -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

American involvement

The United States has been added as a belligerent despite the only source of this being an article ran by Sputnik, the Russian state media, which has been echoed by only PressTV, the Iranian state media, without any other sources backing this claim up, I think it's safe to say that this is not a trustworthy story and I have removed the United States from the list of belligerents until proper sources have been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurryaany (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While the true level of U.S. involvement is unclear, the fact remains that President Barack Obama did authorized "logistical and intelligence support to the military operations". Despite being limited, is it not clear that US help and backing indicates a level of involvement in military operations? Given this, might not American be termed a belligerent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.131.38 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless/until the U.S. is reliably reported to commit lethal force to the operation, its current listing as a supporting faction is proper. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Kudzu1's point. - SantiLak (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

well guys, you can definately add the united states from now on, they're giving an enormous amount of weapons to the saudi led coalition. add the united states! http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Apr-07/293627-us-speeds-up-arms-supplies-to-saudi-led-coalition-official.ashx?utm_content=buffer90b74&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I don't think they are "giving" them arms, more like selling them arms and even if they were giving them arms, both would still just be support. - SantiLak (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Outcome section.

Despite all the fanfarre and criticism/support, the offensive itself have not a clear outcome. After a week of airstrikes the Houthis have even maneged to capture more terrain. The Result Section should indicate something else that just "Ongoing".Mr.User200 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

@Kudzu1: Regarding your , the lead include the summary of the article and there is no problem if there is similar information in the lead and the body (WP:LEAD). So, I think this deleting such important information from the lead in not good idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is important enough to the military intervention to be included, at least in that level of detail. If you feel strongly about having it in the lede, would something more concise work for you? Like at the end of the first graf: "President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi fled Aden and arrived in Saudi Arabia the day after the intervention began." -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a concise description.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Djibouti

Just wanted to get opinions from y'all: should Djibouti be included in the infobox as a supporter of the coalition, based on its FM appearing to provide intelligence about Houthi actions in the Bab al-Mandab strait? I don't know if that constitutes material support, but I'm interested in your thoughts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

killings of civilians

Should be made clear in the information template that killings of civilians as a result of battles and Houthi forces and Saleh and against the tribes of Shabwa and Marib and Southern Movement --ابوهايدي (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Civilian casualties from fighting on the ground between Yemeni factions belong in Southern Yemen offensive (2015). Deaths by airstrike or coalition shelling go here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference said they have been killed as a result of the fighting did not say that they have been killed as a result of the bombing--ابوهايدي (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, they shouldn't be on this page, which is for the military intervention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Needing to opinion poll

I added the following text at background section, but it was removed because of WP:UNDUE. I've used this article from Al jazeera and the text is combination of some portions of the article. I try to being careful and my personal opinion is not in it. Any way please check the text by reference and if there is a problem, please notice me. Thanks!

text: According to the Aljazeera, this military intervention did not start between Saudi Arabia and Iran as a Sectarian contention. Although It might seem, due to regional conditions in Yemen and the recent debacle in Iraq and Syria , it is beyond any notion of Sunni and Shia divisions. Houthis’s dissatisfaction of the government had been got up from its relatively poor treatment of regions around Saada (the Houthis nominal capital), and issues of socio-economic distribution of wealth. This violence led to the President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi's ouster.

reference: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/yemen-defining-moment-king-salman-150327065530744.html Savior59 (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC) ​​

For starters, your proposed edit is written in very poor English. I understand if you're not a native speaker, and I don't want to cause offense, but you really do need to have greater English proficiency if you want to contribute to English-language Misplaced Pages.

Delving more into the specifics: Michael Stephens is a guest columnist, and the disclaimer at the end of his opinion piece for Al Jazeera clearly states: "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy." Per WP:RSOPINION, that needs to come through if the information is added to the article, rather than simply being attributed (incorrectly) to Al Jazeera. As for Stephens himself, he doesn't even have his own Misplaced Pages page, suggesting he is of questionable notability as an analyst/commentator, and I would contend that giving him a prominent platform in what is otherwise a factual summary of the conditions that directly led to this military intervention is certainly WP:UNDUE.

As for the content itself, I don't think it belongs here, either, even if a suitable reliable source is found. The causes of the Houthi uprising are well covered at Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Houthis, and 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état, all antecedent articles within the topic area. The rest of the background section deals specifically with the events that directly preceded intervention. Attempting to explain the broader motives of the Houthis in that section is undue, just as trying to summarize the history of Saudi interests in Yemen or the backstory on how Hadi was elected with popular support after the 2011 revolution would be undue. (See WP:COATRACK.)

To make a long response short, there are some obvious policy and style issues with the proposed edit, and I argue for its exclusion at this time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Thanks for your response!

There is Stephens's claims at the end of the article, but as you said, according to WP:BIO, I've preferred to refer the text to a site where article is published instead of the author of this. If the problem is it, you could edit it. But you removed the text

Here is[REDACTED] and one of the basic rules is WP:NPOV. SO to implement this principle should be present all viewpoints. Although You are right about the background of Yemen's military intervention, it is one aspect of the adventure and at this article of Al jazeera had been shown other aspect and according to the subject, this article of Al jazeera is reliable reference. Also the name of the section is background and a lot of factors can cause this intervention.Savior59 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the problems with the proposed change go significantly beyond attribution. And no, it is not proper to attribute the independent comments of an analyst to an entire media outlet, per WP:RSOPINION, and no, I do not think a commentary by a non-notable analyst is a reliable reference. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I understand Savior59 is attempting to point out the position in background that “issue is not a sectarian factor in the power game”. If sectarian issue is the very basis then what is the role of countries which do not belong to any sects of Islam. Sectarian issue may be a sideline issue but it is not a route cause, because:

• (i)Interview with a Senior Analyst, International Crisis Group reveals “quote:That (Houthis) does not lead to taking orders from Iran necessarily, and it does not mean that the Houthis’ success is a product of Iranian intervention. The extent of material support is a question mark. It's not the decisive factor in the Houthis’ ability to gain territory or control. This is primarily a product of the weakness of the state at the center, internal rivalries that the Houthis have been able to exploit, and frustrations inside of Yemen with old-regime elites and the slow pace of change - quote over” see here

• (ii) Mr. Houthi’s speeches focus on fighting corruption and fulfilling the agreements reached in a series of “national dialogue” a reference from a version of this news analysis appears in print on January 22, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: At Risk of Fragmenting, Yemen Poses Dangers to US, see here
• (iii) Daniel Larison, Senior editor at The American Conservative (TAC) explains why it is a mistake to view the Houthis in Yemen simply as Iranian proxies: “The Shiite Houthi rebels are backed by Iran”-see here
• (iv)Shifting balance of power in Yemen’s crisis – published in Washington Post, written by a Ph.D candidate with a region focus on Middle East, see here in light of article "Houthis secure six ministerial portfolios in new Yemeni cabinet" published in Asharq Al-Awsat on 26 Oct 2014, written by : Hamdan Al-Rahbi – see here . Study of these references is self explanatory for appraisal of power game.
• (v) extracts from The Huffington Post written by Eline Gordts: “According to the Economist, the group even swayed many Sunnis who appreciated both its distance from Yemen's power brokers and its political positions, which are liberal when compared to those of powerful but radical Sunni parties like the Islamist Islah party” – see here

• (vi) The new Political Landscape at page-3 of Crisis Group Middle East Briefing N’45 27th March, 2015 of International Crisis Group states:

In view of above facts based on secondary and tertiary sources, I request sectarian issue at main article may please be negated clearly. Nannadeem (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

For those who are concerned with the root causes of Yemenis crisis and real goals and grievances of the Houthis, this photo essay by Newsweek provides some very vital insights. Of particular importance are

• the understanding that:

• As for foreign influence being a genuine concern for most Yemenis:

• The report also says that the ousted president, Mansour Hadi lacked legitimacy in the eyes of Yemenis:

These observations question many assumptions about the nature of the Yemenis crisis as depicted by many uncritical western sources i.e. of being primarily and originally "a sectarian" conflict, that the ousted president enjoyed full "legitimacy," and hence the ouster was a "coup." These characterizations seem to be very far from reality on the ground, and we need to be wary of adopting them in this and other articles related to Yemen's developments. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Analysis part

At the first, there was a Analysis part at the article, but now it seem to be removed. I think it is necessary that is devoted one part to it. @Kudzu1: What's your opinion?Savior59 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe I moved that to International reactions to the 2015 military intervention in Yemen, as the analysts were all Americans. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Neither AQ & ISIS are aligned with the Saudi Coalition, despite both consider beheading as a punishment . Obviously they are not aligned with the Houthis neither. So a thrid column should be added, Also the map display 3 colors (3 warring sides) and the battle box only display 2 forces.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe Misplaced Pages is treating the ongoing fighting in Yemen as free different wars: The southern moment one, the al-Qaeda insurgancy and the Houthi insurgency. This makes very little sense to me. Banak (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, AQAP and ISIL have not been targeted by airstrikes to date. So they don't belong in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Military Operations"

I'm new here, sorry, but does this paragraph at the end of the "Military Operations" section fit the NPOV principle? It reads like an opinion to me:

"Although nearly two weeks have passed from the beginning of military intervention, with backed by other Persian Gulf countries and the United State, the evidences including Saudi Arabia requests for military equipment from Pakistan, shows that Saudi Arabia has not succeeded in suppressing the Houthis." (emphasis added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal grey (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly reads as editorializing to me. We should wait to see what the effect of the intervention is. More importantly, we should leave it to dispassionate media outlets and notable commentators to judge it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be OK to delete the paragraph entirely? Even the citation is just an NYT article discussing Pakistan's position on joining/not joining the operation that I could move up to where Pakistan is discussed in the intro. Tal grey (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand what exactly is wrong. Where is the NPOV problem. Here is wekipedia and to implement the NPOV rule should be present all viewpoints. According to the New York Times, Up to now Saudi Arabia has not succeeded in suppressing the Houthis! As i said, Up to now, It is just a viewpoint from reliable News Agency. We can bring other predictions about the end of military intervention for balancing article. I think deleting the text is not only solutions.

As i checked the article, this source was used again and again. Why do not you called it as non-partisan source?Savior59 (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ceasefire part is moved

I created new part as ceasefire and decided to add more news about it, but it is moved to Yemeni Civil War (2015). Would is better that be here and in the this particle? The ceasefire is related to Operation Decisive Storm. @Kudzu1: what is your reason? Thanks.Savior59 (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the ceasefire proposed by everyone who has proposed one would freeze both the airstrikes and nudge the factions on the ground to the negotiating table, i.e. it would be a ceasefire for the entire conflict, not just a blank check for the Houthis to keep shelling neighbourhoods in Aden or the Sunni tribes to keep blowing up trucks in Lahij while the Saudis, Egyptians, and Qataris take a breather. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Food, water and power crisis section has also been moved. Thus, Kudzu1 is requested that with a view to provide statistics for quick reference and observation of humanitarian suffering as a result of this insurgency and Saudi led military intervention, it would be more appropriate to include civilian’s dislocation, deprival from basic necessities of normal living and other civic facilities specially children’s starvation reported by UNICEF , in the info box, per WP:NPOV.Thanks. Nannadeem (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how NPOV comes into play here, but I think there's some precedent for mentioning IDPs in the infobox. User:EkoGraf has been doing much of the casualty figures work, so I'd like to get his thoughts on that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1::is it just your opinion? Does any reference confirm it? Any way, first the ceasefire is brought up for this article that surveys news about military intervention between Saudi Arabia and Yemen not for Huthies and forces loyal to the government of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.

Retrospective and prospective gist of conflict

I might just be a copy-editor at heart, but is anyone else having trouble understanding the section called "Retrospective and Prospective Gist of Conflict"?

From what I can parse, it seems to be some kind of background on the Saudi/Iran proxy war and the Houthis? I'm not sure what to suggest other than re-writing, which I could do if that's the right course of action.

Tal grey (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur, I could not understand an inkling of what was trying to be conveyed. Furthermore, the second paragraph seems to state the opinion of analysts as if it were fact. If I get some free time I will probably get around to copy-editing some of the section to make it more intelligible. Elspamo4 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another quick comment - I can't find any articles on war which have a similar section to this. Perhaps it might be better to merge the factual information into the main section of 'background' rather than retaining it in its current sub section. Also, having skimmed through the sources cited in the second paragraph, there seems to be (very minor) OR and a strange choice of wording by the editor. Going back to my point; is there any good reasons why this should not be merged with 'background'? Or why we should include the opinion of random analysts? It seems like the first paragraph is attempting to address the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia without properly explaining the context. It should be addressed in the 'background' section in a more encyclopedic and factual manner rather than disclosing the personal opinion of analysts (i.e. Explaining Iran's role in funding the Houthis as opposed to "Analyst X said this and this"). Alternatively, a new section providing a brief description of the involved parties may be suitable. Elspamo4 (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:Observations placed by respected Tal grey are seconded and his proposal is welcome. However, contents moved/shifted from main section to sub-section is not my credit.

With regard to observations forwarded by kind Elspamo4, his attention towards second para (as of 11 April, 2015) of Sunni-Shia divide is solicited, which itself explains the retrospective and prospective nature of the conflict or of a particular case (Somalian support's criteria and its consequences envisaged). This para is not my edit.

In response to OR and strange choice of wording it is submitted that I do prefer to have verbatim in case of conflicts with different versions of analysis, but copyvio is main obstacle. However OR is totally refuted.

Unavailability of similar section in different articles relating to war is strange; on this finding I am unable to comments.

Analyst reports from Tel Aviv's Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) published by the Global Security Org. was selected just as published reference and keeping in view the strategic importance of country and contents in logo of Houthis struggle/movement. The gist is discussed generally in all popular media (e.g facebook).Nannadeem (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I may have been nitpicking with the minor OR claims, but your wording made the sentence unclear and you also added certain facets which were not in the original source. In the sentence describing how former president Saleh continues to retain considerable support from the Yemeni military, you wrote "Ali Abdullah Saleh, who holds influence and still enjoys loyalty in the important segments of the military and security service of disintegrated Yemen." The original source stated that "he has helped enlist important parts of the military and security services still loyal to him". I think your interpretation may be a bit misleading. You have inserted the word 'the' before 'important segments' which would imply that all important segments are loyal to him. The sentence has also been made rather redundant, as it is to be expected that some segments of the military will remain loyal to and be influenced by their ousted president - the main point was that these loyalist segments were enlisted to fight on Saleh's behalf in this conflict. Perhaps OR was an inaccurate accusation, and perhaps I am nitpicking here, but it does seem that you have either misinterpreted the source or unintentionally misconstrued the information. As for my claims of strange wording, I understand that copyright restrictions can be a challenging obstacle for editors to overcome when attempting to write well-worded and conventionally structured sentences. Concurrently, it is important to keep in mind that it is quite easy to change the meaning of a sentence or conceal important details with minute alterations to wording.

I am not entirely certain why you selected the Tel Aviv Institute. Were there not any other, more credible think tanks who have analyzed the foreign intervention in Yemen? Nonetheless, I would say that third-party opinions are of less significance than those of the involved parties; moreso when the conflict is ongoing. Elspamo4 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4 is requested to do his best to satisfy his reservation by rephrasing or re-wording.

Some retrospectives of the present conflict/crisis have also been added to the section in order to remove the confusion.Nannadeem (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I re-wrote the first two paragraphs. I also removed the Counterpunch and Yemen Times sources since they are not reliable sources (the Yemen Times article is an opinion piece). I didn't rewrite the analysis paragraph as I personally don't feel it is needed. I'm wondering whether the paragraph I re-wrote is needed - it is basically repetition of the Yemeni Civil War (2015) article and would probably be better off being merged in the background section (as I earlier suggested). Elspamo4 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(I also reworded the section I referred to in a previous post.) Elspamo4 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Iranian support

Do we really have any good source to claim that Iran supports Houthis? Clearly Tehran opposes the Saudi attack on Yemen but there's zero evidence of their material support for the rebels. The two sources shown in the infobox say only: Iran has denied providing money and training to the Shiite Houthi militia in Yemen, as claimed by some Western and Yemeni officials. and Iran provided weapons to the Shiite Houthi militants as well which lacks any further explanation. Add today accusations by Kerry, also without any evidence. So for now we have words against words. I think it's not enough to list Iran among supporters. --Emesik (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This report from Reuters is pretty concrete: -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Except for that it describes the events which had happened long before the intervention started. --Emesik (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It describes Iran arming and training the Houthis, and three months isn't "long before" anything. There are plenty of more recent sources noting that the Houthis are believed to get support from Iran; many are citations in this article. The current presentation seems appropriate to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly there doesn't appear to be enough tangible evidence to conclusively state whether or not Iran is providing material support to the Houthis. On the other hand, there enough reliable sources to assert accusations of material support by involved parties (as well as refutations to these allegations). Iranian support is clearly of utmost relevance to the article; it is mentioned numerous news report on the conflict. It shouldn't be marginalized. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I think noting that Iranian support is "alleged" and mentioning in the body of the article that Iran and the Houthis deny the connection is appropriate. It's certainly not a WP:FRINGE assertion, though, with many if not most reliable sources reporting on the conflict referring to the Houthis as being supported by Iran or being suspected of having Iranian backing. (As for unreliable sources, the Iranian media has been showing an incredibly obvious pro-Houthi bias for years.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment was directed towards Emesik, but yes I agree it is not a 'fringe' assertion in any case, and deserves more than an infobox mention and a few sentences. Emesik, you changed the infobox to 'alleged by the USA'. Is the US government alone in accusing Iran of providing material support to the Houthis? Elspamo4 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the Houthis have already declared that Iran does support them.Savior59 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Media

In the recent developments, I have noticed various amounts of information is coming from one side of the battle only. Yemeni media releases various amounts of information and reports only to be ignored for the more apparently "unbiased" reports of Saudi media. When in fact, both are just as biased. Saudi media is known to continually downsize the deaths or reports and their news articles and news reports on TV have taken a firm stance with the Saudi government, calling it a "righteous liberating" and so on. I believe the use of Saudi (and allied) media is extremely dangerous to the integrity of this article. The best course of action is to report both media - source them and then let the reader decide.

Leorion PO (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

More often than not the propagandist Houthi media outlets have been proven to release incorrect figures and information with an agenda of placing an emphasis on the death of children. Most of these so called 'reports' quote data from the "Yemen Health Ministry", which is under Houthi control and whose primary objective is to spread disinformation. I wouldn't say that Saudi media is particularly any more trust-worthy (especially not Al Arabiya), but this isn't really comparable to clearly inflated and unverifiable propaganda released by terroristic usurpers. Anyway, judging by the casualties report, it seems most civilian casualties have been independently verified by the UN, HRW or other news organizations, not the Saudi media. As for military casualties, which have not been independently verified, I honestly do not see the value in adding Houthi-reported propaganda unless it has been independently verified by a third party.

P.S. The Houthi propaganda claims, which have now been removed, were sourced to an Iranian fringe outlet and a non-notable Middle East website which obtains most of its information on the war from Iranian media. The coalition claims are supported by more reliable sources. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4 I find your view on the Houthi's worrisome and may lead to your bias when including information. I have watched several news reports by both Saudi and Houthi media and there is no doubt that information is altered in both but with visual proof- some Houthi statements seem correct. In relation to the airstrike attacks, we can clearly see various houses destroyed by Saudi missiles, yet, the claims by Al-Arabia and Saudi media that they were Houthi bombings is taken as correct at best. At worst, it's not even reported. Lately, news articles from Yemen revealed that a Yemeni tribe attacked a Saudi military base in Yemen and seized large amounts of weapons. The Yemeni Army spokesman said it was not coordinated and that the tribes did it out of revenge, both of which failed to be reported here or in mainstream media because Saudia Arabia didn't confirm it. Leorion PO (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Since Friday 10 a user or a group of them have changed the infobox to a Saudi biased perspective. Iam returning it to normal. A neutral one.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have returned to a more neutral version of the Batle box. Please if there any user that oppose the current version, first leave its reasons here. We dont want an edit war. And many users want to change the neutrality of the article to its POV. Just share the two versions of events dont use a source more than other, iam seeing the whole article sliding towards a Pro Saudi Retoric.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you think the article is sliding on a pro-Saudi rhetoric because, unsurprisingly, most major news outlets decided the Saudi military reports are more reliable than that of a terrorist group. At the very least we should be inserting material, whether propaganda or not, from reliable sources only (I'd say sources like Nigerian Tribune and Press TV don't qualify). From the Misplaced Pages guidelines: "Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Misplaced Pages can and should be up to date, but Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors."

Another thing to note is: if only ONE news organization publishes a report, and it is a non-reliable news organization (such as Press TV), it should not be inserted in this article. This isn't a matter of showing bias towards one side, it is a matter of preventing the spread of fabricated propaganda. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, enought. I must keep an eye on this article things are not going on the good way. Now i see why.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Outcomes section

I could not understand what confusion is there? Nannadeem (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is written in poor English, for one, and it doesn't seem to have a reason for existing, which makes it doubly confusing. I'm not sure what is the point of citing a news article two weeks into the operation purporting to describe its "outcome". It's like having a section for the current MLB season saying the outcome of the season is that the Washington Nationals are the worst team in baseball because they have gone 2-for-7 in their first few games. But mostly, the English is broken and it's hard to follow. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And now, 2-for-8. Sigh. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that for this article "Outcomes" is a essential part. Article is about the military intervention and we don't see any analyze in it. Yes, your are right, it is not over but up to now, it has included success or failure for the parties to have but none of them has not been cited at article. Analyse or Outcome , there is no different. the important thing is that being one part that reports the last achievements of the military intervention for parties or other country. I know that it is a sub article, but this is not a good reason to be incomplete.

According to WP:NOTCLEANUP, please don't delete the part before summarizing the discussion and just clean up the textSavior59 (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC).

It is simply silly to have a section named outcomes. Judging by the language of the section one can deduce 2 things: 1) The person who created it doesn't know what the definition of outcome is. To help in this area, some synonyms are result, end result, consequence, net result, effect, after-effect, aftermath, conclusion. It is blatantly obvious the conflict is nowhere near its end, hence this section currently has zero relevance. Even if we kept it, how would it be updated? If Saudi comes out clearly on top in the end do we then delete all the outcomes that showed the houthis were winning? 2) The section reads as though a houthi cheer squad has written it, when the situation on the ground is far more fluid.
All the content in this section should only be included in the article where that result is relevant eg. where the outcome of the Pakistani action is mentioned it should be included in the article section that already speaks about that event of neutrality.58.106.239.35 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ali Abdullah Saleh, former Yemen President told the Gulf leaders via his envoy that he has no ties whatsoever with the Houthis and he is not part of this war. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/yemeni-leader-asks-gulf-states-safe-exit-150415182159599.html .

My intention of creating this section is Collecting the final success or failure of the military intervention in Yemen. What is your opinion on the latest outcomes?Savior59 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't meant to function as a newspaper. Documenting every insignificant detail of an airstrike serves no purpose; the page has a much broader scope than that. As for 'collecting the final success failiure', I would agree with the opinions of Kudzu and anon that it is too early to make these sort of assumptions. Per WP:CBALL, I think this would qualify as speculation. Elspamo4 (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Background section of the article

I think background section of the article has crossed the neutral point of view. Besides it is further pointed out that poor English is not the criteria for deletion, which I have noticed during my revisions.Nannadeem (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the problems with it? Be specific. (And yes, it is expected that contributions to English-language Misplaced Pages be made in clear and reasonably fluent English.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not like to see a power game with a telescope of race or sects/religion. I consider humanity above all. With its all angles it is a power game, so we should attempt to avoid nutrition to religious, linguistic, sectarian issues. For instance please see “The Saudi intervention in Bahrain in 2011, which helped to suppress the Shiite minority rebellion against the Sunni government” is it relevant to be included here?

Further, if you find something in poor English and not edited in fluency of English, then you may please first attempt to have it in good and fluent English, so as to avoid the loss of edits attempted by others who are not fluent in English (as I am).Nannadeem (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I read it earlier, and while I think 'sectarian conflict' is an important aspect, it seems to me like the current text focussing so closely solely on that aspect is minimising other, more complex aspects of the conflict: things like the pure power game between Saudi and Iran (they didn't always have poor bilateral relations), the influence of pro-Saleh forces and their support of the Houthis (Saleh is himself Zaidi, and he still fought several conflicts with the Houthis while he was in power), the fact that Hadi's government is internationally recognised (and that it was brought to power through a Gulf-backed initiative that included the Houthis), and so on. (Edit: by which I mean to say, I don't know that mentioning it isn't neutral, but I do wonder if focussing on it so exclusively perhaps construes motives in a non-neutral manner?) Tal grey (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep the "background" succinct, not using it as a WP:COATRACK for the entire Shia vs. Sunni rivalry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Casualties

I was wondering if it would be better to change the heading of this section to "Humanitarian Effects" or similar, to give space for information regarding food and fuel shortages, injuries, refugees and IDPs, and so on? Tal grey (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes please. I support and consider it a great job to humanity. Nannadeem (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This article read like Saudi propaganda and was in need of a few amendments

This article read like Saudi propaganda, so I made a few changes in order to ensure fairness and neutrality. The Saudis undercounted their casualties the last time they fought the Houthis, so why should it be any different this time around? Neither sides of the war are 100% honest, nor are the media outlets unbiased either. I provided claims from both sides of the conflict to make this article appear more neutral than it was prior to my recent edit. Also, nobody knows the exact death toll in this war so far, therefore it's best to be more general about the casualties and avoid giving exact figures. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Nadia. The reports of 700+ casualties come from reports which include both civilian and military casualties. Human Right's Watch, which is more likely to be neutral than any news outlets, reports that as of 14 April, 364 civilians died. Why did you change this to 700+? Elspamo4 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Also please note that information must be attributed to reliable sources. PressTV is an Iranian propaganda outlet and is not a reliable source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Who decided that Press TV was not a reliable source? The other casualty figures on this article mostly come from Saudi news sources, and they're no different from the Iranian news sources. Also, why is this article only providing figures of Saudi claims, but not Yemeni claims? Again, this makes the article extremely biased. It's coming across as Saudi propaganda. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall ever working on a Middle East-related article where PressTV was considered a reliable source. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to explain why we should consider such an obviously and intrinsically biased source -- one that frequently makes ridiculous claims and caters to extremist viewpoints (just take a look at the poll on their main website right now) -- as reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes.

And you are misrepresenting the changes you are making, which are not just trying to include "Yemeni claims" but are also changing the Saudi claims to something you...think is more accurate? I don't know where your numbers are coming from. "Over 100" instead of "750+" is quite a change to make with absolutely no source provided. Ditto "Over 700" instead of "311" civilians. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You made the claim that Press TV isn't reliable, therefore it's up to you to show me where consensus has been established on Misplaced Pages regarding the reliability of Press TV. Secondly, prior to my edit, the article claimed that over 700 Yemeni Revolutionary Committee fighters were killed, but the sources actually said nothing of the sort. Most casualties in this war have been, in fact, innocent civilians, while only a little more than a hundred Yemeni fighters were killed by the Saudi-led airstrikes. The fact that the article claimed that over 700 Yemeni fighters were killed was a misrepresentation of the truth.
Also, every single war article mentions claims from both sides of the conflict since it is well known that every side likes to overcount opponent casualties and undercount its own casualties. Providing claims from both sides is a lot better and fairer than only providing the claims of the Saudi coalition. Most Western media outlets simply report whatever the Saudis officially publish, which, I needn't tell you, won't help this article achieve neutrality whatsoever. You pretty much removed Iranian (and Turkish) news sources by claiming that they're unreliable without providing proof of their unreliability. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken. Please review WP:BURDEN. And I don't have a problem with Turkish news sources, nor Iranian ones if they are reliable and not propaganda outlets for the Iranian regime. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what you want exactly. Do you want multiple news sources saying the same thing? Now an Egyptian news website also claims that a Saudi soldier was killed today, and apparently the Saudi government confirmed it as well. Again, it's a case of the Saudis undercounting their dead and the other side overcounting Saudi casualties, hence why it's best to provide the claims of both sides instead of only the Saudi claims. The Saudis now say that one of their men was killed, whereas the other side claims four were killed. Do you see why we should provide the claims from both sides? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

By all means, explain it to me like I'm five years old. Misplaced Pages relies entirely upon reliable sources for information. If it's reported in reliable sources, that's great. If it's coming from pro-Houthi blogs, forums, and social media, or from a mouthpiece of the ayatollahs, it's not reliable and cannot be included per WP:V. I think you will find plenty of Western media outlets (and Arab/Turkish media as well) that will also report the claims of the Houthis and their supporters; else we would not have the reports of airstrikes hitting villages and civilian casualties in this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't read my reply properly. I'm kindly asking you to tell me what you want. Do you want me to provide multiple links? Furthermore, you made a claim that Press TV isn't reliable, but you still haven't shown me consensus on its reliability around here. Just because you say it's unreliable doesn't mean it's true. What exactly am I getting wrong here? Even Western media outlets are mouthpieces of Western governments to a large extent. There's no perfect media outlet that's 100% unbiased. I still don't know what you have against adding the Yemeni claims. This article already mentions Saudi coalition claims, so it cannot be neutral unless claims from the other side are also added. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I read your reply just fine. I am telling you that information in this article, just like any other article, must have reliable sourcing. You have failed to explain why you arbitrarily changed the numbers for the Saudi casualty claims. You have failed to explain why PressTV meets the sourcing standards for this article when it does not on others. The burden of proof is on you, as is the burden of obtaining consensus for your changes. I have nothing against including the claims of the Houthis (who do not represent all of Yemen any more than Hadi or al Qaeda do), but I believe that can and should be done (and largely has been done) by using reliable sources instead of resorting to Iranian propaganda. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:RS) Does Press TV even meet this criteria? I can point out instances in which they have reported fabricated events purely for propagandist purposes, here's an example: . If you wish to reference important information to a fringe news outlet which is under the direct control of an ayatollah, the establishment of a consensus on its reliability would be your responsibility. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Are you implying that the Saudis killed over 700 Yemeni Revolutionary Committee fighters? Ironically, none of the citations provided in the article were able to verify that ridiculous claim, which is why I changed the figure in the first place. If there was a source for the Saudi claim, then I would've gladly kept the figure in the article, but I would've still added the Yemeni claim, otherwise the article would've been biased towards the Saudi side. (And, by the way, I wasn't the only one who changed the figure. Another Wiki user agreed that the sources in question did not state that over 700 Yemeni Revolutionary Committee fighters were killed.) That gross misrepresentation of facts was one of the main reasons why this article came across as Saudi propaganda prior to my edits. Now, if you wish to add Saudi Arabia's claim of killing over 700 Yemeni Revolutionary Committee fighters, then by all means you're free to do so, provided you can find a source for that claim, but it begs the question: why are you against adding the Yemeni Revolutionary Committee's claim of killing tens of Saudi soldiers? Isn't that what I've been arguing all along? Finally, describing Press TV as "Iranian propaganda" is no different from describing Western media outlets as "Western propaganda". It's entirely subjective. Furthermore, claiming that something isn't reliable doesn't make it so: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Saying_something_doesn%27t_make_it_so --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that "750+" number was from a drive-by IP shortly before you made your edit, so I apologize for questioning that. But it still doesn't excuse the arbitrary change you made to the civilian casualty figure, which was not supported by sources.

As I said, I'm not against adding the Houthis' claim to have killed tens of Saudi soldiers. Find a reliable source for the information. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4: None of the casualty figures come from fully reliable sources. Western media outlets simply reiterate what the Saudis officially publish, and the Saudis are hardly more trustworthy than their Iranian counterparts, hence the argument you're using could just as easily be used against the figures that were already posted in the article. The Press TV article that you referred to as propagandist is hardly that, in my opinion. Many protests took place against the Saudi war on Yemen. Press TV was simply reporting what other media outlets failed to report, but that does not make that article propagandist by any stretch of the imagination. You can call Press TV a fringe media outlet as much as you want, but that doesn't mean it's true. One could easily say the same thing about most media outlets today, be they Saudi, Western, or otherwise. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to point out that there are a number of Arabic-language news websites that published similar reports to those that were published by Press TV, therefore it's hardly "Iranian propaganda" to take into account what the other side of the conflict has to say. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Then produce those Arabic-language sources, if you would. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Press TV is reliable enough. Just because you think it's unreliable doesn't mean it's true. Once again, there's no consensus against Press TV on Misplaced Pages. In any case, here are the Arabic-language links:
1. http://www.almayadeen.net/latestnews/2015/4/11/111082/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86--%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9--%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88-%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%B7%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D9%88%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84
2. http://www.almayadeen.net/latestnews/2015/4/12/111159/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86--%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85--%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%AC%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86
The first link basically says that, according to Yemeni sources, a Yemeni tribe attacked a Saudi military outpost near the Saudi-Yemeni border and killed tens of Saudi soldiers. The second link says that these tribesmen were unaffiliated to the Houthis and Yemeni army. A video was posted on YouTube that showed part of the skirmishes between the Saudis and Yemenis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOKD0zPknU4
And this Russia Today footage clearly shows Yemeni fighters along the Saudi-Yemeni border, which appears to have no Saudi military presence ever since that incident on the 11th of April: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=36&v=16cwODe86RI
This is why we need to mention the claims of both sides in this conflict, otherwise the article would appear to be very biased in favor of Saudi Arabia.
Finally, I think it's worth mentioning the fact that at least one Saudi policeman was killed in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province after a gun battle broke out between the Saudi police and an armed group of Shiite Saudi rioters who were protesting against the Saudi war on Yemen: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/security-forces-raid-saudi-arabias-eastern-province-stop-anti-yemen-war-protests-451186533
As you can see, these kinds of news stories are seldom mentioned by the likes of CNN, The New York Times, and other major Western media outlets. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That skirmish with the tribe is already in the article. And I don't have any problem with Middle East Eye, which I have cited regularly as a source on Yemen and other content. I just disagree with the idea that PressTV is "reliable enough". It's not. It lies, shamelessly and often. It is under the editorial control of a government that does not respect press freedoms. And it has a very deep and natural bias in this situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit: I am not entirely sure on what you mean by fully reliable sources. If you mean to imply independently verified, then this would certainly qualify HRW's figures on civilian casualties. Your analysis that 'Press TV is reporting what other media outlets neglect to report' is inaccurate. This is simply a case of reporting on non-existent events. A massive protest in Jerusalem over a foreign military intervention in Yemen would obviously receive more than a passing 2-sentence mention by a lone news outlet (a state-controlled one with an agenda, nonetheless). This isn't a minor case of yellow journalism, or even of the same nature; it is clear that Press TV releases, or have previously released, essay-length articles on fictitious events with a propagandist intent.

In regards to taking what the other side has to say into consideration, this is a recurring theme on this talk page. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this as long as these claims are supported by reliable sources. When a claim is reiterated by a non-reliable news source, it is indistinguishable whether these are official claims or spurious narrations devised by an agenda-pushing columnist. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit:Sorry Nadia, maybe I'm missing something but when I click on the links to Al-Mayadeen all I see are Twitter comments? Am I missing an actual news report? And the first tweet is credited to (excuse my Arabic) "security sources" and the second to someone named "Mohamed Abdulsalam" but there is no mention of who they are? And to add, I would certainly question how reliable Al-Mayadeen are as a source. Nobody really knows who they're funded by, and in this region that can be as much of a red flag as knowing it's a regime-held media outlet.Tal grey (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think, we cannot ignore primary source from either side subject to its secondment by other medias. However, considering Press TV an Iranian media we must care for other channels belonging, for sake of neutarility. But Nadia’s reservation has been misconstrued. “PressTV is an Iranian propaganda outlet and is not a reliable source”. This statement is not from Nadia, hence asking her for verifiability of PRESS TV is beyond rationality.

We must assure --Nadia (Kutsuit) for our stance as neutral as possible, being a team of wikipedian working for globe and not for a region/religion/language. Here English is our communication medium.Nannadeem (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Press TV does not possess inherent reliability; quite the opposite considering it is government-controlled. If users raise valid, policy-based objections over the use of a potentially unreliable source, it is the responsibility of the user seeking to use this source to confute these arguments. Our objections have nothing to do with neutrality; rather, I am concerned with the purposelessness of recapitulating fictitious events and figures that have been concocted by propagandists. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Elspamo4. My objection is not to content, but to sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4 Is propaganda one sided? Nannadeem (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem No, I am sure there has been a substantial volume of fabricated material published by pro-Coalition sources. It is irrelevant which side the propagandist is cheering for, though. We have the responsibility to avoid citing unreliable sources, regardless of their point of view. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4 Exactly, this may please be assured to Nadia (i.e. we are not pro of any side).Nannadeem (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1 @Elspamo4 There are two bits under "Ground Clashes" that have bad sources, one citing Press TV and the other citing the (Saudi-owned) Asharq Al-Awsat. Is it OK to delete them? (Again, sorry, new here.) Tal grey (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (ETA: Ooops, there is also something dubious under "Casualties" claiming there was a gas attack (implicitly blamed on the Saudis) in Sana'a Tal grey (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) )

My vote would be to delete both references. Why do people not understand that if tens of Saudi soldiers were killed by Yemeni rebels, this would be making international news rather than being exclusively relegated to Iranian-related fringe outlets? Likewise for the Awsat article. These are pure fabrications released by totalitarian governments to misinform the public. They are worthless. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I found a fun read on Press TV. It apparently endorsed a fringe theory which claims that Israeli demise squads perpetrated the Sandy Hook shooting. It was 'extensively condemned in US media as Iranian propaganda'. How could Press TV possibly be considered a reliable reference? Elspamo4 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I can not comment on Sandy Hook shooting (I have not closely studied the allegations). But Israel does have a history of false flag operations. 1950–51 Baghdad bombings and Lavon Affair are only two prominent classical examples. But these have set precedence for allegations of false flag on a number of other incidents as well. The most notable contemporary example are the ones claimed by 9/11 Truth movement inspired by the explosive revelations by Carl Cameron about Mossad's large spy ring that operated in US in months leading to 9/11 event and afterwards. With these historical precedents, postulating or discussing conspiracy theories on other incidents can not be readily dismissed as unreasonable regardless of how fringe or unreasonable some other sources claim they are. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

They are not saying it is a reliable source. What they are saying is that is is just as reliable as Saudi propaganda. A majority of Arab media is controlled by Saudi and Egypt. Of whom, Egypt actually shut down opposition TV stations. Press TV takes from Yemeni media and translates it to English. Something no Western or Saudi media outlet is doing. I agree with Nadia. This entire article sounds like pro-Saudi propaganda. Saudia media has constantly downplayed deaths, ignored reports and has been caught lying. In the previous Houthi-Saudi war, videos and pictures showed Houthi's with captured vehicles yet Saudi ignored it then. Why in god's name would any sane government release such a statement? Keep in mind, this is an oppressive monarchy, too. Journalists are repressed and forced to write what they want. As above I mentioned. Also, @Tal grey, there are reports in Yemeni media about people suffering from that after a Saudi attack. Of course Saudi wouldn't report it. This isn't just a momentum decrease, it's an outright violation of international law. Reports are steadily increasing of the issue.

ArabianWonders (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

US reactions

This Al-Jazeera article (oddly) shows news of US analyst and US officials against the coalition. Where should it be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles