Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:41, 21 June 2018

A news item involving Battle of Al Hudaydah was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2025.

[REDACTED]

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Saudi Arabia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Arab Emirates This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Yemen [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Western Asia This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Yemen may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Regarding revision history

Why were the contributions from the 14th to the 18th of June removed? Trinitrobrick, 12:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Humanitarian issues receive too much weight

I'm sure that's most of the attention this subject has received from the media, and the battle has only just begun, so there's not a whole lot to talk about. Still, half the lead and more than half the article is way too much. Flagging as undue. —Compassionate727  12:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the undue weight charge is warranted since they are just proportional to weight given in RSs as well as the positions by different political parties mentioned (except Saudi and USA officials who obviously don't want to talk about the humanitarian crisis). --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Expectant of Light, disagreed with proposal. Reliable sources prove the notability of the humanitarian crisis, and most of the international reactions except of course for Saudi Arabia and the United States who are responsible for the humanitarian issues vocally express concern for the humanitarian issues. Considering that Yemen's last port for medicine and food is being blocked, I think it's more than due to provide more information about the battle's consequences and the concerns raised regarding the battle than simply the way they fought. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourced

@Takinginterest01: no it is not sourced. The source is about 12/2017 not 06/2018. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Launching the Battle of Al Hudaydah

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

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

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

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

The United Nations has expressed concern that the Saudi-led coalition attack on Al Hudaydah, the strategic seaport and one of the country's main seaports, could hamper the lifeline of most of the country's citizens, with 22 million currently dependent on aid and 8.4 million facing famine. Kingston, CA (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yemeni government forces control two entrances of Al Hudaydah city

The Yemeni government forces, backed by the Saudi-led coalition, took control of the southern and western entrances of the strategic city of Al Hudaydah on Saturday.

According to local sources, al-Houthi gunmen fled from places they had fortified in the the city perimeter and moved to the port of the city, under heavy and intense blows launched by UAE planes.

Hodeidah Airport has been under the control of Yemeni government forces since 13 June. The control of the airport came amid large collapses in the defenses of the Houthis forces stationed at the eastern entrance of the port of Hodeidah, with the participation of various forces including troops backed by the United Arab Emirates.

The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen launched military operations in Al Hudaydah on Thursday, according to the Yemeni government. The military operation aims to ensure that the Houthis forces are prevented from controlling the waterways and international corridors overlooking the Red Sea as part of the restoration of Al Hudaydah.

In a statement for Saudi-led coalition said "that this battle is in line with the reasons that called for the intervention of the coalition militarily in Yemen, represented by the request of the Yemeni government and relevant United Nations resolutions for the year 2015, especially resolution No. 2216." Kingston, CA (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Subjective Analysis

I am opening this discussion to prevent an edit war for edits regarding three paragraphs added under headline Battle, Analyses and Impact on the humanitarian situation.

Both paragraphs under Battle and Analyses report subjective opinions issued by journalism sources, which can be describes as analytic journalism. Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity. Saying things like "The alliance has superior weaponry" or "The Houthis, highly experienced in mountain warfare" is subjectivity. Statement such as "If the Houthis are driven out, the coalition could get the upper hand in the war." are purely analytical and subjective.

As for the paragraph Impact on the humanitarian situation, the information provided can be placed within the context of the main paragraph. Adding it under a separate header implies that "closure of the northern entrance of the western city Hodeidah, which leads to Sanaa, blocking a main exit out of the city and making it harder to transport goods from the country’s largest port to mountainous regions." leads to an Impact on the humanitarian situation, which is by itself a subjective report.

I have linked to Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper article on my initial revert as it holds multiple Wiki Policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no guideline in Misplaced Pages that says "subjective" statements must be removed. As per WP:NPOV all major viewpoints covered in reliable sources can be included proportional to their weight. The guideline does NOT say that biased or "subjective" views must be removed! What's worse in your case is that statements you point out as subjective are not in fact subjective but quite objective and brutal fact such as the coalition being superior in weapons. And since the impact on the humanitarian situation has been a very important concern in this conflict as evidenced by its coverage on reliable sources I thought it warrants a separate section. So I am yet to see the relevance of your removals with the policies you cite. Views or facts so long as they are covered by reliable sources warrant inclusion especially when coming from such credible sources as Reuters. And I revert your edit since you need consensus before removing long-standing material in the page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I agree with reaching consensus on this issue so I will appreciate other users views on the subjectivity topic. However, it seems most of your edits are almost word by word copy pasted from Reuters. You may not copy text from other sources into Misplaced Pages a per WP:COPYPASTE as it constitutes a copy right violation. Wikiemirati (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a valid concern. My understanding is that Wiki is less strict with WP:COPYPASTE when it comes to news agencies compared to scientific journals and academic writers. But I will attempt rewording the statements when I have time. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is the entire copyvio page in the TEXT of the article?

A huge template about how to solve potential copyright problems in the middle of paragraphs about the Battle of Al Hudaydah is not helpful. That's very bothersome for the reader. Shouldn't that be on the talk page? How is this article featured on the main page in a state like this? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It made me chuckle. Honestly there is a lot of copy righted material in this article. I do agree with you. This article needs some serious elbow grease to clean up. Wikiemirati (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote above I will consider paraphrasing the quoted texts. So yes I believe the template can be removed as I proceed with solving the issue. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Btw, the copy-right concern can often be addressed by the putting the text inside quotation marks and adding an in-line citation instead of putting that huge template there especially when the text is so short and dense that is hard to fully paraphrase. So I assume there's consensus to remove this monstrosity and solve the issue via a good editing practice. --06:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's actually not quite true. Quotes can and should only be used where it makes sense to use them. You argue that it does make sense to use them here, which I have no comment on, but I should note that simply "put it in quotes" is not a valid way to handle copyright problems. —Compassionate727  11:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent removals

@Wikiemirati: Unfortunately your recent removals also don't appear to be based on a good understanding of policy. Note you can't simply remove materials you don't like by citing a policy without mentioning why the policy is even relevant. See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. And examining your removals, made clear they were not warranted based on the policies you cite. I have explained each case in my revert summaries. Having said that I found some of your other edits sound and didn't touch them. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your mention. I will re-explain the policies.

1- In 2015, the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe. violates WP:NPOV as it is an editorial bias. It could be a fact and could be cited by multiple resources that Saudi did in fact cause a humanitarian catastrophe, however the text in[REDACTED] should not copy paste it in the article. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

2- Reuters writes that the alliance enjoys superior weaponry, such as fighter planes, whereas the Houthis, who are more experienced in mountain warfare, have expanded their control across Yemen on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck. violates WP:COPYPASTE as it is directly copy pasted from Reuters article which states

The alliance has superior weaponry, including fighter planes. The Houthis, resilient and highly experienced in mountain warfare, have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck in battles across Yemen.

This is still considered vandalism as it was not written in your own wording. There is a guide for embedding freely licensed content (either public domain or Misplaced Pages Compatible licenses), at Misplaced Pages:Adding open license text to Misplaced Pages. The paraphrasing was not adequate, you may add this once you rewrite it in your own words.

3- If the Hodeidah war prolongs with a high human toll on the coalition troops and an outcry over a humanitarian catastrophe, it may work in the Houthis’ favor. If the Houthis are expelled, the coalition could get the upper hand in the war. as removed by @Fitzcarmalan: violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COPYPASTE as it is a copy pasted speculation from a news source. Although the stated sentence is or could be true, such scheduled or expected future events should not be added to a[REDACTED] article as I have explained in my Subjective Analysis section on this talk page.

4- External links A concise timeline of the Yemen conflict by Reuters "Who are the Houthis in Yemen?", by Al-Jazeera in which I have stated policy WP:LINKSTOAVOID are both news sources which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article

I have noticed my edits are not the only ones you reverted, so assuming good faith and to prevent an edit warring I will leave this matter to be judged on by more experienced users or administrators. I don't claim to know everything and I could be wrong. As this article is already under investigation for a copyright issues, and in interest not to be gaming the system, I'll wait for other users to contribute to this article or pitch in their two cents. Wikiemirati (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This may call for further investigation by Diannaa, given the evidence presented here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiemirati: Thanks for your good faith and explanations. Here is my response:

1. With regards to the statement In 2015, the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe. This is basically a statement of fact summarizing Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen as well as International reactions to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present). If you look into those sources (I recommend you do) you will find my summary accurate and neutral. But I do quote some supporting sources:

• "Saudi-led naval blockade leaves 20m Yemenis facing humanitarian disaster",
• Saudi-led strikes in Yemen break international law: U.N. coordinator which also says "Scores of civilians were reportedly killed and thousands forced to flee their homes after the coalition, which includes Saudi Arabia and nine other Arab countries and is backed by the United States, Britain and France, declared the entire governorate a military target, he said.".
• Yemen conflict: Saudi Arabia-led coalition accused of war crimes by Amnesty

2. As for the texts quoted from Reuters I think it is well within policy as per WP:PARAPHRASE which says Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. which is true for my version since it provides in-line citation by saying "Reuters writes that ..." And this is a reasonable policy because often texts that are short and dense are hard to rewrite in a different wording hence close-paraphrasing becomes inevitable but the concern with copy-past/plagiarism is addressed by in-line citation.

3. As for your concern with WP:CRYSTAL with regards to Reuters analysis, that's again within policy since it says: " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This analysis is referenced to Reuters and I think an in-line citation as per WP:PARAPHRASE will also resolve the problem with copy-right/plagiarism.

4. As for external links on the timeline and the Houthis, note that this page does not and can not cover what is covered in those sources. So again, I don't see the relevance of the policy you cite to justify your deletions. This page only covers the current battle and its immediate background whereas the timeline by Reuters covers a span of 3 decades of political development and Al-Jazeera covers the history of Houthis going back to the historical Zaydi Imamate in North Yemen! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've requested further copyright investigation by Diannaa, hopefully this article issues can be resolved. Wikiemirati (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Disaster is still fairly connotive, I would recommend "crisis" as a more neutral word that conveys the same meaning. —Compassionate727  11:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see how can anyone describe the situation in Yemen as anything short of disaster. It is basically the biggest humanitarian disaster in recent history. Millions are literally starving in Yemen! I recommend everyone here to read Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen#Reports of war crimes to know what is really going on there. That this tragedy remains oddly under-reported by Western MSM doesn't change its significance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: four different news sources. Please see the page history for specific urls. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies for the violations. These are the texts that were deleted for violations or close paraphrasing I believe:

(Redacted)--Expectant of Light (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the quotations. Please don't post copyright material here on the talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh! I put them between quotation marks while naming the source in the end! But I see it is turning into a big deal here! --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also appreciate your opinion about the discussion we are having right above. As I see per WP:PARAPHRASE, close-paraphrasing can be acceptable with an in-line citation. Is that true? And what to do with short texts that are hard to adequately paraphrase? --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is better suited to your talk page, but here's the short answer: Close paraphrasing is not allowed, even if you cite your source. If you find it difficult to avoid committing copyright violations, please read the three resources I already placed on your user talk page to find out how to edit Misplaced Pages while obeying copyright law and Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

But content disputes are resolved on entry's talk pages not users'. Anyway I assume you may not have time for specific opinion due to your administrative work. But as for close-paraphrasing this is what the policy reads: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...", together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute; it's the removal of your copyright violations by a Misplaced Pages administrator who specializes in copyright issues. Please take the time to learn how to write for Misplaced Pages using your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I understood that I was at fault and I apologize for that and I also appreciate your valuable work. And since I was trying to make sure of my understanding of the policy I just asked for clarification/confirmation whether the policy allows some limited exception. The text of the guideline as I have quoted suggests to me it does. At the end I apologize again for the inconvenience that I caused. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

One big paraphrasing trouble

Our best and brightest @Diannaa: removed this one piece of tactical point that has fascinated me. While I am not sure I exactly understand the edit summary, but I think it has to do with the same copy-right issue. How can we include this info in the page? Paraphrased suggestions, any? I don't try myself since I have lost much confidence in this area after the above convictions! :) I hope it is ok quote this here for this discussion.

According to Reuters "The alliance has superior weaponry, including fighter planes. The Houthis, resilient and highly experienced in mountain warfare, have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck in battles across Yemen."

Commander in the Yemeni government forces from Al Hodeidah Airport: Hudaydah city our next destination

The commander of the first brigade of the Yemeni government forces, Brigadier General Mohammed Saleh, said his forces are waiting for zero hour to enter the city of Al Hudaydah in the next few days after the success of the liberation of Al Hodeidah airport, pointing out that the military operation is in stages. Mohammed confirmed from Hodeidah airport that Yemeni government forces began clearing Hodeidah airport of mines after it succeeded in controlling it.

He said that in the next few days that his forces "will proceed to the city of Al Hudaydah and then to its port and all other areas to liberate it from the Houthis."

The field commander pointed out that the morale of his forces is high, and is waiting for the zero hour to move to all remaining areas and liberation.

We are now in control of the airport and tomorrow we will enter the city and then (we will move) to its port until the liberation of the Al Hudaydah Governorate, "he said.

The general commander of the battle of Al Hudaydah, Ahmed Hassan announced on Tuesday that the Yemeni government forces, with the support and participation of the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia, imposed full control of the airport.

Thus, the Yemeni government forces, 10 kilometers from the port, the main target of military operations, have opened the way to a larger strategic objective: to prevent the Houthis from receiving military supplies through Hudaydah .

The airport is located south of the city of Al Hudaydah overlooking the west coast of Yemen, and includes a 3-kilometer runway and a military air base. It is about 10 kilometers from the port of Hudaydah, making it a strategic hub during the liberation from the Houthis. Kingston, CA (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Commander of the fighting front forces in Hudaydah announces "the end of the battle of the airport"

The commander of the Saudi-led coalition forces in the Battle of Al Hudaydah, Brigadier General Mohammad Hassan, announced on Tuesday the liberation of Hodeidah airport from the Houthis. The commander of the forces of the battle of Hudaydah, Tuesday, that the liberation of Hodeidah airport was the participation of Yemeni government forces and support from the aircraft coalition, and confirmed full control and the clearance of the airport in full.

Brigadier Hassan revealed that the losses of the Houthis of the dead are estimated at hundreds since the start of the fighting, and pointed to the fall of more than 250 people in Houthis and 87 prisoners in Hudaydah on Tuesday, which witnessed the liberation of the airport.

The commander of the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia in the battle of Hodeidah that humanitarian aid will flow on Hodeidah in parallel with the ongoing military operation according to plans, stressing that the liberation of Hodeidah airport is part of an integrated plan to liberate the entire city. Kingston, CA (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

On the cause of human catastrophe

@Wikiemirati: I don't have problem with mentioning different chapters of this conflict so long as their true sequence and casual links are preserved. Depending on how far back you want to go we can trace everything to the 2011 Yemeni Revolution or earlier to Sa'dah War. However the sources are unanimous that it's been aerial strikes and naval blockade by Saudi-UAE-USA coalition that has resulted in the human catastrophe not the Houthi takeover in Yemen or the civil war. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The UN called it the world worst human disaster pertaining to, and as caused by, the Yemeni Civil war, according to the cited source. It also however implied that the Saudi led coalition also caused the humanitarian disaster, in which I have added both links. I do agree with you, both the civil war and the Saudi led intervention caused the humanitarian disaster, hence both links should be added. I also agree with you on the Houthi takeover link, as the cited source did not claim the Houthi takeover caused the humanitarian disaster, so I agree with removing the article link. We can't trace everything back on our own accord as we based our edits on cited sources, not on our opinions or what we think caused the humanitarian disaster. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiemirati: The single source you have used to implicate the civil war as responsible for the human catastrophe doesn't warrant your intent. You rely on the opening paragraph of the editorial which roughly conflates the civil war with "the world’s worst humanitarian crisis" which is misleading if taken too literally. All sources which detail the conflict are unanimous that the aerial bombings and the naval blockade are particularly responsible for the human catastrophe not the civil war itself. Yes, one can conflate the foreign intervention with the civil war and then blame the civil war for it but that would be a poor if not outright fallacious conflation since the foreign led coalition is not even part of Yemen to be a party to any civil war. Btw, as I have explained in my recent reverts, reflecting the sources faithfully without eliminating "unfavorable" parts using euphemisms is the right course and in keeping with WP:NPOV not the other way around. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you also restored your edits, I must say reflecting sources faithfully doesn't conflict with impartial tone provided that you are not endorsing the views in Misplaced Pages's voice but attributing them to the cited sources. So if Almasirah describes Eritreans and Southerners recruited by the foreign coalition in the fight as "mercenaries", then reflecting just that using quotes and proper attribution makes for WP:NPOV without violating WP:IMPARTIAL. Btw, since that even non-Houthi sources have mentioned using foreign people by the coalition in the fight, the "mercenaries" doesn't sound like a very contentious claim to being with, hence I thought it warrants mention even without quotation marks. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that the UN called the Yemen Civil war the world worst humanitarian disaster, not the Saudi led intervention as the world worst humanitarian disaster, else it would've been called the world worst humanitarian intervention. I understand your point of view, however the tone in which you present your writings matter in wikipedia. We do not take sides. We do not echo partisan comments. We are neutral. In writing and in tone, we stay neutral. We present both sides of the conflict. If you have problems with neutrality, I will have to ask for this page to be protected as not to turn into a war mongering article. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiemirati, Expectant of Light The Saudi intervention is clearly a major factor in the humanitarian situation, check what UNO says about that : . Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. You may add that to the article using UN calls "Saudi Arabian coalition's blockade of life-saving commercial goods into Yemen" as a human catastrophe. The blockade, not the intervention itself. Thanks. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your remark seems to be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT in my eyes : the blockade is part of the intervention. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What I like or do not like does not matter as long as there is a reliable source. The quote of "world humanitarian disaster" belongs to a specific state, not a vague term which describes it all. This sentence was not even sourced before I added the source which describes it as the world most humanitarian disaster. Specify. Add: UN calls "Saudi Arabian coalition's interventional blockade of life-saving commercial goods into Yemen" as a human catastrophe. or "Saudi Arabian coalition's intervention, which consists of blockade of life-saving commercial goods into Yemen", as a human catastrophe. Not: Saudi led intervention led to a human catastrophe. Please have better editing skills. Thanks. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiemirati: You are not responding to my arguments but repeating your civil war rheotric. We do present facts neutrally here but that's not what you are proposing! Your proposal is to remove views whereas all views have to be reflected faithfully as per WP:NPOV. And UN can't call the Saudi-led intervention "the worst humanitarian disaster" because the Saudi intervention is not technically a humanitarian disaster but a military operation. But this military operation is responsible for the said humanitarian disaster and this has been indeed stated by UN and other international legal bodies several times! I think you are engaging in some lingual acrobatics here to dismiss obvious facts. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And btw, that sentence was not in such a bad need of sourcing because it was actually summarizing another hefty page that had already documented just that sentence using numerous sources. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is an issue where I am wrong here, its probably the humanitarian disaster comment. Which Wikiviani has solved by providing another source. As far as my two edits regarding your translated source of Almasirah, I stand firmly that we should present them neutrally, not echo partisan comments from a pro sided source. "Coalition of aggression" and "death camps" are roughly translated from the pro Houthi Arabic source which, by logic, stands against the coalition. Even if the comments are right, we do not echo partisan literal comments and we do not present a side as more "aggressive" or "deadly" than the other. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, the blockade is part of the military intervention, therefore, saying that the military intervention led to humanitarian crisis seems correct, right ? i don't really get your point here, but if you want to write in the article that the blockade and not the military intervention led to that crisis, it's also fine for me. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we are debating the obvious here. Both the air strikes and the blockade are responsible for the disaster as per sources. Please have a look at Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen#Reports of war crimes and Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen#Infrastructure damage and humanitarian situation. What else do we want other than these two vastly documented sections to establish this? --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes Wikiaviani, as I have stated in my first response in this paragraph. I do not have an issue with saying that the UN stated the military intervention led to humanitarian crisis. It did, and the source you provided describes it. I had an issue with the sentence prior to my edit which stated "Saudi led intervention caused a human catastrophe" as it clearly reflects an opinion. I've added what the UN stated. If you want to add that the UN states the military intervention led to a humanitarian catastrophe, go ahead provided you cite it with a good source where the UN calls it a "human catastrophe". I had a problem with the tone of the first comment as it reflected a Misplaced Pages editor's opinion rather than a cited source. Best regards Wikiemirati (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiemirati, we should replace "human catastrophe" with "humanitarian crisis" since it's what the source states.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikiemirati: Your being disingenuous. The sentence prior to your edit didn't say "the intervention caused the crisis" but that it "led to the crisis." The present version also says the same thing. Btw, it is not just UN but also and HRW, CARE and more. So it is an established fact not just UN opinion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-airport/arab-alliance-close-to-capturing-hodeidah-airport-yemen-military-says-idUSKBN1JC04L

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Saudi Arabia articles
• Unknown-importance Saudi Arabia articles
• WikiProject Saudi Arabia articles
• C-Class United Arab Emirates articles
• Unknown-importance United Arab Emirates articles
• WikiProject United Arab Emirates articles
• C-Class Yemen articles
• Unknown-importance Yemen articles
• WikiProject Yemen articles
• Unassessed Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Unassessed Western Asia articles
• Unknown-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of military history
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Yemen