This is an archive of past discussions about 2024 missile strikes in Yemen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Soibangla, it's not written in the best way, but I don't believe the numbers in the Air Forces Central announcement are meant include the UK/coalition bombs.
At the direction of U.S. Central Command, U.S. Air Forces Central, CENTCOM’s Joint & Combined Air Component Command, executed deliberate strikes on over 60 targets at 16 Iranian-backed Houthi militant locations...
Removing the explanatory clauses leaves us with the following:
U.S. Air Forces Central executed deliberate strikes on over 60 targets at 16 Iranian-backed Houthi militant locations...
US and coalition forces “executed deliberate strikes on over 60 targets at 16 Iranian-backed Houthi militant locations, including command and control nodes, munitions depots, launching systems, production facilities, and air defense radar systems,” according to a statement from US Air Forces Central Commander Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich. More than 100 precision-guided munitions “of various types” were used, he said.[1]
Latest comment: 10 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
2024 missile strikes against Yemen → 2024 missile strikes against the Houthi Movement
The current title implies that these strikes are against the internationally recognised government of Yemen, the state described in the main article for Yemen, when this is not the case. This is like the US raiding a cartel compound in Mexico and the article being called 'US Raids against Mexico'. It is far more accurate and less misleading for readers to specify this is against the Houthi Movement rather than the country of Yemen most will think of. It also gives legitimacy to an unrecognised terrorist group. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not mostly in control, it's a very contested situation and it would be inaccurate to for one group to represent everyone. Even so, it still is not internationally recognised as the Yemeni government. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
But is not this use of words very much out of 1984? With such 'logic', Israel is able to claim that - far from punishing the people of Gaza - it was only attacking Hamas. Then again, despite the stated target of the attack, the weapons did land within Yemem. In any normal understanding of terms, was not this an attack on the land of Yemen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.114 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring blatant POV, Wikipedia works on a policy of using the COMMONNAME in media sources for articles. In this case, both the countries involved in Prosperity Guardian and the resulting coverage of it has overwhelmingly stated that this is not an attack against the Yemeni government but a faction within Yemen. Refer back to my previous example. The strikes didn't in fact land in the controlled territory of Yemen referred to elsewhere on Wikipedia. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
In light of above discussion, I've moved to 2024 missile strikes in Yemen. I'll open up a formal RM to get wider participation below; my preferred title would be something like "2024 U.S.–U.K. joint missile strikes against Ansar Allah", but it's quite wordy. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
There is no guideline that restricts the usage of Twitter as a source. You've reverted an edit, which cited CNN reporter Konstantin Toropin. Ecrusized (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:take this to article Talk where it belongs please soibangla (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
That source does not cite what was said on Twitter, namely, 80 Tomahawks being fired overall, and the US Navy destroyers that were involved. For whatever reason, Soibangla believes we cannot use that reference... Ecrusized (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Twitter is generally not a good source. Take a look at what we say about it at WP:RSP. It's better to find more solid sources. What he says on Twitter is something he will likely write about elsewhere, so keep searching. More articles will likely appear in the coming days. Maybe they already exist! Search for other articles by him at Military.com. There is no rush. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Houthis only targetting Israeli connected ships and denying targeting anyone else.
Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I think this element should be mentioned, as well as what their demands are, in order to stop the targetting. Other ships unrelated have been able to traverse the area unaffected. The Houthis also put out a statement accusing the UAE of trying to create false flags trying to pay other groups in Yemen to attack ships unrelated to Yemen, to serve as a casus belli. Midgetman433 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
"Houthis only targetting Israeli connected ships and denying targeting anyone else. Other ships unrelated have been able to traverse the area unaffected" This is contradicted by several sources, including. the U.S. 5th Fleet which said at least a dozen of these ships were not linked to Israel.[2] On top of this, other sources have confirmed this to be the case. [3][4][5][6]Sciophobiaranger (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
yeah like I said, the Houthis are denying they hit other ships, the U.S. isn't necessarily a nuetral party and their words should not be taken as gospel as complete fact, b/c they have a vested interest in trying to establish a casus belli against the Houthis. Houthis claimed UAE was trying to get other groups in yemen to attack non Israeli ships.
Houthi statements are not the ultimate source of truth. Plus, was any of the ships they hit even registered in Israel? Plex (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
That is not what the other article says at all. Many of the ships listed, such as the Maersk Gibraltar, the Maersk Hangzhou, the MSC United VIII, and the Al Jasrah are not Israeli-owned or registered and are not related to Israel. 2601:602:9B01:13D0:B006:3316:4D9C:2BA0 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd say stick with this for the time being. If the bombing resumes however, Template:Infobox military conflict would be more suitable. Conflicts are usually reserved for prolonged campaigns. Even though it's early, I believe this will remain a one off bombing. Because according to U.S. and U.K. officials Houthis drone capability has been severely weakened. One officials says, they no longer have the capability to conduct the large scale attack which they did a few days ago. (Reuters)Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Support Well, I was wrong. U.S. conducted renewed Tomahawk strikes for the second day in a row. This appears to be a sustained bombing campaign. Ecrusized (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The mainstream Western media is being deliberately misleading to promote American propaganda. The Houthis are not a rag-tag band of renegades. They are the government of North Yemen, and have been for several years. They are not "backed" by Iran, they are allied with Iran. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Abo Yemen: I don't know where this is stemming from, but there are no rules on Wikipedia that criminalize the use of certain words. Reference explicitly state that, Australia, Bahrain, Canada and Netherlands supported the mission. (WH statement) You might want to take a deep breath, settle down, and ask yourself where this discussion on this might have taken place, under what context, before playing police force, and reverting eidts based on unrelated discussions. Ecrusized (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
It isn't a written rule but almost all articles related to the Isreal Hamas war do not have a supported by section in the infobox. I don't mind having it in the infobox but at the same time the white house statement is a primary source and there needs to be better sources Abo Yemen✉15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Ambiguousity of a sentence.
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"and they were condemned by the United Nations Security Council the day before the strike." Who is they ? Could someone reformulate this sentence ? Maxime12346 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
On the War Powers Resolution & the Reactions section
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I'm a bit unsure about this sentence.:
Some critics said that in accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution, Biden needed to seek authorization from Congress before initiating military action,[1] though the 1973 War Powers Resolution allows the president to unilaterally take military action but must notify Congress within 48 hours.[2]
The first half of the sentence states that some members of Congress have one interpretation of the law and cites an independent secondary source that verifies this, that's all fine. The second half of the sentence states affirmatively in Wikipedia's voice that this interpretation of the law is incorrect, citing a source that arguably fails to verify what it is being used for. While it does in fact verify that the law requires the president to notify Congress, it does not mention anything about the president having the authority to take unilateral military action.
My stance is that we should not in WikiVoice give an affirmative answer to the question of whether or not Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, or the War Powers Act do or do not grant the president the authority to take unilateral military action with or without some sort of national security emergency meeting the criteria laid out in the constitution. I think this is a legal question with a range of opinions on it, and it's fine to list those opinions, but I'm not so sure that we can say there is exactly one correct answer. If we do, we should at least find better sourcing, because again, the source cited in the second half of that sentence does not sufficiently source the specific statements being made.
I agree. I have rewritten this sentence to simply state the opinions of Congress and legal experts.
Some critics said that in accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution, Biden needed to seek authorization from Congress before initiating military action.[1] Under Article Two of the United States Constitution, the president has the limited authority to take defensive military action without Congressional approval, though supporters and opponents of the strikes disagree that the strikes can be considered defensive. Legal experts have argued that ambiguity in existing law allows for Congress to place limits on the president's authority to take military action without its approval.[2]
Hopefully this is an agreeable change. The phrasing might need some cleanup to flow better, I was a bit sleepy while writing it. Just wanted to publish a change quickly to get rid of the SYNTH.
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Genabab: I don't think it's fair to add this to the infobox. Those servicemen have been missing off the coast of Somalia, outside of the operational zone of this mission. Also reported before the operation. Unrelated, synthesis. Ecrusized (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I am compelled to emphasize that this original article title of 2024 Yemen airstrikes was unilaterally changed to the current title by Ecrusized without discussion, let alone consensus.
The facts from the getgo was that this strike was not executed solely with missiles, but also by fighter jets with precision-guided bombs. All the devices used were aircraft as defined in airstrike.
While we discuss possible better titles, the current title is clearly inaccurate and should/must be restored to the original "2024 Yemen airstrikes." I seek immediate consensus to restore the original title. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Formally, this is a military attack against Yemeni sovereign territory carried out by regular armed forces of another country/countries. It should be called as such IMO. This is not simply "airstrikes" or "missile strikes". Let's imagine Cuba fires over 100 cruise missiles at the US, hitting multiple targets and killing people. Would "2024 missile strikes in the US" be an apt name? Or rather we'd hear about a war against the US? — kashmīrīTALK17:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Scope of the article
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I don't think this article should include attacks on shipping or even attacks against U.S. Navy vessels. There are already four articles covering the conflict with Houthis. This article should be limited to the bombing of Yemen's territory imo.
Shipping attacks could belong as part of the background information, but they're not the subject of this article in particular. We also may need a WP:NOTTIMELINE, because half these current event articles tend to devolve into "what happened on Saturday," "what happened on Sunday," "what happened on Monday." We're supposed to be presenting information in readable prose and not a Facebook timeline. GMGtalk23:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Knightoften: I'm not gonna revert your edit again and even though I explained in my edit summary I will explain again that there are a number of articles already covering the attacks that the houthis are doing on ships. What you re-added especially doesn't belong in the "assessments" section given it's a section assessing the strikes done on houthis not by the houthis. So could you reconsider whether what you added really belongs in this article.
Introduction expresses mildly inaccurate diction of modern chain of command.
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Declaring "US President Joe Biden ordered the strikes,..." is misleading diction. Creates a light misrepresentation of modern leadership, no? The chain of command in operations such as these rarely include the president these days, especially the increasingly inept ones presented. May we argue for it to read more like "U.S. Military Central Command / U.S. Military began airstrikes..." and so on. Is this a fair trade?
I understand that in his release its quoted "Today, at my direction, U.S. military forces—together with the United Kingdom and with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands—successfully conducted strikes against a number of targets in Yemen used by Houthi rebels to endanger freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways." but this does not have a literal translation to "US President Joe Biden ordered the strikes". Howlor (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Yemen is not "Houthi-held"
Latest comment: 10 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I'm not so sure I understand the differences between saying that the area in green at File:Yemeni Civil War.svg is "held by" the Houthis versus "controlled by" the Houthis. Are they not synonymous in this context? Is the implied difference that area that is held but not controlled is not under the full political or military control of the Houthis? For what it's worth, the map reads as "controlled." To say either that it is "held but not controlled" or "controlled but not held" would require a specific source. @Soibangla: and @Abo Yemen:, could you help me understand the difference from your perspectives? Vanilla Wizard 💙05:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
there appears to be a disputable assertion that Yemen is wholly-controlled by Houthis, but other related articles I've reviewed don't seem to definitely verify that. It's kinda fuzzy. And the infobox map seems to make it even more ambiguous, in addition to it showing the number of strikes that has since changed from initial reports. I continue to question the article title as limited to "missile strikes," as fighter jets with bombs were also involved, but it appears that argument has failed, so I give up. There's a good amount of ambiguity in the article. soibangla (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if I fully understand what your position is, is the criticism with the language "Houthi-held Yemen" that it might make a reader think that all of Yemen is under the control of the Houthis, rather than only the highlighted portion? Or are you arguing that the words "hold" and "control" have different meanings, and that the Houthis do not actually "control" the highlighted area? Vanilla Wizard 💙06:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yemeni war articles does not have enough coverage and because of that many things are pretty much unknown. For example, houthi-held lands are supposed to be controlled and supervised by them but for some reason the Internationally recognised government pays the houthis their salaries. The situation in yemen is pretty much impossible to understand even for native yemenis Abo Yemen✉13:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Article style
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Currently, the article is written in timeline format, without giving much information to the readers besides when and how US has been launching attacks in Yemen. It might be best to only write the significant events as this is seemingly poised to become long bombing campaign. Similar to War against the Islamic State. Any ideas on how to improve this article are welcome. Ecrusized (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
What about a prose style, with two major sections, one on the beginning of the campaign and context, with another section on the continuing strikes? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Latest comment: 10 months ago16 comments5 people in discussion
CNN reports that the US has named the ongoing bombing campaign in Yemen "Operation Poseidon Archer". The article notes that the "named operation suggests a more organized, formal and potentially long-term approach to the operations in Yemen". I would suggest that article be renamed to Operation Poseidon Archer. Ecrusized (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that, but I strongly oppose renaming, unless we will also rename the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War as Special Military Operation. To put it simply, even as we are witnessing a military aggression on a sovereign country carried out without a declaration of war or a UN Security Council authorisation as required by the international law, your suggestion amounts to whitewashing it as some sort of "operation". FYI, I'm fairly certain that the people closest to the event – the population of Yemen – won't be calling the rockets falling on their heads, "Operation Poseidon". — kashmīrīTALK20:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The comparison between this and the Russo-Ukrainian War seems silly given the difference in scale of the conflicts. You link the military agression article but seemingly didnt read the first two lines where it says "is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense" how is attempting to stop the means to which a military group is trying to sink civillian ships in an international strait not self defence? Brandon Downes (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The United States did not invoke self-defence, as no US sovereign territory has been under threat from the Houthis. A claim of "protecting merchant ships" (belonging to other countries on top of that) is not an act of self-defence and is not usually considered a valid reason for a military aggression against a sovereign state. — kashmīrīTALK21:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not how articles are named. If the name "Poseidon Archer" becomes the generally-used term to refer to this campaign in the media, then we can use WP:COMMONNAME to change the article, regardless of how anyone feels about the campaign itself. Otherwise, if it doesn't become the common name, it can stay as this. No political argument necessary. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
"The United States did not invoke self-defence, as no US sovereign territory has been under threat from the Houthis" the U.S. invoked self defence when the Houthis tried to attack U.S. military ships in an international strait. Regardless of how you feel as Ultimograph said your political opinions do not change how articles are renamed. Brandon Downes (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
"Operation against Gaddafi"? Are you serious? Because that was discussed at the time as "operation laying hands on Libya's oil"[9][10]
Anyhow, calling an invasion a "military operation" is mainly to create a perception that war is more benign than it actually is, by softening the wording in official reports and in the media (quoted from Special military operation). — kashmīrīTALK02:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The ongoing US-led strikes against the Houthis is a textbook surgical strike campaign against specific military targets. Also the Houthis are not the internationally recognized government of Yemen.
Another precedent in naming convention is Operation Infinite Reach. An example of US led strikes against a specific group (Al Qaeda) in a country (Afghanistan)
If theres an official announcement of "Operation Poseidon Archer", it should be treated in a similar fashion considering it's US led strikes against a specific group (Houthis) in a country (Yemen). CT16264 (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
You are again trying to compare a full scale invasion of a nation to some strikes against a rebel group. Do you serioulsy not see the difference? Brandon Downes (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
"Surgical strike" is type of military tactics. It does not imply legality. For all it's worth, the US attack on Yemen, in absence of any Security Council resolution, is plainly illegal. UN member states are not allowed to carry out military attacks against each other's territory, regardless whether the attacks are carpet bombings, rocket attacks, "surgigal strikes", "special military operations", "anti-terrorism", "denazification", etc. And of course the fact of recognising or not of a foreign government is no mitigating circumstance. If that's unclear to you, I suggest you steer clear of editing any content that touches on international law. — kashmīrīTALK14:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
"To put it simply, even as we are witnessing a military aggression on a sovereign country carried out without a declaration of war or a UN Security Council authorisation as required by the international law" Houthis are not the UN recognized government of Yemen and are thus a nonstate actor. This argument is null and void. Ecrusized (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not allowed to attack non-state actors on foreign sovereign either. Are you arguing that it would be lawful for, say, Cuba to bomb non-state targets on the US territory? And that Wikipedia should describe such an attack, say, as "Operatión Libertad del Capitalismo"? See the nonsense of your argument? — kashmīrīTALK14:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I think waiting to change it to when they start actually doing more sustained operations may be better. I know they've taken out some launch sites over the last few days but they have seemingly been rather small and as you quoted with it now being a named operation there may be an uptick in scale of strikes and I think when that happens would be the best time to change the name. Brandon Downes (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. The last few days have seen strikes against individual ASBM launchers. Not the large scale bombing that took place on 1/12. Although, the attacks that took place on 1/22 seem to be a step up from what we've seen. I think waiting a few days to see how things progress is appropriate. I'd also prefer a more formal announcement of "Operation Poseidon Archer" aside from unnamed defense officials talking to CNN. CT16264 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Merge this page with the Operation Poseidon Archer page
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey guys there’s another Wikipedia article about this topic and that one is using “operation Poseidon archer” as the article name. Since both articles are about the same topic, shouldn’t they be merged? And shouldn’t the more formal name be used?
Latest comment: 9 months ago44 comments23 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No consensus has formed around any particular title in this discussion. This close is without prejudice to opening another discussion, though I think it would be wise to at least propose a direction in the movement proposal, with evidence as to why it would be a better title. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
2024 missile strikes in Yemen → ? – There seems to be a good bit of discussion about the page title, and there have been a good number of bold moves as new information comes in. I think having a formal RM here to generate new titles would be helpful in keeping this organized, so I'm opening an open-ended one here. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.– robertsky (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
My preferred title, for reasons of precision, would be 2024 U.S.–U.K. joint missile strikes against Ansar Allah. I agree that it's wordy (though surely these are not the only missile strikes that have occurred in Yemen this year), and Ansar Allah is not the most frequently used name in English, but it seems a bit more natural to use the name of the group on the receiving end of the strikes rather than the vague "Houthi movement", which includes a lot of civil society groups under its umbrella. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I think something like “2024 Coalition Airstrikes against Ansar Allah” would be best. Reason being more countries could and likely will take part if this continues to escalate including Israel and 23.112.247.3 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
That's fair. I'm a bit unsatisfied with "missile strikes" as it currently is, since there were also airstrikes with precision-guided bombs (not missiles) that occurred, though I can't quite figure out a way to precisely phrase it. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Onboard with "2024 bombing of Yemen" as well, as while it sounds a bit more clunky, I guess by definition Ecrusized is not technically wrong. But not "missile strikes" or "military strikes". Those seem even more clunky and don't really add meaningful context. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The aistrikes were definitely not Yemeni. They were UK/US airstrikes. Nobody in Yemen would call them "Yemeni airstrikes" ffs. — kashmīrīTALK17:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem with "airstrikes" is that this strike was not an airstrike, since sea launched cruise missiles were more than half the overall munitions fired. By definition a cruise missile launched from a cruiser or a submarine is not an airstrike. Quouting, An airstrike, is an offensive operation carried out by aircraft. Air strikes are delivered from aircraft such as blimps, balloons, fighter aircraft, attack aircraft, bombers, attack helicopters, and drones. A more suitable name would be 2024 bombing of Yemen. Ecrusized (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
you seem to acknowledge that this strike was not limited to missiles, which contradicts the article title change you unilaterally made last night without prior discussion. Aircraft in airstrike includes both fighter jets and UAVs. The current title is thus inaccurate soibangla (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledged no such thing. Perhaps your definition of English is different from what is commonly spoken, but airstrikes definition in dictionary does not cover cruise missile launches. Ecrusized (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
A cruise missile is a type of aircraft. It's no less an airstrike than a kamikaze attack; the only difference is whether there's a pilot. LesbianTiamat (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
"Perhaps your definition of English is different from what is commonly spoken"
Comment A U.S. Air Force Commander Statement uses the title "Strikes against Houthi positions in Yemen".[11] This is close to what seems usable as a Wikipedia article title. How about 2024 military strikes against Houthi positions in Yemen as an article title? This gets around calling them missile or air strikes and also gets around if the strikes were in Houthi controlled, occupied, or held areas of Yemen. --Marc Kupper|talk21:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
2024 Yemeni airstrikes is the title at ITN that redirects to this article. I think that's a fine title. I find the use of "missile strikes" over "airstrikes" odd. JM (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Prefer 2024 bombing of Yemen as that is more WP:CONSISTENT and accurate, per Ecrusized. Oppose "2024 Yemeni airstrikes" as it is inaccurate.VR(Please ping on reply)08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2024 attack on Yemen (or: "military attack"), which captures both the legal aspect (an attack carried out by one counntry against another) and the facts on the ground. — kashmīrīTALK17:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment but the attack isn't on Yemen! (as int'ly recognized)
Yes it was. An armed attack against another country's sovereign territory is an attack against that country, regardless whether the attacker recognises a particular government or not. Sure, attackers routinely claim that they are only after some "bad guys", not against a whole country (see e.g. US claiming that they are only after Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or that they are only after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban during the US invasion of Afghanistan); yet legally it's one country attacking another country. — kashmīrīTALK17:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose As the name seems fine to me and a change is not necessary. A longer title such as 2024 U.S.–U.K. joint missile strikes against Ansar Allah does not seem appropriate nor helpful. Including the names of the parties involved is not necessary - at least at this point - as the situation may still develop and change (even if this is unlikely). Neutral on changing ‘missile strike’ to ‘bombing’ or ‘air strike’ however as this would be in line with previous articles and seemingly accurate. notadev (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The phrase "of Yemen" would imply that the strike is against the UN recognized govt of Yemen, instead it is an attack against rebels. So the phrase "in Yemen" would suit the title better as it currently is. Crashed greek (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not done: Per above, not directly related. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
