Talk:Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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": [1] 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)

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/

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. -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)

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)

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)

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)

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[2]. --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 [3]--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 Wikipedia. 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.[4] --Seyyed(t-c) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Yemeni Casualties

@User:ZxxZxxZ, I found you've done this edit[5], 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,”[6] 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,[7] 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)

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)

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)

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 [8], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 [9]

• (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 [10]
• (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[11]
• (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 [12] 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 [13]. 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 [14]

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

“

By negotiating President Saleh’s resignation, the initiative avoided a civil war, but the underlying factors that brought about the unrest-intra-elite rivalries, corruption and economic distress – were not addressed. Instead, the new leaders fought over political control and spoils, while average Yemenis saw their economic and security conditions deteriorate. The transition became one in name only, much to the frustration of almost everyone.

”

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:

“ In essence what the Houthis call for are things that all Yemenis crave: government accountability, the end to corruption, regular utilities, fair fuel prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis and the end of Western influence ”

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

“ Many Yemenis believe the Houthis are right in pushing out Western influence and decision making, and blame U.S. interference for allowing former President Ali Abdullah Saleh to avoid prosecution or exile for crimes against his people during the Arab Spring uprising. Under a deal he was allowed to step down and still remain in the country. ”

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

“ The presidency was essentially handed over in a one-man election, mandated by the Gulf Cooperation Council as Yemen’s first step in transition, to Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who many Yemenis regard as a puppet of the United States. ”

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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

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)

"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.[52]" (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: [15] -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 Wikipedia guidelines: "Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

Thats it!

There is a strong Pro saudi Bias in the article even some numbers of the article have been changed from the own source. The Shia-Sunni divide its 42% Shia, the rest Sunnie, and the article stated 25% shia, even the Pro Saudi editors dont respect the same sources they use to "edit" their POV article. Please come on, we(WP) wont get far with this Biased edits, be more neutral, whats the problem with it!Mr.User200 (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Result of conflict

If the result will show that Saudi claims it has achieved goals, it should also mention that Saudi failed to achieve the initial goals set out at the start of the operation. In fact, the opposite happened, the Houthi's gained more territory. Saudi Arabia wanted them to retreat from all area's, give up their weapons, and bring Hadi back in. Of which, nothing happened. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The military intervention is still ongoing, despite the hoopla over Operation Decisive Storm ending. Let's not be too hasty to write a postmortem here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1 I agree. We have to wait to see what the next named operation means. Although I just wanted to point that out for the result section, so we can get a neutral result. Even though Saudi says it completed it's goal, we can obviously see that it's not the case. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's hold off on the results section for now. There are early reports of some sort of political deal to end the conflict. Any attempts on our part to judge the outcome right now are WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course. Although a report on Reuters says the Houthi's were surprised and another on Al-Mayadeen that says the Houthi's did not agree to anything. I am not sure if it was a deal, more of pressure. The LA Times reported US pressure. Al-Mayadeen reported Omani, Iranian and inside pressure. Of course, this is all speculation and I don't plan on adding any of it to the article. I merely pointed out to something someone posted (Which has changed to a much better version now.)ArabianWonders (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There was never a political deal or ceasefire being settled. Just saying. Myronbeg (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sure someone will object

I am sure someone will object to me citing Yemeni newspapers but sadly, Saudi Arabia and other media don't really report on this. Please have a look at this before you undo my edits. (did not references this, I references other article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem its that the source its in arabic. However we can cite its like, "civilians casualties were reported at Ibb Governorate on ...." and place the date of the article. Why not.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked, there is no problem with using foreign-language sources, provided they meet reliability and notability guidelines. That's often easier said than done in the Middle East/West Asia because of the high degree of media control, but there are definitely outlets out there that can be cited. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid turning this article into pro-Saudi propaganda

Once again, this article was reading like Saudi propaganda. Words such as "terrorists" should not be included in the article, and Saudi Arabia's preposterous claim of killing over 500 Houthi fighters shouldn't be included either, unless Houthi/Yemeni claims are included too.

This isn't the first time this article came across as Saudi propaganda. Either we accept the claims of both sides of the conflict or we refrain from mentioning their claims altogether. What we shouldn't do is accept only one side's claim while ignore the other side's. I can't stress enough the importance of ensuring fairness and neutrality in this article. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the casualties, claims by one side of casualties suffered by the other should not be included because those are 100 percent certified propaganda. Only ones own losses admitted by one side should be included or those confirmed by a third-party (medical sources, UN, etc). And please stop including in the infobox casualties for the overall civil war. Those are already present in the infobox of the overall war. This article deals with the Saudi military campaign only, which is only one part of the whole war. EkoGraf (talk) 18:46, 25 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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: [16]. 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia. 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)

@ArabianWonders Can you link the Yemeni outlets which Press TV obtains its information from? It would be very useful to have some primary sources regardless of what language they are in. Press TV as a lone reference is not adequate for such arguable claims. Elspamo4 (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear Pro-Saudi bias emerging in the article in this last days of the operation, and I recall this in the Saudi media section here. There is a small group of users that using only Saudi sources tries to change the content of the article(losses and scope of an Iranian intervention). One of that users being Elspamo4. Please remember this name & identify him and its edits. And like I said before, the operation is being overrated strategicaly, and the civilians losses are being downplayed. I dont know why every neutral edit made to balance the article is being reverted or changed to whitewash the humanitarian or military mistakes made by the Saudi Kingdom military. A fifth colum work sounds more logical to me than just a Pro Saudi bias.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Claims of a chemical attack in Sana'a on April 18 should be removed as they were reported by two biased sources: Iranian and Russian state media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O mnp11 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@O mnp11 I have personally found over 10 articles in both Arabic and English with the majority of them being in Arabic. We are literally talking about this subject right now. Just because Saudi did not confirm it, it does not mean it is false. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. If we want this article to be in anyway neutral, we have to take both sides of the media. The above articles cite medical sources, citizens and reporters there. Please check Twitter also here in arabic and here in english.ArabianWonders (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders Out of the links you provided, it looks like either Khabar Agency or Al Akhbar were the first news outlets with coverage on this event. Iranian sources are functionally useless as they only translate and reiterate (and sometimes distort) Yemeni claims. Disclaimer: I can't read Arabic, so I used Google Translate, which could have resulted in errors in interpretation. According to Khabar, a 'strange bomb which caused suffocation' hit Sanaa. A Yemeni military expert claims that the weapon used differs weapons and bombs used in previous strikes, and there is a mention of locals who are demanding an investigation into what weapons were used. Aside from the fact that that there is no evidence presented to suggest that suffocation was a primary effects of the bomb, I see no mention of chemical (or كيميائية) weapons or direct allegations of such. Likewise, Al Akhbar goes a step further and states that the suffocation was caused by fires which broke out as a result of the explosion of weapon stores. So, no mention of chemical weapons, nausea, suffocation or diarrhea. The allegations of chemical weapons probably came from Shiapost, who absurdly claim that 'white phosphorus bombs' were dropped (according to 'experts', of course). This allegation should be deleted as it does not accurately reflect on reality. Primary Yemeni sources report that locals of Attan were affected by suffocation as a result of fires caused by a Saudi airstrike on weapons stores; nothing more. Elspamo4 (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake on Shia Post - it seems allegations of chemical weapons originated from a vague field report from Al Mayadeen. No mention of toxicity or chemical weapons in their news report published a day later. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it would be best to include the casualty claims of all sides of the Saudi-led war on Yemen in this article, which is exactly how it's done in all other war-related articles on Wikipedia. So far, nobody has offered a good explanation for why Saudi Arabia's casualty claims are allowed in this article while Yemen's casualty claims aren't. Those who suggested that Press TV wasn't reliable enough were merely voicing their own opinions. Just because someone thinks something is "propagandist" or "unreliable" doesn't automatically mean it's true. Until now, those who have asserted that Press TV was unreliable have failed to show us where a consensus has been established regarding Press TV's unreliability on Wikipedia, therefore those subjective assertions have added nothing useful to the discussion whatsoever. This is precisely why I propose we include the claims of all sides of the conflict, just like how it's done in other articles on Wikipedia, otherwise this article will, naturally, continue to come across as extremely biased towards the Saudi side. Furthermore, I already provided an Arabic-language source for the casualty claims that were made by the Yemeni side, but it doesn't surprise me that the reliability of that Arabic-language news website was questioned as well. It seems that every news source that attempts to draw attention to the Yemeni claims will automatically be branded as "unreliable", whereas the Saudi claims, which the pro-Saudi Western media outlets simply love to reiterate, will ironically not be held to the same standards. Well, on the bright side, at least I wasn't the only member around here who noticed the pro-Saudi bias in this article. Hopefully some of the new contributors to this article (e.g. ArabianWonders) would do a better job in ensuring fairness and neutrality than their predecessors. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support the views of --Nadia (Kutsuit).Nannadeem (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4 The Khabar Agency report is pretty clear to me. This "القصف الذي خلف سحابة كبيرة وداكنة من ألأدخنة والغازات المسببة للاختناقات" literally translates to "Strikes that left behind a large dark cloud which resulted in cases of suffocation". The Al Akbar article states that flames still engulf the mountain and, in the next paragraph, referencing the airstrikes they say that locals report weird gases coming from that area. The suffocation was a result of the bombing as both articles say. Furthermore, you seemed to completely ignore the twitter posts regarding the issue in both Arabic and English.ArabianWonders (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit: It's repeatedly mentioned that Press TV is unreliable or of suspicious reliability throughout Wikipeda's guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources . And the actual Wikipedia entry for Press TV is almost a litany of their many fabricated stories. Tal grey (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4 Late to the game here, but don't worry, I agree with you that sources like Asharq Al-Awsat and Press TV are worthless. (I recall the former having invented a "UN peace plan for Syria" the UN actually took the time to deny, and the latter claiming the Queen of England had kidnapped ten Native Canadian children back in the 60s.) I just don't know Wikipedia's rules so well yet! Tal grey (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4: You can't just take anything the Khabar Agency says for granted. The website's pro-Houthi bias is more than obvious. Only neutral news reports should be cited not ones that take sides. What do you expect from a news agency claiming that ISIS leader is in Ukraine?. O mnp11 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@O mnp11: I hadn't checked the reliability of the sources before replying to ArabianWonders, but I am inclined to agree with you after having done so. Al Akhbar and Al Mayadeen are Lebanese/Iranian news outlets and Khabar is Iranian. I don't know about Al Akhbar but Al Mayadeen is considered a propaganda outlet for Iranian claims. Regardless of whether they reported chemical weapon use or not, the claim meets all criteria of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and it would require a major news organization or human rights organization to verify these claims (which, obviously, if the claims were true, would have been done by now). Elspamo4 (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I can make the same claim about every Saudi or western media. There is not a single neutral news site. The only thing we can trust is probably the UN but since they evacuated their staff, you can bet that they won't release that much information. Say what you say about Kabar or whatever, but your solemn beliefs on propaganda from one country and blindness to other propaganda is in itself the highest form of bias. I've tried contacting you on your talk pages, to no mention. No effort. I believe I have done what I can and now i'll just check on this article so that your pro-saudi bias won't take it over.ArabianWonders (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Saudi bias or neutrality. This is about whether the sources are reliable or not. I encourage you to read WP:RS. I have no control over the general views held by reliable sources on this issue. Also, I did respond to your query on my talk page, but I would prefer that discussion over this issue takes place on this talk page since consensus is typically reached by the community, not two individuals. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have read that completely. It in no way mentions that I cannot cite to Yemeni sources or the like. It is actually completely a form of bias. You know that pro-Saudi media is heavily controlled and everything Saudi media reports is echoed constantly. Take the end of the operation, just because Saudi said it was a success, every western media reported it as so. Regardless of the fact that their initial goals were not met. Similarly, during the entire conflict, Al-Arabiya reported about 3 times about casualties in Yemen and that was only because Reuters reported on it before them. The general spokesman never once mentioned casualties on his own. I am not going to stay here and argue how bias Saudi media is, I am here to emphasize that citing to the Yemeni sides of media is not. Unlike Saudi media, Yemen media is somewhat free with dozens of channels and sites. The news reports cite locals, show pictures and are often warning to the people living in the country. It has just as much reliability as Saudi media, if not, more. ArabianWonders (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders Isn't the difference, though, that Saudi media is only being cited with reference to their own statements about their own plans and motivations? Which, given that this article is about their actions in Yemen, seems rather unavoidable. Nobody is citing them (or should be citing them) for things like casualty reports (except of their own troops), or trying to write some of their crazier claims into the article. (And, incidentally, given the multiple media outlets based in Yemen that have been attacked because they're not publishing "the right stuff"—whether that be pro-Houthi, pro-AQAP, or whatever—I doubt it's fair to call the Yemeni press even somewhat free.) Tal grey (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tal grey: That's not what I mean. Saudi media produces claims about goals, casualties, effects and all. All of which is echoed by western and coalition governments. In Sudan, a man was fired for showing the truth about what's going on. Saudi claims on some stuff is okay but in this case, people are removing edits because they do not originate from Saudi media. In Yemen, granted, people have been beat up but there are hundreds of TV channels, newspapers from all specters of thinking. That, you won't find in Saudi. ArabianWonders (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by some editors and their failure/refusal to get the point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22

It appears that a number of editors are failing to discuss this article's disputes in the talk page and are continuing to engage in disruptive editing before establishing a consensus on the additions that they'd like to make.

This article must be as fair/neutral as possible and must avoid coming across as pro-Saudi propaganda.

I think we should take this issue to the admins if disruptive editing continues. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. User mno is constantly removing my edits again and again, despite me asking for a discussion here and starting one in his own talk page. ArabianWonders (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Page editing needs to be monitored by neutral observers. Nannadeem (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

New page?

I realise I'm probably a bit premature for this, but at what point do we split the "Operation Restored Hope" thingy onto a new page?

I'm just picturing the article becoming quite unwieldy, with this operation and then a variety of sections coming out underneath as sub-sub sections of the main article (Yemeni + international responses to it, etc.). Tal grey (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait and see per WP:CRYSTAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Kudzu. It is too early in the operation to evaluate whether a new page is required. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tal grey Operation Restoring Hope should have a separate page as it marks the END of what this page is all about that is the "2015 military intervention in Yemen."

There are still airstrikes being reported today, and "Restoring Hope" will supposedly be both a diplomatic and military effort (however the Saudis envision that working). We should hold off until it becomes clear what this new phase of the intervention is all about. I'm not inclined to just take the Saudis' word that the bombing campaign is over (and a resounding success!), especially with all of the evidence to the contrary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What deals have been made? Aren't Saudis still bombing Yemen? I would hardly call this the end. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So far, "Restoring Hope" looks a lot like "Decisive Storm". -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The only peace accord heard of was from the Houthi's and Saleh. Bombings continue, new shellings and no Saudi peace talks. It might actually be worse now. ArabianWonders (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

End of Saleh - Houthi alliance?

I just found this article that quotes locals as saying there is fighting in Sanaa between Saleh forces and Houthi forces. Can anyone find any other sources? ArabianWonders (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Houthi losses

The Houthi's and the spokesman for the Army have not confirmed a single death. All casualties presented in the infobox are claims from "military sources and medics" that all remain unknown. Since we are putting Saudi-confirmed deaths for the Saudi side, it would only be fair to put Yemen-confirmed in the Yemen side. Since they haven't confirmed any, Unknown should be put back up there. ArabianWonders (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The military and medical sources are mostly on casualties from deep within Houthi-held territory (as the case with Sana'a), so they are ether pro-Houthi (in the case of the military sources) or neutral (in case of medical sources). EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

However, none of them cite an official source. Yemen has claimed dozens of Saudi deaths but as they are certified propaganda, we can only put what we know. For all we know, the military sources could be Saudi sources. As we discussed in the previous section, only self-confirmed deaths should be put in the infobox. ArabianWonders (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles don't imply in any way the military sources are Saudi sources. And personally I don't see a way in which the Saudis, thousands of miles away, could count 15 or 6 dead Saleh/Houthi soldiers in one specific air-strike. So far, we have had only one specific Saudi claim where they asserted they killed 500 Houthi fighters. This is obviously propaganda and should not be used. EkoGraf (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There are also edits citing Al-Arabiya for Houthi deaths in this very article if you hadn't seen. I understand that point in regard to Saudi not counting but these aren't claims of 5 / 6 but 20, 15 etc. ArabianWonders (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, typo, meant to say 8 per this source/claim [17]. EkoGraf (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Iran summons Saudi envoy over interrupted humanitarian flights?

I can't find this outside the usual Iranian/Russian sources, although it has been picked up by the Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32458774) -- rumours that Iran summoned the Saudi envoy because KSA had turned back (presumably Iranian) humanitarian flights destined for Yemen? I don't want to add it without consensus because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere credible outside the BBC. Tal grey (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why KSA would report on that. It is national news. I recommend you put it. The Foreign Minister of Iran says that they received permission from the red cross. ArabianWonders (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, KSA obviously wouldn't report it. But if it were true, I'd expect more than the BBC to pick it up. Tal grey (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, coverage on the situation has steadily decreased. The latest news of the saudi soldier death received almost no coverage. That doesn't mean it isn't true. It's primarily due to the end of the Asiri daily press meetings. ArabianWonders (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Format of article

I see how we don't need a new page, but can I suggest dividing the article up a bit differently?

That is, make sub-subsections for "air strikes", "naval role", "ground forces" and "casualties" under "Operation Restoring Hope" and move all strikes (etc) that happened after the KSA announcement to the new subsections... The way it is now, it reads like we are accidentally implying the most recent strikes have come under Decisive Storm. Admittedly it's merely a semantic difference but it does seem more accurate in my mind.

It also seems like the article could use a sub-section for "efforts at mediation/diplomatic solution/peace talks" or similar, as right now that aspect is being kind of bundled haphazardly under "international responses", which right now includes everything from diplomatic manoeuvrings and vague expressions of international support/condemnation to NGO statements and comments from random academics. Perhaps it could be a sub-sub section of "International Responses"?

Tal grey (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The "international responses" section has become a mass of bloat. International reactions to the 2015 military intervention in Yemen is where practically all of that stuff belongs.

As for the "Restoring Hope" section, yes, I think that's appropriate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I'll make the changes to Restoring Hope. I don't mind moving the inappropriate stuff to the "International Reactions" article, but I'm not clear what should and shouldn't be included in this article. Any tips? Tal grey (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be a summary here of the salient international reactions, but the details should be on the daughter page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm interpreting that to be major UN developments, key statements from foreign governments, major new campaigns from NGOs and similar. If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll undo my changes. Tal grey (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Argh, never mind, somebody reversed by edit. I don't know what I'm supposed to do in this instance? I have already moved all the details to the daughter article. But I saved the text of my changes -- am I supposed to post it in the talk page first? Tal grey (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Civilian Casulaties

We all know that the civilian casualties is severely under-reported so is it possible to add up confirmed civilian casualty reports and create a total based on that? Counting OCHA reports alone should give a credible figure. ArabianWonders (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes there should be a picture of casualties(man, woman and children) and destruction of buildings i.e. schools, mosque, hospitals etc. Someone has already shown his/her intention (on this talk page) of showing IDPs position, thus it is desired that IDPs problems and flow may please be reflected for our future guidance and record. Per my best knowledge IDP flow has crossed 120,000 to 150,000 from March to April in addition to 100,000 IDPs prior to Military Intervention. Nannadeem (talk) 19:33, 28 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)

Most casualties are ORDINARY civilians!!! Change it now!!! (tal grey edit: This was somehow edited into my comment above, but it's not my words, so I'm moving it down here.)

claims that 30 civilians were killed Saudi airstrikes in Bajel District on April 28th need to be citedO mnp11 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing to Arabic-language sources?

I have found news that is reported on Arabic-language websites and not in English-launguage websites. Do I link the information to the Arabic sources or is that not allowed?ArabianWonders (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Arabic-language sources are fine, as long as they meet reliability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Arabic speakers can easily realise that none of the following news outlets is reliable: Hezbollah-owned Al-Mayadeen, Syrian state SANA news agency, Iran's FARS news and the pro-Houthi Khabar news and Akbar al-Yaman. Of course same is true about Pro-Saudi AAWSAT and Arab News and the like O mnp11 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Mashhad Al-Yamani, Arabic news website, seems to be neutralO mnp11 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Eco Graf Pro Saudi Bias its wrecking Infobox.

Despite all the unsourced edits made by that user and its biased opinions, he continues to change all the work done by past editors regarding the Battle box. He tries to scale down Saudi losses by all means, downplaying the number of dead to 8 when the source backing that claim states 10 dead. He errases the Saudi military wounded number using the lame escuse that its higher. But in the end that wounded numbers are documented by reports of RS. It is clear the type of Bias being displayed by that user, while most of edits tries to make the Battle box the most balanced. Showing the losses suffered by the parties in a neutral way.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, first, you took a highly hostile and insulting stance with me from day one which is not in line with WP: Civil and WP: Good faith. This I never understood, nor will try to. Second, I have been editing Wikipedia for the last four years and ask any editor who knows me and worked with me and he will say that I have always tried to keep the articles neutral and balanced. Third, the sources were mixed up. The source here [18] says on that day one soldier was killed in addition to 7 others earlier. Quote - A security official in Saudi Arabia says a soldier has been killed...At least seven other Saudi soldiers have been killed in separate clashes this month along the border. If my math is correct one plus seven is eight. You would have seen the source if you bothered to look a bit more carefully. Fourth, I am not downplaying the casualties. Earlier discussions agreed not to include claims by one side of casualties sustained by the other, due to the high probability of it being propaganda. Example - Saudi claim of killing 500 Houthis. Or, example number 2 - Houthi claims of shooting down several Coalition planes. We agreed in the end to use only official casualties admitted to by both sides respectively (KSA - 8-11 dead; Houthis - 200 dead). And to attribute the figures to the source (per Saudi Arabia; per Houthis). Fifth, the number of 16 wounded is outdated, by TWO WEEKS, and thus missleading for the readers. Nothing lame about it. EkoGraf (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally believe wounded should be documented. These are probably heavy wounds that would make these soldiers no longer in service. All official results should be documented. ArabianWonders (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sami Ramadani quote in "International Responses"

Says Ramadani is a lecturer at London Met, while he isn't listed on their faculty page: http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/faculties/faculty-of-social-sciences-and-humanities/people/#N-S

He is correct about what Yemen's constitution says, so I'm not particularly opposed to that idea remaining in the article -- but given that he is apparently no longer an academic (and in the past has mainly focussed on Iraq, where he's from), and that he gave his comments to Press TV (& RT), should we be including his thoughts in an encyclopaedic article? Tal grey (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On his Twitter page, he doesn't talk about being at the London Met, I guess he used to work there at some point. Regardless, he is a political analyst and what he said was correct, so it should stay. Also found something very interesting on his twitter page. He links to a WikiLeaks document that shows that Houthi's do not get arms from Iran. ArabianWonders (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed per WP:UNDUE. Let's see if we can find an actually notable analyst giving those comments to or writing for an actually reliable source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

See, Kudzu1, this is what I am talking about. We have a notable lecturer that wrote for the Guardian and gave lessons at a London University who we know is saying the truth, yet you want to remove it because it is coming from PressTV. ArabianWonders (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

London Met isn't an especially reputable university, and particularly not in this field (i.e., even if he was still a lecturer there, it doesn't really make him notable). He commented in the Guardian several years ago, mainly on Iraq, where he's from, and in his capacity as a member of the Stop the War (in Iraq) coalition. That experience doesn't especially qualify him to comment on Yemen. I won't even get into what's wrong with Press TV interviews. As I said, the comment on the constitution is true (if a bit academic during a war in a failed state), and if it is repeated somewhere with more authority it I think it would be important to keep in. 86.163.223.252 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Verifiability, not truth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If this will be removed based on the person saying it, it should at the very least be put into the background information. It is a very important point. ArabianWonders (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. It's true, and if someone credible said it in response to the Saudi campaign it would make sense to include it somewhere. But all sides have violated the constitution, which was hardly ever followed in the first place and was in the process of undergoing major revisions, and really what are they going to do—haul Hadi's government and the Houthis and so many others up in front of a non-existent or non-functioning Shura Council/Cassation Court and try them? I don't really see the point of adding it to this particular encyclopedia entry unless it becomes part of the wider debate. Tal grey (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is part of the wider debate. Houthi spokesman constantly refer to it in their reports, channels and interviews. ArabianWonders (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Then that's just giving a platform to their propaganda, isn't it? It's not like they're mentioning the various bits of the constitution they've breached.... Tal grey (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Not it doesn't. We know what the Houthi's have breached and done because it says so in the article. What it doesn't say is the Houthi side at all. I am not telling you to add reasons why the Houthi's are better. I just want a specific fact that a analyst discussed to be highlighted. ArabianWonders (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, here's a possible solution: Put it under "Houthi responses" (can't recall the exact section name but the one for those in Yemen opposed to KSA intervention)? Tal grey (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The intervention is certainly Saudi led

The titles has to be moved to Saudi led intervention in Yemen per similar articles and many secondary reliable sources using the term "Saudi-led" and the fact that the intervention is really led by Saudi. So, I did the job. Mhhossein (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. I'm flexible on the date modifier, whether it should be (2015), (2015–present), or 2015... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Thanks. I think (2015) better fits the title per the fact that we are still in 2015 and (2015-present) makes no sense. However, this is my idea, what do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've no objection either way. I've seen it both ways in the past. One advantage to leaving out the "present" part is that if the campaign wraps up by year's end, we won't have to move the page again. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Consider that it is, as we are still in 2015, better be in (2015) form. Mhhossein (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Stance on WikiLeaks sources?

I would just like to inquire about the stance of referencing WikiLeaks documents? There is a WikiLeaks document regarding a US intelligence report that states that the Houthi's are not being armed by Iran. Is WikiLeaks an acceptable reference? ArabianWonders (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been used in the past, but I think it's a primary source. It would be preferable to have a reliable secondary source reporting on the leaked document. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

By all means, I think it should be included. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Total Civilian Casualties Count

On April 13, HRW stated that 311 civilians have been killed by the airstrikes. Based on confirmed reports on this article, that can be updated.

• On April 17, an airstrike killed 8 people of the same family. TTL : 319.
• On April 18, the Oxfam attack killed 1. TTL : 320.
• On April 20, the Faj Attan attack killed 90. TTL : 410
• On April 21, attack on Haradh killed 9. TTL : 419
• On April 27, shelling and strikes killed 13. TTL : 423
• On April 28, Saudi attack on Somalian bus killed 40. TTL : 463
• On April 28 also, at least 3 killed (although it is much higher) TTL : 466
• On May 1st, 10 civilians were killed. TTL : 476

Total : 476 (Only Reuters and UN reports).

@EkoGraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It seemed like there was a pretty clear consensus under Talk:2015_military_intervention_in_Yemen#New_page.3F to keep the events of Operation Restoring Hope on this page. I'm not sure why Timeline of Operation Restoring Hope was created or what purpose it serves, especially considering there is no Timeline of Operation Decisive Storm that I can find; its content is either already duplicated here or could be easily merged. I suggest we do merge the fork into this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a separate article because if there wasn't then the 2015 military intervention in Yemen article would become too unwieldy. Operation Restoring Hope could go on for a long time and the timeline could become quite long, so i think it is wise to have a separate article. Besides since it is supposedly a new phase in the intervention force then i think this warrants its own article. However, if the operation ceased before making the article too long then i would certainly support a merger.58.106.248.63 (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTAL. There was a consensus not to split the page at this time, and this new article was spun off anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about your crystal ball view. It is quite obvious that this operation is only escalating and a quick resolution seems far-fetched. The reasonable view, i believe, is to keep the article and if miraculously the operation ends soon then it can be merged without any issue. I don't understand why there's any current fuss when you have the full support of a merger if the article remains too short. I think a little patience is recommended. But the current inclusion of its content in the intervention article is just making that article ridiculously congested.58.106.248.63 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be spun off. There's no WP:SIZE concern. It's a redundant page spun off against consensus. It should be merged and deleted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Size is a concern when the intervention sub-section has to be further split for every new month to make the sections more readable. Also, i don't think the issue of consensus was achieved very well with less than a handful of contributors. I think allowing a stand alone article will ensure that the operation details are more readable and will allow for greater detail. I just think a bit of patience isn't going to hurt anyone.58.106.248.63 (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "patience", it's a matter of the article is completely unnecessary and should be deleted. And that's not how WP:SIZE works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the "completely unnecessary" part. Remember, the article isn't called Operation Restoring Hope—it's called Timeline of Operation Restoring Hope. This accounts for the fact that i don't believe the operation is notable enough to stand on its own, separated from the intervention article. However, i think the events in the operation are notable enough and deserve to be detailed in a stand alone article to give the relevant detail and prevent congestion of the main article.58.106.248.63 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep for now - Personally, I don't have a problem with a merger if this operation ends in a relatively short period of time. But we don't know how long it could go on. Eventually, the amount of events could become too weighty when compared to the rest of the main military intervention article, so until we have some idea of just how long this operation is going to last, let's keep the articles separate. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now - Agreed.58.106.248.63 (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, it seems simpler (especially since we are still cataloguing, among other things, international and Arab reactions and casualties) to keep everything on this page for now. Tal grey (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Iranian Responses" section?

Iran has made a few peace/negotiation proposals (as well as sending aid, and now warships to the Gulf). Does this merit an "Iranian responses" section, given the Saudi–Iran power dynamics in the region?

Right now all the discussion of Iranian involvement is split between "International Responses", "Casualties" and "Naval Role", as well as "Suspected Iranian Involvement" which discusses their possible role in supporting/arming the Houthis. Tal grey (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That entire section is an absolute flaming mess. It all needs to be merged into the "International reactions" article, but it's gotten so bad I'm not quite sure where to start. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. The story is continually developing and some international reactions don't quite fit the pie. In regards to Iran, yes, I think they should have their own section from the start. I think every politician in Iran has denounced the attack at least once. ArabianWonders (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1 I had tried to copy over all the individual details to the "International Responses" article and then condense the section on this article so each type of intervention (aid agencies trying to provide aid, aid agencies condemning air strikes, governments pro/anti air strikes, governments evacuating foreign nationals, UN stuff, etc.) had a small paragraph. However, those changes were reversed. Is there a better way to go about this? Is it supposed to be discussed on the talk page first? Tal grey (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Iran Sources

While I was moving timeline bullets from Decisive Storm to Restoring Hope, I noticed a number of dubious reports pro-Iran sources. I have kept them in for now, but seriously, I strongly agree with them being included per WP:RS.

I have no idea how to go about changing the sources to credible ones or indeed deleting the claims where no credible sources can be found; I know if I do they'll just get restored and I'll get censured (it's happened in the past even after bringing it up on the talk page). For example:

• Under "Decisive Storm/Ground clashes":On 12 April, members of the Takhya tribe launched an attack on a Saudi military base after several of its members died in an airstrike. Exact number of Saudi casualties cannot be confirmed but large amounts of weapons and ammunition were taken.
• Under "Casualties": "Hours after the announcement, local reports confirmed the presence of coalition airplanes over Sanaa."

Tal grey (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I added both of these. These are NOT Pro-Iran. They are Yemeni news. I found several articles that can be seen up in the discussion I already had with this. There are pictures available on the article. In regards to the first one, I found over 7 articles that reported on the same thing, they ranged from Pro-Houthi, to Pro-Haid but they all had that report. It is without a doubt that Saudi media will not report on it and such, western media won't either. In regards to the second, the next day thousands of articles said the same thing about bombardments just hours after the announcement! HOW IS THAT PRO-IRAN!? ArabianWonders (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, there are links to Press TV and Khabar. How is that NOT pro-Iran sources?!? I actually found BBC/Reuters/AFP sources for these events and changed the citations accordingly, but my edits were reverted. That was my question -- how do you even change citations to neutral sources when people just revert the changes? Tal grey (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tal grey: By replacing unreliable sources with reliable sources where possible, you're doing exactly what we should all be doing to uphold WP:V and WP:NPOV. Reverting the citation of reliable sources in favor of unreliable sources is not justifiable behavior. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tal grey: At least one of your edits was disingenuous. I recall reverting one of your edits, in which you replaced one source with another source that was completely unrelated to the information written in the article. Please don't do that again. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit: I don't recall having done that, and certainly wouldn't have done it on purpose. Please assume I'm acting in good faith per WP:GF. Thanks! :) Tal grey (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tal grey: Western outlets are not neutral. They reported dozens of Houthi deaths simply because Saudi said it. Khabar is a Yemeni news site. Please post the changes here. If the same event is reported by different sites, why even remove the first?? Before you revert any edit for being "pro-Iran" please post about it here. I will most likely have something to say, else, just removing my edits based on them being "Pro-Iran" will result in me reverting them back in. ArabianWonders (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders: Khabar is a Yemeni news site, but quite pro-Iran and reporting on some very questionable things. I didn't remove any of your edits (as you'll notice I said in the opening comment); I did try to change the citations to ones from news outlets with reputations for fact-checking. (PressTV is specifically mentioned as an unreliable source in Wikipedia's guidelines.) Again, please assume I'm acting in good faith and per WP:V and WP:NPV. Thanks :) Tal grey (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tal grey: First, let's get some things straight. Khabar is pro-revolution. It reports on Iranian news as well because Iran is the only fully spoken country against the intervention, that is natural. When you say Pro-Iran, you make it seem like Iran is funding them or operating them, of which, that's not true. Next is in regards to PressTV being unreliable. I have just read every article about PressTV and although there are criticisms of it giving anti-semitic speakers a platform, I found NO CREDIBLE evidence that it is unreliable. In fact, some statements on the Wikipedia pages on PressTV and PressTV Controversies actually say it is factually correct. Articles claiming it is bad and unreliable were linked to blog posts and some of the link redirected to error pages. I am sorry but I used to trust what people on this page used to say in regards to PressTV being unreliable but following this read, I can safely assume it just as reliable as any state-owned TV. Thanks for clearing that up with me! ArabianWonders (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal : Reactions in Yemen

To clarify some confusion that arise when trying to define if something is "Opposition" or "Support" in Yemen, I believe that under the Yemen section before the actual Opposition and Support subsection we be able to put general Yemen updates that don't need to be defined as Support or Opposition. For example, Hadi asking for GGC membership and Houthi's calling for an early presidential election. Thoughts? ArabianWonders (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

We should provide a table like the one here. This way, the readers will have a quick understanding of the losses. Mhhossein (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Depicting casualties of killed and injured (man, women & kids) and losses(infrastructure i.e. buildings, schools, hospitals etc) in a tabulation format is good idea. A column for IDPs is also suggested. Nannadeem (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of this! --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem, Kutsuit, ArabianWonders, and Kudzu1: Any suggestions? What elements should we consider for rows and columns? Mhhossein (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a table that will be placed above the Casualties information? I feel like that section is very important and can't be replicated into a table but a table above to simplify deaths is a good idea. We can have one from the UN, one from Yemeni Health Ministry and one from the independent agencies. ArabianWonders (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders: Some thing like that. In fact we aim to let the readers know what's up by the first look and of course one has to refer to the main text of that section yo gain more information. What "independent agencies" do you suggest? Mhhossein (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders: That's quite hard to determine. We have statements coming from ICRC, UN, OCHA, HRW, UNICEF and Oxfam. Although most death reports come from the OCHA so it would probably be that one. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)