Talk:Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unreliable Source Tag - Seriously?

Every single Yemeni news source I posted has had an "unreliable" tag put on it. From the letter of an Archaeology department, information about a political party issued letter to a interview!. The only one without an unreliable tag was a UAE-based website. Kudzu1, you say you do not understand Arabic when in reality, you are more than willing to tag only Yemen-based websites as unreliable. I will say these all one more time.

: PressTv is not bias when it tells us about it's reporters and interviews it has done.
: Yemen-based news is not unreliable when it is reporting about official document, letters, meetings and professors. 

The unbelievable bias is more apparent when Saudi claims of Houthi deaths remained days without a single objection or questioning of reliability but Yemeni news was immediately made unreliable. Please do not cite Yemen-based news as unreliable unless you have a valid reason. ArabianWonders (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I also added some of the unreliable tags, but if I recall correctly I only put them on links to Al-Mayadeen and Khabar (and some reporting from Press TV, but not anything quoting their interviews, even though I personally don't trust anything their interviewees say as they have a habit of calling on conspiracy theorists and discredited academics). I also added unreliable tags to Al-Arabiya and Asharq Al-Awsat on the other side. However, as I said to you before, I maintain Yemeni news is unreliable at the moment, and while I doubt Al-Qaeda is protecting press freedoms I'll just talk about reports from within Houthi- or pro-Hadi-controlled areas. For example, Reporters without Borders has quite clearly stated that Houthi supporters have been repeatedly attacking media outlets in Sanaa and other areas they control, including conducting kidnappings, lootings, false arrests, etc: https://en.rsf.org/yemen-houthi-rebels-continue-to-target-11-03-2015,47673.html (And RSF has been repeatedly reporting on Houthi interferences with journalists and the media for at least 8 months, in addition to the fact that Yemen is generally always near the bottom of their Press Freedom Index regardless of who's in charge). And, of course, the other side(s) are also taking part in this, including the very sad murder of a pro-Houthi democracy activist and former editor of Al-Shoura recently. In my mind, this makes Yemeni reports as immediately suspect as reports from Saudi sources. Nobody (in my opinion) should be citing either side's reporting -- only their own statements of their plans/motivations, and even then it should be clearly noted in the text which side the statement comes from and where it was carried. Otherwise, it seems like an unreliable source tag is well in order. Tal grey (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand my point. In Saudi Arabia, they don't have attacks on journalists because they don't have opposing news channels to start with. In Yemen, it is true that Houthi supporters and Hadi supporters have attacked each other but the fact remains, there are channels, papers and websites for every aspect of thought in Yemen. The civilian deaths, the official reports and the such are reported by ALL aspects. The report about the destroyed histroical site was reported by pro-Saudi and pro-Hadi newspaper and was also available on pro-Houthi newspapers. Some news agencies, I don't even know which side they are on because they report on civilian deaths (which pro-Saudi don't) but they also report on Hadi Government statements. I just can't stand the fact that we are branding reports by Yemeni media, the only somewhat free media that is inside the area of conflict as unreliable all the while blindly trusting echoed Saudi statements on western news. Various people don't seem to grasp the fact that Al-Mayadeen and PressTV have actual reporters on site in Yemen while western media doesn't. ArabianWonders (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll say it again, too: Al-Mayadeen and PressTV are not reliable sources. They have not been reliable in the past, and they certainly are not reliable now. They have a well-deserved reputation for twisting and even fabricating their reports to favor the Iranian government and its few international allies. I'll also note that I added a couple of those tags after noticing the similar tagging of Saudi media sources making similarly exceptional claims (mass casualty reports and the like). If we are to be fair, we should strive to use sources where possible that are neither Saudi nor Iranian/Hezbollah/Houthi.

It is also untrue that no Western media outlets have reporters on the ground, and even where they are not physically present, the likes of Reuters and AFP are renowned for having a network of sources to feed them information even amid warzones. It is WP:OR to consider them less reliable than Iranian and Hezbollah propaganda channels just because their reporters aren't practically embedded with the Houthis. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I reread your initial comment and it sounds like you're saying I tagged some Yemeni news sources that I honestly don't recall tagging. Perhaps you could provide the diff and refresh my memory? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That is true but alas, unfortunately AFP and Reuters don't report on a fraction of what's going on. We see the UN reports and we see that reuters failed to report even a quarter of those deaths and attacks. I don't have an issue with citing AFP or Reuters but the majority of posts here are citing not those but pro-Saudi sites which are echoed into hundreds of western sites. Al-Mayadeen has an active reporter that takes videos, interviews and pictures. Of course we can't be completely clear of propaganda which is why I have never cited Saudi deaths and so on from these sites but we can't ignore news from them just because someone believes they are funded by a certain government. PressTV has done nothing more than pro-Saudi media has done. At the very least, Yemeni media is coming truly from Yemen. I am not going to cite death claims and their obvious propaganda but when both pro-Saudi and pro-Houthi Yemeni media report on a single topic, it's pretty much true. I cited to an article that gave news of a General Authority in Yemen and was tagged as unreliable. How is that even possible? It's an official announcement! TL;DR We can't ignore Yemeni media's civilian death claims and official announcements because due to the scale of the war, reliable sources are hard to come by.

P.S I seemed to have mistakenly thought you tagged the Arabic articles. (I added 3 articles, 2 were Yemeni-media and one was UAE-based. Only the Yemen-based was tagged). ArabianWonders (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders: No, I understand your point, I just disagree with you. Not only is the Yemeni media under threat of violence from many sides, it has almost no history of being free. That means it is unusually likely that they will misreport/biassedly over- or under-report/exaggerate/fabricate stories to suit whomever is paying/threatening them (or indeed just those with whom they ideologically agree, as happens in the West, too). And, given there's a war going on, it seems in my mind impossible to identify in every instance if an apparently independent media source is actually being threatened, or if they're feeling threatened by the presence of whatever armed group in their area. (A slightly different story for the Saudis, I agree, where they simply don't allow alternate news agencies in the first place. The fact Yemen has multiple sources of news doesn't make those news outlets inherently more reliable.) That's totally beyond the fact that there doesn't seem to be any media organisation in the entire region that has a particular reputation for competence and adhering to journalistic standards, such as fact-checking and triple-verifying reports. Those are the reasons I find reports from Yemeni sources questionable. Tal grey (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this Kudzu1? I agree with you. It is not free but mainly questioning reports because they are from Yemeni-based media severely cuts out very important developments. All I am saying is that it is reliable in the very least when it refers to official statements, reports and political developments. I personally check for at least 2 articles on the same topic before I post it here. You may not like or trust Yemeni media but that doesn't mean that it is all fabrication. ArabianWonders (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me, I forgot to log in before I signed the comment. I don't doubt some Yemeni media do report true events sometimes, my point was more along the lines of 'how can we know who is reporting truth and who isn't'? Two sources of unverifiable quality isn't the same as using sources with a reputation for fact-checking. I can't recall at this point which links I added it to, I don't as a rule add them to reports of official statements (although my Arabic isn't great so I may have inadvertently). Tal grey (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ArabianWonders I totally agree with Tal_grey that not all Yemeni sources are unreliable but the thing is if we want to maintain neutrality in this page we have to avoid citing media affiliated to any party to the conflict be it Yemeni or Saudi. I'm sure once we tolerate Yemeni sources (SABA/KHABAR/AKHBAR/SAADA) pro-coalition editors would flood this page with news reported by Saudi-funded news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O mnp11 (talk O mnp11 (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)• contribs) 15:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC) O mnp11 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@O mnp11: Before removing my edits, PLEASE tag and discuss it first. We have agreed on this page to include self-reported casualties. Yemeni news reported on attacks on their people and even had pictures in some articles. Self-reported casualties should be reported. Please revert your edit. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Who said Muqrin opposes the Saudi airstrikes?!

In the "Reactions in Saudi Arabia/ Opposition" section some bloke's speculations about Salman of Saudi Arabia firing his brother Muqrin over opposition to the military campaign is being presented as though it was a fact. This page should be about reporting facts not presenting hypotheses and speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O mnp11 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The support/oppose dichotomy is absolutely WP:OR and deeply problematic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor who added that information to the article made sure to use the term "allegedly", therefore I don't see anything wrong with adding it. After all, the article also mentions allegations of Iranian support toward the Houthis, even though they cannot be proven either. Either we remove all allegations from the article or mention allegations from both sides of the conflict. Personally, I think we should keep all allegations, provided they're referenced. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

More than one political analyst and advisor. As Nadia says, "alleged" information from both sides or none. You decide. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Appearing less enthusiastic" and "may have doubted the wisdom of Decisive Storm" isn't concrete evidence of a definitive stance. I say this with a grain of a salt and the consideration that The Daily Beast is a disintegrous tabloid. Allegations made by involved government officials are decidedly contrastive to unsubstantiated gossip recapitulated by an opinionated columnist. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The alleged article report (as a published source) can also be seen at two more NEWs URLs [1] and [2]. Nannadeem (talk)

These sources are less vague, at least. I took the liberty of clarifying "who" exactly made this allegation ("some political analysts in the Persian Gulf", according to Miami Herald). Elspamo4 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this really speculation? It seems to me like nobody except the inner circle of the Saudi royal family can really know why Salman made that move — it could just as easily have been that he wanted his own people, not Abdullah's people, around him, or that some of them (Saud Al-Faisal) actually wanted to retire (he's been doing the job for over three decades). And just because it's speculated on in the news (by a journalist at McCathchy? The two sources @Nannadeem mentioned are just two outlets running the same wire story) doesn't seem like enough reason to include it in an encyclopaedia? I agree with @Kudzu1, it seems WP:OR. Tal grey (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

More than one political analyst has brought up this theory and you seem to be downplaying it a lot. Not since the foundation of the Kingdom has this ever happened. He cut off an entire generation and let's not forget that Muqrin's mother was from Yemen. ArabianWonders (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tal grey Publishing of someone’s article/news in more than three news reporting websites is question for objectioners to weigh. Publisher/writer has speculated! it is not my OR. I have provided published sources, nothing more. Nannadeem (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem but still not every published speculation should be reported as news. The fact that some TABLOID or unknown outlet has published some guy's ramblings does not make it credible newsO mnp11 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Kudzu1 it is an obvious case of WP:OR and therefore should be removed from the "Reactions in Saudi Arabia/ Opposition" section as it lacks credibility. I don't know maybe we can add a new section under the heading "Allegations" to which we can add it to O mnp11 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit if it was OK to treat ALLEGATIONS as news by simply using the word "allegedly" after every unsourced piece of information, why did we bother create a special section about "ALLEGED Iranian involvement" in the first place? it is absoulutely fine to make space for allegations but it is WRONG to report them as FACTS. O mnp11 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@O mnp11. With ref to “Speculation” One more commentary by Almonitor (the Pulse of the Midle East), please see here [3]. I think we will see this in many other articles of different media in future. Nannadeem (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Israel in the infobox

Let's make this clear: The Houthis have every reasons to claim Israel is involved, but similar claims can be used to include Israel in countless similar cases (whether it's islamists or neo-Nazis making the allegations). Unless Israeli involvement is alleged by a somewhat reliable source, Israel has nothing to do in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: You are absolutely right. Kutsuit, will you revert your edit?--Anders Feder (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's claims of Iranian support toward the Houthis were also included in the article, despite the fact that they couldn't be proven and were rejected by a number of Western thinkers as well. In my opinion, either we remove all allegations or include the allegations of both sides, otherwise the article would lose its neutrality. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with Politico reiterating Houthi claims of Israeli involvement, just as there's nothing wrong with another Western media outlet reiterating Saudi claims of Iranian involvement. So we either remove all the allegations or keep all of them. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit: No, we remove all the allegations made by unreliable sources. We do not give undue weight to unsubstantiated fringe accusations put forward by some random unnamed Houthi militant for the sake of creating false balance.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's face it, many sources in this article are arguably unreliable, and yet they still haven't been omitted. I'm all in favor of removing Israel from the list of belligerents, provided we remove Iran et al as well. If you think Politico's article is unreliable just because it reiterates the claims of Houthi rebels, then you should also think the articles that reiterate Saudi Arabia's claims of Iranian involvement are unreliable, especially considering the fact that they've been debunked by a number of reputable Western thinkers. Omitting one so-called unreliable source while failing to omit others would make the editor come across as biased. In any case, this is the first time I've heard someone call Politico an unreliable source. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That's absurd. Reuters has reported (fairly recently) that Iranian officials acknowledge providing training to the Houthis. Moreover, the U.S. government (which, like it or not, commands substantially greater reputability and cachet than the basically unrecognized government in Sana'a) and many others have alleged Iranian support for the Houthis. It's WP:GEVAL at its essence. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit: Don't waste everybody's time with straw man argumentation, please. I haven't called Politico an unreliable source anywhere. I have called random unnamed Houthi militants unreliable, and their frivolous, undocumented claims should not be presented alongside the significant, substantive claims made by reliable sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Please remove Eritrea, too. We can't have "unreliable information", can we? An Ethipoian news outlet is reporting on a Saudi claim. Hardly anything reliable. Also the fact that you saw an article where Iranian officials admitted to helping and did not write it down in the article is very odd. ArabianWonders (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders: I agree. I removed all the allegations until a consensus is established, as per the standard that has been set by the other editors so far. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: If you feel that I'm wasting your time, then simply don't respond to me. You can make your point in this discussion without directly referring to me or any other editor you feel is wasting your time. The other allegations weren't "substantive" either -- contrary to your suggestion. The claim of Iranian involvement comes from Saudi Arabia and its allies, which means it's hardly balanced or reliable in light of the political situation. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit: What "suggestion" about other allegations that I have made are you referring to? Or was that just yet another straw man on your part? Instead of trying to coerce everyone into some "Shia vs. the West" mindset, try to concentrate on the facts and adding them to the article rather than various spurious propaganda allegations.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Why are you starting an argument with me? Please take your own advice and focus on the subject matter. If you think I misinterpreted your previous reply, then I apologize. And enough with the tautology already. >_< --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Because your resorting to straw man arguments would imply you being entrenched in some battleground I do not wish to become part of. Nothing personal.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

As per what Anders posted, I do agree that Iran has helped the rebels somewhat in the past, however, in THIS conflict we are not aware of that. Iranian planes arrives in Sanaa but so did other planes. Saying they were arming them based on a speculation is against the rules. They can be put as supporting for Houthi insurgency article but not for this one. Also, @Anders Feder: this WikiLeaks document dated to 2009 confirms by the US intelligence that Iran was not arming the Houthi's so honestly, even for the Houthi insurgency, that can't be proved. ArabianWonders (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ArabianWonders: We aren't in the business of "proving" things on Wikipedia - we aren't mathematicians. We relate and compare what reliable sources say and base the article on that.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

By the same token, we aren't in the "business" of proving whether or not Israel is really involved in this war. As long as there's a credible website that can verify the Houthi claim of Israeli involvement, then it should be mentioned. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of making up your own rules, try to read the ones which actually apply, and to which you have already been pointed: Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack. So no, we emphatically do not have to mention any bizarre theory that some random Houthi has come up with, no matter where you've dug it up.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Wait so - you're not for fringe theories only by Houthis? Iranian support is a fully Saudi and pro-Saudi US claim and there is no proof. The only thing it has going for it is that the US also accused Iran of being involved. Similarly, the Houthi's are accusing Israel of supporting. There is no definite report of either, so emit both or keep both. Also, to clarify, in terms of support, I mean in this war and not the 2009 and such wars. ArabianWonders (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether you think the claim of Iranian support is "fully Saudi" or "pro-Saudi US" or that there is no "proof" is completely irrelevant. It's significant, substantiated by evidence and widely reported by reliable sources. The allegation of Israeli "support" is neither significant, not backed up by any evidence nor widely reported by reliable sources. It's just the kind spurious ramblings that any Middle Eastern anti-Semite lets out when they need to demonize something.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The allegation of Israeli support is a significant minority view and was reported by a reliable source in the form of Politico. Also, no evidence of Iranian support was presented either. By the way, are you indirectly accusing some of the editors around here of antisemitism? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I'm not making up my own rules, but it seems that you are. One the one hand, you argued that Israel shouldn't be listed in the infobox because the Houthis weren't trustworthy, but on the other hand you contradicted yourself by saying that it wasn't in Wikipedia's business to prove whether or not something was true. Therefore, going by your own logic, it shouldn't matter if the Houthi allegations are true or not. Instead, what matters is that they made the claim that Israel was involved in this war and that a reliable source (i.e. Politico) was able to verify that claim. Adding Israel to the list of belligerents, with a small footnote, does not give undue weight to the article. Now please make up your mind. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is verging on tendentious time-wasting at this point. Israel bombing Yemen is a WP:FRINGE claim that needs substantial documentation per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Removing Iran et al. is WP:POINTy, WP:BATTLEGROUNDish behavior. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

They're both weak allegations, hence the reason for this discussion. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Kutsuit: I haven't contradicted anything. We don't make mathematical proofs. We relate significant views represented in reliable sources. We don't lend credence to conspiracy theories dreamt up by some inane Houthi rebel on a shooting rampage. We give due weight to significant views represented in reliable sources. No contradiction whatsoever.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't sound neutral. One could easily argue that the allegations of Iranian support toward the Houthis are also conspiratorial. Let's use the same standards you applied earlier on. The allegation of Israeli involvement is a significant minority view. Secondly, it was reported by a reliable source. Last but not least, adding Israel (with a small footnote) to the infobox does not give undue weight to the article. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely undue weight. In one instance, you managed to dig up a U.S. political news website that mentions the Houthis claim Israel is behind the attacks on them (Ayatollah Khamenei also linked the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, to Israel last summer: [4] and Saleh blamed protests against his rule on Israel and the United States in 2011: [5]), and in the other, practically every news agency mentions the widely suspected Iran-Houthi link when they write about the conflict in Yemen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue weight because Israel was only mentioned in the infobox, and I made sure to include a footnote as well. I'd like to hear what other editors think as this is extremely judgmental. Politico is a reliable source and it managed to report the Houthi claim of Israeli involvement in the war. The view of the Houthis is a significant minority view and has been reported by a reliable source in the form of Politico. So where's the crime? What do the Iranian supreme leader's views have to do with this subject matter? It's no secret that Israel and Saudi Arabia are allies these days, even by the admission of many Western political analysts. It's hardly conspiratorial, so it's not fair comparing the Houthi allegation to whatever Iran's supreme leader said about the Ferguson protests. By the way, I was the one who added all the alleged belligerents to the infobox. If you want to re-add Iran, then you're free to do so, but I think a consensus should be established first. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Kutsuit: You certainly isn't neutral either, so I couldn't care less what you think I sound like. The allegation of Israeli "involvement" is completely insignificant and put forward by highly unreliable members of an anti-Semitic community. We don't give any weight whatsoever to such allegations, just like we don't give weight to claims that the Moon is made of Emmental cheese.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusing members of antisemitism. The Houthi allegation represents a significant minority view and was reported by a reliable source. Please get over it. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No they don't. Get over it yourself. In fact, your own source is ridiculing how "blaming Israel for the Mideast’s sundry ills is a time-honored regional pastime", and how Israel "airlifted a steady supply of money and arms to ... the same Shiite tribes from whom today’s rebels spring", and how "the five lines of [the rebel's] oft-touted slogan, two are devoted to vilifying Israel and Jews".--Anders Feder (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said I believed the Houthis. They made a claim and a reliable website reported it, therefore I added the information to the article. End of story. It is a significant minority view whether you like it or not. It is a view held by one of the main belligerents in this war, therefore it's significant, regardless of whether it's true or not. Also, please show a little respect around here and stop accusing members of antisemitism. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't and it never will be "whether you like it or not". And no, I don't need to "show a little respect" to a group widely documented[6][7][8] to be anti-Semites, just like I'm not going to "show a little respect" to Adolf Hitler or any present-day proponents of Nazism.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:What on Earth are you blithering about? I asked you to show respect to the members whom you accused of antisemitism in your previous replies. I did not ask you to show respect to the Houthis, nor do I even care what you think about the Houthis in the first place. Whether or not the Houthis are antisemitic is irrelevant anyway. The Houthi claim is most certainly a significant minority view and has been reported by many websites in the region. Politico is probably the only Western media outlet to report the Houthi claim, but it's definitely not the only media outlet around the World to mention it. Again, you failed to comply with the very same standards you were preaching to me in your earlier replies. You explicitly said that whether or not something is true is irrelevant. You then showed me a link that said that any minority view that needs to be added to an article has to be significant and reported by a reliable source. Going by these standards, there's absolutely no reason for omitting Israel from the infobox. Furthermore, you can keep saying that mentioning Israel in the article is akin to claiming the moon is made of cheese until you're blue in the face, but every neutral person knows that this is hardly a rational comparison. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What on Earth are you "blithering" about yourself? As I wrote above, stop wasting everybody's time. You seem to suffer from some delusion that if just you refuse to get the point vehemently enough, you can turn Emmental cheese into a reliable source. I wish you good luck with that.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Politico, but even assuming it is a reliable source, WP:EXCEPTIONAL explicitly states that multiple reliable sources are required to support an exceptional claim. Bearing in mind that virtually every reliable news organization has at some point used the 'Iranian-supported' qualifier when referring to the Houthis, this isn't really applicable to claims of Iranian support. It is not our responsibility to ensure whether these claims are substantiated, rather, it is our duty to ensure that the claim is supported by reliable sources. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4: In this case, the reliability of media outlets is entirely subjective and cannot be proven conclusively. Back in 2007, many Western media outlets reported that an Iranian drone was shot down in Yemen. Three years later, WikiLeaks revealed that it was a complete and utter lie: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/04/yemeni-govt-lies-2007-iranian-spy-plane-was-known-to-be-us-drone/ How's that for being "reliable"? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Red herring much? It's clear you are unable to defend your POINTy behavior in this case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Please behave and stop accusing me of something I'm not doing. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It does seem entirely subjective, but I don't think it would particularly difficult to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable sources on a case-by-case basis, as we have been doing thus far. Your link states that Al Motamar, a Yemeni newspaper, reported on false claims by the US, not Western media. I don't think that article provides any convincing evidence or is directly relevant to Israeli support, anyhow. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Whomever is quoting Politico as a source for Israeli military involvement in the current crisis is misrepresenting what Politico actually carried. First, it is an op-ed/blog type article: this is not Politico reporting the accusation as a verified fact according to standard journalistic practises (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/israel-yemen-shiites-117208.html#.VUVpImTBzGc). And even then, the author merely referenced the fact that Houthis accuse Israel of being behind the current military campaign against them, before going into a history lesson about Israel supporting the Zaydi Imamate in the civil war of the 1960s, and then adding a paragraph at the end going 'well, you never really know, maybe Israel is involved and we'll find evidence in the future'. So even the author admits there is no evidence for this claim (so far, he seems open to it being unsurfaced in the future). Tal grey (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Should we include information about the latest Houthi retaliation against Saudi Arabia?

It appears that the Saudi city of Najran was pounded by Houthi mortar shells today. The Houthis claimed that they took over four Saudi military outposts and killed a number of Saudi soldiers. I think the Saudis confirmed that some of their soldiers were either captured or killed, and that a number of Saudi civilians were killed as well. So should we include this information in the article and, if so, where? Should we add Saudi civilian casualties to the infobox as well?

Here are the sources:
1. http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/05/05/409509/Yemenis-Saudi-military-posts
2. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/05/05/world/middleeast/ap-ml-yemen.html?_r=0
3. https://twitter.com/24News__/status/595608662925705216

Also, there are a number of images circulating the internet that appear to show the Houthis in control of a Saudi military outpost:
1. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEMD6OxWoAEIDDk.jpg
2. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEMD6N5WoAATZ7B.jpg

--Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kutsuit: Why not? But consider that we can't go through the details as the article is not suitable for this. We may start a new section and (if the attacks continue) devote a new page this retaliation . Mhhossein (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but let's use reliable sources, i.e. not Twitter or PressTV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged Iranian involvement" section

I think this article should be added to the section:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/iran-houthis-yemen_n_7101456.html
It basically debunks the allegations that Iran was behind the Houthi-led takeover of Sana'a. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please add it. This article proves that they have a direct link but also proves that Iran did not want a takeover. ArabianWonders (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does the source for the map come from?

The map has some very audacious claims from AQAP control of vast areas to Hadi and Houthi controls. Where is the information for this found? Can someone please direct me to the source? ArabianWonders (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC) @Banak: Ping.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources are per Module:Yemen Insurgency detailed map, and it's talk page, raise it there (unless the map differs from it's source). Two contributors make up 70% of edits there, so one of them probably knows what happened and why. Unless it's very odd I don't normally avoid updating based on sudden changes. Banak (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Saudi-reported civilian casualties

I knew that a time like this would come and we would have this discussion. Following argument over argument regarding Ansar Allah reported civilian casualties we have still not reached a decisive conclusion regarding citing civilian casualties. Some editors have been more than willing to place 10 Saudi civilians in the report, despite them being Saudi-reported only. So, we need to make a decision. Choose option 1 or 2.

1. Cite self-reported casualties. This is by far the easiest and will result in high figures for both sides. We cite and put in information about self-reported casualties. For example, the 10 Saudi civilians reported and the thousands of Yemeni civilians reported by the Houthi Government.
2. Cite UN reports only. This is reliable but hard. This will mean we only reported UN-confirmed casualties. In Yemen, that would be 600 and so and in Saudi it would be 0.

If we wish to remain neutral the above option is all that we have. You cannot dismiss Yemen-reported casualties only to definitely report on Saudi-reported casualties. Please place your input. ArabianWonders (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we go by reliable sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Great. That means no Saudi-reported civilian casualties should be added. I'll wait for reliable sources before adding that. ArabianWonders (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[9]"As per talk. Self-reported Saudi and self-reported rebel casualties are to be added. Never claims." @ArabianWonders: Says who?--Anders Feder (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Please check the archived discussions above. I have had many arguments with EkoGraf and Kudzu1 regarding this issue. Self-reported casualties are always at least 100% confirmed deaths (even if not total) and opponent claims are always 100% propaganda. ArabianWonders (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Also, please start a discussion then revert the edit once it's been solved, we don't want a pointless edit war here. If you like the unreliable tag so much, please tag every single Gulf-owned article on this page too. If you won't even trust an official statement from their official website about official casualties, then the previous would be the best course of action for you. ArabianWonders (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@ArabianWonders: Please stop making up your own rules. The burden is on you to show that the source is reliable. I am looking forward to you doing so. Until there is consensus that the source is reliable, don't edit war over the tag.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: YOU'RE TELLING ME NOT TO EDIT WAR?! You reverted my edits with no explanation and you dare say I am making up my own stuff?! Saba news is the Yemeni state agency and it reported on it's OWN CASUALTIES. It is without a doubt reliable and I will not stand for your blind waiting for someone else to report on a domestic manner. I have discussed this so much times and we agreed that self-reported casualties are to be added. It is not my responsibility to explain to you what you should check before editing on this page. If something is set before you arrive, nothing changes when you start editing on this page. State news agencies are reliable for official documentation, self-reported casualties and statements. I will continue to remove the fact that the state-run website is unreliable. If you want to discuss this further, mention the main editors of this page and let's reach the same conclusion again. ArabianWonders (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Only briefly intervening: "Saba" (sabanews.net) is the Yemeni state news agency, but de facto under control of the Ansar Allah (Huthi movement), ArabianWonders. "Saba New" (sabanew.net) is the agency under control of the internationally accepted Yemeni government (that is the Hadi administration in Saudi-Arabia, regarded as under control of Saudi Arabia by experts). There are doubts appropriate concerning it's reliability in both cases. But let me repeat: this article anyway leans on sources, which do not meet necessary standards at all. And the casualty lists provided here are even original research, partially based on simple media reports of unconfirmed figures, not mentioning the circumstances of the given records. The well known UN figures given by UN OHCHR are hidden here (and any attempt to mention recent UN figures led to immediate reverts), without support of a single source that follows the WP editors' own ideas of how this conflict has to be seen and treated with casualty numbers. This is the main problem here. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Israel's support

In response to User: Anders Feder revision deleting support from Israel, it is submitted that the Heading of story is self sufficient for the news. My reading is that: London’s Sunday Times, in May-2015 reports for Israel’s defense pact with Saudi Arabia. This news was reported by Staff of the Times of Israel, see here [10] . This disclosure may also be seen here [11]. An article published (June-2015) in the New York Times reveals that Saudi Arabia and Israel both are allies of the United States and their discussions were focused on their common strategic problems particularly to discuss their concerns about Iran’s actions across the Middle East, please see here [12]. In view of such circumstance references for support are self explanatory and there is logic for accepting as reliable and verifiable through secondary sources. Nannadeem (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

These sources in particular mention nothing of Israel joining the coalition. By the way, how could you claim that this is 'self sufficient for news'? It obviously satire. The very first paragraph reads "Yossi Fluffberg, Head of Aerial Ass Kicking with the Israeli Air Force commented; “We are just sick of people bombing Muslims without letting us have a go first. The guys have been pretty out of sorts since the Syrian Government keeps ignoring their Facebook friends requests and any efforts to ‘Create a New Facebook Event: Strafing Rebels.’" Is it too much to ask you to read the sources before citing them as evidence for an exceptional claim? Elspamo4 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: Please "use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made"[13] rather than your own original research/wishful demonization of Israel/stories from The Onion or other obviously fake sources. "An article published (June-2015) in the New York Times reveals that Saudi Arabia and Israel both are allies of the United States" No it doesn't. Saudi Arabia and Israel being allied/partners with the United States has been openly acknowledged by the countries themselves ever since those partnerships were made over half a century ago. What has been openly acknowledged, public knowledge for many decades cannot have been "revealed" in some article published this month.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: thanks for angled interpretation. As a nation or human being I consider Israel and Israelis at par with other nations and human beings. Could you please share the reason that leads you to deny the reference cited from Al-monitor. Houthis sources, Press tv and some others have also published/telecast similar news/story.Nannadeem (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nannadeem: The Al-Monitor source is an opinion piece; per WP:NEWSORG, opinion pieces "are rarely reliable for statements of fact". The source also doesn't even state that Israel has supported Saudi Arabia militarily, it only rambles vaguely about some unidentified Israeli politicians "expressing deep satisfaction", "seeming elated", "celebrating" etc. Houthis/PressTV/etc. are complete BS/propaganda sources that do not even remotely pass WP:RS.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Note of relevance to the conversation: I deleted the claims of '20 Israeli generals' being killed from the infobox. It was referenced to VeteransToday who reprinted a 'report' from Iranian propaganda machine Fars News Agency. They have republished similar reports by FNA as well, such as this. Neither are reliable sources. I also adjusted the Saudi death toll in light of these revisions, so if I messed up the current death toll please correct it. Elspamo4 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

hey spammer, you removed the part about 63 saudis getting killed by a scud attack on khamis mushait airbase, which actually killed the commander of the saudi air force. are you too butthurt to accept facts? Khaleejian (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Struck personal attacks.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: While I appreciate you adding references to verify Khaleejian's claims of Shaalan being killed in action, I have some doubts of their reliability. National Interest cites Fars News in their brief mention of Shaalan. I am also not sure about the reliability of Israeli website Debka. This is muddled by the fact that some sources claim that Shaalan died of a heart attack almost two weeks ago: [14] [15]. As of right now it seems nothing more than a 'he said she said' concerning the Saudi defense ministry and Iranian news outlets. Your thoughts? Elspamo4 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

International and internal conflict cannot be separated properly by different lemmata

For a last time: since March 26th it has been original research of some WP editors here, to separate:

• the events concerning the military intervention of the Saudi-led military coalition and it's allies on the one side from
• the events related to domestic armed forces on the other side.

The WP editors who split those events into two different lemmata never provided sources, which facilitated and justified such a separation. The events were indistinguishably connected since March 26. And they still are. You'll find no literature, which separates it. At least you did not cite it here. Meanwhile we find Michael Stephens saying (for BBC on August 4th): "[www.webcitation.org/6aYQSpwke The Saudis remain tight-lipped, but the cat appears to be out the bag, and it can be confidently assumed that they have maintained some form of fighting force in Aden for at least the past two months]". That means: since June 2015 (sic). Shall we still pretend`, this article deals with the international conflict and the other one deals with the internal one? The main problem was, that some WP editors tried to construct, that the international conflict is part of the "civil war". In fact, the armed conflict has two phases:

• phase 1 is an armed internal conflict (until March 26th, 2015)
• phase 2 is an armed internal and international conflict (since March 26th, 2015)

The way, the confict has been devided in Yemeni Civil War (2015) and Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen makes no sense, because the sources don't enable us to devide it that way. The figures and information has not been arranged and created that way in the sources. And the arrangement done in this article therefore is nothing else than artificial construction by laymen. It's original research. And doesn't help readers much, I think. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yemeni Army and Houti Forces are in Southern Saudi Arabia, destroyed Saudi base and have control oer large area in Saudi Arabia.

I believe that Saudi Arabia should now be included in the conflict map as houtis and Yemeni Army make gains and control a large area of Jizan provence after destrying 40+ border posts and a number of bases. Also around 200+ Saudi soldiers have died since the beginning of the summer in battles with the Houtis and Yemeni Army.

Source:

Hello. Please dont forget to sign your coments. Yes I have seen a shap rise in KSA casualties. Especialy from 24-25 August. A Saudi General was reported killed by wounds, and over 100 reported killed since the begining of the operation. Just to keep a record. We should enumerate the losses by date in a hidden, footnote. From 35 killed in late July to 120 now. Its a sharp rise. Maybe the saudi military was hidding their casualties, and the 120 figure its a leak.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Araneophilus regarding HRW letter

@Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki: Revision as of 11:58, 11 May 2015

1. Per WP:SAY, don't use euphemisms like "declared" to make HRW's private opinion seem more authoritative than any other private party's opinion.
2. Don't selectively exclude information about violations perpetrated by the Houthis in an effort to paint them as "less cruel" than the Saudis.

--Anders Feder (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1. How did you get the impression that I "make HRW's private opinion seem more authoritative than any other private party's opinion"? It's absolutely okay for me to use "say" instead of "declared". In German there is no difference between "erklären" and "sagen" in this context and when my English was not sufficient to express correctly then you can get my apology here. But I do not tend towards HRW's narrative, nor to Saudi Arabia's or Huthi's or Hadi's or Saleh's or whatever. I'm German and not involved in this conflict in any respect. Accept this statement and don't accuse me for manipulating for political reasons.
2. I selectively exclude information in the chapter "Accusations of violations of international law" dealing with other subjects than accusations of violations of international law. But if you should try to sample accusations with different content than accusations of violations of international law you have to do this in a different chapter. I already gave you this information before (see comment in the edit history: "@Anders Feder: 1. chapter is about violations of int. law (not "right to peaceful assembly"); to cite April 8 HRW report; 2. use the original source: http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/07/yemen-houthis-use-deadly-force-against-protesters". So please don't select information for private criteria but give only examples of accusations of violations of international law. Avoid suggestive character. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you insist on adding more background information according to the cited "Accusations of violations of international law", make sure to provide the whole context cited in the source. Don't try to emphase your own impression of what belongs to the context. Just reflect the source. We are dealing with accusations in this chapter. Accusations are always seen from one perspective and have to be reflected without your own opinion. In this case it is HRW. I'm not connected with HRW in any respect. And I did not create this chapter, nor did I start citing HRW. I just added missing citations, relevant for an encylopedia in this context. Stop accusing me to follow a political line (of HRW or whatever). This is not my intention, nor did I do it. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, let's not turn it into a big fuss. The paragraph looks reasonably good now.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't. If my English sounds some harsh, don't take it amiss. I'll try to smooth it somewhat. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

# It is not necessary to "selectively exclude" information about violations perpetrated by the Houthis. Do not "selectively exclude" evidence of false flag tactics and propaganda warfare in similar occurrences such as in Syria. If you want to believe these events are not related then you are sorely mistaken. 123.255.16.94 (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Press TV sources for Iranian reactions

I propose we use Press TV sources for Iranian reactions such as these:
http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/05/06/409778/saudi-ansarullah-yemen-houthi-amoli-larijani-icc-iran-judiciary
http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/05/06/409719/Ayatollah-Khamenei-US-Saudi-Yemen-
Your thoughts? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. if they are notable reactions, they will have been covered by international media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I will mention them in the "Alleged Iranian involvement" section. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a Western source. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. PressTV is a unique source, which will have information not found on most international media. AlMasirah, PressTV, AlManar, AlMayadeen ... will all be covering information not covered by other media. Ignoring them, will make a very unbalanced and uninformative article. 123.255.16.94 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Why deleting UN reported casualties of killed civilians

EkoGraf, there is no reason to delete civilian casualties, reported by the UN, just because you added original researched results of air strikes casualties.

1. The UN civilan death tolls do not mix civilian with other casualties.
2. And the UN civilan death tolls do not restrict the civilian casualties to air strikes only.
3. The UN civilian death toll are confimed figures by the UN, not a mix of media reporst as your original research table.

So this is completely different information. I don't see any reason to delete the well known and documented UN figures. We can cite it and you can link your own work as well.

4. You should decide such radical changes with your collegues here instead of omitting current discussions. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already replied to all of your questions several times in the previous discussion section. The UN civilian toll is for the entire conflict (Yemeni Civil War (2015)) and not just for civilian deaths that happened as a result of the Saudi military operation. This article deals with the Saudi-led operation only, which is one operation taking place during the larger war. There is no sense to include here deaths that had nothing to do with the Saudi campaign. For examples of other military interventions during larger wars see 2011 military intervention in Libya (during the Libyan Civil War (2011)) and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (during the Kosovo War). Those included only civilian deaths that resulted from those military operations and not the overall civilian deaths from the wars. And my table is not original research. If I had tried to sum up all of the figures from different sources into one total that would be considered original research. But that's not what I did. I simply compressed all of the different reports (which other editors already inserted in the article) into one table that can give a quick overview. EkoGraf (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Haha, you did not add it together, just calling it "all air-strike related deaths". That's why it cannot be original search. Good luck, EkoGraf, Just enjoy yourself! --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

just calling it "all air-strike related deaths" That's actually not what I called it. The section is called Air-strike casualties, nowhere is it indicated these are ALL of the casualties. When I used the word all in our conversation it was when I referred to all of the reports other editors (not me) compiled in that section already. EkoGraf (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You did call it "all air-strike related deaths", and the way you put it in the article, has the same suggestive effect:

• in your table you have to add that those UN figures in many cases are "at least" values, not limited upstairs.
• and you have to stress, that it is not a complete list, but an incomplete accumulation.

The way you put it, it suggests limitations, that are not existing. But if this is the way you intend to work, just proceed. It's a free world. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I already said what I meant by all. EkoGraf (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Then tell this to the reader of the article, too. He has to know it. This is an encyclopedia. Not a sandbox. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I used the word all in this talk page, not in the article which the reader reads and like I said nowhere is it implied they are all and thus I have nothing to explain to the reader. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I said you have to clarify this in the article, too. The table you provided suggests that it shows all civilian casualties. But this is wrong. As I already mentioned I recommend to:

1) rename the paragraph "Air-strike casualties" to a not misleading one. Maybe "Selected examples for Air-strike casualties according to different media" or whatever. I don't know what criteria you used. You simply have to give them and clarify it in the name of the table or elswhere in the table.

2) stress, when you used minimum figures. For example, the UN figures you used are not the real casualty figures but were given with the remark "at least" and even in some cases with the additional comment of high dark figures. Of course you have to clarify this in your table, too.

3) clarify that you did not use confirmed death cases only, but you also used simple media reports. It's possibly okay, when you clarify it.

4) clarify explicitly, whether there are case of double counts possible in the table

It's a very interesting table with important figures, and I thank you and who contributed else for your efforts. I just say, you should clarify to the reader, what kind of compilation it is and what the figures mean exactly. "Air-strike casualties" does not say anything, but suggests a lot. As I said, I'll let you go with it. I just wanted to note, what is wrong with the way, the table is presented at the moment. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The figure of casualties is confusing, casualties means dead or injured. So the word "killed" is more appropriate. In any case, these figures are incomplete. Please refer to http://newsofyemen.net/2015/07/in-numberscasualtiesdamage-to-yemencrisis-for-128day-of-saudi-war/ for a more accurate estimate of casualties. It seems that a group of people are trying to conceal, and manipulate the actual figures. This is a common occurrence on wikipedia, and always seems to be carried out by the same interest groups, or victims of the same misinformation. However, the organized way in which this happens makes one tend to the former conclusion. It seems that propagandist and discriminatory groups organize themselves to disfigure wikipedia and turn into a medium for electronic propaganda warfare. This was precisely one of the objectives outlined by the neocon think tank Project For A New American Century. If they got people to spam youtube and other media with fabricated propaganda concerning Syria, do you seriously believe they will refrain from manipulating wikipedia by exploiting the rules? Not a chance. 123.255.16.94 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)