Talk:Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Unexplained revert made by Onetwothreeip

Please any change made to the article that does not improve the way the content id presented to the reader should be discussed here first. Your warring edits have driven the article into a bad direction. The main problem here is the length of the article. But erasing information from the battlebox does not fix this.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You keep saying my edits are unexplained but I have clearly explained them in the edit summaries and also on this talk page in the previous sections. This is pretty simple, the infobox has been filled with information that simply doesn't belong there. There have been countries/parties listed as belligerents which are not belligerents, military officers who are not the highest level military or civil leaders listed as commanders (such as captains, colonels, lieutenant-generals), and military losses including improper and incomplete WP:SYNTHESIS over a few military planes. There has been general agreement about these things by the participants in this talk page and I am not the only one who has removed information from the infobox. I am not only restoring the removals I have made, but also the removals that Sjo and SharabSalam have made. If you want something to be included in the infobox and it gets removed when you include it, bring it to the talk page and we can discuss. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Plase stop reverting edits made by me or other editor without consensus. The collapsible listof military commanders helps in the reduction of content of the article and helps the reader. Your revert are not helping the content of the article and you hav not settled the issue with other editor.There are still revert from SharabSalam .Mr.User200 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

To put it briefly, the consensus is to remove these non-notable inclusions. You are arguing against consensus, and you should specify in discussion what in particular you would like to be included. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Onetwothreeip. There's too many non-notable "commanders" listed in the infobox in both sides. It seems to me like this is done to demonstrate that multiple people or, better said, "high ranked people" have been killed. Prior to onetwothreeip edits, there was also a barrage of countries listed as "belligerents" because they sold weapons to the coalition, which totally fails the definition of a belligerent in the first place. Also, the whole human rights issue (which seems like its half of the article) can be moved to Human rights violations during the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). There's too much WP:SYNTH in this article. Moreover, theres a HUGE box of airstrikes in the middle of the article and some unrelated images (whats a picture of Ban Ki Moon in 2009 doing in this article). Now back to the issue at hand, infoboxes are NOT meant to replace the article. Imo, this article needs to be re-written by a non-biased and non-partisan editor, since there too much SYNTH and OR here. With that said, the WP:ONUS for consensus is one those seeking to include disputed content, so the materiel should be removed till a consensus to include it is established. --Wikiemirati (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with the pathetic whitewashing move of Human right violations(that are mostly committed by the Saudi-led intervention) this move is whitewashing also majority of sources link human rights violation to the Saudi-led intervention.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a very confusing objection. It's very reasonable to split this article by moving the parts about human rights violations. Moving the content is not saying that the conduct wasn't committed by Saudi Arabia, in fact moving it will actually make it far more likely that people will see that information. Most importantly we neither here to highlight or to hide any human rights violations by Saudi Arabia or anybody else, we are here to objectively present the facts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No body is whitewashing anything. WP is not censored. A summary of human rights should stay, I didn't propose deleting everything. However, the details should be moved to its own article. This article is a WP:COATRACK. UN panel of experts have already accused both parties of human rights violations, there no white washing here. In matter of fact, focusing on the Saudi human rights ONLY is a POV issue. Anyways that was just a suggestion, don't get too emotional about it. --Wikiemirati (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip you are moving it to the Yemen civil war. Nothing can be more obvious whitewashing than this. Yemen civil war is not mostly related to the Saudi-led intervention. It is more between two groups in Yemen. This article is about a US-backed and Western-backed Saudi/Arab war against Yemen. is this enough to highlight how whitewashing is going to occur? Your intentions to make the article shorter is much appreciated but not on account of whitewashing--SharabSalam (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip now you show your true colors, is Wikiemrati "a partner in crime" here??. Thats why the article need a reset.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be moved to that article. What would be a better article to move it to? It can be an existing article or a new article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I support Onetwothreeip with the move. The violations article already talks about the human right violations from all parties. This include Saudi, UAE, Houthi, US, etc.. The information is repeated multiple times. The Saudi led intervention is part of the Yemeni civil war, its not a different war. What baffles me is that you seem to want to keep it here to demonstrate that the coalition did in fact commit violations, which is totally true. However, this creates a COATRACK article. This article should focus on the military intervention, not on the reports of war crimes (which seems that it is suitably placed in the beginning of the article to demonstrate that the western backed coalition is a murderous intervention). The information of the human right violations should be summarized, I'm not saying it should be deleted, but all the details should be discussed in a separate article entirely. In fact, it will be more accessible to read. --Wikiemirati (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have stopped adding more contents to this article so this issue don't get bigger for sometime. I am planning to create an article about the UK involvement in the Saudi led intervention but I thought that waiting until more informations pop-ups will be helpful, recently there was a controversy in the UK about this issue and I think the time has came to create an article for it. See it's section it's too long includes a table etc and there are much more not updated. The same goes with the US involvement.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Again there are differences between civil war and a war. Why are you guys having such a hard time understanding the very easy-to-comprehend distinction between civil war and war that includes foreigners. Look what the definition of a civil war is

a war between citizens of the same country

What you are suggesting is whitewashing because non of the Yemeni citizens made airstrikes against schools or civilians to gain fake victory. It was the Saudi and other Arab states using Western supplied weapons. Even trump said Saudi Arabia would not last two weeks without the massive help from the West [1] so how are we going to move reports of airstrikes to the civil war article and not look like whitewashing?--SharabSalam (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I also want to clarify that I do believe that your attempts are made in good faith to shorten the article and not intentionally whitewashing which is what my claims are about. this information is at the core of the article. The reports of human rights violations come always with mentioning the Saudi-led coalition so thats not COATRACK it is one of the most related topics to the Saudi-led coalition and we expect that if the reader wants to find about the reports of human rights violation they are going to search for the Saudi-led coalition to find these reports so that proves that the contents of the section are not COATRACK.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Civil wars are wars. This is a civil war, but one that has foreign powers intervening. If a person specifically wants to find human rights violations, they would search "human rights violations". Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope. It's not about an opinion or a view it's the factual definition of a civil war which is a war between citizens of the same country (you can see it's definition in Wikipedia civil war). The move would whitewash the Western involvement and others. The same goes with this section there is this Human rights violations during the Syrian Civil War article yet there is no move of the contents or even a see also tag in the section. The move will be whitewashing and again unrelated. *Moving violations of human rights done by foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE with the support of their Western allies to an article about a civil war which it's definition means a war between the citizens of the same country* sounds very whitewashing to me.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You have suggested earlier a new name/title and I guess these names would be the best Reports of Human rights violations by the Saudi-led coalition or Reports of Human rights violations during the Saudi-led intervention athough I don't recommend the move.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with onetwothreeip. Contrary to partisan belief, the intervention is part of the civil war. Its not a Saudi invasion or some war of conquest that the Saudis are trying to annex Yemen as some pro-one sided media states, its part of the civil war in which the coalition actually arms pro government Yemenis or the southern transitional council to fight against the houthis. With that said, I understand SharabSalam concern. If we're creating a new article that talks about the human rights violations by international actors however, then we should also combine the Involvement and human rights violations by international actors section in the Human rights violations during the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) because much of the information is repeated and divided between articles and the Saudi coalition violations is the bulk of the Human rights violation during the Yemen civil war article. Human rights violations by/during the Saudi-led intervention sounds more concise to me. --Wikiemirati (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not our fault that you don't think foreign powers can be involved in a civil war. It's just primarily a conflict between forces in Yemen. Reading a definition of civil war and implying that it excludes foreign powers is just making up your own interpretation. Russian Civil War, Ethiopian Civil War, Syrian Civil War, Italian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Chinese Civil War. Let's put this to an end now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that attach the human rights violations to the Saudi-led coalition yet your proposal would whitewash this and attach it to the civil war in Yemen and nope the end is when the consensus is reached. As this is a whitewashing fork I will not allow such an edit until you convenience me that it is not a whitewashing (if we are going to start a RfC discussion) did you see my previous reply? Is that my interpretation? Saying that Saudi-led war against Yemen is part of the Yemeni civil war is actually a POV and moreover has been proven to be wrong Saudi Arabia deliberately attack innocent civilians and women(as I am from Yemen I can confirm) and this is sourced to many sources how can this be part of the civil war which is only between two groups of citizens in Yemen? Remember that you need to seek consensus as this is an obvious whitewashing that is not helpful.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean an end to this idea that the involvement of Saudi Arabia and others isn't part of the civil war. Anyway, I agree with moving the substantial amount of information detailing human rights violations and similar instances. The best place seems to be how Wikiemirati has proposed, unless anybody has other suggestions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Human rights violations by international actors durning the Yemeni civil war you mean like this? Seems fine but I don't know if a title like this long is allowed. BTW I just noticed the comment of Wikiemarite because its too late here and you both commented in similar times so I didnt notice the comment by Wikiemarite I just noticed the latest signature--SharabSalam (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

One article should be enough for all the human rights concerns in the civil war, including actions by domestic and foreign actors. In that article it can be split into sections for the perpetrators. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about if I may ask? This Human rights violations by international actors durning the Yemeni civil war or the one that is already existed?--SharabSalam (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

We can start first by combining all the human rights violation by the saudi led coalition in one place in the Human rights violations during the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). If the topic get too big, we can create an article Human Rights violations during the Saudi led intervention which sounds appropriate and addressed your concern (about whitewashing and whatnot). If a separate article is created, Human Rights during the Yemeni civil war should be re-written since it talks mostly about the Saudi coalition violations, and should talk about the Houthi and Pro-Yemen government violations instead. SharabSalam, while I understand your concern regarding the human rights violations by the saudi led coalition (I am not denying the violations), I am concerned you are focusing on one party of the conflict. I tend not to edit these articles to avoid inherent bias, which is why I proposed someone who's neutral and indifferent to edit and rewrite these subjects (such as onetwothreeip) --Wikiemirati (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not a matter of how long is the article but how much attention is it getting from reliable sources and off course how it is irrelevant since a civil war is a war between two groups who are citizens of the same country. There are reports that Ansarallah made war crimes but not as significant as the Saudi led intervention. The significant attention of this subject makes it worth to be in a separate article which will initially fix the problem of the whitewashing that I was addressing .moreover, the article (Human rights violations during Yemeni civil) is already >70K and a fork move from this article will significantly increase its size and that's with the fact that both this article and that article are not updated.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That article is >70K because it talks about the Saudi coalition violations. A lot of the information is repeated between this article and that article. Creating a new article will also fork the information between three different articles. I am not against the idea of creating another article, but I will keep it up to onetwothreeip to decide if creating a new article is the solution. As I mentioned, if a separate article (Human rights violation during the Saudi led intervention) is created, then A LOT of information from the Human rights violation in Yemen needs to be moved as well. That is do-able but will require combining the information between two articles (Human rights violation in Yemen civil war and Saudi led intervention in Yemen). The houthis have also violated human rights and that information should also be documented, not disregarded entirely. --Wikiemirati (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we can move it over to the existing article, delete any duplicated information, and then from there we can see if we have to make a new article or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. --Wikiemirati (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving will not mean removing for example if we have two paragraphs that have the same information and one is here and the other is there we will use the one that is much detailed and again that article is not updated and because it's >77k it needs to be splited and if the move happened I will update the article and when it is over 100k I will create an article. I am also going to raise again the issue of the white washing of the western involvement and other countries involvement that article is about the civil war not the war against Yemen. Another thing that the consensus has not reached yet so even if two like-minded editors agreed on the move doesn't mean we have reached a consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is no war "against Yemen", there is a civil war in Yemen where other countries are supporting different sides, just as what's happened in the Russian Civil War, Ethiopian Civil War, Syrian Civil War, Italian Civil War, Spanish Civil War and Chinese Civil War. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Again most of the war crimes are done by the Saudis and their allies including their Western allies and you are moving the section to Yemeni civil war? How can I allow an obvious whitewashing?. Again a fork move to this article Reports of Human rights violations by international actors durning the Yemeni civil war or This reports of human rights violations by Saudi-led coalition is much better than this whitewashing and even if you attempted to move it I will add more information to it in just 2 or three minutes and then creating one of the articles I mentioned. While if you removed any single valid information I will definitely revert or make a report of what will be obvious attempt to whitewash western-backed Saudi-led coalition war crime --SharabSalam (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's part of the Yemeni Civil War so it would belong in an article about the Yemeni Civil War. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, obviously this page is too huge and must be split. Where is the "whitewashing" here? No details regarding the war crimes will be deleted. Is your concern that the page title will not reflect the violations done by the Saudi led coalition? both Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen and Human rights violations during the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) talk about the Saudi-led coalition violations and both of these pages are big with a lot of the information repeated. In Splitting, we have a main article and a summary. A summary will stay in this article while the main article will talk about all the details. Right now, the human rights violations in this article is even more than the Human Rights Violations during Yemen Civil war article, and in that article the bulk of the information talks about the Saudi led coalition. Again, we need a main article and a summary. I do not object in creating a new main article with your proposed title but all this excessive information must be merged into the main article. We can't have excessive details of human rights violations by the Saudi led coalition in this article, and in Human Rights Violation in Yemen Civil War article, and also in a whole new article. That's just scattering information everywhere. We will keep summaries, but not a whole page worth of information in every single page that talks about the Yemen civil war. Last but not least, please don't WP:THREATEN users by using phrases such as "if you removed any single valid information I will definitely revert or make a report". On Wikipedia, any kind of threats are not tolerated. --Wikiemirati (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if the move happens I am not going to stay silent if there is any attempt to remove any single detail/word that I think is valuable, and the table of airstrikes should not be removed or minimised and I will update the article of human rights violations which will make the >77K article even bigger and more than 100K while I will definitely then create the article that I have mentioned earlier. I am going to repeat what I am saying since I am afraid that in my previous replies my English wasn't understandable or that my replies were ignored/skipped I will repeat so I don't have to repeat.

Here focus on the following:

There are huge amount of reliable sources that focus and highlight human rights violations by the Saudi-led coalition because of the huge amount of times that the Western backed Saudi-led coalition violates the human rights and commit war crimes. this makes the article title that I am proposing legit since again already many RSs focus on the western-backed Saudi led coalition human rights violations. what Onetwothreeip is ignoring is that they are attempting to sorta hide that fact and bury the human rights violations that are done by the Western-backed Saudi-led coalition inside a single article that focus on the both sides and its title seems to be about a war between two groups of the same country by the definition of the word civil war it means a war between two groups of the same country.

Most of these human rights violations are done by the Western backed Saudi-led coalition and already there are huge reports from reliable sources about that, burying these huge amount inside single article that focus on both sides human violations and its title is civil war which by definition is war between two groups of civilians is totally without any doubt a whitewashing.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias

This article needs a bias warning in the header. It is severely biased in both the selection of facts included and excluded and the presentation of facts included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.172.226.146 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the Page

I have discussed this topic on WP:Discord with MJL, we both decided that the page is pretty long and comprehensive, making it hard to read, so it should be split. We discussed and after some conversing, I thought that a split off article Western involvement in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen would be appropriate. Another potential split we considered was Western involvement in the Yemeni Civil War. I did also notice that this page violates the WP:SIZERULE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorMario11 (talk • contribs)

Strongly agree with splitting the article, but absolutely not with the term "Western". Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I believe that name mirrors the corresponding section that would be split off. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Western involvement in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. Seems fine and more specific.-- SharabSalam (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@DoctorMario11: The ping failed because you didn't sign your post btw. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with British-American involvement in the Yemeni Civil War. This article should also be renamed to specify the civil war, rather than the country itself. The term "western" is far too loose a term to use here or just about anywhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

But it includes France? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yea and there is a lot of missing content about the French leak controversy[2] and also Australia, [3] "Australia, along with Britain and the United States, has backed Saudi Arabia's blockade of the main port city in Yemen, which plunged into civil war in March 2015." Given the fact that there have been a lot of controversies like the shipments in Italy, Spain I think the term Western is the common description of these nations and I didn't want to add these information to this article because I didn't want to increase its size and couldn't add a lot of details to this article because it will eventually become coatrack content.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

France and other countries are only tangentially involved, like in selling weapons. "Western" would totally be the wrong word to use and shouldn't really be used currently either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The word involvement doesn't mean ground support. There are undeniable involvement by the Australian regime to the Saudi-UAE western-backed coalition.[4] your whole reasoning is just your personal feeling. If you don't like it just because you don't like it then you can bang your head against the wall. It's hard to argue with someone who dislike things without giving real objective arguments.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think we're on the same page here. I can't speak for everyone, but generally I think that having the broad scope that the term "Western" gives us can be substantially viewed as a benefit. We want more coverage of the arm sales, intelligence sharing, etc. because it's been reported by WP:RS, but there is no room really to add content here. I don't see any particular reason why we should seperate American and Britain from France. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should separate those countries, but there is no value in grouping particular countries as "Western", particularly in this context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest the group should be called? "Foreign involvement"? I think Western is appropriate and has been used by lots of newspapers when describing the conflict. The involvement doesn't mean being belligerents, if that why you are confused. The involvement is also by arm sells. Western describe Germany, Australia, Italy etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL what do you think of Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War? That way we will remove more content from here and the civil war article including North Korea, Iran and Hezbollah allegation of involvement. These entities don't describe themselves as western. We will here make a summary of the involvement and fuse two sections under one section called foreign involvement. We also have Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War--SharabSalam (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: That's more than okay with me! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that is Saudi Arabia is a foreign country to Yemen as well. We could have an article for Iranian involvement, Saudi Arabian involvement, and involvement from all other countries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not a problem at all. I will make the Saudi-led coalition (which is not just Saudi Arabia) involvement in that article too. in the section of the coalition will redirect to this article. I will make the article soon in my user space and show you how that will be done.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW in the Arab world no one calls it Saudi-led coalition. It is called "the Arab coalition"(Arabic: التحالف العربي).--SharabSalam (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I would support Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and Arab involvement in the Yemeni Civil War, with the former stating that the latter doesn't include involvement by Arab countries. Involvement from Iran should also be in a separate article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be stupid.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know we will have three sections removed from this article "Allegations of Iranian involvement" "Western involvement" "Private military involvement".--SharabSalam (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - i would support Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) per user:SharabSalam as umbrella article, and moving there the parts on Western involvement, other Arab countries and private contractors.GreyShark (dibra) 06:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Casualties need update

I guess war casualties need update. Amr F.Nagy (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Operation Restoring Hope

Should this be in its own page to cut down on the length? Neutraliano (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Al-quada and ISIS supporting the US

In the article it says Al-quada and ISIS are supporting the US is this true? Jdietr601 (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Current article name versus MOS:SUFFIXDASH

@Eevee01, LuK3, GreenCows, Ira Leviton, Mtorresg76, Philip Cross, RopeTricks, Gorebath, Chrisahn, Oralious, and WikiCleanerMan: Greetings and felicitations. Apparently I've already moved this article to Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen twice (per MOS:SUFFIXDASH), and it's been been moved back twice. I checked the talk page archives, and I don't see any discussion. Would anyone care to comment on why it's been moved back, given that "Saudi Arabian" is a compound? (Please notify me if you reply.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@DocWatson42:. Hi. I've been on this page only to fix typos that were brought to my attention through Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss. I can't discern why the article has been moved back twice, other than perhaps editors did not notice that it had been done previously. The WP Manual of Style, as cited, says clearly that an en dash should be used. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton: I should also have included "And do you have any objection if I make a request to have it moved back, along with a move block?" I was/am intending to build a consensus. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@DocWatson42:. I have no objections at all. I should have thought of the block too. This article makes me wonder if similar article names have been changed. (I know that you edit a lot of medical articles, but there are so many possibilities, e.g., New York, Burkina Faso, and I guess nobody can be everywhere on Wikipedia.) Ira Leviton (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

DocWatson42, you can move it back using the em-dash. The infobox in the article has the same format. So should the article name. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: I'm the one who changed the infobox, and since the redirect using the en dash already exists, I'll need to request a technical move, since I don't have the requisite permission(s). —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, moving it back with the em-dash is a yes for me. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eevee01, LuK3, GreenCows, Ira Leviton, Mtorresg76, Philip Cross, RopeTricks, Gorebath, Chrisahn, Oralious, and WikiCleanerMan: I just ran across this last night. Do we still have a consensus (albeit one of me and two posters) about requesting that this article be moved and a move block added? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: I'll vote again and say yes. Ira Leviton (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Yes, I agree that the title should use an en dash instead of a hyphen, and a move block seems in order given the previous moves. Details: I just read MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:PREFIXDASH. When one only reads MOS:HYPHEN, it's easy to get the impression that the title should be "Saudi Arabian-led", because MOS:HYPHEN doesn't mention the special case that is described several screens further down on the page by MOS:PREFIXDASH: Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space or a dash. I guess that may have been the reason why Sangdeboeuf changed the title back to a hyphen. (To avoid such problems in general, it would probably be good to mention MOS:PREFIXDASH somewhere in MOS:HYPHEN. But of course that should be discussed there, not here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My page move (which I reverted) was only concerned with hyphenating "Saudi Arabian". I support a move to Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen per MOS:SUFFIXDASH. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, I misread the move log for the current page title. Thanks for the clarification, Sangdeboeuf! I should have checked the move log for the en dash title. wbm1058 and x96lee15 changed the en dash to a dash, referring to MOS:DASH, but that section is several pages long, and it's easy to miss the special case in MOS:PREFIXDASH, which I think applies in this case. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, your ping gave me a chance to weigh in on the page name issue. If I had read MoS more carefully I would have known about the SUFFIXDASH guideline when I originally moved the page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisahn:

"(To avoid such problems in general, it would probably be good to mention MOS:PREFIXDASH somewhere in MOS:HYPHEN. But of course that should be discussed there, not here.)":

I'll try to remember to do that. —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

DocWatson42, yes, go for it with a technical request under the uncontroversial move. No dispute by anyone here it seems. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

DocWatson42, adding this here to notify you of my response above. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, WikiCleanerMan: Thank you, though two nights ago I realized that we (I) haven't been as transparent as we/I should be—I should have added the appropriate discussion template to the article, either Template:Requested move or Template:RMassist (though the latter now seems contraindicated), so that a wider audience could participate in this discussion. (If anyone knows a more on-topic template, please—speak up!) —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: neither of your two previous moves specified MOS:SUFFIXDASH in their edit summaries; you just provided a more generic rationale or less-specific link: "Correcting punctuation" or "Changed a hyphen to an en dash per MOS:ENDASH." Sorry, I sometimes have the impression that most editors think MOS:ENDASH means "just a hyphen will never do, always use a dash". My attitude is that a dash should be more the exception than the rule, only used when that improves understanding. This is the first I recall looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space or a dash.

I have some issues with that.

The first item there that seems weird to me is Post–Hartree–Fock. Surely this is about something that three scientists collaborated on. I see that two of them are Douglas Hartree and Vladimir Fock, but who is Mr. or Ms. Post? Oh, I see. It should be post-Hartree–Fock, where the hyphen modifies Hartree–Fock, indicating it's something that improved on that. The current form there doesn't increase understanding, rather it adds confusion.

The examples that apply a prefix to lowercase compounds kind of make sense:

• ex–prime minister (in case any one might be silly or stupid enough to think that ex-prime (prime) is a thing, I guess maybe the dash clears up that to say no, that's not it

but in the case of "Saudi Arabian-led intervention" I don't see why the dash is necessary. A hyphen should be sufficient for the modifier of the proper name Saudi Arabian. The fact that's capitalized connects "Saudi" and "Arabian" so there should be no confusion that this might only be an "Arabian-led intervention" since Saudi isn't in lower case. A dash confuses things by suggesting that this might be a joint intervention conducted by Saudi Arabia and something called "led". – wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

(I'm double indenting this for clarity because Sangdeboeuf replied first, but I'm not replying to them.)

@Wbm1058: I did not use the MOS:SUFFIXDASH rule in my two earlier moves of this article because they were, respectively, over two and five years ago, when I was a less sophisticated and much less experienced editor. Also, during the second move, on 21 November 2018, the shortcut "MOS:SUFFIXDASH" did not yet exist in the MOS, never mind during the first one, though in both instances the rule to which that shortcut applies did exist at the time. Last year, another editor pointed out to me that the use of en dashes for prefixes and suffixes of multi-word compounds is not something that they were previously familiar with, and that it likely was uncommon/unknown to most editors, so since then I've tried to specify it in my edit summaries, when it's a primary reason for the edit. Second, I'm not one of those ("most") editors. Post–Hartree–Fock is weird, and this is the first time I've encountered it. I, too, would change the initial en dash to a hyphen. As for "Saudi Arabian" and the use of en dashes in prefixes and suffixes, there are no exceptions that I'm aware of—the rule is taken from, for example, The Chicago Manual of Style. See the 17th edition, sections 6.80–81 (subscription required) (pp. 397–398 in print). Per both the Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary and Lexico (Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary; Lexico), "Saudi Arabian" is a compound, and therefore MOS:SUFFIXDASH applies. —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Wbm1058: I'm sorry that the edit summaries for my two moves of the article were unclear. —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, as long as this is covered by authoritative manuals of style, and the editors who are creating our manual of style are reasonably competent in interpreting them, I'm OK with it. Someone should review Post–Hartree–Fock and probably fix the MOS then. I agree that's the only one that's blatantly weird, and its presence there calls into question the reliability of that whole, apparently recently created section. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Any reader who is confused by the word "led" in this instance has bigger problems than punctuation to deal with. If there were something called "led" that was doing an invasion with Saudi Arabia then we would expect "led" to be in adjectival form like "Saudi Arabian". "Ledian"? "Leddish"?. And "Saudi", as a proper adjective, is always capitalized. Saudi Arabian-led invasion (with hyphen) could be an Arabian-led invasion with an unspecified connection to the House of Saud. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mightybear1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Iran is missing at the belligerents right box,

This wikidepia Article is missing information on regart that the Hothies are actively supported by Iran, so it needs to be fixed now. Common_man_86 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents and supplier is not the same thing

North Korea is currently listed as a belligerent. Yet, the sources indicate that the only thing its done is supplied missiles to the Houthis. I don't think supplying weapons to one side should "constitute" as belligerency, otherwise every country that has supplied weapons to Saudi Arabia would also constitute as a belligerent in this conflict. Thus, I suggest removing North Korea as a belligerent.VR _talk 07:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)