Talk:Battle of Al Hudaydah

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Thank you for your response, I agree with reaching consensus on this issue so I will appreciate other users views on the subjectivity topic. However, it seems most of your edits are almost word by word copy pasted from Reuters. You may not copy text from other sources into Wikipedia a per WP:COPYPASTE as it constitutes a copy right violation. Wikiemirati (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a valid concern. My understanding is that Wiki is less strict with WP:COPYPASTE when it comes to news agencies compared to scientific journals and academic writers. But I will attempt rewording the statements when I have time. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Btw, the copy-right concern can often be addressed by the putting the text inside quotation marks and adding an in-line citation instead of putting that huge template there especially when the text is so short and dense that is hard to fully paraphrase. So I assume there's consensus to remove this monstrosity and solve the issue via a good editing practice. --06:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's actually not quite true. Quotes can and should only be used where it makes sense to use them. You argue that it does make sense to use them here, which I have no comment on, but I should note that simply "put it in quotes" is not a valid way to handle copyright problems. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * 2- Reuters writes that the alliance enjoys superior weaponry, such as fighter planes, whereas the Houthis, who are more experienced in mountain warfare, have expanded their control across Yemen on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck. violates WP:COPYPASTE as it is directly copy pasted from Reuters article which states "The alliance has superior weaponry, including fighter planes. The Houthis, resilient and highly experienced in mountain warfare, have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck in battles across Yemen." This is still considered vandalism as it was not written in your own wording. There is a guide for embedding freely licensed content (either public domain or Wikipedia Compatible licenses), at Adding open license text to Wikipedia. The paraphrasing was not adequate, you may add this once you rewrite it in your own words.


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


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


 * I have noticed my edits are not the only ones you reverted, so assuming good faith and to prevent an edit warring I will leave this matter to be judged on by more experienced users or administrators. I don't claim to know everything and I could be wrong. As this article is already under investigation for a copyright issues, and in interest not to be gaming the system, I'll wait for other users to contribute to this article or pitch in their two cents. Wikiemirati (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This may call for further investigation by, given the evidence presented here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I've requested further copyright investigation by, hopefully this article issues can be resolved. Wikiemirati (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disaster is still fairly connotive, I would recommend "crisis" as a more neutral word that conveys the same meaning. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't see how can anyone describe the situation in Yemen as anything short of disaster. It is basically the biggest humanitarian disaster in recent history. Millions are literally starving in Yemen! I recommend everyone here to read Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen to know what is really going on there. That this tragedy remains oddly under-reported by Western MSM doesn't change its significance. --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

--Expectant of Light (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the quotations. Please don't post copyright material here on the talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


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


 * I will also appreciate your opinion about the discussion we are having right above. As I see per WP:PARAPHRASE, close-paraphrasing can be acceptable with an in-line citation. Is that true? And what to do with short texts that are hard to adequately paraphrase? --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion is better suited to your talk page, but here's the short answer: Close paraphrasing is not allowed, even if you cite your source. If you find it difficult to avoid committing copyright violations, please read the three resources I already placed on your user talk page to find out how to edit Wikipedia while obeying copyright law and Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But content disputes are resolved on entry's talk pages not users'. Anyway I assume you may not have time for specific opinion due to your administrative work. But as for close-paraphrasing this is what the policy reads: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...", together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a content dispute; it's the removal of your copyright violations by a Wikipedia administrator who specializes in copyright issues. Please take the time to learn how to write for Wikipedia using your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understood that I was at fault and I apologize for that and I also appreciate your valuable work. And since I was trying to make sure of my understanding of the policy I just asked for clarification/confirmation whether the policy allows some limited exception. The text of the guideline as I have quoted suggests to me it does. At the end I apologize again for the inconvenience that I caused. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

, The Saudi intervention is clearly a major factor in the humanitarian situation, check what UNO says about that :. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome. You may add that to the article using UN calls "Saudi Arabian coalition's blockade of life-saving commercial goods into Yemen" as a human catastrophe. The blockade, not the intervention itself. Thanks. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your remark seems to be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT in my eyes : the blockade is part of the intervention. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What I like or do not like does not matter as long as there is a reliable source. The quote of "world humanitarian disaster" belongs to a specific state, not a vague term which describes it all. This sentence was not even sourced before I added the source which describes it as the world most humanitarian disaster. Specify. Add: UN calls "Saudi Arabian coalition's interventional blockade of life-saving commercial goods into Yemen" as a human catastrophe. or "Saudi Arabian coalition's intervention, which consists of blockade of life-saving commercial goods into Yemen", as a human catastrophe. Not: Saudi led intervention led to a human catastrophe. Please have better editing skills. Thanks. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

And btw, that sentence was not in such a bad need of sourcing because it was actually summarizing another hefty page that had already documented just that sentence using numerous sources. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is an issue where I am wrong here, its probably the humanitarian disaster comment. Which u|Wikiviani has solved by providing another source. As far as my two edits regarding your translated source of Almasirah, I stand firmly that we should present them neutrally, not echo partisan comments from a pro sided source. "Coalition of aggression" and "death camps" are roughly translated from the pro Houthi Arabic source which, by logic, stands against the coalition. Even if the comments are right, we do not echo partisan literal comments and we do not present a side as more "aggressive" or "deadly" than the other. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the blockade is part of the military intervention, therefore, saying that the military intervention led to humanitarian crisis seems correct, right ? i don't really get your point here, but if you want to write in the article that the blockade and not the military intervention led to that crisis, it's also fine for me. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are debating the obvious here. Both the air strikes and the blockade are responsible for the disaster as per sources. Please have a look at Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen and Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. What else do we want other than these two vastly documented sections to establish this? --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes u|Wikiaviani, as I have stated in my first response in this paragraph. I do not have an issue with saying that the UN stated the military intervention led to humanitarian crisis. It did, and the source you provided describes it. I had an issue with the sentence prior to my edit which stated "Saudi led intervention caused a human catastrophe" as it clearly reflects an opinion. I've added what the UN stated. If you want to add that the UN states the military intervention led to a humanitarian catastrophe, go ahead provided you cite it with a good source where the UN calls it a "human catastrophe". I had a problem with the tone of the first comment as it reflected a Wikipedia editor's opinion rather than a cited source. Best regards Wikiemirati (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with, we should replace "human catastrophe" with "humanitarian crisis" since it's what the source states.---Wikaviani (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


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


 * And as for "crisis" vs "catastrophe" vs "disaster" vs etc all of these alternations have been used by the sources. I have not checked to see which word features more prominently in the sources but that would amount to splitting hairs I believe since they broadly mean the same thing. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to this edit which stated "In 2015, the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe." I've added a source in which the UN talks about it which prompted me to add the Yemen civil war link, and I agreed with you on adding that Saudi led intervention caused it as well. The sentence in quotes reflects your opinion to me. You can add that the UN, HRW, or whoever stated it and reinforce your sentence. Just don't leave it as your opinion and consider it fact without citing who said it. Again, as per WP:NPOV an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Please read the policy page. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I never objected to your change of "catastrophe" to "disaster" in the earlier version because I think it was a trivial change in the first place and I believe it is laughable that you are still splitting hairs. But if you do want to split hairs, like I said, "catastrophe", along with other alterations, has been used by sources such as this UN report. So I don't see what your point was in dragging this so long. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

All these words are synonymous, we just waste our time discussing this. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was a waste of time from the beginning. First it was about the citation then about whether "catastrophe" or "disaster" must be used. There was no problem in my original version. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mercenary or what?

 * I consider that sentence a trival issue. My main concern is your pro-partisan non-neutral commentary edits on the article. Wikiemirati  (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless i'm mistaken, the current wording of the article is quite neutral and well sourced.---Wikaviani (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your other allegations above. I agree some of my edits about various Houthi statements could've been improved but not many other. We need to discuss case by case. There is a balance between WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. Editing out some segments of a statement based on the latter principle can conflict with the former principle. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view is a non-negotiable policy. Those two principles go hand in hand, they do not conflict. This principle base cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. If you want to add biased sources, please make sure to balance them with non-biased sources and write them in a neutral tone. Wikiemirati (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is non-negotiable that's why you can't cut out segments you don't like. We stay faithful to what the sources say and if there are statements that are contentious we put them inside quotation marks. That's standard policy across Wiki. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mercenary is not a neutral word. Hadi army is internationaly recognized like Assad army. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Mercenary" refers to civilian combatants that are recruited by the foreign coalition such as Eritreans, Sudanese, Blackwater and Southerners. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Southerners are not merecenaries, they are soldiers or militas. For Sudan, for sudanese soldiers members of the army of Sudan, they are not mercenaries but foreign soldiers. Also, Houthis calls "merecenaries" all of the forces who oppose them. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do because all of those forces are being recruited by foreign armies to fight against their own people or part of their own people. And it is not just Houthis, independent sources have accused coalition of using mercenaries from various nationalities. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a large part of the ground fighting forces are foreign mercenaries (Sudanese and Senegalese among others).---Wikaviani (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

But when the fighters are members of army who are part of the coalition, they are not mercenaries. And for Houthis all of the pro-coalition fighters, including National Army and southerners are merecenaries. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "But when the fighters are members of army who are part of the coalition, they are not mercenaries" : wrong, many regular armies around the world use mercenaries for fightings (especially ground fightings). Mercenaries remain mercenaries, even when they serve a regular army. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sudanese who wear the uniform of the Sudanese army by being members of the Sudanese armed forces are not mercenaries.--Panam2014 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Panam2014. Sudanese in Yemen are part of the Sudanese army as stated by the government of Sudan. Check what Reuters say about it . Southerners are part of either pro-Hadi government forces or from the southern transitional council or popular committees. If you mean Blackwater personnel by the term mercenary, the correct term is "contractors". The term mercenary is a subjective term and Almasirah and pro-Houthi use it to describe all the forces they fight against, including Saudi, Emirati, and American soldiers. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You could as well say they are not even "contractors" but human beings and that would be equally true! However, mercenary is used to describe someone who fights only for money and yeah private militarizes also fight for money! Now what about RSs telling us that the coalition is paying money to these government only to have their armies fight in Yemen? We already know some Arab governments in this region are good at splashing money around to buy short-term allies. Trump had some candid comments about that! And now what about Colombian mercenaries paid to fight for Yemen? Since when, UAE has had strategic relations with this remote crime-ridden Latin American country half way around the world? What about another poor country, Chad? Doesn't take rocket science why all these "contractors" come from the poorest countries in the world! Fighting to avoid hunger! The southerners could've been also only paid to fight in this fraternal catastrophic war in which the Saudi coalition has been accused of war crimes! So perhaps you should accept the ugly truth and back off! It's been overdue already! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence, the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectively, they are mercenaries who are paid to fight. Objectively, they belong to specific organizations who use specific names. With your rationale, every soldier in every army is a mercenary since the government pays him a salary. Those Colombians and African you cite could be part of Academi, an organization who contracts governments to fight. The official name of the "mercenary" in this organization is contractor. They've been used by the US and they've been used by the Saudi coalition. We call them here in what specific name they want to be called, not to what their opponents call them as we maintain neutrality. Wrong, the southerners were not paid soldiers most of them are either pro-Saleh or call themselves resistance, and most of them sided against the Houthis after Houthis killed Ali Abdulla Saleh. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, no mercenary would call themselves mercenary just as no dictator calls himself a dictator. But anyway, we have some RSs calling them mercenaries. It is not just Houthis. This gives the Houthi POV some credibility. And don't forget the coalition are accused of war crimes and are responsible for the human catastrophe. Do you think a party of such dark record would feel much moral restraint in recruiting mercenaries so as to win the war at whatever cost? It's good to love your country, but justifying your rulers under any and all circumstances discredits your claim to neutrality. --Expectant of Light (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I am not justifying anyone actions, I only aim to establish neutrality in this article. There are a lot of pro-Houthi and pro-Coalition news sources out there. I am constantly bombarded of the pro-Saudi coalition propaganda which says that Houthis use child soldiers or plant mines and blow children limbs just as Pro-Houthi propaganda says that coalition kill civilians etc etc. Our role here in Wikipedia is to convey both sources neutrally. I can find multiple sources of pro coalition sources which say that Houthis are terrorists and kill children and add it to the article too, just like how Houthi say Saudi are all mercenaries. I am not denying the accusations Houthi say about the coalition, just as I do not deny the coalition accusations when they say that Houthis plant mines in residential areas. This is Wikipedia and articles on it deserve to be represented fairly, not sided to pro-Houthi or pro-Saudi. Hence, our tone should reflect neutrality or else this article turns into a war mongering article. Best regard. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

''This gives the Houthi POV some credibility. '' anything. Sudanese soldiers members of the sudanese armed forces are not mercenaries and for Houthis, all of the anti Houthi forces are mercenaries. Also, Southerners are not mercenaries. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether the Sudanese are soldiers or private militia is incidental in supporting the mercenary charge because it is contextual elements that matter. Of course, all armies receive salaries, but if a government or army is fighting primarily for money not based on some nationalistic or moral grounds, then it is conventional to call them mercenaries because there's little beyond financial reward that encourages them to fight. So governments can indeed lend out their armies to fight other countries' wars in return for financial compensation. And I have seen even neutral sources sometimes describing the Sudanese and basically every other nationality fighting for KSA/UAE as mercenaries. So again this is NOT just a Houthi POV. Add this only makes further sense when we realize that Houthis never had any problem with Sudanese, Chadians, Eritreans or Cubans to provoke their governments to fight against them! As with Southerners I understand it is difficult to accuse any and all as mercenaries for southerners may have mixed motivations in fighting the Houthis. But now having said all of this, I know you may acknowledge that it is not our job here in Wikipedia to find WP:TRUTH in each case. Whether or not part of the coalition can be described as mercenaries or whether or not Houthis are right in branding all or some of their enemies as mercenaries is irrelevant to our work here. We don't decide which POV is right or wrong. But we do decide whether we can endorse a POV in Wikipedia voice or rather explicitly attribute it to its source without endorsing it. Likewise I think in this article we only have to reflect what the sources say while attributing the controversial claims to each individual source, using quotation marks if necessary, without endorsing or denying them in Wikipedia voice. I hope this standard course of action is clear to understand to spell an end to this controversy. If you still don't like segments of Houthi statements you can't remove them simply because you think their accusations are exaggerated but I do agree we may resort to a compromise: only quote their "mercenaries and hypocrites" once in the section but in later references replace them "coalition forces" so as to remove any possible concern with WP:IMPARTIAL if the tone you think is really problematic. And if the coalition also accuses Houthis of certain wrongdoings then go ahead and also state their POV in the page, nobody is stopping you since that's just WP:NPOV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral sources do not describe the Sudanese army operating in Yemen as mercenaries.Sudanese qualified as mercenaries are not members of the Sudanese army. Say this is an OR. On the other hand, a coalition may also be based on ideological motives since Sudan has similar points with Saudi Arabia. Our views are of no importance here. In the same way that the Ukrainian troops who were in Iraq in 2003 at the request of the US and the UK, in exchange for money are not mercenaries, even if the Ukrainians have no interest in Iraq and that they had no problem with Saddam Hussein. And as we know that "mercenaries" are used by the Houthis to designate all anti Houthis, it is not acceptable to put this quote. In addition, Southerners have a local agenda even if the KSA support them for the sake of mercenary skills. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

what do you think?--Panam2014 (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with calling them mercenaries is that it is the Sudanese government that is behaving as a mercenary, rather than the Sudanese troops. Not to mention, PMC's are actually used by the US, Russia, Iran, and the Syrian regime, and the word mercenary is rarely used, but rather the more neutral term PMC or private contractors. When discussing non-state militias fighting for money, using mercenary on occasion is acceptable in order to improve the quality of writing by substituting synonyms; however trying to insert the word mercenary every other sentence, and especially trying to apply it to regular troops fighting for nation state orders, sounds like an uncalled for form of partial editing. Plus don't all coalitions fight for money, on some level? The economic considerations of controlling Arabian seaports and shipping lanes can arguably make everybody a mercenary. Financial incentives are part and parcel of the core interests of nation states, and Sudan is behaving no differently in this manner. NightsideAEB (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sudanese army/Sudanese government forces or private contractors.Ukrpatriot98 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Yemeni mercenaries" is an OR. The mercenaries have not the yemeni citizenship. We should write pro-Hadi merecenarie or mercenaries. And we should not use Al Arabiya and Al Masirah. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Al-Masirah must be used to cover their side of the story since foreign reporters don't have much access to Houthi-held areas. Don't forget the Houthis are now the de facto government of Yemen! They have formed parliament and are running the country! And they seem to be the most ethical play in this conflict, so their POV is less likely to include blatant falsehoods than the coalition that has several times claimed having captured the airport without any evidence to show for it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Enough with the pings
Alright, this is the second time I've been pinged in a month: the first was by and the second just now by. All that because I fixed formatting on an article three months ago. Can you guys try to be a bit more subtle with your canvassing? Can I ask all of you to stop pinging me to know "what I think"? Isa (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is not canvassing. "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." --Panam2014 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you can see the irony, but you complain about being pinged, and then go out of your way to ping me about a user wanting to include you in a discussion. Furthermore, I suggest you take a deep breath and assume good faith, instead of making baseless accusations. If you feel that you can't provide anything beneficial, than you can easily ignore it, and if your that aggravated by a notification, simply leave a message on the user's talk page to kindly remove you from any future discussions. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was never in any discussion. You guys are scanning the history of various articles and pinging random editors. Just don't. Isa (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again you continue to double down on your false accusations, I pinged you once nearly a month ago and you made it clear that you didn't want to be apart of any future discussion, and I haven't pinged you since. Now a different user goes and pings you, and you go out of your way to include me in your rant, when you could have easily just went to his talk page and asked him nicely to remove you from any future discussion. Which shows me that this whole thread was just created for attention. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This I think is not worth the rage. Cool down people and walk away! See I didn't ping any of you! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:CANVASS says: "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive): Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand." (emphasis mine) I would kindly ask that the mass pinging of random users stop. I was not the only user to be pinged in this manner in the past few months. Isa (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel that strongly that this is canvassing, go ahead and read |W How To Stop Canvassing, I mean it is right on the same page that you keep referring to, or do you just bring up whatever fits your narrative. Anyways, you clearly are just looking for attention, so I just want you to know that I won't be responding to this hypocrisy anymore. Cheers - Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

you are right. Canvassing is the act of notifying a contributor because of their opinions that are close to the contributor who has notified. You have nothing to prove your accusations. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Iran's support
Citing Iran in support gives the misleading impression that Iran is currently involved in the war or is arming the Houthis which can't be true since Iran is not involved in the war and can't send arms, at least since the battle started and the port became dysfunctional. And indeed none of the sources you've used state that Iran is involved in this battle, whereas US and France have been directly involved. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Coalition claims Iran is directly involved by supplying arms and logistics to the Houthis, hence they are supported by Iran. Both sources state that coalition claims Iran is involved. This information is sourced. You may add "alleged" as support since Iran denies arming the Houthis. Thanks. Wikiemirati (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Considering this edit, I think here you are confusing the general perception that Houthis are supported by Iran (a support with a disputed nature and extent even when admitted by RSs)and that they are being supported by Iran in this particular battle! This is important because for countries involved in support of the coalition there are detailed, verified, specific and widely acknowledged info such as US, UK, France selling arms to the coalition, France sending special forces and minesweeping equipment for this particular battle, Sudan lending its military for this particular battle, US providing intelligence and logistic support for this particular battle and so forth. These are clearly defined and detailed in the sources. Whereas when it comes to Iran's support, the sources only make a general statement such as "Iran-backed Houthis", "Iran-aligned Houthis", "Houthis are supported by Iran". These vague statements don't specify the nature of Iran's involvement in this particular battle. Also note that all the countries actively involved in this war on the side of the coalition have admitted their role, whereas Iran and Houthis have both denied material support and in RSs Iran's role or at least its nature and extent remain disputed. That's why I think adding Iran on par with the coalition supporters is misleading. Based on what we know, Iran has not been as nearly involved in this conflict as has been the coalition's supporters and for this particular battle we don't have verified info on the kind of material support that Iran may have given the Houthis. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I agree with you on that regards that the support is not specified. However, both sources talk regarding the circumstances of the battle and hence refer to "Iranian backed Houthis" in the battle to the Houthis in Al Hudaydah. Therefore, the adjective applies to the Houthis in Al Hudaydah specifically not to Houthis in general. Also, the deployment of Iranian warships on the gulf of Aden was seen as a response by Iran to the coalition attack on Al Hudaydah (even though Iran specifies that's not the intention). Regardless, I think this battle is an important part of the Saudi Iranian proxy war. "Alleged" is included since Iran denies it, but other sources: Reuters, NYT, BCC all has stated that Houthis in Al Hudaydah are "Iranian backed", not just adding it as a regular adjective to describe that all Houthis in Yemen are Iranian backed, but to specify that Houthis in Al Hudaydah battle are "Iranian backed". Wikiemirati (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh also, specifically that most resources claim the objective of the assult on Al Hudaydah is to "stop Iranian support through the port of Al Hudaydah". Hence, they acknowledge to a certain extent that Iran is involved in this battle whether it is by supplies or anything else. Wikiemirati (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced article (bis repetita)
Hi the article remains unbalanced but have removed the template without consensus. We are three to say that the article is not balanced by using uneliables sources from one side. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is unbalanced as it is written in a form that is mainly used from pro houthi sources. Please help improve this article by adding neutral sources. If you must add a pro houthi source POV please make sure you meet them with pro coalition POV sources as to balance the weight of the article, or remove the biased sources and use neutral sources altogether. I prefer the latter. Thanks Wikiemirati (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First, we don't remove biased sources in Wikipedia. Second, none of you specifically responded to my argument: "The page is not biased. The problem is that the coalition are not reporting on the war whereas Houthis report on a daily basis. That's not our fault." I'm glad to see your response. You can't push for an opinion without engaging in a discussion explaining and defending your opinion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not journalists. This article is not intended to cover the "daily" activity of the belligerents. Regardless, your point is still invalid as it is giving undue weight to the article. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. As per WP:NPOV "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." The article needs to include everyone's point of view to be considered balanced. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not journalists that's why I didn't cover "the daily activities" of the parties either but rather only important developments that are worth mention. So I am left to see what backs up your claim that there's undue weight in the article. As for your citations of WP:NPOV that "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." again I'm left to see your argument why important developments reported by the Houthis must be excluded. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Then we should add more balanced information instead of warring on whether to remove the template. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk ) 04:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel in the infobox
Whether it's a speculation or a POV (not sure why the latter is more acceptable than the former), it does not belong in the infobox. The infobox is for countries that are actually involved. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can compare it with other articles which feature wars where the infobox includes both allegations of involvement as well as established facts. That would be just extension of WP:NPOV to the infoboxes. I don't know what warrants your exception. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Such allegations are usually more than empty claims. That being said, I'm not talking about other wars, I'm talking about this one. Conspiracy theories don't belong in military infoboxes. If the Houthis claimed the Vatican was involved in the battle, would you consider that as warranting a mention in the infobox? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not citing any policy but appear to fare along WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not our job to verify claims. We are not to find WP:TRUTH even though I don't find Israeli involvement unlikely at all given Houthis' anti-Zionist platform. --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on verifiable evidence. Accordingly, fiction does not belong in infoboxes. Every time there is a military conflict in the Middle East, someone claims Israel is involved. Such claims can be discussed in the article (like Hanish Islands conflict), but such trivia should not be the first thing a reader puts their eyes on when they open an article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You apparently mistake Wikipedia with a detective or an investigator platform! No! Wikipedia is not based on verifiable evidence rather Wikipedia publishes facts and povs that are verifiable in the sense that those facts and povs can be attributed to "a reliable source." Again you have to heed WP:TRUTH. In other words it is the attribution of a statement that must be verifiable not its truthfulness! Other than that I don't see any policy-based argument in your opposition to this piece other than your strong conviction that this POV must be a falsehood. But that's not how Wikipedia works. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the September 11 attacks article. Do you see Israel, the United States, etc. in the perpetrators section in the infobox? I never said POVs can't be included, I merely stated that such speculations shouldn't be the first thing a reader lays eyes on when s/he opens an article. Why don't we instead make a chapter about alleged foreign involvement? Then we can address coalition claims of Iranian and Hezbollah involvement as well. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * By citing 9/11 I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. First of all, 9/11 was a terrorist attack not a war involving various governments. Secondly, the alternative sources that claimed Israeli involvement in 9/11 were a too small minority in comparison to overwhelming number of mainstream sources that rejected it, whereas for this war several governments are already confirmed to be involved including Western governments! And given that

Israeli involvement doesn’t seem far-fetched at all to be dismissed as an evident falsehood. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Western governments are in close alliance with Israel,
 * KSA has been recently normalizing with Israel,
 * Houthis are openly anti-Israel
 * Yemen and Red Sea are of strategic importance to Israel


 * I really don't care how likely you think it is that Israel is involved, as it's irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that such far-fetched claims and speculations should not be in the infobox (unless you want to add Israel to every infobox in articles about wars in the Middle East, as someone always claims Israel is supporting their enemies). Infoboxes are meant to sum up key information, and are not intended as a platform for every empty claim by the warring parties. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If what I say by citing some credible reasoning is irrelevant, then how can what you say without any credible argument be a basis for your proposed edit? --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's your job to present evidence, not my job to disprove your non-existent evidence (classic argumentum ad ignorantiam). The burden of proof (note: proof - not reasoning) is in your court. Actually, strike that - our reasoning is irrelevant for this project per WP:OR. I'm not against including the Houthi claim, but it should be in an appropriate section. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You claim the view is far-fetched and I argued that it is not but you repeat your own empty claim without any reasoning. And I can't cite evidence for if there was a published evidence, this wouldn't be cited as a POV attributed to the Houthis but as a fact! Not to mention that even with established facts, we can't often cite evidence, but rather we cite documents in which other parties report their evidence. (Have you yourself seen direct evidence of the battleships taking part in this battle?) And again, I'm yet to see any policy why infobox is an exception to WP:NPOV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not "claiming" anything, I am merely asking for evidence to support your claim. That being said, I won't comment on your ideas of what constitutes evidence, as I doubt this discussion is helpful for this article. Please see Manual of Style/Lead section and Template:Infobox military conflict, and feel free to add the Houthi claim in an appropriate section. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I said asking for evidence is irrelevant. We don't cite evidence for POVs. We don't verify POVs in Wiki. That's not our job! This is for the third time! However reading the infobox template guideline, it says that controversial claims must be linked to a section in the article or not mentioned at all. But since it does advise a caution about this, I back down for the present moment until more details are published about the alleged Israeli involvement. --Expectant of Light (talk)

The Airport issue in the infobox
I don't think the coalition has managed to takeover the airport for if they had captured such a strategic position in Hudaida they could have easily advanced for the city center. Just two days ago, Almasirah reported a mass rally in Hudaida in opposition to the coalition assault, which seems impossible if the coalition had any strong presence in the city. In any case, if the claim is to be added in the infobox I believe Houthi's denial must be also mentioned. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The airport is under the coalition control according to Reuters, Al Jazeera, and the New York times despite almasirah claims and videos. As Houthis claim it is not under the coalition control, this information is added as a "coalition claims" instead of being presented as fact despite popular view. I do agree with your analysis that the airport is probably not under coalition control, but since reliable news sources reported it should stay as the information is cited. I think it's worded well to present that the coalition claims control, and the Houthis deny those claims in a neutral tone. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No source as far as I know has confirmed control of the airport. They all cite it as a coalition claim. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * the last sources issued on July 2018 said that the airport is controlled by coalition and they do not say that it is a coalition claim. Also, no reliable source have confirmed that Houthis have recaptured or still control the airport. So by saying that it is a coalition claim is a compromise. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

On Status and Airport
Apart from occasional airstrikes there has been little to no ground to ground combat. There have been no coalition updates on any captured territory since the supposed capture of Al-Hudaydah International Airport on June 20. The last reported clashes I could dig up were from June 5, and after that there is nothing. It is simply incorrect to claim this battle is “ongoing”, because it is not, it ended over a month ago. The page itself even includes Emirati statements claiming that the battle was paused. Coalition forces may launch another assault but this with such a long interlude, I don’t think both attacks can be called the same battle. Therefore I believe a change in the status section is required. “Stalemate” works best.

As for the airport, I don’t understand why my edits are being removed. The explanation was that there was no consensus, but therefore, my removal of the claimed capture of the airport from the territorial changes section was justified, no? It is not necessary to remove the coalition claim itself, but using SAUDI sources to back the claim is irresponsible. If there is no reply to this post challenging my views on the subject within the next 2 days, I will repeat my edit once again. Cupofteaguy (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all. You have any ultimatum right. Also, according to reliables sources, the battle is ongoing (no source said that it ended). For airport, reliables sources said that the airport have been captured, but Houthis disclaimer have not be confirmed by independent sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

AnsarAllah boycut peace talk?
Even the pro-American regime UN envoy has admitted that “They(AnsarAllah) would have liked to get here, we didn’t make conditions sufficiently correct to get them here,”. anyway I added another linked and removed the biased POV SharabSalam (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Al Jazeera, which is a anti-coalition source, stated the Houthis refused to attend talks in Geneva after three of its "demands" were not met.. The Reuters source you provided state Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, whose forces control northern Yemen and the capital Sanaa, accused the Saudi-led coalition of blocking his movement’s delegation from traveling to the peace talks. .. Yes, the conditions were not met as per Griffiths which may mean they did not get their demands or that the coalition blocked them. Why are we using the houthi POV? I guess the most neutrally correct way to phrase this is to say it "..peace talks collapse due to Houthi absence in Geneva peace talks" in the infobox. They were absent and that was a fact. Why they were absent may be explained with the different point of views in the article itself. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree but saying that Houthis boycott the peace talks was so biased also FYI Al-Jazeera isn't pro-Ansar-Allah either.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Unbalance issue
I have no idea why does this template still in this page. Can anyone address the issues that are in this article? Both sides sources are used so? Where is the PROBLEM? The template seems misleading! Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliables sources have been used, Houthi POV have been promoted. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the unreliable sources that were used? I will give a list for the sources that I see in this article also most of sources aren't "pro-Houthi". Remember that facts don't care about your feelings. so if the article is pro-Ansarallah that might be because Ansarallah are the good people? I mean that's what most people actually believe and that's in my opinion is the truth but regardless of that here is the list of references without some references that were used just 1-2 times. I only put this list just because I know you from previous annoying pointless arguments. You repeat false arguments again and again.

press TV (pro-Houthi) used ~ 13 times
 * Middle East eye (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 8 times
 * New York times (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 3 times
 * BBC news (ofc not pro-Houthi) used  ~ 7 times
 * Al-jazzera (not pro-Houthi and not pro- coalition) used ~ 14 times
 * reuters (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 37 times
 * theguardian (unbiased and has no political opinion about the conflict) used ~ 13 times
 * telegraph (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 8 times
 * Wall Street Journal (not pro-Houthi)
 * Al Arabiya. (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 8 times
 * almasirah (pro-Houthi) used~ 14 times
 * WSJ (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 18 times
 * almasdar news used ~ 1 time
 * Al-Madina (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 3 times
 * sudantribune (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 2 times
 * Alaraby (not pro-Houthi) used ~ 5 times
 * --SharabSalam (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Al Arabiya and Al Massirah and Press TV should be banned. The others are reliables.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to who? Is that a Wikipedian rule? --SharabSalam (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to independent statements. Press TV is a very bad source. The two others are clearly propaganda outlets. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * PressTV and Al-Arabyia are used in many articles related to the conflict. That's because western media isn't covering this conflict very well. Using Al-Arabyia as a source isn't a problem when both side media say the same thing. If this article is unbalanced because of this then the article Houthi movement should also be unbalanced? --SharabSalam (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PressTV is clearly unreliable. So it should not be used. Coverage from Arabiya and PressTV are false. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PressTV is clearly unreliable. For Arabiya and PressTV, their coverage is mainely fake news. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

until the day when PressTV, Massirah and Arabiya will be removed from the article, there are no reason to remove the template without consensus.--Panam2014 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't mentioned any real problem. If using PressTV AlAraybia is wrong then why isn't wrong in other articles? All sources are used in a balance way. Maybe it needs improvement. If this article is unbalanced then the article of Ansarallah movement is unbalanced. Again you have not put examples of unbalanced issues in this article and I have provided the times sources are used. There is a worse case in Ansarallah article but I didnt see anyone complaining until I did. --SharabSalam (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . You have removed the template without consensus and the problem is real. Press TV should not be used and propaganda outlets too. That source shouldn't be used anyway. In Houthi article, the template have been removed because of an edit warring and the admin have restaured the version before the edit warring. Here there are no erdit warring and in case of edit warring, the version with the template would be restaured. The discussions are independents.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked for examples where biased sources were used wrongly. You haven't provided any proof that sources are used wrongly. The template has been there since June 2018 which means since the battle of Hudidah has started. I checked the article and I couldn't find any information that is unbalanced due to sources usage. Both side sources are used both. There is absolutely no reason for the unbalance. The Houthi article neutrality will be fixed as soon as that admin who seems to me biased towards the Saudi regime, unprotect the article. Also we are repeating the same argument again. You say unreliable source are used! It's hard to tell what are the unreliable sources you mean. Do you mean biased sources? Because PressTV or AlAraybia sources are used in all of articles related to this conflict! I think balancing the article isn't about removing PressTV or AlAraybia sources it's about using the right language and both sides sources are used fairly in the article. Please in your next reply provide some examples that you think are unbalanced so that I can fix it. Otherwise this template wouldn't be removed forever because it's there with no reason! --SharabSalam (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have proved it at the top. Bad source such as Press TV should be banned here. Because it is notorious that it is a bad source. Balancing the article is not using unreliables sources. And feel free to create an article about fake news accusations against Arabiya. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * omg you are repeating the same argument even after I asked you not to. Please read template:unbalanced it says Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
 * Yet you haven't provided any specific issue that there is a WP:NPOV in this article. Again in your next reply kindly give examples of NPOV issues in this article otherwise the template is pointless. Repeating arguments isn't helpful not for you and not for me. Please feel free to tell where are the statements that are in the paragraph that you think have NPOV problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * False, I have proved that Al Arabiya and Press TV are bad source (both are banned in UK). In WP only reliables sources are used. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even after all of what I said you still unable to understand what I am saying. This is one of the reasons I avoid talking and have discussion with other users sometimes. When the other partner dismiss all of what you said and repeat the same argument without even knowing what I said. I have wasted my time with you and I say this and I challenge you to prove that you haven't wasted my time with pointless arguments --SharabSalam (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to try again with you. Could you please give an example where there is a WP:NPOV issue? What are the things that you think should be rephrased or removed? Using Al-Arabyia or PressTV sources isn't a problem as long as there is no NPOV. Yes you can use PressTV and AlAraybia sources as secondary sources or as a verification per WP:Verifiability. So for the fourth time I am asking you to provide examples where there is a serious NPOV issue in this article. Thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There are no consensus here to remove the template and in Houthi there are no consensus to add the template. You must taking account that. See Reliable sources. When a source is clearly unreliable we couldn't use it because of risk that the other info is too false. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You still have not provided NPOV violation. I will delete it because according to template:unbalanced In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. --SharabSalam (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it is a violation of the reliability of our encyclopedia. There are no reason to remove it. Or you could replace it by Unreliable sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide any example where there is a violation of NPOV? You are going in circles with your arguments.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will give you an example where these sources you mentioned as unreliable like Almasirah(anti-zionist pro Houthi) were used Muhammad Abdel Salam, the Houthi spokesman also stated: "Despite the UN envoy's visit to Sana'a more than once and meeting with Houthi officials for a comprehensive political solution, he has not done anything yet, which appears as a cover for the continuation of aggression." Do you think that this is violation of NPOV? This is why using sources like this is important to quote or to add a secondary sources SharabSalam (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Using source who have claimed lots of time false things is not acceptable. And it is a violation of neutrality and reliability. Stop claiming that Almasirah is antizionist, it is not neutral. It is not neutral because you are relaying Houthi propaganda here. When Houthis declaration is relayed by reliable source, it is not a propaganda.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the template will be removed because I kindly requested from you that you show me where is there a violation of NPOV (quote something from the article that is totally biased and a violation of NPOV!!) . If you take small amount of time and see all of the article you will realise how the article is well-sourced and well presented that you almost can't find a serious violation of NPOV. Instead you keep repeating the same argument again and again in fact I will report this issue to other users or admins so that it will be fixed. The template is obviously should not be here. Also Almasirah is an anti-zionist media. That's a fact. I can't believe that there is someone who would argue with this. --SharabSalam (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * claiming that Massirah is anti zionist is a propaganda and a marketing strategy. See WP:NPOV. Also, adding unverified fact is a violation of neutrality. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your whole comment right above isn't even about the subject that we are discussing. Stop this pointless arguments! You are proving again that it's a waste of time to argue with you--SharabSalam (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you refuse to accept evidence, I am not there to convice you. I have your POV and me too. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no reason this article is tagged as unbalanced. Can someone else comment on this? --SharabSalam (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It is an enough reason. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There has been use of on-sided, non-WP:RS to promote a pro-Houti POV. Do not remove the tag until this is resolved. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How did you even get here, Here come the Suns? I realize SharabSalam reverting you at Khalida Jarrar may have been problematic, but going after their edits here is also a problem.


 * SharabSalam, you should have probably tried engaging the article talk page before removing the tag. That would have been the prudent thing to do. El_C 06:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have engaged. شرعب السلام is my previous username. When I was still a new editor I came here and asked can someone tell why this template is there. (I was an enthusiastic editor who wanted to fix the issues with articles related to my country), the template is not going to stay there forever. but the issue was never identified. I didn't know where are the unreliable sources used. Then the discussion stop with me asking someone to to comment and panama repeating the unreliable source allegation without identifying where it is used. --SharabSalam (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I watch many of the pages related to the Saudi war in Yemen and the Houtis, and edit some of them (e.g, ,). The latest edit popped up on my watch list, and I noticed a revert made with a less-than-forthcoming edit summary - "the discussion is dormant ".  But I agree I should not have perpetuated the edit war after my initial revert. I'll disengage from  this page for  now. Here come the Suns (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Edits from months ago are not that convincing as to your activity in this area. I'm sorry, but the optics here are not great. You have a dispute with SharabSalam in one article, and suddenly you have a dispute in another? Which isn't to say that SharabSalam's behaviour at Khalida Jarrar was any better. But that is another matter. El_C 06:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I started a discussion at Khalida Jarrar, as well (the less mention of that dispute here, the better). I suggest you both engage the material rather than one another's conduct (again, that would be the domain of AE), in both article talk pages. Although, maybe taking a few days break from one another would be the best course of action. El_C 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 December 2019
I'm a member of the typo team and use the Moss tool, which detected typos. I want to make the following non-controversial edits because the contractions violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the last one is a missing space after a sentence. Thanks. Ira Leviton (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Change "there's to "there is"
 * 2) Change two instances of "didn't" to "did not"
 * 3) Change "doesn't to "does not"
 * 4) Insert a space after "territories." where it ends a sentence. Ira Leviton (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ think I got them all. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)