Talk:Battle of Sanaa (2017)

Language of intro section
I'm starting this topic because I edited the language in the introductory section to make it more neutral, but I'm not sure if everyone will agree with my thinking here, so I figured it would be a good idea to explain my thinking and have a place to discuss this on the Talk page. My edit was to change "Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates who are leading a war on Yemen" to "who are leading a military intervention in Yemen", with a link to the page for the Saudi intervention. While I certainly personally think it's fair enough to describe the intervention as a "war on Yemen" given the high civilian toll, Saudi et al. have characterized their military action as being in favor of the legitimate government against a rebel group trying to violently seize power. Or you could characterize it as Saudi and allies intervening to help one side in a civil war, which is not really a war on Yemen as a whole. Anyway I felt "military intervention in Yemen" was more neutral since "war on Yemen" conjures images of an all-out invasion or attack, rather than an intervention in an existing internal conflict. But if anyone has a better way to phrase this feel free to suggest/make further edits. Also I'm new to editing Wikipedia so apologies if I'm doing it wrong. --174.101.137.54 (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think military intervention is a euphemism for describing what is truly an all out military assault that has targeted hospitals, schools, wedding ceremonies, and UN facilities, while having subjected the country to a strict naval blockade and deliberate starvation of the entire population. And yes, Saudis can still claim they only mean to fight the Houthis but it is hard to take that at face value given these facts on the ground. Also note that the Houthis are not just a bunch of militias, they are leading an organized and vastly popular social movement in Yemen. And the government takeover was preceded by mass protests and even Hadi's army didn't act to protect his government as he had lost his legitimacy and his term had already expired. You can verify all of this in the relevant pages. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's next, are we going to start calling them civilian combatants? The popularity of the takeover (revolution, coup, whatever) is not in question here.The Houthis were armed. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you post this on the wrong talkpage? --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have responded to "And the government takeover was preceded by mass protests and even Hadi's army didn't act to protect his government as he had lost his legitimacy and his term had already expired.". --Panam2014 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed POV
As I am critical to criminal Saleh and Saudi Arabian intervention, this is way too much. It is total Houthi propaganda and clear example of serious NPOV violation. 1) In background the war is described as Houthi liberation of Yemen and Hadis responsibility for its eruption is exaggerated and presented as clear fact instead of one of opinions (at least) 2) Celebration of victory? Why? Whose victory? Which people celebrated, what about the other people? Definitely more appropriate is to use common section “reactions” and desribe International and domestic ones including the celebration. 3) “Long list of Saudi international policy failures” - I actually agrese with that, but is it really that much relevant? If yes, then it should be quoted, who and in which context desribed it this way. Those are just few to mention. I am not pro into Yemen politics and war (i actually came to learn more about it) and also my English is not perfect, so I would like to ask you, please do something about it. At least mark it as bad article til the changes. Many people use wikipedia as principal souce and it is a real shame. Best regards, --217.30.64.202 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just another example of that: UN claim on executed people is presented as “anti-houthi claim”. It simply is not a neutral article and removing the tag is the most arrogant way of dealing with it. I hope someone more erudated in the Yemen politics will soon look into it.--217.30.64.202 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC) ·

Viewpoint
I've been looking through the article and I don't really see how "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints", has this article been updated and someone just forgot to remove the tag or is there something disputed that I seem to be missing? Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"pro-Houthi" word is not neutral
The source doesn't say that the protesters were pro-Houthi I know Arabic and I can read the source leballing the protesters under one group seems like WP:OR SharabSalam (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * stop now. A demonstration organzied by Houthi is a pro Houthi demonstration. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no time to spend with a clear case of WP:POV-PUSH. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you think? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In what logical basis is this statement based on? "A protest organised by Houthis" lol the source doesn't even say that. It says that there was a massive protest to thank god +Me myself I was part of that protest even though I am not pro houthi but anti American regime SharabSalam (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you have edited the article without consensus. For that you are wrong. anti American regime : you are not neutral, stop WP:POV-PUSH.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a pro Houthi demonstration. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks legit to me, but how is SharabSalam pushing his PoV? Nuke (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not pushing any point of view you in the other hand have no respect to any point of view that opposes your point of view even if yours is not sourced or based on reliable source. For what reason are you leballing all the protesters who celebrated the death of Ali Salah (a dictatorship who was backed by the US regime) as "pro-Houthis" you did not acknowledge that there are many parties who were there protesting and at the same time they do not consider them selves as pro-Houthi. Your previous explaintion -"organised by Houthis then it's pro houthi"- by the way shows how deeply ignorant you are in the subject. In order to make this Wikipedian article neutral I have deleted that statement that minimises the protest. Remember this is not a Fox News article this is a Wikipedian article. SharabSalam (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are clearly there to promote the Houthi's point of view. It's not acceptable. And neutrality is not to put on the same level several opinions but to respect the proportion. By the way, the facts are that the Houthis control the capital, and Saleh was killed by the Houthis. And the sources say that the gathering is the Houthi.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to understand that what I am stating is what the sources are saying and I am not pushing any point of view as that's what is in sources and in reality since I was there protesting. The fact that you didn't bother reading the Arabic source (if you know Arabic) explains why you are having a problem with me. The source states that there were protesters from the party of General People's Congress (Yemen) who most of them are against Saudi intervention and at the same time they don't consider themselves as pro houthi. SharabSalam (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC) It's wrong. All sources say that GPC members in Sana'a live under Houthi restraint and have become their puppets. Moreover, the sources say that the demonstration is that of the Houthis, we do not have to promote the propaganda of these individuals.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No. What you are saying is wrong. The GPC members are against the Saudi intervention and they also do not consider themselves as pro Houthis as also many members of many parties in Yemen who don't want Saudi intervention. They call themselves as opponents of the aggression but they don't consider themselves as pro houthi SharabSalam (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What you are saying is the same as saying that Qatar is pro-houthi because Qatar is against the Saudi intervention. Or saying that ISIS is pro Zionists because ISIS is fighting Iran. SharabSalam (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC) In short, you say things wrong and you mix everything. Your opinion does not matter. The sources say that this demonstration is pro-Houthis and that GPC members in Sana'a are under the influence of the Houthis, and this is the truth.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Notice how you keep repeating the same argument again and again without acknowledging what I have said above. There is only one source and it's already mentioned in the Article (Almasirah) and it DOES NOT say that the protesters were pro-houthi that word came from the editor who edited this Wikipedian article head as an attempt to push his point of view and it's should be considered as a WP:OR and if you take a look at the protest photos from the article you would notice that there is almost no Houthi flag. There were many protesters who are victims of that dictator leader Ali Salah who was backed the US regime and Saudi Arabia in 2011 revolution. SharabSalam (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * stop your pov pushing. WP is not a TRIBUNE. We must respect the sources. Your own opinion have any importance. The protesters were pro Houthis per sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Reuters, it is a pro-Houthi rallye. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

the reliables sources said that the demonstration is pro-Houthi but he have removed the mention without consensus and he attemp to impose his self pro-Houthi POV that the demonstration were not pro Houthi. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * the whole paragraph in Wikipedia is based on the article of Almasirah which said nothing about whether the protest was pro-houthi or not. If you are going to add the Reuters report then reform the whole paragraph also Reuters says that "ten thousand of people protested" so I also suggest adding the number from Reuters instead of the adjective. SharabSalam (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

the fact that the demonstration is pro Houthi is more important. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

again the article in Almasirah says clearly that there were lots of other people who celebrated the death of Ali Salah this is the fact that you keep ignoring again and again in an attempt to push your point of view. The paragraph must be reformed if you are going to add the Reuters claim or stay as the report of Almasirah that the article of Wikipedia is based on. SharabSalam (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * stop to push Houthi POV. Almasirah is not reliable. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

here is what is written in Wikipedia "On 5 December, the official Ansarullah website Almasirah reported that a mass rally was held in Sanaa to thank God for the failure of the revolt. The crowd waving Yemen national flag, chanted slogans such as 'our revolution is a free one' and 'we reject colonialism'." It's obviously about the article on Almasirah that says nothing about whether the protesters were pro houthi or not. Here is some questions for you: do know Arabic? Can you show me where it says in Almasirah report that the protest was pro houthi? If you can't show me where then I reject your accusations that I am trying to push my point of view. If you are going to add the Reuters claim then add it in a saperated paragraph or reform the whole paragraph. SharabSalam (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * not an argument. I have not time to spend with your POV push and your OR. The reliable sources said that it is a pro Houthi rallye. No separate paragraph. We will add the mention that you have removed without consensus. Enough is enough. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't add it without reforming the whole paragraph as it's not what Almasirah report says. stop with your ad hominem argument as I have done nothing wrong. Check what the paragraph on Wikipedia states and what Almasirah report states and see who is wrong. SharabSalam (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * stop now. One paragraph is enough. And Almasirah is unrelaible. Stop to lose time to others contributors. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If Almasirah is not reliable for you then why the whole paragraph is about Almasirah report? Maybe you should reform the whole paragraph as a fact not an article on Almasirah? And ofc Almasirah is a reliable source for an information of an article on it. Do you understand what I am saying? Why do you keep ignoring what I am saying so I have to repeat it again and again. Best solution is reforming the paragraph or keep it as it is. SharabSalam (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you will replace AlMasirah by Reuters. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the edits of Mr. Fitzcarmalan have fixed this issue bc the rally wasnt only reported by Almasirah and it should be presented as a fact that happened also tens of thousands protesters were there in the rally which is a fact not just a report from Almasirah SharabSalam (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2012 Sanaʽa bombing which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)