Talk:Houthi movement/Archive 2

Name of the Article
Shouldn't we name this article: Al-Shabab al-Muminin, considering that's the groups official name and Houthis is just how they are referred to in the media?Kermanshahi (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because Al-Shabab Al-Muminin is a different movement and in fact the creator of that movement is against Ansarollah. However, I support changing the name of article to Ansarollah instead of Houthis because Houthis is actually a name of a tribe that lots of them aren't even in politics or related to Ansarollah movement its very odd to find a wikipedia article named not by the official name but by biased and offensive name to many tribes I suggest changing the name of article immediately, thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not using the official name "Ansar Allah"
The Houthi tribe isn't the only tribe that is part of Ansar Allah movement in fact lots of Sunni tribes are fighting with Houthis SharabSalam (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree! I myself have been thinking about this. But the problem is most sources as far as I know, refer to the movement by its leaders who are Houthis. But this gives a wrong impression as if this is about a tribal conflict whereas it is primarily ideological and political and not even sectarian. Houthis are adamantly anti-sectarian, that's why they could build such a vast social movement. We have to wait for more comments to see whether we can change the name for greater accuracy contra the RSs' practice.--Expectant of Light (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have seen many people who have the surname "Houthi" and they don't support "Ansar Allah" movement, they have had many problems in western countries because of their surnames and the main cause of this is labelling all opponents of Saudi intervention in Yemen as Houthis, so I created a page to describe what is the Houthi tribe, the page isn't about politics but is about a tribal community. SharabSalam (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Salam, . informed me of this. I think the best way forward might be a split. Unfortunately, Houthi is indeed the term most often used in English literature, but we could possibly differentiate Houthi (tribe) from Houthi movement. --Calthinus (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. SharabSalam created this article and I redirected it since a copy of it had already been redirected by another editor.  Should we revert my redirect and rename that article properly? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah -- but the name should be "Houthi". Not "Huthi". Google shows in English there is no competition ("Huthi": [], Houthi:[]). --Calthinus (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you undo my redirect since I am editing on the phone and I am having some issues undoing it ? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Calthinus (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding terminology paragraph
Does anyone know what does Houthi mean?:) SharabSalam (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is needed or relevant. We don't add a terminology section for Bin Laden family or Kennedy family. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

removed due to material not in the reference given ...
But the governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Australia regard the Houthis as a terrorist organization.[33][not in citation given] - yes, there is no mention of the Yemeni situation at all in the reference. If true, there must be several RS's available that can restore this line to the lead. 50.111.41.216 (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone also check this: There is a difference between the al-Houthi family, which has about 20 members[57]:102

There is no mentioning of how many members in the Houthi family/tribe in the references... SharabSalam (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Expectant of Light
This edit is another example of clear POV-pushing by the user. First of all, who says "These claims were unsubstantiated"? You can't write something like that without attribution. Second, it's true that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has been accused of having a pro-Israel bias, which he denies, but introducing this label into the article seems unnecessary. There's a link for those interested in knowing about the organization. Third, Houthis are a "resistance movement" according to whom? I don't see a reliable source stating that.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The text you quote cites a source. And I think citing WINEP's bias is necessary considering that Houthis are anti-Israel. As for Resistance movement category, I think Houthis clearly fit the definition. They were once resisting Saleh's government and are now resisting Hadi and Saudi invasion. By the way I was not the one adding either of these things to the page. But I thought your removals were wrong and reverted them. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I desagree 's personal attacks but I agree with his changes. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Without citing any reason? --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Labeling organizations as pro-Israel without sources or relevance is a no-no. As is saying "These claims were unsubstantiated" - when the cited source says nothing of the sort (but rather describes the Houthis not as a full-fledged proxy force, but as a force that the Iranian invested in modestly (at the time of writing - circa 2016)).Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had tried to rewrite that section in the chronological order. As of 2009, the paper says Saleh's claims were unsubstantiated. And I explained why pointing out WINEP's bias is necessary. I don't see you addressing my point. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Houthi relevance to Israel is tangential at best - as is WINEP's alleged pro-Israel stance. We don't go around labeling in this manner. The paper cited actually clearly lays out support by Iran for the Houthis.Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The paper actually rules out quite explicitly that Houthis are Iranian proxies. Btw, Houthis have said that Israeli war planes have been involved in the war against Yemen but Israel doesn't want to publicize it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The source says After fighting started in 2004, Saleh regularly accused the Houthis of being Iranian proxies, presumably to attract American and Saudi support. At the time, however, these accusations remained unsubstantiated.. It seems however that this claim was, to a large extent, substantiated subsequently - as noted by the cited paper - which takes the position (not accepted by all) that the Houthis aren't an Iranian proxy, however it does see the Houthis as being supported by Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This paper is not lonely in stating that Houthis are not pawns of Iran. See this and this. These authors intelligently recognize the complexity of this issue, and that Houthis are primarily self-reliant why sharing common ground with Iran such as ideology and enemies. I think we need to present these nuances accurately in the section and not just bundling together cherry-picked facts to make them look to be just Iranian pawns. That's why I rewrote that section. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One should also note the same source says - According to an April 2015 report to the UN Security Council’s Iran Sanctions Committee, Iran started shipping small amounts of weapons to the Houthis in 2009 (though the report left open the possibility that there might have been even more limited support before). - so Saleh offering or not offering definitive proof for his assertions circa 2008-9 is a rather moot point seeing that this was subsequently confirmed. As for whether the Houthis are pawns or semi-independent actors receiving significant military support (particularly in 2017-2018 - After Juneau wrote his article) - there is indeed a wide range of opinions we should reflect. Certainly the position they are proxies carries some weight.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have no problem with that when all POVs are presented in an accurate and balanced way. It is also helpful to note that Saleh's war on Houthis started back in 2004. And ever since then he was accusing them of being Iranian paws whereas Houthis were a legitimate political party and primarily driven by local grievances and objections to Saleh's foreign relations. 2009 was already five-years through his brutal crackdown on Houthis and Sa'da residents. So seeing the ceaseless repression, Iran might have decided to help them against Saleh at some point. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The following source is rich, and yet has not, apparently, been used.
 * April Longley Alley with Zachary Laub Who Are Yemen’s Houthis? Council on Foreign Relations February 25, 2015Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 August 2018
Please change the hatnote from:

to:

to remove this article from Disambiguation pages with links. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

State opponents - collapsible list
In order to display all the countries, I tried to put 7 at the top, which was the number shown, and to display all the others in a collapsible list again, but now it's only showing 6 at the top and still doesn't show the collapsible list. Anyone can fix this, please? Thanks. Odemirense (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Caleb Maupin and the Houthi goals
The claim made in the source is an interpretation by a New York based "political analyst and activist". Especially the (unsourced) "participated in a humanitarian mission to Yemen with the Red Crescent"-bit lends undue weight to that claim. Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides... It seems to me their goals and mission statement are written on their flag in no uncertain terms. Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my mind, if this appears in NEO, this is UNDUE. Surely there are better sources commenting on the Houthi's goals.Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with both of you guys, we don't need ro use such a controversial source while there are probably better sources about this. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nujabaimage.jpg

Ansarallah control of Saada
Ansarallah totally control Saada even if there are some fights that doesnt mean they dont control it as they control the government and all the parts of the government. SharabSalam (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * false. Not in 2018. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * according to who? by the way that map you showed me was last edited 2 years ago!

Al-Arabiya report
The article quote the following from fars agency: The agency quoted “a prominent analyst” Seyed Sadeq al-Sharafi as saying that militias “are developing their missile power to target Riyadh and Dubai in the future, after they increased their missile and military capabilities and expanded the range of their military operations against the enemies.” Then the article says this with it's own opinion not quoting from fars ageny: The Zelzal-2 is an Iranian developed long-range unguided rocket in use by the Iranian military, Hezbollah and the Houthis. after that the article claims that the final conclusion of this is that Iran has admitted that they are arming Houthis. This is a total fallacy and I am going to remove the whole paragraph. SharabSalam (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Zelzal-2 can be made by developing 9K52 Luna-M Soviet missile. Any military group can develop 9K52 Luna-M to Zelzal-2 even some ISIS-related groups have used and made Zelzal-2 in Syria. The agacy states that it's homemade and this is not a unique thing since Ansarallah has developed other weapons that have not been used except in Yemen. SharabSalam (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Unbalance issue
The article shows biased stance by using pro-Zionist and pro-terrorists media outlets as primary source also cherry picking from some other articles here some examples In 2014–2015 Houthis took over the government in Sana'a with the help of the former president Ali Abdullah Saleh and announced the fall of the current government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.[50][51] 50, 51 sources are not reliable sources and pro-UAE sources just if you don't know both Houthis and Ali Salah deny that they were cooperating when they took Sana'a and even Ali Salah accuse Hadi of helping Houthis to take over so that he can stay longer as president of Yemen

As of 2014 it has been observed that "The Houthi group's approach is in many ways similar to that of Hizbollah in Lebanon. Similarly religiously based and Iran-backed, both groups follow the same military doctrine and glorify the Khomeini revolution in Iran".[91] Al-Arabyia source? I will work in this article until then this article has balance problem. --SharabSalam (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is using pro-Zionist and pro-Terrorist media as a primary sources is balanced? Regardless of this. I gave two examples out of many examples in this article that seems to be so biased and sourced using biased sources!!--SharabSalam (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Al-Jazeerah is "pro-Zionist" and "pro-Terrorist"? And even if so, that's two sources out of 165. Sorry, but it's not so easy. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT HERE--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:יניב הורון, seriously, slow down. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:יניב הורון, do NOT do this again please. PRESERVE means very little here: it's a highly POV "observation", unattributed, and sourced to an opinion piece. That's unacceptable in many ways. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're both acting like fools. I have protected the article. Talk it out. If you have a problem with the protection, I'll be happy to unprotect and block the both of you for a week. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't think a user who calls 164 sources "pro-Zionist" and "pro-terrorist" (including Al Jaazera!) is in this encyclopedia to contribute or improve content, let alone neutrality. But I respect your decision.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTHERE is a pretty serious accusation. I've given out plenty of NOTHERE blocks, but in this case, with an editor who seems to be serious, in a serious topic area, you'll have to prove that. Maybe you should have this discussion not with the editor here, but on ANI, with the community, if you truly believe in this charge. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (talk) should not be editing here and his revert is an ARBPIA violation, again. It has already been made clear to him several times that the article doesn't need to have an ARBPIA notice to be subject to ARBPIA sanctions. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can bring that up at WP:AE, or maybe ANI, not here. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And I already explained you that article is not under ARBPIA and my edits have nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. Furthermore, if this article was part of ARBPIA, IPs like yourself should not be able to edit here in the first place per WP:ARBPIA3. So maybe you should report yourself.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning", but you already know this since it is in your block log. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That this falls under ARBPIA is not immediately evident to me--at all. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I did is that I wanted to improve the article neutrality I said that UAE or Saudi media are pro-Zionist that's my opinion and I believe many people in here believe this. Aljazzeria is pro-Terrorist media that's an opinion regardless of all of that? Are any of my recent edits in this article wrong? I accepted when you said that there is no balance issue and started fixing what I thought is wrong. Obviously that guy who reverted my edits have no reason to revert any edit when I was trying to fix the article neutrality. --SharabSalam (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, what can I say. There's one editor, and an admin, who don't seem to agree with you. And obviously you think you're right; guess what, so does your opponent. Now that the article is under protection, you'll have to make your case here, but you'll have to do better than say "source is biased and other dude is wrong". Drmies (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think I am right? How about you see how things went on? I saw that the article rely on many sources that I think are biased and pro-Zionist (Since houthis are anti-zionists) that was also an opinion I put the unbalance issue in the talk page and I put a tag on the article and that user with the non-latin name reverted my edits without even replying to the talk page (I didn't know if that was an attempt for a provocation) so I reverted and you reverted my edit. So I accepted what you said and I instead started to fix some biased informations and you can just see that in the history page of this article that I did that in good faith and my friend with the non-latin name reverted my edits with absolutely silly reasons (in my opinion) then you came protected the page as a solution. Also what was the reason for you to mention that you are an admin here? I am new here but I pretty sure that's not how admins should speak. Facts isn't about how many people are against me and I will remove biased materials from here and I don't think anyone can stop that when I am holding a right argument Thank you--SharabSalam (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents - This isn't ARBPIA (It is a Saudia/Gulf vs. Iran conflict - but that's not under DS). The op-ed from The National pointing out similarities to other Iranian back groups should be included - it makes an observation that many others have made as well. However - this should be attributed properly.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An opinion article from a writer in pro-UAE newspaper that the writer didn't put any evidence in should be included? Okay why isn't also fair to use opinion articles from pro-Ansarallah media? And no adding a similarity argument without evidence and reliable sources must not be in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus, when you said "many others have made as well." I went to Google and I found no relaible sources that have claimed that there is a similarity between Hizbullah and Ansarallah other than the name lol. Could you show the many others who have made this claim?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually this was the first result when I searched "Houthis similarity Hezbollah" which is pretty laughable because you said many and I found the exact opposite of what you said--SharabSalam (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for weighing in. I'm not very invested in this particular topic (not at all, actually, except that my heart goes out to the people of Yemen, who are suffering tremendously, and few people in power seem to care). However, I do not think this content should be included if it is only one single opinion. If there are indeed more, as you suggested, that's a different matter, but as you said it should be properly attributed; and it should not be given simply as an enumeration of opinions, cause that's bad writing. We have enough of that already in American Politics, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is on my watchlist (not very interested in the movement, but do keep tabs on the horrible conflict. This article has seen conflict disputes in the past). It is quite easy to find other sources comparing these two alleged Iranian proxies (even the FP piece mentioned above when making the point they are not the same (and obviously there are some differences)- saw a need to counter this rather widely held assertion). Here is the Saudi ambassador to Yemen making the same point - . Here is another oped - .Icewhiz (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be state as a fact. Because both Saudi ambassador and other writers have no proof of it. Instead it should be mentioned who said this. Also I totally believe this is a fake allegation and I am used to find US regime allegations fake. Regardless it should be mentioned who allegedly said that. Both Ansarallah and the Islamic Republic of Iran deny cooperation.the unbalance is so obvious!! --SharabSalam (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My attempts to make this article more neutral
Both the and the Admin with the checkuser ability  said they oppose my edits here  where the non-latin user said in the summary (undid revision 878972852 by شرعب السلام (talk) even if it lacks attribution, first of all we try to WP:PRESERVE) and here where the non-latin user said I am not here to contribute in Wikipedia. Now the admin had made the article protected I am unable to fix the article neutrality --SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "Facts isn't about how many people are against me and I will remove biased materials from here and I don't think anyone can stop that when I am holding a right argument"--yes, someone can stop you, and someone will if you continue edit warring. Checkuser has nothing to do with any of this. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You totally manipulated what I meant when I said what I said. I have feelings that you aren't handling this issue as an nonbisead admin you clearly supporting the non-latin guy over me without any reason--SharabSalam (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:יניב הורון, SharabSalam (shoot, even copying and pasting these usernames is difficult for me), the article is protected. The way out is via this process, WP:RFC. Please read the guidelines carefully before you start that. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * this edit Special:MobileDiff/878973788 shows how awfully you are as an admin handling this issue. Your friend with the non-latin name has been reverting my edits with no reason and then you claim you solved the problem when you protected the page and revert my edits? Also you are using a disrespectful way when you talk to me I feel that you are trying to a provocation--SharabSalam (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Smyth
I just removed an opinion piece by someone called Smyth who is not notable or a well-known politican. There are tons and tons of people like him we should not include non-notable / unknown people opinions in Wikipedia this is Symth there are many other information available in the media other than Symth opinion. --SharabSalam (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Since when the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is an unreliable source and "not notable" for this topic ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's from the business insider a biased source and it's given undue weight. There are only two solutions shrinking his opinion in the article or removing it from Wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Business insider got this information from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the latter sounds reliable IMHO. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * His opinion took huge part in the article and it should be removed your opinion is irrelevant--SharabSalam (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At the end we can have a RfC discussion and see if Symth opinion should be given this whole paragraph and also it's written in a way that makes what Symth said in wiki voice--SharabSalam (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And BTW what you said is not true. Business insider got this information directly from Philip Symth who works in that institute that means it's not the institute that has said this but Philip Smyth who BTW is not notable and should not be given that undue weight. Also and this is not related the institute is also not unbiased see it's criticism section in the article--SharabSalam (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

edit notice requested
A request to add an edit notice for this page is open, if you have any comments about it please leave them at the request. — xaosflux  Talk 20:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The movement is mostly Sunni
Dear SharabSalam

The movement does not include Sunnis. The internet is full of untrusted sources.

The use of blogging platform such as globalvoices is totally not allowed. It is not trusted. This website is like google blog Blogger_(service), WordPress, facebook, twitter, and any other social media platform. Read []

The other source which is is not related. It does not clearly indicate that the movement has Sunni members. It says some Sunnis supported this militia, which totally doesn't mean they are joining them, members, or working with them. We need a more reliable source. The movement is a purely Shiite group.

Those sources don’t support this argument. Thank you for your understanding.

Also, note that you have added this info, force it, preventing anyone trying to talk with you or fix the article. please read wiki policy. []

Thank you.


 * The Houthi movement is 70% Sunni Muslims. That is something I know because I am from Yemen and I live in Yemen not in the Gulf states.
 * let me review the sources for you. The BBC source says clearly Many ordinary Yemenis - including Sunnis - supported the Houthis and in late 2014 and early 2015.... You have been reverted you should take it to the talk page before reverting again.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And the source in Middle East Research and Information Project clearly support that the movement include Sunnis.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello SharabSalam again, I am Yemeni as well, ran out from Yemen after this militia threated my life, this adds no value to this article. Also, you said "That is something I know because I am from Yemen" still what you know is not a trusted source. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. please read [] The BBC source says Many ordinary Yemenis - including Sunnis - supported the Houthis and in late 2014 and early 2015.... This has a different meaning. supporting does not mean joining this religious-political militia. Supporting is NOT becoming a member of this group. North Korea or Russia, Iran have been reported to support this militia, does that mean "houthi" movement include North Korean? What the BBC meant is that, in 2014-2015 the movement allied with the former president of Yemen Ali_Abdullah_Saleh, and with his party General People's Congress which has majority Sunnis memebrs,  during the Yemeni Civil War, in which they succeeded in capturing Yemen's capital, Sana'a, Thus, they (gained support from saleh and his Sunni followers. However. In December 2017, Saleh declared his withdrawal from his coalition with the Houthis and instead sided with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and President Hadi.  Accused of treason by the Houthis, he was killed by a Houthi sniper while attempting to flee the capital city of Sana'a amidst the 2017 battle for the city on 4 December 2017.  --AliSami (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:No original research. The source says plain and simple that the movement contain Sunni fighters. In fact I have seen that myself. You probably know that most of Hashid Bakil Sunni tribes in Sana'a are against the Saudi regime intervention with or without Saleh. There is no source that people loyal to Saleh have changed their view of the Western-backed gulf regimes. In fact that's the reason why he was killed even by people who are from the al-Mutamar party(Saleh party) which is still loyal to Ansar Allah until this day.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , you said "I have seen that myself", again this is not a trusted source that can be used in Wikipedia. Hashid and Bakil are under the armed controlled and occupation of Houthi. As the majority of the tribes in north Yemen, They can NOT oppose the Houthis forces because they are not capable at the moment. The leaders of these tribes are subjected to abuse, torture, and murder. They do not have enough armament to confront Houthi. Houthis have enough Iranian weapons, and all the tribes in the Sanaʽa are under thier control. --AliSami (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide any source either. You removed a source without any reason except your own original research. The sources are clear and I provided another source. Sorry but you are wasting our time with original research and refusing to accept what sources said..--SharabSalam (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh sure there are millions of sources indicating that houthis are Zaidi Shia. All the sources in this article are stating they are Zaydi Shiites. some of them:

Again, you violating Wikipedia roles. You can not force your opinion. We have not reached consensus on this point so don't add it. --AliSami (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not saying the movement isn't Zaydi and the sources are not saying the movement isn't Zaydi. What sources and I are saying is that the movement also includes Sunni fighters. It is a tribal alliance. For example the Mufti of Taiz (Suhail Ibn 'Aqil) is a Sunni but he support Houthis. So basically the sources you gave don't contradict the fact that the movement include Sunnis. Also stop reverting per WP:BRD when you do an edit and you get reverted go to the talk page and stop reverting until you get consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And I think we can also mention that there are Jews who are fighting with Houthis. For example this source from the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Watan says that there tens of Jews fighting with Houthis in the borders and that the Jewish community said they lost a 17 years old fighter in 2016. There is also this source which shows that one of the Jews who traveled to Israel in 2016 was fighting with Houthis.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear SharabSalam, If you revert the page, it would be the 3ed revision within 24 hours and thus your IP will be blocked.

Here are what mentioned in the sources:

the Houthis are Zaydi Shiites, or Zaydiyyah. Shiite Muslims are the minority community in the Islamic world and Zaydis are a minority of Shiites a member of Yemen’s Zaidi Shia minority, which makes up about one-third of the population..

Since they are Zaydi Shiites, you need to prove to us that there is Sunnis within Houthi movement? Or Sunni fighters within the Houthi movements. Don’t Say there are Some Sunnis support Houthis? because this is does not mean they are apart of the movement. Some sources in the internet indicate that North Korea support Houthis? Does that mean Houthi include Korean people and fighters? Same some sources stated that Iran supported Houthis? Does that mean Houthis include Iranians fighters and members? Absolutely, the meaning of Support does not make the supporters apart of the movement. bring us very clear source that indicate the houthis are mostly sunnis or there are sunni fighter withing this movement or there are sunni within the houthis.
 * Sigh, there are already sources in the article. In addition I can give you this source it says
 * Just a note here: I am from Sharab As Salam which is located in Taiz and I can confirm that part about Taiz.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * please stop delaying in response.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * please stop delaying in response.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello SharabSalam the source you brought doesnt support your points. It is against you. The sources is rsearch that consist of contervisersal ideas and then study these idea and conclude the result. Not only the research is gainst you, but also the The quote posted here indicated that there are " Sunni supporters " in the areas they control. Again, supporting does make them part of the movement..

Here is what mentioned in the source you posted:





The same source further indicated that in issues such as education, the curriculum has been changed by the Houthis to be "more sectarian and [intolerant]" and that



Also, the sources mentioned that the houthis force those from other faiths to fight for them. Sunnis who refuse to do so are tortured, kidnapped, and killed. So, basically, the source is vert clear, support us, fight for us or we will kill you.

I am sorry, you failed to bring us one clear and credible source. Even if did, it is not enough since we need very strong sources because they are many source stated the opposite. It is controversial point that should not be added to the article.

--AliSami (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * hello, well... what can I say and where should I begin. First of all what you said (not the source) is ultra nonsense. You said this Also, the sources mentioned that the houthis force those from other faiths to fight for them. Sunnis who refuse to do so are tortured, kidnapped, and killed. thats not in the source. You also said this I am sorry, you failed to bring us one clear and credible source. Even if did, it is not enough since we need very strong sources because they are many source stated the opposite. where do we have many sources that state the opposite?? you are the one who is basing his comments on original research. The sources explicitly say that the Houthis have Yemeni Sunni supports and you must differentiate between the tribe of Houthi and the Houthi movement which is a political movement. You also gave this ludicrous claim that Yemeni Sunni supporters of Ansarallah party are not part of Ansarallah; and listen to the reason you gave: "North Korea support the Houthi movement, are North Koreans Houthis". No, they are not but there is huge differences. The Houthi movement is a Yemeni movement if you support it that means you are part of Ansarallah movement because that means they joined the movement. Here what the source explicity states.


 * You also misquoted the sources. The source says The BBC reports that "[t]here are rumours that the Houthis are targeting Sunni mosques in the..." you removed the word rumors -which we know that the sources of them is the Persian gulf regimes- because it doesnt fit your point of view.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving on
I think you should both take a break from this article and see what other editors have to say. Clearly, it hits too close to home, for both of you. I've reverted to the status quo ante (the version just before the dispute), which should do, for now. We don't really want the Saudi-Iranian dispute to spillover to onto Wikipedia. Best let other, more uninvolved editors have a go at it for a while. El_C 10:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Although your comment has inaccurate implications, I agree with your solution.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So 16 days have passed since my latest comment with AliSami. I will just make a slight edit by adding more sources to that paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources ?
Hi there,

we have the Islamic State militant group has attacked all of the conflict's major parties including Houthis, Saleh forces, the Yemeni government, and the Saudi Arabian-led coalition forces. Well, if AFP and Yahoo New say so, then it must be true. &mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019
social justice is part of houthi ideology. add to the rightbox after zaydi revival and in page 2.180.123.249 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ except mintpress source, unfortunately this source is not considered reliable in Wikipedia anymore.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019
Please change the Ababil-T mention in the "Allegations of Iranian and North Korean support" section into  Ababil-T  to make it a link to the relevant article. 192.198.151.36 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism "Officially Denied" in info box
I do not see anywhere in the source that antisemitism is "Officially Denied" (and no source is given for the denial), on the contrary the source states that Houthi leaders "have made anti-Semitism a central plank in their political platform." And that they have "embedded that attitude in their slogan, 'Death to America, Death to Israel, damnation to the Jews.'" None of this speaks to any sort of official denial. I would remove it myself but this account does not yet have 30/500 (my previous account does but I don't think it carries over to alternates) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Note, however, that I've tagged this as needing a reliably sourced citation. Just quickly googling this purported official denial, I'm unable to find any supporting sources, but I haven't actually done a comprehensive search. If a supporting source isn't found pronto (i.e., within 24 hours), please ping me and I'll remove it immediately. I'd also accept another uninvolved editor removing it now, but would prefer to let it stand as being a good faith addition (where the contributor forgot to add their source), and having been the consensus infobox description for some time. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the reference. It was in the body.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you can ask for "EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS" status in WP:AN if your previous account had more than 500 edits.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019
I request edits to 2 instances of the term "gulf states", 1 instance of "gulf Arab states", and 1 instance of "gulf coalition airstrikes". In all cases, the name of the body of water in question should be changed to "Persian Gulf", which is the internationally recognized name for the body of water. (example of usage in UN documents: https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf). The term "Gulf" is used by some of the Arab countries in the region and is not an official nor an internationally recognized title.

Needless to say other instances of reference to Persian Gulf in the article, such as "gulf cooperation council" are names of organizations/groups and should not be edited. Shurzar (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Eliding the word "Persian" from "Persian Gulf" is, AFAIK, accepted practice when talking about the region, and I don't see a pressing need to "un-elide". Sceptre (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Antisemitism in Yemen" category
It's pretty clear that an organization whose banner is "Curse on the Jews" is antisemitic according to all standards. In addition, several sources reported harrasment of Yemenite Jews by the Houthis.--Silveter (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They have denied the allegations. The source tells you that. For their slogan, it's a religious slogan that means Tabarra. It is translated literally in English.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The slogan is similar to when the Shia in Iraq and in Iran say "Curse on Omar" or "Curse on Aisha" Muhammad's wife. similar to the Event of Mubahala when Muslims and the Christians of Najran debated about their religion and so Muslims and Christians said "may God curse the liars". As the article here states that the Houthis are referring to those Zionists not those who are in Yemen. The Houthis say "Curse on Jews" it similarly means that Omar, Aisha or as for the Houthis Jews are cursed due to not following the true religion. The incidents allegedly commited by Houthis are not confirmed and even if one or two did that it wouldn't be based on religious reason. This Yemeni poet explains the Houthi slogan as I said above.-SharabSalam (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The slogan literal translation is "Curse is upon the Jews" not "Curse the Jews". To confirm that they meant it religiously, they say "Victory for Islam" just after they say "Curse is upon the Jews".--SharabSalam (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a quote from the article you posted
 * --SharabSalam (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Most sources I have found describe the Houthis as anti-semitic.
 * 1) New York Times: "...Houthi militants, whose leaders have made anti-Semitism a central plank in their political platform."
 * 2) Washington Post: "...the Yemeni group have used anti-Semitism as a rallying cry for over a decade."
 * 3) Foreign Affairs: "The Houthis are anti-American, anti-Semitic, and increasingly anti-Sunni."
 * 4) Tribes and Politics in Yemen: "Husayn [al-Houthi] used the expression 'brothers of monkeys and pigs' to in reference to Jews and, according to Dorlian, went as far as denying democracy in principle, if such democracy would guarantee citizenship to both Muslims and Jews on an equal basis."
 * I understand that the Houthis themselves say they are not anti-Semitic, but enough sources characterize them as anti-Semitic that I feel the category is appropriate. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Same. Secondary sources said that they are antisemitic. Houthis disclaimer is a primary source. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not relevant here. The Houthis have denied the allegations. Also, anti-Semitism is a term that no one actually know in the Arab world because the Nazis were in Europe and the term was coined in Europe. The Houthis have said that their problem are with the Zionists. These are allegations. The Houthis have been allied with with Jews in fact Houthis have made a deal to save Jews from getting bombed by the European-backed war against Yemen --SharabSalam (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand something. If they only have a problem with "Zionists" (whatever that means), then why they don't say "Curse on the Zionists" instead of "Curse on the Jews" as their banner? As for the term antisemitism, it's true that it was coined in Germany during the 19th century, but today it's applied to all instances of Jew-hatred and persecution, regardless of time, including both Europe and the Muslims world.--Silveter (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said the word "curse" is about religious thing. It doesn't say that they hate Jews, it says that they believe God have cursed the Jews. I am pretty sure the Bible also says other religion people are cursed. The part where they say death to America and death to Israel is what they mean when they say they have problem with Zionists.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm almost sure the Quran also curses pagans for example, but the Houthis didn't include "Curse on the pagans" in their banner, nor all the other people who are cursed according to their holy book (maybe also Christians?). Which means they have an interest in highlighting the "Curse on the Jews" part. I don't think anybody seriously believes it's a coincidence. The fact that they also say "Curse on Israel" (despite this country is far away from Yemen and not involved in their war) shows that they curse Jews in addition to cursing Israel and America. Besides, many reliable sources identify this group as antisemitic both in their slogan and actions, so I don't see a point in trying to whiteash the organization to deny this fact. So far you are the only one objecting the category. I ask any other editor to please restore it since I'm not allowed to do it per 1RR. If the category of antisemitism is not included for this obvious case, it shouldn't exist at all.--Silveter (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

consensus is made through RfCs.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not an argument when a party denies an allegation. It is only their own opinion. Only secondary sources are accepted here. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yementimes reported that they deny the allegations, that's a secondary source. Primary sources is not the argument here.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, those sources say the Houthis deny the accusation, which is not a valid argument. Do you know how many criminals in jail proclaim they are innocent? Probably close to 100%.--Silveter (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Silveter, do you know that Wikipedia is not a court? We have policies here. We add neutral point of view content, we don't compare Houthis with criminals here. We present all allegations and denying per WP:BALANCE--SharabSalam (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Only secondary reliable sources could permit to reject the qualification, not Houthis opinion about themself. Secondary sources said that they are antisemtics so we must add it. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Yemeni mafia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yemeni mafia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SharabSalam (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar error
A recent edit made today added Citation needed to the "Houthi slogan reading "God is Greater, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"" section of the sidebar. This slogan is clearly cited in the lead, and so no citation is needed in the sidebar.

Change "Houthi slogan reading "God is Greater, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam".(citation needed)" to "Houthi slogan reading "God is Greater, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"."

I would revert this edit myself, but I do not have at least 500 edits. It is not clear to me if this is the correct edit request template to use, but I have used it for lack of a better edit request template. Tophattingson (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)