Talk:North Yemen civil war/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References needed:
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Images
You have by far more images of the royalists than the republicans. Can you shift this balance or are there any reasons to it I'm not aware of.

A map of the war would do nicely with the thrusts of the Egyptians and the places were major fighting occured, however, it's not a GA requirement.
 * I scanned the images from a book. These were the only relevant pictures. Yemen's lenient copyright laws put photos from that period in public domain, but I don't know where good ones can be obtained. I'm not an expert in graphics, but I'll see what can be done.

Troop numbers
You mention only Egyptian troops on the republican side. I doubt that there were zero republican forces and tribesmen. Please try to find at least an estimate for their numbers because that's a major hindrance to GA.
 * It's somewhat tricky, because tribesmen kept being bribed back and forth, but I'll try to find some figures.

Wandalstouring (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, -- Nudve (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Israeli involvement
The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) did some operations to aid the royalists, but Israel as a nation were never in war against The Arab Republic of North Yemen. The operations were also very limited, and can not be compared with the egyptian involvement. Saying that Israel fought the egyptians in Yemen is the same as saying that Iran fought Israel in the Gaza War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read the article about the Israeli involvement on the Hebrew wikipedia. I found out that the only thing Israel did, was to aid the royalists with weapons. They never participated in the fighting. Therefore, Israel was not a belligerent. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, suppliers of weapons and logistics are not considered sides in the conflict. In case of Israeli supposed involvement in Yemen even the claim of logistic support is doubted and sourced only upon newspaper reports. If you like to add text, please provide it with appopriate reference.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The credibility of the source can be debuted, that does not mean the info should be removed. 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)( ΡHARAOH The Muslim  


 * It is stated very clear in the infobox "material support" there is not misleading here. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, "material support" is very different from "belligerents". Secondly, anyway, Israeli support wasn't official and highly possible never actually happened, thus mentioning it is a synthesis and an exaggeration. If you think i'm wrong - pls bring an academic source to backup you claim, as i've seen no sufficient sources mentioning "Israeli participation" in North Yemen Civil War, besides some column in a newspaper.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By stating that Israeli support was not official you mean that the Israeli air force planes, carrying out the operations were temporarily relieved from service with he IAF, or they were repainted to remove the official insignia of the IAF, and the Official flag of Israel, that officially identifies them to be belonging to the Official Israeli Air Force ?
 * I don't see that there ever WERE any planes. Haaretz says Israel rented a plane to British, which is doubtful (not mentioned in any academic sources cited). Anyway the alleged missions were by British intellegence, so you need to actually put British flag if you claim those missions indeed took place. Otherwise this is a SYNTH.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As i mentioned before, the source credibility can be debuted, but the info stays. Template:Unreliable sources is designed for such cases, however, using the template means having a discussion about the reliability of the source to finally decide it is unreliable.
 * Putting a "belligerent" is an exceptional claim for such a large scale war as North Yemen, the same way you can exaggerate and say that US and Britain were involved in war against Taliban and Britain in Afghanistan, because one or two British Muslim citizens enlisted to Taliban and fought there. But surely you understand how illogical is such claim. Greyshark09 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Last thing, it is not my claim. AND, the use of "it is not polite to" in revert summaries, and "your claim" in a discussion in wikipedia is not very constructive, and violates Wikipedia's guidelines, i think. Please bear in mind, that this is not an internet forum, or a personal confrontation between two opponents. Wikipedia is meant to be the collaborative work of fellow editors. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   01:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the time the war took place, Israel and Egypt were in a state of declared hostility. In 1956, Israel participated in a war againest Egypt initially planned for by the British, In 1967 Israel would be able to inflict a crushing defeat on a weakened Egyptian army by the involvement in the Yemen War. Delivering material support to Egypt's enemies in the Yemen War is very logically, an Israeli involvement against Egyptian forces in Yemen. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   01:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an original research by yourself, nothing more. Pls cite reliable sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's why i added it in a discussion page, not the article's main page? ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Put your attention that you had modified an article version, which existed for 1 year long, without any objection by other editors. Claiming that "your initial edit is the one under discussion here, so let's wait for the outcome." is against wikipedia policies on article ownership.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, Greyshark you really need to work on your tone here. I am sure no one here wants to turn this into a WP:revert war. my explanation of my latest undo or your revert was very clear, and does not have anything to do with modifying a one-year old version. The description i gave to my edit or restoring that specific version of the infobox was "restored the latest accepted infobox before multiple blanking prior to the move." because after multiple acts of vandalism that preceded the move, the latest accepted infobox by editor was lost. I have to warn you again of violating Wikipedia's guidlines, so please be careful next time. Finally, when i explained my undo of your revert, i suggested we should wait for the out come of this discussion. You preferred to go through edit warring, and thankfully, seems like i am not going through that with you, and the reason is stated below. I can point out to you several violations you have made of Wikipedia's guidlines, but i would just advice having few moment reading them again if you have not already. Have a good day. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Material support does not qualify to be placed in an infobox. If that was so, Israel would also be a participant in the Angolan Liberation War, the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the Nicaraguan Civil War, the Kargil War among others. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, Mikrobolgeovn. I have checked on other articles with similar issues and the infobox template, and found out that material support does not has a place in the current template. Regarding using the information at all, i have already cleared that out in a previous comment. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   21:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

True, I don't think we can consider Israel as beligerent in this war. By the same token I think the quote from Michael Oren should be deleted, unless it is accompanied by quotes from other historians or experts who don't have such an obvious bias. If Israel was not involved, why should the only opinion quoted be from an Israeli? It makes the whole article look like it's been written from an Israeli point of view -which could well be the case, as it is true for many WP articles on the Middle East-. This was an inter-Arab war. Shouldn't we use quotes from Arab historians? This is like writing about JFK and allowing only Kruschev to evaluate his performance as president... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.180.248 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So i read the talk page discussion and found that the arguments are very much redundant in this case. The discussion claims that israel shouldn't be included because there is a lack of reliable sources to support the claim. Well the source i have given is clearly reliable and scholarly. Furthermore, the source very explicitly states that israel was supporting the zaydi imamate. Persia is also mentioned in the source as supporting the imamate; just in case you would like to include it also. The article also clearly mentions a number of examples of israeli involvement, so to say its involvement is all speculation is just unfounded. It is also not far-fetched that israel would want to help a regime which was in conflict with egypt—a prime enemy of the israelis at the time. Please stop removing reliable information, but rather prove to me that the source doesn't mention what i have just shown.120.18.18.186 (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So i read the talk page discussion and found that the arguments are very much redundant in this case. The discussion claims that israel shouldn't be included because there is a lack of reliable sources to support the claim. Well the source i have given is clearly reliable and scholarly. Furthermore, the source very explicitly states that israel was supporting the zaydi imamate. Persia is also mentioned in the source as supporting the imamate; just in case you would like to include it also. The article also clearly mentions a number of examples of israeli involvement, so to say its involvement is all speculation is just unfounded. It is also not far-fetched that israel would want to help a regime which was in conflict with egypt—a prime enemy of the israelis at the time. Please stop removing reliable information, but rather prove to me that the source doesn't mention what i have just shown.120.18.18.186 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My grandfather was part of this operation. A bit confused how it remains a matter of debate on Wikipedia a decade after the IAF has publicly acknowledged it. --ארינמל (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Iranian involvement
One last pharaoh - regarding Iran, this is also a case of no soldiers dispatched to Yemen. The article says that Iran sent monetary support (let's suppose its true) - that is very different that being a belligerent. Jordan indeed sent officers and Egypt and Saudia were sending troops, but can you bring a source that Iran declared war and sent any soldiers/officers/units?Greyshark09 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me ask: Does the article provide any sources on Jordan's involvement? If Jordan did actually participate, I will have to add it to the Norwegian article, but only if this can be sourced. Anyone? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article says something about Jordan sending officers. If it was indeed so, and the support was notable - then let's keep it, but some sources are needed. I'm neutral on keeping it (putting citation needed), or rm it.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In Iran's case, it's obvious: No troops, no participation. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no clue on that, Greyshark. As i said i only restored the last accepted infobox before multiple blanking prior to the move. We have solved one issue, and now can work on others. As the case with Israeli involvement, Iran should be removed from the Belligerents section in the infobox. Regarding Jordan's case, maybe we can use a citation needed template, before deleting the info. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed Iran from the belligerents section in the infobox. Added supporting countries to header paragraph. Removed Soviet union's mentioning, as i failed to find any information about Soviet involvement in the opposing forces section in the article.( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   00:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted your last edits, because you apparently changed LEAD section, which was written according to sources, into your own version - which resulted in synthesis (i'm sure you didn't do that on purpose - because the reference for the citation was not inserted). This is why we usually first discuss how to change the LEAD on talk page, especially considering this is a featured article. Anyway i found three sourced versions we can use:
 * "Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Jordan supported the royalists, whereas Egypt and the Soviet Union and other communist-bloc states supported the republicans. Britain and the United States, as well as the United Nations, also eventually became major players, even if only at the diplomatic level."
 * "Egypt assisted the YAR with troops and supplies to combat forces loyal to the Imamate. Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic."
 * "Egypt immidiately began sending military supplies and troops to assist the Republicans... On the royalist side Jordan and Saudi Arabia were furnishing military aid, and Britain lent diplomatic support. In addition to the Egyptian aid, the Soviet Union allegedly supplied 24 Mig-19s to the republicans." from Ground Warfare: The International Encyclopedia by Stanley Sandler.
 * The last version in my opinion is the best one (best source), but we can decide which one to use or maybe even other better source if you find.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Greyshark, buddy, you are missing a very important rule here which is that Wikipedia is not here to copy from sources, editors can edit Wikipedia based on sources, not copy from them. Second thing i would like to say is; do not revert then talk, do it the other way round. So, we can use all of these sources along with the one about Israeli involvement you apparently failed to mention, and write a nice cited lead section. Oh, BTW that paragraph had absolutely no source whatsoever before my changes, so i did not change a sourced information.
 * Here is the lead section before my edits: "the royalist side received support from Saudi Arabia, while the republicans were supported by Egypt and the Soviet Union.". Here is the corrected version: "the royalist side received support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and The United Kingdom, while the republicans were supported by Egypt.". The reason i called it "corrected version" is that after the sources you have provided, along with the sources in the article, we can now add citation for the same info i added. Thanks. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing the "very important rule", i just wanted to bring the sources - to decide which is the best. Israeli involvement is not mentioned by any of those sources, and we should stick to the sources, which overview the entire war (not just some operation by British or Israelis, giving it extra weight).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight; are you suggesting we should stick to the three sources you have provided, and not cite any information to any other source? cuz that's not the way Wikipedia works. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What you did is synthesis, and i give you an example:
 * In Lebanese Civil War, Syria invaded Lebanon in 1976, to support the Christian Maronite militians, however later switched sides and became supportive of the PLO. If you don't get the exact meaning into the lead section - you can get "Kataib, Syria and Israel fought against PLO, Syria and Hizbullah."
 * Can Syria fight against Syria? Nope, but this is exactly how you put it here with the involved parties. When mentioned together, you put Britain, Iran, Israel and Jordan as if their weight of involvement is identical to Saudia and Egypt, which were seriously involved in the fighting - no source says it this way. Since we have an understanding rather than edit-warring - as i disagree to your edit, you should either self revert or we should reach a consensus on proper description in the lead section, per WP:RS. Keep in mind we use the most reliable sources in the lead - secondary, tertiary with first preference, and only if we don't have those, we use newspapers and primary sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did not catch my self putting out that Egypt fought Egypt, did you?
 * I think we are having a little misunderstanding here because i believe i have edited the article the way it should be. Talking about rules can take article, and they have their articles explaining them. If i have mistakenly broke any of them, please point out the exact rule that have been broken, and how that was done. That's about the rules; about that all supporters had identical contribution to the conflict, the lead section did not mention that in any way. The reader can have a quick overview of the supporters in the lead section, and find the details about each contribution in the article. Also, the lead section mentions support by the soviet union which by that time was a far greater force than any other supporter, but, again the lead section did not specify the contribution of each supporter excepting for Egypt. So, the article's lead section did not imply that supporters had equal or identical contributions.( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put is out this way; Wikipedia definition of synthesis is "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In our case here, we are putting (A) + (B) to have (A+B), not (C). Not all data are cited to the same sources in Wikipedia, editors gather sources, put together the data, cite each to their respectful source to get the full picture. A synthesis is also not what you have given example of, you seem to misunderstand that part. Your example actually qualifies for WP:Contradiction :D ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest we point out which supporters sent their own soldiers to battle, that would make things very clear. What do you think ?( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   04:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly the lead section should provide basic info on the involvement nature of related and alleged supporters. Backed up with appropriate sources, better secondary (academic) or tertiary (encyclopedic).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, we could use that last source you provided, just need extra info about it (publisher, author, date, etc.). Also, the united states was mentioned as a major player by the first source here, and has it's material support for the Saudis is cited to another in the article. So it gets mentioned too. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   04:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandler, Stanley. Ground Warfare: The International Encyclopedia. Vol.1 (2002): p.977. "Egypt immidiately began sending military supplies and troops to assist the Republicans... On the royalist side Jordan and Saudi Arabia were furnishing military aid, and Britain lent diplomatic support. In addition to the Egyptian aid, the Soviet Union allegedly supplied 24 Mig-19s to the republicans."Greyshark09 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Great!
 * With info of the last source, we can write a different version, that i guess both of us are going to agree to perfectly. We can rewrite that part of the lead section as to show major contributors such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Britain, and brief that there were other countries involved. Some thing like: "The royalists were supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Britain along with other countries, while the Republicans were Supported by Egypt with the Soviet Union allegedly sending 24 planes" citing the whole statement to the last source. The older version could then be moved to the Opposing forces section as the introduction before detailed information in the section. I have made an Edit to the sandbox to express what i mean. Planning to make a full preview later. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   14:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pharaoh, since it has been some time after you promised to make a sandbox rewrite, i will exchange your unagreed lead sentence version with Sandler's, per good faith. If you would like to input another source, you are welcome to discuss it here. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

End of the war
Hello there, great work this article, although very long for my taste. How about shortening a little and making it easier to read? Two points:


 * 1) The last chapter is actually too short, after so much war, the end of it is told in a few sentences, when we should expect the royalists to be on the winning side, after the withdrawal of Nasser's aid. OK, Saudi Arabia also withdrew its help, but in the whole article, the royalists are pictured as more or less yemenite, and the republican military force as almos exclusively Egyptian; so when Nasser withdrew, the republican side should have imploded in ten minutes. But they won the war. How's that? Or didn't the Egyptian troops withdraq, did they stay? There is nothing in the article to explain that. Could you elaborate a little?
 * 2) Where the article said: "On November 5, the royalists, supported by republican tribesmen called down to San'a, moved four tanks into the city's dusty squares..." I've changed the word 'royalists' for 'yemeni dissidents', because the coup cannot have been staged by royalists if these later lost the war! I've checked the source (the article is greatly sourced, by the way!) and it says "dissidents". Somebody must have assumed that dissidents meant royalists there, but it most surely did not, but referred to dissidents to Sallal's regime inside the republican government. You agree? Thanks --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about your first point. First of all, it seems the Soviets continued to support them. In addition, since the Saudis drastically cut down their support for the royalists, it seems they began to run low on arms and supplies, and could not really tilt the balance. It really does not say. The best source I have, Schmidt's book, was published in 1968, before it was all actually over. It's surprisingly hard to find sources detailing the last phase of the war. Thanks for your comments :) -- Nudve (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)