Talk:Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war/Archive 3

Misleading figures of casualties in the infobox
I am no friend of the infobox in Wikipedia in general, because of its limitations after a certain pattern and its suggestive effects. But if one decide to use an "Infobox military conflict" it is important to maintain it up-to-date. And to do this in a comprehensive manner. We are warning "This article or section relies excessively on partisan sources" (!) on top of the article. And at the same time we use completely outdated numbers of Yemeni civilian casualties as well as the newest numbers of Saudi civilian casualties in this info box. In the result we are concealing hundreds of proven killings of Yemeni civilians (dark figure not to mention), stressing 10 Saudi casualties (for none of them we are citing independent Western source as UN e.g.). Therefore I recommend to watch the UN OCHA website regularly. There you will find the newest UN numbers of casualties in Yemen. When I compare these figures with those given in the article, keeping in mind what UN tells about the numbers of killings of civilians by Saudi led airstrikes, I don't get the impression, that this article "relies excessively on partisan sources". But I doubt its reliability indeed. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of the information "At least 311 Yemeni civilians killed" (still given by our WP article here),
 * UN earlier reported on April 24th (for example by UN News Centre: Amid rising death toll in Yemen, UN urges humanitarian access, respect for international law) at least 551 Yemeni civilians killed (including 115 children), referring to March 26th to April 22nd, emphasing a high dark figure.
 * And UN updated it on May 5th (for example by UN OHCHR: Press briefing notes on Yemen, Serbia, Honduras and Albinism website launch) to at least 646 killed Yemeni civilians (including 131 children), referring to March 26th to May 3rd.


 * I'm with you. It seems that some editors are hellbent on undercounting the Yemeni civilian casualties for whatever reason. Every time someone tries to update the Yemeni civilian casualties, the action ends up being reverted back to "311". It's extremely disgusting, in my opinion. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand from your talk page (edit by user:EkoGraf), it has been argued, we should distinguish "casualty incidents which have nothing to do with the Saudi-led campaign" and which belong to the "overall war in general" from those "incidents linked to the military intervention". In my opinion this proposal is completely misleading and impossible to hold: 1. the intensity of fights exploded with the Saudi led military intervention; before it extensive areas fell under Huthi control (or kept under Saleh control?) even without a struggle; 2. we simply have no information about how to distinguish those fights from each other; 3. crucial international sources as UN do not distinguish them.
 * Therefore the attempt to separate losses and casualties from an "overall war" (which anyway seems to be a construction of the WP author) constructs a narrative, not supported by leading international sources. But it resembles to the Saudi narrative instead of it.
 * Even more, simple media sources have been used (for example here) in this article to construct figures of Saudi casualties by WP editors, instead of using confirmed official and neutral sources as UN.
 * Both together - the construction of reduced Yemeni civilian casualties figures against UN sources and at the same time the construction of unconfirmed Saudi civilian casualties - cast a poor light on the article's reliability. I hope the article's authors agree we have to comply with minimal standards at least, when it comes to casualties figures of a current conflict. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. It didn't make sense to deliberately undercount Yemen's civilian death toll when neutral sources, such as the UN, clearly stated that no less than 500 Yemeni civilians were killed since the start of the intervention. Furthermore, this intervention isn't entirely made up of an air campaign. Saudi Arabia's also involved in assisting pro-Hadi forces on the ground, therefore the civilian death toll since the start of the intervention should not be reduced to only those who were directly killed by the air strikes, especially since, as you rightly said, it's very hard for us to accurately figure out how many people were killed only be the air strikes. Anyway, I updated both the Yemeni and Saudi civilian death tolls. By the way, this article is now a lot better than it was many weeks ago. You should have seen the state of the article back then. It came across as Saudi propaganda. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This article deals with the Saudi-led military intervention/operation. Thus the casualties listed in the infobox are only those that are a direct result of this intervention. The UN at no point states when giving the casualty figures that they are only in regard to the Saudi campaign, but instead they refer to civilians casualties of the general overall war/conflict for which we have an article Yemeni Civil War (2015) where those civilian deaths are cited. This has nothing to do with undercounting the Yemeni civilian casualties, instead, presenting figures that are in relation to this specific campaign. Putting in the infobox figures of civilian deaths for the whole war and not just the Saudi campaign is firstly misleading for the readers and also a misrepresentation of what the sources are saying. The lack of sources on intervention-related deaths is no reason to instead insert figures on deaths from the overall war. We have a figure from mid-April by HRW which stated 311 civilians deaths took place as a direct result of the intervention. When a new updated figure shows up we will replace it. Also, in regards to your comment - Therefore the attempt to separate losses and casualties from an "overall war" (which anyway seems to be a construction of the WP author) constructs a narrative, not supported by leading international sources. But it resembles to the Saudi narrative instead of it......The overall war is not the construction of one author (you were probably referring to me) but of multiple WP editors that created and are updating regularly the Yemeni Civil War (2015) article based on a multitude of international sources and not based on a Saudi narrative. Your contributions at that article are also appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The notion that the civil war is a Wikipedia construct is an absurd fallacy. If anything, we were late in recognizing that the Houthis' southern offensive, taken together with the Saudi-led campaign that began several days later and clashes between Houthi/Saleh and Hadi/Hirak/AQAP/tribal fighters in Hadhramaut and Ma'rib, constituted (per multiple RS) a civil war. The fighting predated the start of airstrikes and direct Arab intervention, which came in response to the Houthis' march on Aden. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But who called the civil war a construct, Kudzu1? Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, EkoGraf! I was not talking to you, but to all those who are editing here.
 * 1. Generally: But yes, you are constructing own data and information here. I did not read a single publication - scientific or not - which distinguishes between a Saudi-led military intervention and an "overall war". Since March 26 the Yemeni conflict went to an international war. This is now one and the same thing, just an internationalized phase of the former Yemeni conflict. I never heard of such a constructed manner to divide the military conflict in two independent subjects. Will you provide such a divison for the 1999 war in Kosovo, too? It's simply impossible and I think, an experienced editor as you knows this very well. How will you then find sources, which follow your construction?
 * 2. In detail: You even misenterpreted HRW for your puropose here: when they say "Saudi-led air campaign" they of course meant the complete military intervention - air stikes as well as ground fightings. The figure 311 you are using is not a HRW figure of course (how can HRW know the numbers!), but it is a WHO figure of April 8th, that means an UN figure of April 8th (sic!), HRW referred to on April 13th (see here). This is the same source I recommended to you:
 * UN News Centre on April 8th : As chaos deepens in Yemen, UN expert warns of ‘worst case scenario’ displacement: "Over the last two weeks of increased fighting, more than 540 people have been killed, of which 311 are civilians, including 77 children"] And of course WHO referred to all fightings, as you can read in the original text as well as in the HRW letter cited above.
 * 3. This means: What you did here is to use an outdated version of UN figures (of April 8th, after less than two weeks of the war ) and you regret refuse to use the same source in an updated version (last is of May 5th with 551 646 Yemeni civilians killed, including 115 131 children, as cited above). You changed the original source to HRW, masking the correct figures after 5 or six weeks of fighting and suggesting "your" fugures of being the right one for the air strikes. But all publications show: to state, the fightings on the ground do not belong to the intervention, is completely baseless. I never read such an approach in the sources, when I don't consider Saudi ones. You are - as I said experiences enough - to use sources properly. That is why I say, you are constructing an own narrative here, based on non-existing literature.
 * 4. And now: of course you even can delete the figure "311" now saying, it was just a little mistake you did. And the real number of killied civilians is even lower. But the result is, your construction of a separation of the saudi-led military intervention (think of marine blockade, warship actions and so on) from the ground fightings is and keeps your own fiction. And you are using sources and figures in an inadequate and inproper manner. Greetings. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Last edit: --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry for my English, once again a correction: "regret" > "refuse" --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that some editors are trying to make their own interpretations around here. We should mention the figures that are published by independent sources instead of drawing our own conclusions. By the way, I just added a footnote in the infobox's civilian casualties section to make clarify things, so hopefully it'll put this argument to rest. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point, Anglo-Arnaeophilus. I have always had an issue with the casualties as Kudzu1 and EkoGraf have constantly stood by their claim of trying to find simple airstrike casualties in the infobox when in actually, the Saudi intervention is the direct battle between Hadi forces which are completely backed by Saudi and the Houthi forces. From injuries in hospitals due to the lack of fuel from Naval Blockades to deaths in direct fighting in Aden, it is all part of the Saudi-led military intervention. We have clear data that since the start of the intervention, 600 and so civilians have been killed which ultimately should be put in the casualty box. ArabianWonders (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Fact - there was a war in Yemen before the Saudis launched air strikes. And the Saudis actually launched their air-strikes in response to the conflict that erupted with the Houthi push against pro-Hadi forces (which had been ongoing for at least a week before the first bombs fell). ''This is now one and the same thing, just an internationalized phase of the former Yemeni conflict. I never heard of such a constructed manner to divide the military conflict in two independent subjects.'' First, I myself said that they are one and the same thing, and at no point did I say they are independent subjects. I do not know in what way you could have though I was saying the very opposite. What I said is that the Saudi-led campaign is part of the overall conflict which started on 19 March. Just like the US-led campaign in Syria is part of the overall conflict which started in 2011, and just like the NATO-led campaign in Yugoslavia was part of the overall Kosovo conflict. Historical fact - The Kosovo war had actually been ongoing since 1998, not '99. The NATO air-campaign, which was a part of it, started in 1999. And the article on the NATO campaign covers only the air-strikes casualties, not any ground fighting between Yugoslav and KLA forces which had been ongoing since 1998. 2. Thank you for providing the original source for the 311 dead (which I did not see earlier). Since it was the WHO and they referred to both combatants and civilians and they referred to the overall conflict throughout the country I will promptly remove the 311 dead from the box since we deal only with those directly related to the intervention. Your comment they of course meant the complete military intervention - air stikes as well as ground fightings is your personal opinion which you have a right to but is not acknowledged by Wikipedia if it is unsourced and is considered Original Research. The ground fighting that you refer to is not part of the military intervention, unless it involves the Saudis as well, which (except in the border areas) it does not. So far, the military intervention has been limited only to weapons drops and air-strikes, no ground intervention (thus far). 3. Comments like it was just a little mistake you did and keeps your own fiction is a violation of WP policy on Civility and Assuming good faith from other editors. 4. Fact, not fiction, is that a Houthi war against pro-Hadi forces started days before the intervention began. Fact, not fiction, is that the Saudi-led military operation in Yemen, except for border skirmishes, involves only weapons drops and air-strikes (like I said before). At this point, no boots on the ground. The ground fighting that is taking place IS part of the same war, but not part of the Saudi military operation. The direct battle between pro-Hadi and pro-Houthi forces is covered in the Yemeni Civil War (2015). All of the overall UN death tolls (combatants and civilians) have always covered the period since March 19. Which is a week before the Saudi air-campaign. Thus, the UN acknowledges the war has been ongoing since a week before the intervention. EkoGraf (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. UN figures are from March 26, when the Saudi-led intervention happened. Saudi Arabia has trained tribal sources, dropped weapons and halted aid supplies. All of the civilian casualties is a direct result of the Saudi-led intervention. ArabianWonders (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. They cite the CIVILIAN casualties since March 26, but the OVERALL casualties since March 19 (pro-Saleh attack on Aden airport) as seen in the sources I provided. As for how they are possibly responsible for civilian deaths due to halted aid supplies is unsourced OR and POV (not acknowledged by Wikipedia) and even possibly a violation per the WP:SYNTH policy. And saying the Saudis are responsible for ALL civilian deaths is again POV and a non-neutral view. This article deals with the Saudi military operation, not the whole war. If you have a problem with this article not dealing with the whole war than I would suggest you start a discussion at the war's main article talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not assuming anything. I am just pointing out to you that the UN says OFFICIALLY that since March 26 (THE DAY IT STARTED!) 646 people have been killed. If that does not tell us directly then I do not know what will. The civilian casualties section in the infobox is NOT just Saudi airstrikes which you seem to understand. It is the direct result of the Saudi-led intervention. It is not up to us to decide who killed. We know that since March 26, 646 CIVILIANS have been killed. Just put that and stop being stubborn. I have in this very talk page took confirmed UN reported deaths and tagged you and you completely ignored it, keeping it at 311, EVEN THOUGH the information I put up is a DIRECT result of the Saudi bombardment.

P.S UNICEF reported 64 children deaths as a direct result of bombardment which you so casually ignored. ArabianWonders (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not ignore anything. I pointed out those are only civilian casualties. But I will please ask you to not ignore the sources I presented (I can add more) where the UN clearly counts the overall toll since 19 March (seven days before the bombing started). And I agree, it is not up to us to decide who killed, but saying all civilian casualties are a direct result of the intervention you are in essence deciding its the Saudis who killed all of the civilians in this conflict. You have had civilian deaths which had no Saudi involvement. And please refrain from comments like telling me I'm stubborn which is not per WP: Civil and WP: Assuming good faith. PS Accusing me of casually ignoring reports on children deaths is in fact highly insulting. EkoGraf (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have started working on a table where all air-strike related deaths will be listed and place it in the casualties section. I think somebody proposed this at one point. Don't remember if it was you or somebody else. This will give a nice overview of the situation and we can link to that from the infobox. I will finish it in the next hour or so. EkoGraf (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a table is a great idea, and I wouldn't mind having it include all casualties and the manner of death (if known). -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You may proceed your original research with "all air-strike related deaths", but maybe you listen at least:
 * 1. I refer to the international war in Yemen since March 26th (here so-called "Saudi-led intervention in Yemnen...", not to the domestic conflict in Yemen since March 19th) (the same was with the 1998 war in Kosovo, which is completely different from the former domestic conflict since 1998, but which was one and the same conflict since March 24th, 1999) ; this can be regarded as dictinct from the domestic Yemeni conflict til March 25th, but has to be seen as part of one merged conflict since March 26th).
 * 2. The casualtiy figures I gave also refer to the conflict since March 26th, not since March 19th. Keep this in mind please for the next point:
 * 3. There are three versions of UN OHCHR figures:
 * UN OHCHR version of April 8th: 311 civilians, including 77 children (referring to the first 2 weeks )
 * quote: "More than 540 people have been killed in fighting in the last two weeks, out of which 311 are civilians, including 74 children. At least 513 civilians have been injured, and more than 100,000 have been displaced according to UN humanitarian agencies."
 * UN OHCHR version of April 24: 551 civilians, including 115 children (referring to March 26th - April 22nd )
 * quote: "Civilian casualties have continued to mount in Yemen over the past few days. The total number of civilians killed between 26 March and 22 April is now estimated to be 551, including 31 women and at least 115 children. [...] Another 1,185 civilians have been injured, including 35 women and 67 children."
 * UN OHCHR version of May 5th: 646 civilains, including 131 children (referring to March 26th - May 3rd )
 * quote: "The conflict in Yemen has now taken at least 646 civilian lives, including 50 women and 131 children. In addition, more than 1,364 civilians have been injured."
 * 4. First you stated the figure 311 being "a figure from mid-April by HRW", later you said, you "did not see earlier" the original UN publication (even though HRW explicitly called it WHO that means UN figures). But know you seem to agree, that this figure refers to the first UN OHCHR version of April 8th, dealing with the civilian casualties of the first two weeks. It's just funny you state that "All of the overall UN death tolls (combatants and civilians) have always covered the period since March 19", because this UN OHCHR version of April 8th with "your" number of 311 killed civilians in fact mentions the 540 (in your sense:) "overall UN death tolls (combatants and civilians)" of 540 people and does not clearly give the starting date, just saying: "in the last two weeks". And we know, before March 26th there were no air strikes of the Saudi-led military coalition. If we follow your opinion this would mean, the UN OHCHR version deals with casualties since March 19 and cannot be used for the article "Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present)".
 * 5. But you are doing the opposite: you revert (here and here) all updated UN OHCHR versions, substituting it with the oldest (and lowest one) of April 8th. But even more: You don't cite it with the original UN source of April 8th, but you use the HRW echo of April 13th for it. Why HRW? HRW does not give any own figures. This way your reference misleads from all the three original UN OHCHR sources. And you chose the only (and non-original) source at all, which mentions an expression like "Saudi-led air campaign". No other source - even not the [(HRW letter to King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Sa`ud of Saudi Arabia of the same April 13th, which refers to the same UN OHCHR source of Aprol 8th - contains this expression. None of them - including your favorite HRW source - gives any hint of a restiction to air strikes for their casuality figures.
 * 6. You defend yourself as acting in good faith. No problem. Me, too. I never stated that you follow any political or other intention. I'm just saying you are constructing own data and information. And this is exactly what you are doing here, misusing sources and data for this purpose. I believe, you are not aware of it. And that's why I spend time to show you what you are doing.
 * 7. Conclusion: if you accept the UN OHCHR version of April 8th (and even the HRW source, which is just citing it, even with other different words), you have to accept the updated UN OHCHR versions all the more. They are not restricted on casualties by air strikes, but refer to "fighting and airstrikes since the bombing started on March 26" as Reuters U.S. put it for the UN OHCHR version of April 24 for instance. And this is what we need for this article. It's not always possible to decide whether a child is killed by "unexploded bombs and mines", "by gunshots", "by shelling" (even of a warship's?) or by "unverified causes related to the conflict" as aljazeera.com cited UNICEF with the UN OHCHR figures of April 24. We have to use the sources and figures as all news agency do it. They belong to the "Saudi-led intervention in Yemen". You say, I shall avoid "violation of WP policy on Civility and Assuming good faith from other editors". I do. And for you: use the sources properly. There is no way to support the UN OHCHR version of April 8th and to neglect those of April 24th and May 5th. This is not acceptable. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing my point. I am not saying the international and the domestic wars, as you described them, in Yemen are different. In fact, I am saying to the contrary. They are both one and the same. However, the overall war started on March 19, and the UN acknowledges this since they are counting the OVERALL toll of dead SINCE THAT DATE (as seen in almost all of their reports). Besides the several examples I already linked you, you also have the very latest OCHA report (6 May) which counts 1,278 deaths since MARCH 19. Doesn't matter if they are counting the civilian-only toll since March 26. The Saudi-led campaign is simply just one military operation/campaign among many that are part of this war that started a whole week before the Saudis decided to jump in. Attributing all civilian deaths in this conflict to the Saudi operation only is a misrepresentation of what the sources are saying. You are in effect attributing civilian deaths caused by events that had no Saudi involvement (example Houthi vs Hadi street fighting, executions, etc) to the Saudis alone. If we don't have a source for the number of civilians deaths that occurred as a result of this campaign than we don't write anything and don't simply say lets blame all civilian deaths on the Saudis. Also, I was not intentionally replacing the OCHA figure with the lower/older figure on purpose (as you and the others implied). I wasn't even aware the 311 figure came originally from an OCHA report or that it was for the entire conflict until it was pointed out to me tonight. I thought it was a WHO figure via HRW and reading the source it said 311 civilians died due to the air-strikes. I believed it and it didn't occur to me the HRW misrepresented the figure in that article. EkoGraf (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you really read what I wrote? Please respond to the first two points at least. They are the main reason, why I still discuss this point.
 * 1. Why do you use the HRW source of April 13th? You never expained why this source is adequate in your mind and the UN OHCHR source of May 5th is not. Please explain this first. It's most important here.
 * 2. Why do you use the HRW echo of the original UN OHCHR source of April 8th. You did not explain why the original source is not adequate in your mind, but the echo of April 13th is. Please explain this, too.
 * 3. I am "attributing civilian deaths [...] to the Saudis alone"? Oh my god, EkoGraf, where did you read this out of my lines? Who intends to attribute "all civilian deaths in this conflict to the Saudi operation"? I just cited uopdated UN sources instead of your old one. There are - with good reasons - no UN death tolls existing which attribute all civilians killed "to the Saudi operation". The Saudi operation is what you used for your lemma. Don't blame me for it. I would call it "International phase of the 2015 conflict in Yemen" if you would let me decide to specify the lemma. This is why I mentioned the Kosovo conflict. In scientific literature the Kosovo conflict often is devided into the internal phase (beginning with terroristic attacks on Serbian police, shifting to an independence fight against Serbian and Yugoslavian forces) and the external phase (NATO war of 1999). It's not me who invented the problematic lemma construction in WP. Of course all parties of this conflict caused casualties which are listed in the death toll. I'm not interested in blaming anyone. Generally my edits have no political or ethical background, but I am interested in proper usage of sources. This is my main drive in WP. And those articles I participate, often lacked the proper method of sources and "attracked" me therefore. For me there is no difference between a Huthi and a Saudi. I'm not addicted or hostile to any of both parties. But for me there is a difference between a careless and a responsible attitude towards encyclopedic work. That's all. Take my apology when you felt offended as I mentioned that your way of selecting sources reminded me to the Saudi narrative. But don't let this struggle for best sources shift to an Anti- od Pro-Saudi dispute. I've nothing of such political stuff in mind. And I think, you are here for encyclopedic reasons, too. So lets find the best solution for WP's readers.
 * 4. Why do you still link UN sources for the overall death toll since March 19th to me? I never contributed to the overall death toll. I always referred to the death toll of civilians since March 26th. Please stick to this. The conflict has two phases. The domestic phase is followed by the international war phase. You can consider them as two different topics. And you can consider them as one single topic, devided into two subtopics. But it is not possible to transfer all casualties since March 26th to the first phase, without considering them for the second one. But this is exactly what you did here. You declared, the UN OHCHR documented casualties since March 26th belong to the Yemeni Cicil war, but not to the Saudi-led intervention. This is nonsense. In German I would say "grober Unfug". You'll agree, won't you?
 * Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The HRW source was adequate in my mind because it was the only source where the figure that was referenced was seemingly a direct result of the Saudi-led campaign. Now that I have found HRW was misrepresenting the 311 figure I find it too not adequate since 311 was for the entire conflict and not just the Saudi operation. The latest OCHA report (from 6 May) covers all deaths from the start of the war on March 19, and not just deaths from the Saudi operation. 2. The HRW echo seemed adequate to me for reasons explained previously and the original OCHA 8 April report is not adequate because it covers all deaths from the war and not just does related to the Saudi operation. 3. where did you read this out of my lines...I just cited uopdated UN sources instead of your old one. The updated UN figures are for the whole war and not just as a result of the Saudi operations. So you are attributing the total to this one military operation alone. 4. The problem here is you regard what happened before 26 March to be distinct from what is happening since 26 March and regard all that is happening throughout the country since 26 March as part of the Saudi campaign. It is not. This article deals with a military operation, not a phase. The Saudi campaign is a military operation that is taking place during the larger war that started on 19 March. The UN civilian toll is for the entire conflict and not just for civilian deaths that resulted from the Saudi military operation which is only one military operation taking place among multiple battles and operations of the Yemeni Civil War (2015). You can not include here civilian deaths that had nothing to do with the Saudi military operation. Let me phrase it similarly to the way you did it. The Saudi operation is a subtopic of one singular topic (the Yemeni civil war). So, the Saudi operation is taking place during the war that started on March 19. PS Even Wikipedia refers to the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia as, and I quote, a  military operation...during the Kosovo War. EkoGraf (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is completely illogical, inconsistent and implausible. In 1.) and 2) you say you regarded HRW of April 13th as adequate and referring to "a direct result of the Saudi-led campaign" even though I had already shown before that, that HRW of April 13th was just echoing the UN OHCHR figure of April 8th. And now you say you "found HRW was misrepresenting the 311 figure". Unbelievable. HRW never stated that the 311 figure referred to air strikes only. That was your invention and you even reverted all edits that cited the original UN sources instead of the HRW echo.
 * But let me try again to explain, that you are not just misinterpreting and misusing HRW and UN sources, but you also distort the whole correlation: The UN civilian death tolls of April 8th, April 24th and May 5th are used in all publications for the whole international and domestic conflict, which started on March 26th and which cannot be separated in an "air campaign" and a "civil war" as you are trying to do here. This international and domestic conflict can be separated from the first phase of the armed conflict in Yemen, which is a domestic one only and started on March 19th (and in other domestic armed phases even earlier, especially since September 2014). But since March 26th the Saudi-led military intervention and the domestic armed Yemeni conflict are indistinguishable connected. You can consider air strike casualties and losses as distinct from other losses and casualties. But the military intervention since March 26th means the whole phase of the armed conflict in yemen. This is how all sources treat the figures. You can provide figures for the conflict since March 19th (which includes the casualties of the only domestic conflict til March 25th) and you can provide figures for the conflict since March 26th (which excludes the casualties of the only domestic conflict til March 25th). The first figures are provided by UN sources periodically and often include civilians casualties only (including figures for killed children). The second figures are provided by UN sources periodically and include civilian casualties and militant or military losses as well. What you are doing is to conceal and to hide the first figures here. Without any reason. You only argumentation is that they do not refer to the lemma related incidents. But the opposite is correct. They are exactly the UN figures, which especially refer to the conflict phase in Yemen since March 26th, which is our subject unter this lemma.
 * Since I saw you treat like that I won't interfere here anymore. If en:WP is deciding to treat the "Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present)" as an subject, not dealing with casualties and losses caused different than by air strikes, you are free to do so. But you'll find not a single scientific source which supports this view. Even the media oulets don't do it. But go ahead. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The table is good, however, the casualties in detail should still be added under in the casualties section. Please revert it as I do not believe the table alone is a fair representation of it. Also, based on the Saudi-reported casualties being reported as reliable facts, I will be adding Yemeni Health Ministry casualties, too so I believe it is better to keep both. ArabianWonders (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We can add info about the casualties in detail when there are reports for the full death tolls like the Houthi report on 200 of their fighters dead or UN report on the children deaths. However, adding a sentence for each individual air-strike would not be in line per WP: UNDUEWEIGHT. We are already adding reports on more notable individual air-strikes in the sections Operation Decisive Storm and Operation Restoring Hope...adding it in the casualties section would than be redundant. However, I have no objections to you adding the Houthi claim on civilian casualties in the Air-strike casualties section below the table. Their point of view/claim should be represented at least there. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again just for your better understanding, but in small font, because I let you go with it in future:
 * The Saudi operation is a subtopic of one singular topic (the Yemeni civil war). So, the Saudi operation is taking place during the war that started on March 19. The Saudi-led military intervention takes place during the Yemeni conflict, which started before. But no, the Saudi-led military intervention is an international conflict and of course not a subpart of the Yemeni civil war . The Saudi-led military intervention is an additional part to the already existing domestic Yemeni conflict. And since March 26 you can't separate them any more. Only before March 26 you can speak about a civil war without an additional international war. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PS Even Wikipedia refers to the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia as, and I quote, a military operation...during the Kosovo War The NATO military intervention took place during the domestic Kosovo conflict. But no, the NATO military intervention was an international conflict and of course not a subpart of the Kosovo civil war . It's completely irrelevant, what WP says for Kosovo, because WP has no scientific reputation at all. You cannot seriously take WP to prove your claims, but you have to use the scientific sources and terms itself instead of it. The Kosovo conflict (you always call it "Kosovo war", but scientific sources usually call the whole conflict since 1998 "Kosovo conflict") is divided into two phases in science. 1st phase: The first and domestic one did not started as war at all in 1998: UN, US, Germany and many others for a long time regarded KLA as being a terrorist organisation, not as a group fighting for independence (if you ask me and some scientists, it already was a civil war, but not recocknized as such, not by UN and US, nor by Yugoslavian and Serbian governments). Later this view changed - especially driven by USA - and the conflict then (not before) was regarded (by US e.g.) as the repression of the Kosovo's people by the Serbian central government (sometimes with use of Yugoslavian secutity forces, too). 2nd phase: Then NATO intervened with a war since March 24th, not backed by UN and UN law, but Germany, France and others joined in. Of course the NATO military intervention was not a subpart of a Kosovo civil war. This is a completely absurd idea: it was an real "war" led by NATO, but indistinguishable from the ground fightings which also belonged to the "civil war" (even though no one called it "civil war"). Some scientists even regard the KLA as beeing de facto ground troops of the NATO. --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As it is a section called Casualties and Infrastructure damage, it is not undue weight to report on literal casualties. The table is a great idea for a summary of a view and such but the text that you removed should still remain as part of the section. It is vital to the full understanding of the topic. ArabianWonders (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, EkoGraf - There is a HRW table that shows confirmed civilian casualties by strikes and I think it should be added as a picture but I have no idea how to go about it. I have been trying to find the numbers that come with this but I couldn't find anything. ArabianWonders (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As it is a section called Casualties and Infrastructure damage, it is not undue weight to report on literal casualties. The table is a great idea for a summary of a view and such but the text that you removed should still remain as part of the section. It is vital to the full understanding of the topic. ArabianWonders (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, EkoGraf - There is a HRW table that shows confirmed civilian casualties by strikes and I think it should be added as a picture but I have no idea how to go about it. I have been trying to find the numbers that come with this but I couldn't find anything. ArabianWonders (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1.) Haha, ArabianWonders, did you get access on my PC to watch me working? It seems we both've had the same idea at the same time. HRW is indeed one of the few sources, seriously collecting air strike cases with confirmed civilian killings and the NYT's rework of it (Sarah Almukhtar, Jeremy Ashkenas, Joe Burgess, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Sergio Peçanha, and Jeremy White: Civilian Casualties Amid Airstrikes in Yemen, The New York Times, 30 April 2015 (Update), webarchived on 2015-05-08: http://www.webcitation.org/6YNhNBLbV) is suitable. I guess you can't simply use the picture because of missing license for it, but if you put in a table, it could look like this (see table on the right). About the numbers: we still have only minimum numbers of civilian casualties. Don't forget that many people have been wounded and still can die and let death toll rise belatedly. So it is not possible yet to find and present the final numbers of each incident. Anyway the sources (HRW) speak about unidentified victims, too. I think, the main mistake is EkoGraf's approach to tinker WP'S own little truth of civilian death toll. This is not possible. We have to wait until official or at least accepted statistics exist. What you can do, is to provide your table, but clearly mentioning that it is a makeshift solution, not confirmed by literature, but a self-constructed one. It's possible that your self-constructed table counts cases twice, let's say, the 21 April–5 May in Aden and the 27 April in Aden. Just because it is made by WP editors, not by trained people with access to the original sources.
 * 2.) But this all actually does not belong to the talk page's paragraph "Misleading figures of casualties in the infobox". The main problem is, that EkoGraf tries to exclude all other incidents but air strikes. No single source excludes the civilian casualties by other incidents but air strikes from the numbers given for the military intervention. There are no two different wars in Yemen yet, it is one and the same, the international one just adding to the domestic one since March 26th, but indistinguishable from it since then. What EkoGraf makes here, is to creative his own narrative. The literature does not support his view. And even his attempt to cite WP's article for the Kosovo conflict shows, there is no scientific qualification behind his strategy to avoid the official UN casualty figures here in this artcle. Where they belong to. You could rename this article to "International phase of 2015 Yemen conflict" and nothing would be left of EkoGraf's idea to exclude all other incidents except air strikes. By the way this lemma is not "Operation Decisive Storm" or "Saudi air campaign" (which both would include ground fightings anyway), but it's even already "Saudi-led intervention in Yemen...", which refers clearly to the whole fightings of this military intervention - of this war. Are special forces, cross-border fightings or naval involvement part of the air strikes? No single source - even not this article itself - refers to the air strikes only wehn it comes to the term "saudi-led (military) intervention" or "saudi-led air campaign". As I showed HRW used the term "Saudi-led air campaign" for the whole fightings, for the whole war since March 26th, just misinterpreted by EkoGraf in his argumentation to restrict the civilian casualties on air strikes only. I'm sure in a few weeks you have to correct this completely wrong narrative (which I knew only from Saudi sources up to now) anyway. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Still there seems to be lot of confusion here according to the correct civilian Yemeni death toll in the info box (as well as in the main text of the article). I admit the BBC News echo of the UN figures sounds like "more than 700 civilans killed by saudi-led airstrikes" (see this edit). But the problem lies in the usage of agency news, echoing the UN statements and reports. Instead of that we have to use the UN sources directly. Compare: I hope you see what happened here. The only available and suitable source for civilian Yemeni casualties (timespan since March 26th) is UN OHCHR itself. As I alreday proposed and explained for several times - only rejected and reverted by EkoGraf, we have to use the UN OHCHR figures of May 5th, which means the civilian Yemeni death toll (referring to March 26th - May 3rd ), caused by air strikes as well as by and all other figthings: that is 646 civilains, including 131 children. The original quote is, once again I'll repeat it: This is what we need to cite for civilian death toll in the info box. As far as confirmed by Saudi health authorities, Saudi civialian casualties can be added. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Original statements by Humanitarian Coordinator for Yemen, Johannes Van Der Klaauw on May 9, 2015 (bold fonts are modifications by me):
 * UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (07 May 2015): "In the six weeks since the escalation of conflict in Yemen, more than 1,400 people have been killed and nearly 6,000 injured - many of them civilians - by airstrikes and fighting on the ground."
 * UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Yemen (09 May 2015): "The conflict in Yemen is taking a dreadful toll on civilians. Since mid-March 2015, over 1,400 people have been killed and close to 6,000 people injured, roughly half of whom have been civilians. Even civilians across the border in Saudi Arabia’s frontier towns have been caught up in the fighting."
 * Echos of UN figures:
 * AFP (07 May 2015): "The call coincided with a renewed UN plea for a humanitarian pause in Yemen, where weeks of war have now killed more than 1,400 people and injured nearly 6,000 -- many of them civilians."
 * AFP (08 May 2015): "The United Nations has renewed its plea for a ceasefire after weeks of fighting have left more than 1,400 people dead and nearly 6,000 wounded, many of them civilians."
 * AFP (09 May 2015): "The United Nations has called repeatedly for a ceasefire after weeks of fighting that have killed more than 1,400 people, many of them civilians."
 * AFP (10 May 2015): "The defectors' bases have been a major target of the coalition air campaign in support of exiled President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi that the United Nations says has killed more than 1,400 people, many of them civilians."
 * BBC News (10 May 2015): "Air strikes have killed at least 1,400, more than half civilians, the UN says."
 * UN OHCHR (05 May 2015): "The conflict in Yemen has now taken at least 646 civilian lives, including 50 women and 131 children. In addition, more than 1,364 civilians have been injured. These are the figures from 26 March up to 3 May."
 * They are referring to the The conflict in Yemen which is covered in the Yemeni Civil War (2015). The intervention itself is just one part/operation of the conflict/war. I have told you this at least a dozen times and I can not make it any more simple. Even the original UN report itself says since the escalation of conflict in Yemen which means the UN is referring to the conflict in general, not to intervention-only casualties. The Saudi operation is a sub-category of the conflict raging since mid-March. You said this article deals with the whole intervention and not just the air-strikes. You are right. But except for border skirmishes there is no ground fighting involving the Saudi-led Coalition...only the pro-Hadi vs pro-Houthi fighting which is part of the conflict in general. For other examples of where a military intervention during a larger conflict includes only intervention-related and not all deaths see 2011 military intervention in Libya (during the Libyan Civil War (2011)) and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (during the Kosovo War) where those are recognised as military operations taking place during bigger wars. EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For Yemeni civilian casualties they are explicitly referring to the conflict in Yemen since March 26th, EkoGraf. Not to those before March 26th and not only to the air strikes as you try to do. All sources mean the same: the entire armed conflict since March 26th. That's they are referring to and that's the subject of this article as well. The civil war did not start on March 26th, so the UN OHCHR of May 5th is focussing exactly on the same topic as this article does. The "label" Yemeni Civil War (2015) for the Yemeni 646 civilian casualties, reported by UN OHCHR on May 5th is simply wrong. You are just claiming it again and again - without a single source that supports you. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is my final explanation as simple as it can get. This article does not deal with a conflict that started on March 26. This article deals with a military operation (start date March 26) taking place within a conflict that started on March 19. The civilian casualties referred to by the UN are for all corners of the conflict, not for this one specific military operation. The UN furthermore counts (as seen in the several sources I provided you) the combatant/civilian full death toll SINCE MARCH 19 (when the war started). The civilian casualties are counted since March 26, when the conflict escalated with Saudi operations (as stated by the source), but its still counting for all corners of the conflict that started back on March 19, and not just for this one military operation. The problem here is you regard everything taking place at the moment in Yemen as part of the Saudi intervention, when in actuality, the Saudi intervention is a military operation taking place within a war that started on March 19. EkoGraf (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Slowly your error in reasoning gets clearer. But instead of making it too simple you should try to understand what the difference between scientific and other reliable sources on the one hand and your approach on the other hand actually is. First understand the terms. It seems to me you maybe don't know what a military intervention as term means. A military "intervention" or military "international operation" is just a unilateral expressed term for a transnational (bilateral or multilateral) armed conflict. You seem to believe that an article about a military intervention just deals with one side of the conflict. This is not only impossible - it wouldn't be useful either. You just have to understand that "intervention" does not only mean "everything the intervening part makes", but it means an interational intervening phase of a complete conflict. I already told you, you could rename this lemma "International phase of the 2015 Yemeni war". That would mean the same as "Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present)" or "Military intervention in Yemen 2015". No, EkoGraf, I don't regard everything taking place at the moment in Yemen as part of the Saudi intervention. The lemma is a title, not a complete description of the incident. The "Saudi-led intervention" is a phase of the conflict. And the ground fightings in Yemen form an integral part of the "military intervention". That means, the civil war actions and the international intervening operations are overlaying in a way, that a sufficient distinction to create independent articles is not possible any more. You just can treat the domestic phase until March 26 as separate article. Since then it is largely interwoven with the foreign intervention. To shift all domestic actions to the article Yemeni Civil War (2015) is not defensible. You have to live with expansive overlaps between these two articles. And please, EkoGraf, stop "providing" me with the UN sources, containing the figures of the losses since March 19th. I have them well in mind. But we are dealing here with the statistics since March 26th. And I provided the sources for it, even though you thought it was a HRW source that refers to air strikes only. If you start reading the sources some more thoroughly, most points at issue will become superfluous then. I'm only a guest in en:WP and tried my best to show you, what you've overlooked here. But in the end I can't wing your mind, if you just aren't ready for it. So you'll do what you think you have to do. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Slowly? I have been saying the same thing in a dozen different ways for you to understand. You seem to believe that an article about a military intervention just deals with one side of the conflict. An article about a military intervention during an already ongoing conflict deals with a military operation that takes place during the said conflict. Example - Libyan intervention during the Libyan civil war and NATO bombing during the Kosovo war. The "Saudi-led intervention" is a phase of the conflict. In historical retrospective yes, but this article deals with the Saudi-led military operation itself, not the phase of the conflict. And the ground fightings in Yemen form an integral part of the "military intervention". That is your personal point of view. Based on existing sources, the only ground fighting that has been part of the intervention is the border skirmishes. In fact, most sources talk, on an almost regular basis, about a possibility of a ground intervention which has not yet taken place. EkoGraf (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * About your "border skirmishes" and "possibility of a ground intervention": I never spoke about that. When there already was a Saudi-led invasion taking place, you could not argue the way you are doing anyway. I even did not speak about "Yemeni Fighters Trained in Persian Gulf" or something like that. I'm generally talking about the whole Saudi-led intervention (or: "intervention phase of the 2015 Yemeni conflict") in historic sense with all its features.
 * Yes "slowly" I got it, that you just don't use the meaning of the term "military intervention" correctly. This term doesn't mean just the operations performed by one side (maybe you are changing Wikipedia encyclopedia with a military gazette?), but it addresses to a form of international conflict. Military intervention is "Interference by a state in another’s affairs" by military means. That means that both - the operations of the intervening powers and the domestic operations are intermingled. Anyway there are domestic reactions to the intervention. And you'll find no historic literature, that tries to separate them, because exactly this is the character of an intervention. Every singly source dealing with the military intervention in Yemen 2015 deals with both, the foreign intervention operation and the existing ground fightings of the domestic conflict. Still you did not provide a single source that claims, they do not belong together. It is your"is your personal point of view" to treat them as separate topics and historic events. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to see if I can't short-circuit this increasingly pointless discussion right here and now by reminding you that Wikipedia operates on consensus, and you don't have nor are you likely to obtain consensus for the notion that "intervention" and "civil war" are synonymous terms for the same military action. We have two pages: one for the civil war, and one for the military intervention, which is part of that civil war. That is the status quo and it is not going to change, because there is not consensus to change it.
 * Now, can we work something out with the table of casualties already? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started a table on individual strikes but it still needs to be expanded. EkoGraf (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1, I guess you got something wrong. No one ever (at least not me) stated that "intervention" and "civil war" are synonymous terms for the same military action. The point is that the effects and impacts of the military intervention and the civil war are indistinguishable connected. No source provides data as EkoGraf demands, because noone follows his constructed division of this historic event. So he has to use own figures and the reader will never read the existing confirmed minimum figures provided by UN in this article. It's just harming WP's reputation this way, but not supported by a single source.
 * According to the table: It is a typical example of original research to construct a WP own casualty table and list of casualties, based on media reports. Even with no hint, what the figures mean (even with no hint, when a figure is a "at least"=minimum figure), so that the table produces a strong suggestive effect. Of course everybody interested in the events will be grateful to see this list (me, too), but nevertheless, if you take the encyclopedia's aim and reputation serious, it's no proper work to construct it yourself. I just have to say it because I noted it. --,Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether this article deals only with the air strikes and direct actions by the Saudi-led coaltion and direct reactions to it, or it deals with all intervention related actions and parties. Since we regard war crimes accusations, claimed by HRW as subject of this article, that have no direct and immediate connection with the Saudi-led coaltion's action we can concluse we decided to deal with the whole conflict in connection with the military intervention. Otherwise the neutrality of this article had to be disputed. This is reasonable and reflects the common approach of all our independent and Western sources anyway. Therefore I'll provide the updated official UN's civilian minimum Yemeni death toll, which uses confirmed figures instead of the constructed numbers created and compiled by EkoGraf in the article.
 * If you don't want to have the official UN's civilian minimum Yemeni death toll mentioned in this article, you'd have to delete contents as "On May 7, HRW said that pro-Houthi fighters may have committed war crimes when two women were killed in Yemen and aid workers were arrested for two weeks" and all other information, which you concern being a phenomenon of the civil war only, too. This inconsistency n this article has to dossolved finally.
 * With regard to the self constructed table: if you insist on keeping it in the article you should at least follow the minimum standards of reliability and mark the figures as what they are: media reports, minimum figures, etc. as already proposed for several times. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought up the issue of the war crimes. I was already considering moving the war crimes section to the main civil war article. I also left most of your paragraph in the air-strike casualties section so it could be additionally noted there that some strikes were considered war crimes. As you can probably see I also left your overall civilian figure, as an attempt at compromise, because I feel in that specific section it can give a sense of the overall civilian toll from the general civil war that is taking place. As for the table, it already has a source column for who is providing the figure for a specific incident. As for minimum figures, except for an air-strike on a military base that had a lower and higher toll 38 and 90 (I put both figures but someone removed the lower one) I have not seen almost any minimums or maximums claimed. EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know your motivation, but there is absolutely no consistency in your argumentation and your edits in the article. You just keep the readers's illusion alive, that this article is dealing with the whole military intervention. But under cover of alleged WP convention you remove all parts you don't want to have mentioned in the article for your very own reasons - despite the existing UN and other sources. UN sources are treating air strikes and ground fightings explicitly as belonging together, but you are artificially deviding it, following just private arbitrary and unprofessional criteria - providing not a single source that supports your own and low quality standards, always referring to other en:WP articles about Libya or whatever. I won't participate in an amateurish distortion of the UN sources. What you are doing amounts or results - in the final consequence - in a factual cover-up of the impacts of the coalition led war on Yemen . As I said I emphase I don't know your motivation. You showed little to no knowledge of the sources, changing HRW with UN records (in a very naive way), interpreting figures about air and ground fightings as air srikes only and and and. Then, after being tought the correct way, you just impute HRW not to know what they wrote (in an impudent arrogance). You can't tell seriously to the readers that HRW and UN and all others are wrong and only you know the truth. This is a ridiculous idea. Maybe you just don't understand the sources. Anyway I'm explicitly warning the other editors what's going on here. They can decide whether they want it to happen. I'll leave here. I want nothing to do with this kind of methods. For me it is irresponsible. Bye,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a clarification must be made here, when there are different accounts of events, one must examine them all to be able to get an idea of what the truth might be. If not then the article is not balanced nor informative. 123.255.16.94 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not reply to accusations that I am trying to do a cover-up because I don't want to go into pointless arguing. It is your right to ignore the Libya and Kosovo examples. I will reply to one thing, but its actually something I have already said in this discussion about two dozen times. UN sources are treating air strikes and ground fightings explicitly as belonging together You are right, they are treating them as belonging together...but as part of the overall conflict which is covered in Yemeni Civil War (2015). The Saudi-led intervention/operation/involvement, with which this article deals with, is only one part of the overall war. EkoGraf (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are still misinterpreting or misusing the UN sources and distorting the terms used by UN. I am a patient man. I'll explain again in other words:
 * We speak about the civilian Yemeni death toll, reported by the UN - since March 26th - the beginning of the war in Yemen launched by saudi-led coalition.
 * For these records the UN does not use the term "civil war". This is what only you are claiming, but it's wrong. A civil war is an armed domestic conflict. What we have got here is the combination of foreign military operations and the domestic conflict: it's about a " military intervention " or just " war ". Just read the UN sources: "This brings the total number of civilians killed since the start of the coalition led war on Yemen to 405 including 26 women and 86 children and the total number of civilians injured to 785, including 34 women and 62 children.": These were the figures of the update dealing with March 26 - April 15 of the UN death toll of civilian Yemeni, killed during the military intervention since March 26th. Meanwhile the newest upadate is available (dealing with March 26 - May 10), which records 828 civilians killed in Yemen, including 91 women and 182 children . The day it was released you accepted the older version being cited in the article, but not in a prominent position.
 * #I'm not ignoring Kosovo, but I'm reading and citing scientific sources about it, not just en:WP articles, written by laymen. WP articles are no source to write WP articles.
 * You are ignoring the common terms, as used by AFP, and many other reliable sources, that the saudi-led coalition launched a war in Yemen on March 26. And you still are trying to shift the confirmed and well known civilian casualties provided by UN to the "civil war"-topic as you put it. But there were no civilian casualties reported by UN before March 26th. There is no ambiguity or doubt to assign these UN figures to this article. A "civil war" (or armed domestic conflict) can be part of of an international armed conflict (or "military intervention" or "war"). But a military intervention is never subpart of a domestic conflict, simply because it's not domestic. All your reasoning is illogical, not usual in scientific sources, not supported by the UN sources used in the article. It is original research and a constructed narrative, that has no original in Western and independent sources. It's your decision. You can proceed using the sources I gave. But if you proceed distorting them WP reader's got the harm of it.
 * Now sorry for my English. I gave up, not because of your arguments, but because of your behaviour. To end at least with something common between us: as already explained before the BBC source does not help us here. I understand, that it is repeatedly inserted again in the article. because it sounds fitting and the article lacks a current confirmed total civilian death toll figure in prominent position. But the BBC source is simply wrongly referring to "air strikes" only and does not reflect the original UN statement correctly. Anyway, I guess there will keep being lot of dispute about this case even when I leave here. For a last time I recommend using the existing and fitting UN records, nearly specially designed for this article. And it would clarify this case in a correct manner. Bye,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed, I overlooked, that you already updated the current UN figures this morning. Well done! I'll take it as a good sign. Maybe it was not completely for nothing. As already recommended in my first edits here, you'll always find the newest UN-updates in UN-OCHA'a "Yemen - ReliefWeb News" at www.unocha.org/aggregator/sources/80, citing article relevant UN OHCHR records (in particular for civilians) as well as UNICEF records (in particular for children). I explicitly recommend to use the original UN-source instead of media echos ( btw: how did you come to Qatar's "The Peninsula Qatar" at all to cite a UN source by an AFP report?! Google? Really? - even not Al Jazeera English, but "The Peninsula Qatar"? Did I miss something? I'll have to try it out, too, some times, funny. Anyway AFP did just report the UN source ) Maybe one day it find it's way in the infobox. Probably when I left here, it will be easier for you to follow UN's information. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) +--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, EkoGraf, as I already noted in the above given table, not NYT, but HRW reported civilian casualties. NYT just collected it. The idea, that a news paper in New York, even probably with no own correspondent in Yemen (different than AFP e.g.) is able to "confirm" casualties, is completely absurd. I recommend using reliable sources instead of - again - trying original research here. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Early elections and protests
pinging involved editors

Currently some editors are involved in a dispute over the inclusion of a few paragraphs detailing elections organized by Houthis and some protests in Sana'a. In an effort to resolved this dispute I would ask that editors contribute their thoughts in a Civil manner. Further discuss can be found here, but I ask that editors use the talk page of the article as a central location to discuss this. Thank you. Winner 42 Talk to me!  13:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC) The paragraphs are as follows:


 * The first graf looks fine if it has a citation. The other two need better sourcing. State media can be reliable in reporting the statements and official actions of the government, but I'm not inclined to take PressTV and RT as reliable for protests and things like that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditto to what Kudzu said. Euronews, on the other hand, may be a reliable source, but their wording was distorted. They state that "thousands of rebels and their supporters denounced what they called American-Zionist aggression". How is this relevant to Yemeni opposition? The article doesn't give any indication about the proportion of rebels to civilian supporters, yet the wording in this sentence implies that the protesters are bystanders in the conflict. I suggest we delete the second and third, and keep the first. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you are inclined to believe - there are dozens of photos and video's. Like I stated in my original dispute with Tal grey, I found no credible document that states that PressTV is unreliable. Also, RT, euronews and PressTV all reported on it with video's and photos. The fact that you want it removed simply because they reported on it is beyond one-sided thinking. Reuters has a history of only reporting anti-Houthi protests and so, western media doesn't report on that. The thousands of protests clearly screaming "With soul and blood, we love you, Yemen". It was also reported on an Australian site. This isn't a case of unreliable news or not, it's a case of thousands of people taking to the street to oppose something being put in the oppose section of the reactions in Yemen. Also, I stated thousands of PEOPLE took to the streets. I didn't say Houthi, rebels, civilians and as we don't know and they are humans who came out - people is an acceptable phrase and in no way distorts or does anything. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but denying the worthlessness and unreliability of Press TV is a fruitless endeavor. It also matters not what photos and videos purport, they are not a replacement for reliable sources. The source you provide reiterates what I said - it was a parade party by Houthis and Houthi supporters. This might be useful in the Fringe events organized by the Houthi Insurgency in Yemen article, but it adds no value, analysis or insight into the division of loyalties of the general public in Yemen. It simply reports on a relatively insignificant event organized in a Houthi stronghold, attended solely by members of the Houthi insurgency. To put things into perspective: if Boko Haram held a 'protest' in their headquarters at Maiduguri, and thousands of armed Boko Haram members waving ISIL flags showed up, this would not imply that Boko Haram enjoys extensive support in Nigeria. I don't know how you conflated a Houthi propaganda rally with 'Opposition in Yemen'. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute over first graf. One more good reference published by Arabian Business Com with “Reuters” source,  can be seen  here.


 * Deletion of other two graf is opposed.  For protests two more references  can be evaluated here   this twitter  tag page  not only provides Protests but also many other things and different sources.Nannadeem (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Shiapost is an Iranian state propaganda blog and Twitter is an obviously unacceptable source for breaking events (in addition to being OR). Elspamo4 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but please remain as neutral as possible. Your comparing of terrorists to rebels is definitely clouding your judgement in this decision. Thousands of people******************** took to the streets of a city to disapprove of being bombed. That is without a doubt opposition. If tens of thousands came out to protest against Houthi's you would be all over it but you can't seem to get your head around the fact that people would rather be with Houthi's who did not bomb them than planes bombing them. However, not this or that is in our place to decide. What we know is that tens of thousands of people have took to the streets to oppose the saudi-led intervention and it should definitely be added. Furthermore, please do not be a hypocrite. Demanding reliable sources and the minute I wonder why PressTV is unreliable you shove my question aside. That is very rude and hypocritic. If you don't provide evidence or proof that PressTV is unreliable then I have every right to cite PressTV reports. ArabianWonders (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Read WP:BURDEN. It's on you to build a consensus regarding PressTV's reliability, and it appears there is no consensus here that it is reliable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON ANY MEDIA BEING RELIABLE! YOU ARE EXPLOITING THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA TO SERVE YOUR PROPAGANDIST / DISCRIMINATORY INTERESTS... AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR REAL INTERESTS ARE!  WHY?  BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ANALYZE INFORMATION, SINCE YOU SIMPLY NEGATE ANYTHING THAT PUTS YOUR IDEAS INTO QUESTION INSTEAD OF ANALYZING CONTRADICTORY SOURCES OF INFORMATION!  123.255.16.94 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop yelling and screaming. It doesn't make your views any more convincing.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Yeah, apparently God likes me more than he likes you. Why do you think that is the case?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)" >>> Please stop acting like a fascist extremist. In the name of truth, I shall do what I will, is that clear?123.255.16.94 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I, and other editors, have previously explained why Press TV is an unreliable source; this is a moot point. As for my comparison, I did not mean to emphasize or insinuate any terroristic qualities, I simply went with what I believed was a comprehensible analogy. My rationale remains viable despite the dissimilarities in methodology and beliefs of the two groups. A 'protest' which actually consists entirely of armed Houthi rebels is not notable, nor is it in any way indicative of public opinion, whether it be opposition or support. Here is a brief description by the Daily Mail to help better illustrate my point: "Shiite rebels known as Houthis hold up their weapons to denounce the Saudi-led airstrikes as they chant slogans during a protest in Sanaa, Yemen, Monday, April 27, 2015." This was not a public protest, it was a Houthi parade organized by themselves at their HQ. I'm sure this won't be a shocker to you, but, the Houthis are not representative of public sentiment in Yemen. Not until a reliable source confirms that there was ascertainable public participation in the protest. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Last month I visited some URLs for public protests (Avoided protests reported in languages other than English), please see them for impartial judgement of  OR “Not until a reliable source confirms that there was ascertainable public participation in the protest”:
 * Public protests (both against or in favour) in Pakistan reported in the Daily Dawn see here .  Similar reporting by “REUTERS”  please see here.
 * Public protests with video at Yahoo news,see here.
 * Public protest phtography in the daily Nation my be seen here +TV report for Protests in serveral countries, please see this
 * Houthi Women Protest Against Yemen Airstrikes - NBC News, kindly see here + students from Lebanese University protested outside a UN office in Downtown Beirut against the Saudi-led airstrikes may be seen here.
 * Constructive evaluation is requested.Nannadeem (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Press TV is just as reliable as the Saudi/Western media outlets that have their own agendas to push. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you even watched the videos of the protests? The Daily Mail was reporting on a protest on MONDAY and the one I am reporting is on FRIDAY. Holding weapons is normal as Yemen is a militaristic nation but even then, in the videos and pictures only about 30% of the people are holding weapons on the Friday protests that I am posting. Also, something being a moot point is not a reason at all to say a news site is unreliable. You can find just as much hypocrisy if not more in other state-run news channels, including the BBC and all. As long as you have no proof to prove it is unreliable and you can't have proof that something is reliable- it remains like every other news channel.ArabianWonders (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an Emmental cheese in my refrigerator right now. Do you "have proof to prove it is unreliable"? If not, I shall go ahead and quote it in the article.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This + WP:BURDEN + the fact that I proved its unreliability in this context on two separate occasions, one of which was related to a report on entirely fabricated 'protests' in several countries. I and other editors (Kudzu, Tal Grey) have already supported our argument by citing Wikipedia policies whereas Arabianwonders' argument is based on the assumption that "they report what Saudi/Western media outlets wouldn't". He's right about that, no Saudi and Western media outlet spew out as much worthless propaganda as the Iranians and Russians. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * - If your cheese is producing news, video's, pictures and live events. And it does not have proof that it is lying. Why not?
 * Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a soapbox for cheese, Houthi symphathizers, totalitarian Islamist governments or anyone else to promote their ideologies.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like you are taking this way too personally. Your proof of two separate occasions is something I cannot see and you have failed to link for some reason or another. You have citied Wikipedia policies which I can easily cite in regards to BBC, Australian and American news. Please, please, please for the love of god do not turn this into some worthless Iran vs West bull. Protests occurred on Friday. Protests by PEOPLE. We have neither the knowledge nor responsibility to determine their alignment and last I checked - they are all humans. So, protests by PEOPLE occurred with videos and pictures posted on Russia, Iranian and Yemeni news. Why on earth would it be removed? The video's clearly show the protests, the sentiment and the time. The articles are just additional clarification. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pardon me if I am skeptical of your claims of being able to bring into dispute a reputable news source, such as BBC, with an argument based on WP guidelines. For your reference, I discredited Press TV multiple times on this talk page as well as on the International Reactions talk page. I thought you were involved in earlier discussions on the reliability of Press TV, but I may have been mistaken. Still, you have not addressed the main point so far, but instead resort to throwing around flimsy red herrings. The alignment of the protesters is clearly relevant, especially when a significant portion, if not a majority, are armed militants who are currently directly involved in the conflict. The Saudi Army is comprised of humans too, should we report every time they hold a 'protest' outside their base in Riyadh? Unless you have a real argument for documenting Houthi pep rallies, I'm done commenting. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GOOD RIDDANCE! 123.255.16.94 (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think labour of ArabianWonders is check on us for equalizing the Page. But competition should be constructive and positive in all respects.  Reconciliation between ArabianWonders and Elspamo4 would result in ending the Yemeni Crisis (at least on this pitch). Nannadeem (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I seemed to have forgotten this conversation. Please direct me to the conversation in which you discredited PressTV or rather, showed a reliable source discrediting PressTV. Of course the alignment is relevant. They are afterall protesting against a faction involved in the conflict. The Houthi "pep" rallies are not protesting politics, they aren't protesting their might and they aren't doing it to show off. They are protesting the attacks on them and the involvement of Saudi in the war. You may believe that a majority of them are Houthi militants but you don't know that. The protest was called by the Yemeni Revolutionary Committee which is not controlled by the Houthi's but by Ansar Allah. In case you didn't know, Ansar Allah is a political group in Yemen. It includes civilians and armed militants like every political group in the Middle East. If the Kurds protested against ISIS, would you put it down? If Saudi citizens went in a protest with Yemeni citizens in Riyadh, I would add that too. It is, in the end, a sign of support and opposition. ArabianWonders (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit
Just took a run through this. Feedback encouraged! This piece needs a massive summarization. Don't see why day to day reactions and casualty info are of historic interest. Lfstevens (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Clean up URGENTLY NEEDED.
Its almost a torture to edit the article, a cleanup its urgently needed, its too long. More sub-articles and less references are needed to reduce its size.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

July/August updates
The article have omitted advancement by the legitimacy coalition and gains that happened through July-August, as well as neglecting updating the status bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.228.6 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seems the page isn't being updated with current air and land movements. Doyna Yar (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Move?
Based on this article and the recent deaths of 45 UAE soldiers, is the UAE now leading the intervention in Yemen? If so, should the article be moved to UAE-led intervention in Yemen, Emirati-led intervention in Yemen or 2015 military intervention in Yemen? Even if Saudi Arabia is still leading the intervention, wouldn't a more proper title be Saudi-led intervention in Yemen? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the article needs to be retitled. KSA is still leading the intervention, hosting and supporting other Arab forces and providing the majority of the forces.Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

261 killed...since when?
Seriously, its been quite a while that the infobox seems to state that only 261 houthis have been killed. People update the coalition's casualties whenever possible, but never seem to update the houthis'?

Edit:* Its almost impossible that the houthis didn't lose more than 261. Look at the Battle of Aden, 386+ killed. Whenever I try to edit it it gets reverted...

Zimimi (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Name
LOL wtf! Of course, because it's favored by American foreign policy Wikipedia calls it an intervention instead of an invasion. "Children are playing and the overseer Saudi Arabia takes a break from oppressing women and gays to intervene." Do we call the Ukraine crisis a Russian intervention against the US-backed Euromaidan rebels who started an insurgency against the rightful Ukrainian government? We may need to stop letting Americans build these conflict-related articles because they just refuse to look at it from a different perspective than they are told. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Invasion usually denotes an outright attack in an attempt to conquer another country/territory (eg. Iraqi invasion of Kuwait), while intervention denotes going into an existing conflict on the side of one party (eg. 2011 military intervention in Libya), although obviously the terminology used in each case does have a POV to it. Personally I believe in this case that intervention is the appropriate term Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what we are calling it. Please take your soapboxing elsewhere.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder, I don't understand your comment. How am I "soapboxing"? Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not responding to you. See WP:THREAD.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Best to identify the user by name to avoid ambiguity. Mztourist (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Any perceived ambiguity is a mistake on your own part. WP:THREAD is the standard that is followed on millions of pages on Wikipedia, and has been for over ten years.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ISIS
What about ISIS? Isnt ISIS fighting the shia Houthis and so considered an ally of the coalition? And i read Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the CIA are supporting ISIS, to stop Iranian influence in the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.99.0 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia should be included on the map
The rebels are claiming they are seizing territory in Saudi Arabia in the form of towns, I feel the map should reflect these developments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please direct your comments to Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map. We merely transclude their map.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

UAE casualties
The figure is currently stated as 60 killed, but the National newspaper reports 54 killed up to today see Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that article is up to date as most up to date newspapers have combined the UAE reports. ArabianWonders (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Alleged coalition between Saleh and Houthi
There is no solid evidence whatsoever to ascertain this claim in any way. On the contrary. Saleh holds closer relations to Saudi Arabia than the Houthi. Where he has sought refuge. He is no longer in power, and has little influence over the military forces. How do we know this? '''Hadi and Saleh are members of the same political party! Saleh made wars on the Houthi, and killed their highly respected Ansarullah leader! So, this allegation is a vile lie!''' 123.255.16.94 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is your personal opinion, but Wikipedia need reliable sources of information. In addition, at the start of their military careers Saleh served in the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen) and Hadi served in People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen)... And we don't know reliably what happened in the period of the Yemeni revolution within the ruling party and the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)