Talk:United States–Houthi conflict (2023–present)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   20:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

rename due to article scope
I would like to rename this article to United States conflict with Iran-backed militias (2023–present). this is because the Houthis are widely rep[orted as being backed by iran. and their actions are clearly in concert with iranian actions, such as the attack by Iran against a Japanese ship in the Indian ocean, and also, the US has now attacked Iran-backed groups in Iraq. so the article title needs to change, to reflect the full scope of this conflict and this article. Sm8900 (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

United States–Houthi conflict (2023–present) → United States conflict with Iran-backed militias (2023–present) – need to change name, to reflect wider scope of article, which is not accurate for current name. . Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This has to be the most WP:POV name I've ever seen on wikipedia. No way you are actually serious  Abo Yemen ✉  14:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose  per WP:OVERPRECISION / WP:CONCISE.--Fontaine347 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as Houthis are part of the Iranian Axis of Resistance, many of which engage with the US over the past several months. Otherwise we need an umbrella article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * this article is clearly about the houthis alone, it is better you make an umbrella article with a Neutral point of view name  Abo Yemen ✉  13:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ok, what NPOV name would be appropriate for this topic? --Sm8900 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk probably something in the lines of "United States–Axis of Resistance conflict (2023–present)"  Abo Yemen ✉  17:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * understood, but for me, one problem is that "Axis of Resistance" as a title implies a specific established group as the belligerent, which is not the case. however, if that broader title is acceptable to you, then would perhaps something like "United States--Iran proxies" or perhaps "United States--Iran-allied militias" be acceptable? truly open to a broader discussion on this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the previous title is problematic. "Iran-led coalition" would be better than Iran allied, I'd also not use proxies as groups like the houthis have denied being proxies or controlled by iran  Abo Yemen  ✉  18:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Greyshark09 thanks. please see my reply below, to add some more points on this. Sm8900 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the current title and the proposed title are both insufficient. The US is the most powerful country in the coalition, but at the very least, the UK's involvement should be acknowledged explicitly or implicitly by referring to a coalition. They also just launched attacks against the Houthis too. Sleeker (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * actually, this article is not only about the conflict with the houthis. below are three paragraphs which highlight the broader scope of this article.
 * On 25 December 2023, the US carried out air strikes against Iran-backed groups in Iraq.
 * On 26 December 2023, the Indian Navy sent the destroyers INS Kochi and Kolkata to the Gulf of Aden, in response to an attack on a cargo vessel near the coast of India.
 * On 28 December 2023, sanctions were imposed upon several entities by the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which said that these entities had helped to convey financial aid from Iran to Houthi forces located in the region of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.


 * Oppose There is already an article called Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria (2023–present). It's probably best to merge this one with Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war, as it lacks content. Ecrusized (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose because WP:OVERPRECISION exists. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SteelerFan1933 congrats, your comment is free of any problems with over-precision. in other words, what do you mean, exactly? thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am saying that conflict with Iran-backed militias clearly is being overly precise with the definition, and the current name is entirely okay. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Section break

 * Comment. This article should only be about the Houthis as there is a specific article about the US conflict with other Iranian-backed militias: Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria (2023–present).--Fontaine347 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is a fork of Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war. Both articles should be merged into a single article. VR talk 04:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article title does need to be changed, as not only the US were involved in the recent air strikes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this is a ridiculously obvious very WP:POV title proposal for a page move. The current title describes the topic very well. If anything, judging from the current infobox, it is the other side that is more likely to warrant an expansion of its description, but even that is probably not worthy of making the article title less WP:CONCISE. Niokog (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ok. so question to everyone, are aren't attacks in the Gulf of Aden part of this article? if so, what is the actual scope of this conflict?? so therefore isn't the scope of this article much wider than "US--Houthi"? I suggest we momentarily forget the article title for a second. what is how should we refer to this actual conflict itself? Sm8900 (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sm8900 the houthis don't even have any access to the Gulf of Aden  Abo Yemen ✉  15:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I know that, dear colleague! that was my whole point in suggesting the name change, in the first place!! ummm... forgive my exclamation points!! ahem. cheers!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Abo Yemen ✉  15:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India?
If I'm correct, India is not a member of the US led 'Prosperity Guardian'. 420atgm (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, not a member of the Operation. Still involved in the overall conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 12:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Greyshark09, yes exactly. I concur with Greyshark09 reply on this. Sm8900 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @420atgm India is not present in Prosperity Guardian page. But it has send multiple warships and is actively involved. Sreader22 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024
Change "On 10 January 2024, the UK defence secretary stated that UK and US naval forces pushed back the largest attack to date from Houthi rebels." to "On 10 January 2024, the UK defence secretary stated that UK and US naval forces pushed back the largest attack to date from Houthi rebels. Multiple rocket strikes and raids against Houthi targets took place in response to Houthi rebels ignoring a 'Final Warning' Ultimatum from the United States government." Outlaw1354 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My bad, The extra information i meant to request to be added on january 12 not january 10, can be worded differently and be waited to be confirmed because it barely happened Outlaw1354 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ok, but I don't think this article is actually edit-protected. Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Australia
Why was Australia not included in the list of belligerents, considering they are a part of Operation Prosperity Guardian? Asrp1493 (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * this article isn't that great. why are so many people suddenly interested in this? Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 American–Middle East conflict name proposal
In the list List of wars: 2003–present, the name 2023 American–Middle East conflict links to Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria (2023–present) article. This name can be used for an umbrella article that leads to the bases conflict and the one with Houthi, United States–Houthi conflict (2023–present) Sebas1953 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing SEALs in the casualties section of the infobox
As of the time of me writing this topic, the two Navy SEALs who fell overboard whilst attempting to board a vessel off the coast of Somalia are still missing. If they are to be confirmed as casualties, should they be counted in the infobox section on this page? By my understanding, the boarding operations that they were conducting belong to a broader context that predates the current US-Houthi conflict. - Jesterr35 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan?
Pakistan has sent one warship. But they aren't part of Prosperity Guardian. Additionally as per most reliable reports, they have mentioned Pak warships will not operate against Houthis. Then how can we put them here, especially in US coalition? I can't attach any link here, but you can look it up. Sreader22 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sreader22 ok, but if that's the case, then what do you mean in the first place, that they have "sent one warship"? sent one warship where, on what mission? thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sm8900 as per few news, Pakistan has sent 1 warship to the Arabian Sea, not Red Sea. But they have mentioned, it is not against anyone, not against Houthis even. So, why is Pakistan and it's leaders mentioned in the US coalition? Sreader22 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

topical scope of article

 * because Pakistan is actively fighting Iran., this article is supposed to be about that conflict. Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh no it is not about that conflict  Abo Yemen ✉  15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, thats the proper niche and the proper topical scope for this article. Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is already an article for that conflict and the scope is unrelated to this article in my opinion as the conflict between iran and pakistan (as far as i know) is about a disputed region of some sort while this one is about the attacks by the US on the houthis because they are bombing ships  Abo Yemen ✉  16:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sm8900 But this article is regarding Houthis only. Not between US and Iran. Example... India is not fighting against Iran, but has sent warships in Red Sea. Hence, they are included. Pakistan will be included in US vs Iran, but not against Houthis, as they've mentioned it themselves. Sreader22 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for your note, but actually, this item is why india is included:


 * On 26 December 2023, the Indian Navy sent the destroyers INS Kochi and Kolkata to the Gulf of Aden, in response to an attack on a cargo vessel near the coast of India. Sm8900 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This article's scope and relevancy
With Red Sea crisis and Operation Prosperity Guardian having their own developed articles, what is the purpose of having this article? It seems that much of the information here is already covered in its entirety in those two articles, with only a few more details here on specific events. With even the Red Sea crisis article containing the following in its first sentence: "also known as the United States–Houthi conflict or United States–Iran proxy war" I think a merge is most likely warranted given the overlapping subjects. Yeoutie (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * well, since the opening lead of the article Red Sea crisis also does indeed refer to it as United States–Iran proxy war, as you have noted above, it sounds possible that maybe that article may have  achieved a wider topical scope.; so I appreciate your suggestion. I will need to look at this a little further. Sm8900 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I support merging this into Red Sea crisis. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support merging this article into Red Sea crisis  Abo Yemen ✉  15:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would request we wait until at least one week after the initial comment above dated Jan 22, to make sure others have a chance to comment. thanks.Sm8900 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * +1. A merge seems appropriate. – SJ +  20:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support merging this article into Red Sea crisis. Not only the content is duplicated, but this page is hardly legitimate. This is not a "United States–Houthi conflict" because Operation Prosperity Guardian involves multi-national forces, not only USA. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * just to offer another vantage on this... that's a catchy name. and who may I ask devised the name "Operation Prosperity Guardian"? the UN? i.e., isn't this an operation under the auspices of the US government? just pointing out the basis for the article name, based on some of the points in the very comment from you yourself just now. just a thought. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this page includes 2024 Yemen airstrikes, in addition to the Operation Prosperity Guardian, but again, these airstrikes are a part of the Red Sea crisis, and they have been conducted by "the United States and the United Kingdom, with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands". Naming this as a conflict involving only USA and Houthi is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the articles are basically the same/ LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It helps avoid confusion when typing hyperlinks to the various pages, and the content is largely duplicative. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and above. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

redirect to replace article
we are going to create a redirect to replace this article. if anyone wants to use any data, you can use the article history. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to redirect this talk page (title having endash+endash) too then, maybe archiving the existing discussion here somewhere there? AnomieBOT is complaining to me that it doesn't know where the redirect at (dash+dash) should point, here or to Talk:Red Sea crisis, because  (dash+endash) also exists and points to the latter. From AnomieBOT's perspective here would make more sense, but then Bot1058 might want to change it back since the corresponding article page  (dash+dash) points to Red Sea crisis (as do  (dash+endash) and  (endash+endash)). Anomie⚔ 13:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Anomie thanks for your note. for the time being, my suggestion is to retain this talk page here for a while., maybe we could consider archiving this, in the future. that's my own opinion on that. thanks for your question. Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Anomie and @Sm8900: I have tagged this talk page as a Talk page of a redirect. The discussions here are relevant to how this redirect came to happen. I do not think redirecting the talk page is the appropriate thing to do as it documents a decision history about the redirect, not the article that is the redirect target. To me, redirection suggest a lack of transparency about why Wikipedia has redirects. Remember: "Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it!" - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since people seem to think it's vitally important for discussions above to exist here instead of being archived to Talk:Red Sea crisis for some reason, I've updated AnomieBOT to prefer the matching pair of redirects rather than the mismatched pair in a case like this so it'll stop complaining at me about this situation. 🤷 Anomie⚔ 14:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Anomie: Matched redirects only arise when a page is moved, together with it's talk page. Pages that are copied, merged, or redirected, often have page history that is hidden by a redirect. In some cases this appears to be deletion by stealth. This means valid content can be hidden by an un-discussed redirect, so a working talk page is needed to discuss bold changes made by editors to redirect pages or resurrect pages that were not made by consensus. Merging and archiving the discussions on this page into Talk:Red Sea crisis is not appropriate because it destroys the associated discussion about this particular content and its page history. This is an extension of the legal need for Wikipedia to have an attribution history for copyright reasons. It IS vitally important for Wikipedia's integrity and transparency, because it explains how we got there from here. It means anybody can audit editor decision-making. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)