Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)/Archive 2

STC vs GCC
I don't know how to explain this to you, really, but your first reason for removing the STC from the infobox was based on a false assumption about how Wikipedia's infoboxes are meant to be interpreted. Your second was actually just a concealed reversion. Your third was the lack of a reason. Your revisions additionally state that the Southern Movement, which is part of the STC, is a pro-Hadi militia movement. It may be, but they are explicitly included as a separate belligerent in the same column. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are allied. They have stable mixed control over certain areas such as Aden, recognize Hadi's authority, and so on, so they are properly included in the same column, just as rebel infighting in the Syrian Civil War did not mean that Tahrir al-Sham and Ahrar al-Sham did not belong in the same column, even though they're separated. I don't know if there's a formal policy about this or anything, but it's just to prevent the infobox from getting too wide basically, and your revisions more importantly completely remove almost all, if not all, references to the STC. There's also used for like, separating parties that aren't really all too involved on the ground and all like the US when they don't have boots on the ground, and generally organizing things so they'll be nicer-looking. Nuke (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Although, I am glad that you finally decided to talk about this rationally, I just wanted to tell you that this should have been placed in the article’s talk page as this is common practice, so it provides reference for any future arguments that may occur about this matter. Now with that out of the way let me offer my rebuttal to what you have stated and your consistent behavior of trying to interpret, what I am trying to do, or say. Your first revert, you said that my actions show that the Southern Movement is loyal to Hadi, and that you used the Syrian Civil War as reference to this idea. Which is not true at all, because you’ve been here long enough to know that with each article there are different practices, and policies that are implemented in particular for that article due to the situation that’s present (An in the Syrian Civil War article’s case we are nearing almost 7 years of this current civil war and the objectives of it have changed numerous times, therefore it’s almost incomparable to the Yemeni Civil War). If we were to use your logic, then in the Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) the PUK and the PKK should be broken up because there have been clashes between each party, militarily, and politically, for example one of them had clear control of the city of Kirkuk and was the main reason for giving up the city of Kirkuk to the Iraqi Army, when the other party strongly objected to the matter. Therefore, should we break up the Peshmerga units and say that they are split between party lines, of course not because they have the same objective and nationalistic ideas in mind and the same can be said between Hadi and the Southern Movement. Secondly, you said that I did “a concealed revision” which is also not true, because I addressed a disruptive user that felt it was necessary to make OVER 25 EDITS in something that could have been done in just a single edit. Lastly, if we look back at when you’ve first inserted the “STC” until now we see that your edits have lacked consistency, therefore discrediting your idea that this is some organized army or militia unit that actually has some real presence in the areas you have mentioned.
 * Now, since that I have addressed all of your points let me ask you some questions how can you justify this edit when your only source comes from Aljazeera, a news media outlet that has a clear political agenda of ruining the Saudi-Led Coalition’s image ever since the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis that occurred in June of this year. Which makes this a clear biased and propaganda news website, I mean come on for the first time in two and a half years they’ve released videos that actually came from the Houthis main channel Almasirah and have begun to show the number of Saudi soldier casualties that have occurred in the Saudi-Yemeni border. Where have they been since March 26th of 2015 and I know that your well informed on the matter of the border conflict between Yemen and Saudi Arabia because our path have crossed in the article Conflict in Najran, Jizan and Asir. Also I like how you ever so slightly insert the comparison of the USA as if there is a direct correlation between them and the “STC” I mean how can you compare a country that provides the Saudi Led Coalition military training, and logistical support to the “STC” something that has been denounced by the “GCC” and has been on record saying that they are no clear ally of the Saudi Led Coalition. Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'll try to keep it snappy so you can respond quick.
 * 1. Yeah this should really go on the article talk page, but I thought this was just a misunderstanding about the infobox bar separators.
 * 2. I'm pretty sure there's no actual RfC on the STC given the revisions you've reverted are literally the ones adding it to the article, so pretty much anything goes. Furthermore, regardless of the SCW being an endless special case, yes, when there's new disputes, precedent is a thing across articles. For instance, there was a RfC where I participated regarding the DPR and LPR infoboxes where the Syrian opposition was cited as a precedent, although it wasn't of the same nature as this.
 * 3. You failed to respond to the fact that, despite being in conflict with Hadi, the STC has recognized Hadi's authority.
 * 4. The STC doesn't really warrant a fourth column, doesn't fit with AQAP or ISIS, and has an actual link to the Hadi government -- much like the other example you linked, the Iraqi Civil War, where Iraqi Kurdistan--currently at war with Iraq--is merely bar-separated. Furthermore, if you believe there is no reason to separate the Hadi government and STC, I'll be happy to compromise. However, you were originally reverting the STC edit because the STC is opposed to the Saudi-led coalition (GCC), so it kinda feels bizarre thinking about compromising you like that. Can you please clarify your stance?
 * 5. Al-Jazeera is clearly painting UAE and the STC in a negative light. I agree. However, Wikipedia accepts biased sources, and I see no reason to see it as such a bad source in regards to the STC. However, I would have more reason to doubt pro-Saudi or sometimes pro-UAE sources. Qatar is opposed to the Saudi coalition, but al-Jazeera seems to me to have a much more hostile, harsh tone towards UAE/STC than the Hadi/Saudi coalition.
 * 6. Nah, I was actually thinking you were confused in regards to what the bar-divider meant, and felt the need to explain why the US was separated by one in light of the very fact that it is not similar to the STC.
 * 7. Your reversion of my edits was too broad. You didn't provide reasons to undo my format adjustments, such as using "Mohammad bin Salman" rather than his full name "Mohammad bin Salman al Saud," and you readded a huge number of redlinked and not-even-linked Houthi, Saudi, and AQAP C&L names. Plus, you undid all of my collapsible lists and so on, and your revision once again not only completely removes the STC, but leaves the style guidelines violating bar without anything underneath it!
 * 8. Why is it necessary to remove the entire STC if only the Southern Movement (Hirak) portions of my edits are objectionable?
 * 9. I actually don't read al-Jazeera, so no, I'm not up to date on all their biases. As far as I care, it's pro-Qatari. It's like CNN or NBC here in the US. They're both widely regarded as liberal, but I don't really keep up with specifics, even if I know a few.
 * 10. You pointed out that my edits restoring the STC are inconsistent. You are correct. That's because I try to minimize the possible range of objections you could have to the inclusion of STC every time. You said that the Hadi govt / GCC / Saudi-led coalition is opposed to STC, and that's okay, Hadi called them illegitimate and all. So if I notice that, hey, a guy actually reverted an edit in the past because I didn't include info for historical purposes (Hirak's former alliance with Hadi until 2017), so why not include that Hirak was pro-Hadi until 2017?
 * 11. While there is little news available regarding Yemen, even if my edits have changed in substance several times over different revisions, without a doubt the STC itself exists. As of the latest revision you have undone, I have made special care to make sure that everything is cited precisely because the STC's existence is not just "my idea" or anyone else's idea. It's an actual belligerent. Nuke (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Nuke, we should update the infobox. The article is outdated.


 * Alright, so let me start off by saying I am quite confused by points 3,4 and 10 you seem to have contradicted yourself when you said that the “STC” recognized Hadi’s authority, but you say that we should show that the Southern Movement (The Hirak) was Pro-Hadi until 2017. Are you insinuating that the “STC” and Southern Movement are two separate entities? If so why were you placing them as one in the infobox since you’ve acknowledged to a certain degree that there is support within the “STC” to the Hadi Government.


 * Furthermore, you go on to say that “STC” was not “your idea” and is an “actual belligerent”, so I would like to clarify I never once implied that it was, my stance is the current way that you structured the infobox made it seem like the “STC” is a whole new separate independent militia/army that is self-sufficient and completely independent from all other belligerents yet is supported by the Saudi-Led Coalition and Hadi. When in reality the only real weapons it has received, were when the Houthis were in Aden and it received its weapons as Government sanctioned militia (known as the Southern Movement) to fight the Houthis and kick them out of Aden and any other Southern Governorates.


 * Also if we were to look at the definition of the word “belligerent” in accordance to international law we see that the “STC” isn’t an actual representation of the definition, (“a nation or person engaged in war or conflict”) but that’s not my point, my point is do you consider the “STC” as the successor, partner, or a whole separate entity to the Southern Movement. As your stance to this matter has been vague, and has been susceptible to change over the course of this disagreement.


 * Lastly, the usage of biased sources, you agree that Aljazeera is at times a biased new media source, but your only argument to that is, biased sources are acceptable in Wikipedia and that Pro-UAE and Saudi Arabia sources are probably more biased. My only rebuttal, or argument in this case to that reasoning, is where can we draw the fine line between questionable sources and biased ones when a person brings the same news media outlet with a different topic at hand with questionable material in that article. Especially when you have a news media outlet (like Aljazeera) that reports based on pure emotion at times and not facts, how can we allow one and not the other?  Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I apologize for taking so long to reply to this.
 * 1. Can you be more specific about what said updates would entail, given currently verifiable content.
 * 2. I cited that earlier. They de jure recognize Hadi's authority, although I can't really cite any de facto consequences of this. Didn't you read the first post I made in this section?
 * 3. You didn't imply it. You directly stated that "the “STC” until now we see that your edits have lacked consistency, therefore discrediting your idea that this is some organized army or militia unit that actually has some real presence in the areas you have mentioned." despite the fact that there are valid citations not only for the areas I have cited claiming that the STC has actual territorial control, but other areas as well. Furthermore, your claim that, based on the edits of a user on Wikipedia changing, the STC is not an "organized army or militia unit that actually has some real presence in the areas you have mentioned" -- I don't know how to respond.
 * 4. I do not disagree with your assertion that the STC and Hadi govt are linked. They are both affiliated with the same region of Yemen, more or less, although Hadi's government does currently control some areas of historical North Yemen. However, without any definitive content statements from you, I don't even know if I should ask for citations.
 * 5. I'd say that the Southern Movement was a pro-Hadi group for awhile, and I'm pretty sure this was formalized to some extent, then became part of the STC later. The STC, as far as I can cite (Middle East Monitor), is a council consistent of tribal leaders and the Southern Movement, and I have not found any sources regarding the Popular Committees or the Popular Resistance, sans one Popular Committees source I found that had a very iffy date (11 May 2017, the day the STC was formed) stating it was still a pro-Hadi militia at that time, and therefore cannot actually move those to the STC part of the infobox, and as such I assume they are still affiliated to the Hadi govt until I find a source that states otherwise.
 * 6. Al Jazeera in this case cited the leader of the STC and the UAE government. Given the current diplomatic dispute and the fact these are STC gains (and based on the tone of the article, the UAE is against the STC), If your issue is with AJ itself republishing his statements, then:
 * 6a. I see no reason to continue your reversion, as the article as you have edited it maintains al Jazeera as a source.
 * 6b. Wikipedia's current recognition and consensus that al Jazeera is a reliable source overrides your objections in this case.
 * 6c. I can provide more sources, such as the Critical Threats Project, in relation to the statement that the UAE is backing the STC.
 * 6d. The United Arab Emirates itself confirmed its military activity on Socotra.
 * 6e. Al Jazeera was used to cite content which is fairly neutral, merely stating that the war has now spread to Socotra and that the UAE is backing the STC.
 * 7. Your positions simply are not clear, and your reversions far from exclusively remove content to which you have voiced objections -- far from it. I would like to come to a compromise if you could just make clear what your issues are with the reversions you continue reverting, and perhaps maybe not revert every little fix I try to make to just make the infobox look nicer along with the changes with which you have actual problems.
 * 8. I see no reason to object to the change of "Archived copy" as a link title to the actual source title, among other things. You indiscriminately reverted several contributions without providing objections to all of them, purely because you objected to some of them. You could just edit the article outright to resolve issues that you see in it. Your reversion even reverted the addition of a leading zero to an ISO date which should be marked "02" representing the year 2002.
 * 9. Can you please clarify your issues with the edits you have reverted?
 * 10. Why did you remove the per-column casualties, citations and additions of more strength statistics, and removals of uncited content?
 * 11. Why did you undo the removals of redlinks in the infobox, additions of collapsible lists to save screen space, and alterations to name formatting? Nuke (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You have no argument to remove STC. I will restaure it. The article could'nt be outdated. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough. I have made an ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree with I rejerct that revert. We should not remove STC. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, can you please for future references ping me when you are issuing your response as I had only found out about it yesterday. Now, I don’t really understand what your talking points for 7 to 11 are, because if you checked my latest revision on the YCW you would see that I actually made it really specific to what I disagree with you and only removed the “STC “and relocated the Southern Movement back to its original place.
 * Furthermore, I am really confused on points 1-3 because you say “Can you be more specific about what said updates would entail, given currently verifiable content” so if you don’t mind making yourself more clear on what you want me to further elaborate on because I really don’t understand to what section your implying at. As for your second point, I did read that, but it seems that you have not read or understood my response when I said and I quote “you seem to have contradicted yourself when you said that the “STC” recognized Hadi’s authority, but you say that we should show that the Southern Movement (The Hirak) was Pro-Hadi until 2017. Are you insinuating that the “STC” and Southern Movement are two separate entities? If so why were you placing them as one in the infobox since you’ve acknowledged to a certain degree that there is support within the “STC” to the Hadi Government.” As for your third point you seem to use this straw man argument, where you take some of my points out of context, so I will indirectly answer this point with point 5, sense there are essentially one and the same.
 * Last, but not least, are points 4-6 where you actually seem to have an argument, so I will start off with the 4th point, you just agreed that there is an actual link between the “STC” and the Hadi-Government, but your only logic to that is, Hadi controls areas in “historical North Yemen” my response to that reasoning is… SO?? Isn’t he considered the “legitimate president of Yemen as a whole”? I would certainly hope that he controls some area’s in Northern Yemen. As for your 5th point you say that the Southern Movement was Pro-Hadi but later became part of the “STC” my response to that is, where is your source to prove that is true, and if so and the Southern Movement became apart of the “STC” why mention them as two separate entities if the “STC” is the successor of the Southern Movement. Also allow me to use your own source against you, the person that they interviewed stated the he/she was an “official representative of the Southern Transitional Council” and on the question “What is the official position of Al-Hirak Movement on President Hadi and former President Ali Abdullah Saleh?” he/she stated and I quote “The Southern Movement’s official stance is with Hadi as the legitimate president” so I don’t really understand where you’re getting this notion that the southern movement is no longer Pro-Hadi. As for your 6th and last point, to assume Aljazeera as a whole, would obviously make it unbiased especially when it has multiple stations, (i.e. AJ+ which operates here in the US) but to look at it only from the Middle East then obviously it serves Qatar’s agenda and is what caused the Qatar crisis and is why most arab countries are calling for its complete shutdown. Now you seem to fail to get the point, unless you have an official statement from the UAE government stating that, it supports the “STC” then you are purely speculating. As for your two last subtopic’s (D&E) you seem to have contradicted yourself you can have a military presence, but that doesn’t mean that there is a war going on (i.e. China has a military presence in Djibouti, but they don’t have a civil war going, using your logic there must be something going on).  Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Right. I should ping you from now on, . I have learned my lesson, and I apologize. And I suppose I should also apologize in advance for being way too wordy with my reply.
 * 2. In regards to points 7 to 11, there's a load of content which is no longer related to the dispute because you changed what your revisions were removing. You were pretty clearly just pulling up old revisions and hitting "Save changes" on the editor, without actually looking at what you were doing, and I expected you wouldn't actually know much of the contents of your revisions that I mentioned in there. None of this is relevant anymore; however, I am still uncertain of why you are removing the STC from the infobox, though I believe it's much clearer now. Do you believe that the STC does not, for the purposes of this infobox, exist? In any case, I will not respond to any content unrelated to the three lines of content containing the UAE backing, Southern Movement status, and STC existence issues from here on.
 * 3. Yes, you agreed that updating the article is necessary. If so, then what sort of updates does that imply? Panam and I want to keep the article up-to-date by including who all the factions are, as the STC declared its "leadership" (vague as can be for political reasons) months ago. It's quite simple. What is out of date in the article, excluding content that cannot be reliably cited?
 * 4. Yes, the STC and Hadi govt are closely linked. Hadi draws most of his "support" (including opposition to his opponents and whatnot) from historical South Yemen. It's only natural that STC and Hadi govt would be allied, just as both Syrian opposition groups are allied to each other, despite their disagreements. That does not mean that they are fully merged, or even partially merged, and even if it did, that'd complicate this a lot, but it's actually common for separate belligerents' to recognize the authority of other belligerents --
 * 4a. Iraqi Kurdistan up until recently was a great example of this, and in terms of even more similar examples, Ezidkhan is another in Iraq, as the Iraqi government, like Hadi's government, has refused to grant it recognition, despite the fact it only claims to be autonomous.
 * 4b. More examples include Rojava -- which claims to be autonomous within Syria, and has many public services, such as schools, financially provided by the Assad-led central government, which does not recognize Rojava as legitimate. As Rojava provides services paid for by the Syrian government, that is a degree of connection between rival factions in Syria, is it not?
 * 4c. Even without consideration to modern wars, the Thirteen Colonies went to war with the Kingdom of Great Britain over a year before they actually ceased to recognize the authority of the Crown.
 * 4d. In fact, if I recall correctly, the Thirty Years' War going way back was actually fought between vassals which recognized their overlords' domains while waging war against their overlords, who at least de jure acknowledged that the revolting vassals at least had some authority themselves -- at least on paper, that's at least a bit more buddy-buddy than the relationship Hadi and STC share on paper.
 * 4e. None of this still seems to be within its original context, as I used the "recognition of Hadi's authority" argument to justify keeping them on the same column with a bar separating them--which is not the current discussion's focus, if we're discussing whether the STC exists or not.
 * 4f. The STC has not dissolved or anything because of their recognition of the authority of a President that does not recognize them, as many reliable sources show that the STC has expanded its territorial control--including at Hadi's expense--since both of those events occurred. It's possible that the STC only recognizes Hadi's authority over North Yemen. It's too vague to really know--in fact, the STC controls some territory in North Yemen as well. But they've done joint offensives and such, too. They probably belong on the same column, although I'd be open to compromise on that, but if you believe the STC is nonexistent, it's pretty difficult to figure out how we'd compromise. It simply can't half-exist, you know.
 * 5. The Southern Movement is a political party and paramilitary organization, per WP:CONSISTENCY, and the Southern Transitional Council is more or less an unrecognized secessionist government for which the Southern Movement fights, as I would interpret the phrase "secessionist body" -- a parliament which has appointed a cabinet, basically. The Southern Movement is the only military-type organization that is confirmed by reliable sources to be affiliated to the STC. For a parallel, simply look to the fact Hadi has his government's security forces listed as a bullet-point belligerent, or the Houthis being listed as a bullet-point belligerent of the SPC. The Houthis are pretty similar to the Southern Movement in this way--they're a military organization and political movement that is extremely closely affiliated with, synonymous with, and a force within the SPC. Very similar to Hirak, wouldn't you say? Of course, the SPC has other organizations affiliated to it, as well--the STC does, too, if you count tribes--and the fact that reliable sources have separated Hirak from the tribes in previously-cited material means that non-tribal political-and-military groups like Hirak are also allowed to join. This is a rewording of what I previously stated which might be a little inconsistent since I've informed myself more--but yes, the STC and Hirak are not the same organization. Even if Hirak were something like a "political and military ministry," it would still not be the same as the STC, as Hirak would still be a ministry of the STC's government. Hirak is still "part of the STC," however, in that I do not believe they are still a "Hadi government" political party or involuntarily subjected to a Saudi or Hadi led chain of command, even though they may collaborate.
 * 6. By "pro-Hadi," I meant "belonging in the Hadi bullet-point belligerent list," not "recognizing Hadi as the legitimate President," as the latter is still true. I even said that they "recognize Hadi's authority" and cited that as well. While you quote "The Southern Movement’s official stance is with Hadi as the legitimate president." you fail to follow up with the next sentence, "Even though southerners view him as a person who was part of Saleh’s government that killed southerners, they forged an alliance of convenience with President Hadi mainly to protect the south from the Houthis and their ally Saleh." It sounds like they want to get rid of him the moment they can get of the military threat of North Yemen. Furthermore, the Aden Declaration, as apparently poorly translated as it seems, is quite clear on one thing--it's vague. It's too vague to take much seriously, other than the fact that it formalizes their alliance with the KSA and UAE, and it doesn't address any sort of autonomy or independence arrangement. It's quite clear that only actual military and governmental actions by the STC and Hadi governmetn can determine the true nature of their relationship with the Hadi government. That said, despite the fact they state in the Aden Declaration that they receive support from both the KSA and the UAE, I haven't actually seen any real proof for the latter. If anything, I've heard that the STC is a pro-UAE group opposed by the KSA. But I've gotten derailed. Essentially, I didn't mean they were now categorically opposed to Hadi; I meant they were no longer fighting for the Hadi government except when doing so to advance the STC's interests.
 * 7. I was saying I do not disagree with you because they're both associated to historical South Yemen, despite the fact they both have territory in North Yemen.
 * 8. In regards to your request for citation in response to the fifth point of my previous reply, the Aden Declaration that I linked previously, titled "Aden Historical Declaration".
 * 9. In response to your repetition of the "still pro-Hadi" claim, this source should work. The STC has battled against the Hadi government. There are other sources indicating that the STC has taken control of various places as well. In addition, Lemonde is not affiliated to the government of Qatar. I don't think it's "alleged" either, considering the STC openly states this as well, despite the fact I can't find an actual statement from the UAE stating that they support the UAE. The STC itself, anti-STC sources, and independent sources which do not seem biased have all indicated that the UAE is backed by the STC. I don't think the UAE itself needs to explicitly announce its support, given the extent of the sources. Even the Houthis haven't explicitly stated that they're backed by Iran, as far as I know, and the Iranian government denies it as well, does it not? In addition, there are more precedents on the matter of not requiring an explicit government statement of support in regards to Ukraine and so on. I don't see why the al-Jazeera/UAE backing issue should be dragged on. Nuke (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10. In addition, I'd like to ask how being denounced by the GCC means that the STC should not be in the infobox, given you posted a comment in the edit break subsection stating once again that the GCC denunciation was an issue for you, . Nuke (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Great. I do apologize for taking a little bit longer than usual to respond, but it’s as you said because of your in-depth response that’s required me to take some more time to issue my response. Now let me start off by saying that I will first address your concerns then I will pose my questions and concerns onto you. Alright on your 3rd point you stated that you and Panam want to include all factions as this is your definition of an up to date article, but last, I checked on the YCW page there wasn’t a template that stated the infobox needed to updated, it said please update the article (as a whole). Also I would recommend that you read your own references that you were using to try to help further your argument in adding the “STC” because if you read the one that you cited from the middle east monitor the spokesperson, makes the “STC” more of a political movement that really isn’t a byproduct of the YCW, but more of them feeling that this was them, addressing the concerns of the Southern people.
 * Furthermore, I guess you can say this is a “here we go again type of moment” for your 4th point because your connections and references to the Syrian Civil War were way off. I mean they were really off that I won’t even address the part where you said, “separate belligerents' recognize the authority of other belligerents”. I mean come on, first there is no correlation between the Syrian Civil War and the Yemeni Civil war, and second you must not be updated on the situation between Rojava and Assad because the Assad government has actually recognized Rojava’s authority and is willing to give it autonomy in exchange for their army to withdraw from Arab majority areas. Here’s a news piece from a couple months ago from Reuters before the fall of Raqqa stating that autonomy is negotiable Anyways I won’t address the rest of your examples, as your all over the place, but I think I understand what you are were trying to imply is that, if one faction recognizes another it doesn’t mean that they are merged/become-one or have lost their power or authority, but even in that reasoning what power or what authority does the “STC” possess?  Also, haven’t you possibly thought that you are over-thinking this matter, I mean you just said that “it's possible that the STC only recognizes Hadi's authority over North Yemen” my only response to that outrageous statement, is one why couldn’t the “STC” make themselves more clear and two you just said that the “STC” believes a southern president (as Hadi is from Abyan) authority is only in Northern Yemen a place where, one he doesn’t control much areas and two he is quite unpopular.
 * Here I’ll address points 5 and 6 because there are many contradicting statements you make, and I think that you’re not only confusing yourself, but your confusing me with you. You say that the STC is “an unrecognized secessionist government” while two seconds ago you literally just admitted that they recognized Hadi’s authority, sorry but when was the last time you saw a secessionist movement recognize the authority of a government they are trying to secede from. Oh. Right that hasn’t happened. While you give the perfect example to the Southern Movement, which are the Houthis, but in reality, it actually goes against your argument of moving the Southern Movement, because just like the Houthis who have members in the Supreme Political Council, they have members in the Hadi Government. Also, just like the Houthis they also fight under the commands of their respective governments. So yes, I would say they are very similar and just like the Houthis they should be a bullet point belligerent underneath its respective government (Hadi Government). Furthermore, you go on to give me the Aden declaration source as proof that the southern movement is no longer pro-hadi, but you yourself just acknowledged that not only is it vague, but it shouldn’t be taken seriously.
 * Last, but not least I will address the rest of your points, the Houthis have actually stated that they are politically supported by Hezbollah and Iran. An Iran has also pushed this notion that they politically support one another, the only claims the refute is that they are giving/receiving military aid. Furthermore, this situation is not the same as the “STC” where an official statement was made so the only way to disregard an official statement is with another official statement or else we are just speculating and might as well turn into conspiracy theorists. My questions are for you is this if the southern movement is no longer pro-hadi 1) How come they still take orders from him? 2)Why are there people from the southern movement in Hadi’s cabinet? and 3) why don’t they just kick Hadi out of the south since you believe they have the military capabilities of doing so?  Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright,, let's try to get a compromise soon.
 * 1. The entire article includes the infobox. Needless to say, I actually don't want to add STC-related material to the article until this dispute is settled, either, but those would be necessary updates. Correct?
 * 2. I don't really know or care about this "byproduct" issue; in fact, al-Hirak itself predates the Yemeni Civil War ongoing at present, and as does Southern Yemeni separatism itself. The issue here is:
 * 2a. Whether or not the Southern Transitional Council should be listed as a belligerent;
 * 2b. How the STC should be listed in the infobox, if at all;
 * 2c. Whether the UAE backs the STC or not;
 * 2d. Whether the Southern Movement (al-Hirak) should be considered a pro-Hadi or pro-STC militia.
 * 3. So is Rojava a part of the Assad government? Yes or no? Even if the SCW is different in this case, the main difference is that there's a lot more sources for the SCW, they're a lot more reliable, and perhaps even the YCW is more complicated.
 * 4. The point is that the STC does not actually clarify what their de jure recognition means, except for that it is an "alliance of convenience". Furthermore, it doesn't really matter where Hadi lives or where he's from -- the Queen of Canada lives in England.
 * 5. I'd expect vagueness makes it easier to tow the "alliance of convenience" tightrope to maintain foreign support.
 * 6. The Eighty Years' War is one notable example of a secessionist movement recognizing the authority of the government from whom it sought to secede, and to this day, the Dutch national anthem is Wilhelmus. The Thirteen Colonies recognized the authority of the King, but they named their grievances.
 * 7. Cite please.
 * 8. I never said any of the de jure stances of the STC shouldn't be taken seriously. I have not said that of the Aden Declaration, recognition of Hadi's legitimacy, or anything of the sort.
 * 9. In response to your first finishing question, please cite your claim.
 * 10. In response to your second finishing question, please cite your claim.
 * 11. I never said that the STC has the military capacity to completely expel the entire Saudi/Hadi coalition (excluding the STC, which claims to be part of it) from historical South Yemen. Nuke (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what I took as your overall theme, or gist of your argument right now is just the need of sources, so here is some proof, that there are members of the Southern Movement in Hadi’s Cabinet. When the STC was announced, Haidar Abu Bakr Al-Attas was placed as a senior aide to Hadi’s Cabinet, some background info is, he was the Prime Minister of the unrecognized state, of Southern Yemen in 1994 and was one of the key member in establishing the Southern Movement in 2007. Here is the link as proof . Also the official speaker on behalf of the Southern Movement, is also another senior aide in Hadi’s Government, his name is Anis Mansour Al Subaihi . As, for your request for sources, that show the Southern Movement take orders from the Hadi Government, you yourself have already acknowledged that there is cooperation, and there are no specific websites or links that state such act, just pictures that show Hadi Cabinet meeting with Southern Commanders and information on how they are cooperating, and how the government is reaching out to make sure that these fighters have all they need.
 * Furthermore, you kind of did insinuate that the “STC” had the capabilities of kicking Hadi out by saying there relationship/alliance was of convenience, and they wanted to get rid of him as soon as they had the opportunity. Also, the whole idea of “byproduct” and what not, is just to show that there is no real connection between the YCW and STC like what is happening in, for example in the Libyan Civil War and the separatist movement that happened as a direct result of that in Cyrenaica region. Now, hopefully you realized that the Southern Movement is still a Pro-Hadi militia. Chilicheese22 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Can you prove that al-Attas is actually a member of the STC? I think your source would at least bother to bring up one of those things if it held any relevance; instead, it states that this is an anti-STC, anti-UAE, and pro-Saudi move.
 * 2. Alright. I read that Twitter source. I used machine translation to read much of it. I saw that he is an official speaker on behalf of Hirak, but I saw no references to the Hadi government.
 * 3. Yeah, an "alliance of convenience" logically involves a lot of collaboration. It's an alliance. There's a distinction between collaborating, holding meetings, etc. and being complete and total subordinates to the extent of non-belligerency.
 * 4. Did the fact that the Confederate States of America seceded from the United States of America insinuate that they had the capability to win that war? Well, did it? I dunno. But Dixie lost the war. And I sure do hope its leadership believed they had the capacity to succeed.
 * 5. If you are aware of new material to add to the Libyan Civil War page that is reliably cited, please add that.
 * 6. Are you stating that you believe that the STC is staging an insurgency against Hadi's government, separately from the YCW?
 * 7. I don't care if the STC is a "byproduct" or whatever. I only care if it's a belligerent for the purposes of this infobox discussion. Nuke (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I put things straight. All STC members were resigned or fired from the government, either before or after the proclamation of the STS. So despite the fact that they intitialy recognized Hadi's authority, STC is another faction. But they didn't fight against Hadi, so they should be in the same column. In addition, the great historical leaders of the Southern Movement are not members of the STC. And Ben Braik and Zoubaidi were members of the Southern Movement, but not number 1 or 2. For the rest, we can not deny that there is fighting in Aden and in the rest of the south of the country, between the militias STC and government militias. In addition, the STC has prevented the Yemeni government to celebrate independence in Aden, otherwise combat them. Also, Aidarus called for a referendum in southern Yemen. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope you don’t mind, but I will also respond to Panam’s argument with yours just for the sake of time and because this thread is kind of getting long. Panam you said that all “STC” members either “resigned” or were “fired”, but that has nothing to do with the Southern Movement, unless you are implying that the “STC” is the successor of the Southern Movement, something me and Nuclear, very well believe that is not correct. An Bin Barek and Aidroos Al-Zoubadi are the President and Vice-President, of this council/faction, so to say they are not apart of the “STC” is an absurd claim. Furthermore, I would hope that you are not putting your feelings before your judgement, because it seems that your putting your personal attachments into this argument by saying things like “the great historical leaders of the Southern Movement are not members of the STC” implying that Aidroos and Bin Barek are great, which has nothing to do with this argument. I ask that you please reword your responses for future cases.
 * Now Nuclear, I never stated that Al-Attas was apart of the “STC”, I said he was brought in to counter the events of what had happened (i.e. the formation of the “STC” and two influential leaders leaving the Southern Movement to the “STC”) and since he himself was an influential leader, he was brought in to deter anymore members of the Southern Movement from leaving, which worked successfully. An in the source I provided, it states just that. As for the other representative, I used google translate and on one of his tweets, he said he was on his way to meet president Hadi to discuss, “government business”, but that’s my bad since I didn’t link the tweet itself, because I can’t for some reason find it again. This is besides the point; the point was just to show you that there are members of the Southern Movement in the Hadi Cabinet. As for points 3 & 4 an alliance of convenience means and I quote “they are formally united and working together because they have similar aims”, now if you look at that definition does that match the current situation. I don’t know, that’s up to you decide, but it will certainly take away from any future arguments of yours. Furthermore, did the Confederate States Of America, have the political leadership, and military capabilities to secede. Of course, it did, although I don’t really understand what you’re trying to imply by using such example. An lastly, my reference to the Libyan Civil War was just meant as an example, as far as I know the Libyan Civil War article is probably more outdated then the YCW.   Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * {yo|Panam2014|Chilicheese22}}, I don't mind pinging us both in one reply. Panam is a participant in this discussion, after all.
 * 1. If the Southern Movement is a pro-STC political party and paramilitary organization as displayed by its current layout in the article, which portrays it not as a successor but as a supporter of the STC (as opposed to Had), then it needn't be a successor for Hadi to expel it from his cabinet or even for its members to resign and leave to demonstrate their opposition and de facto allegiance to a different organization.
 * 2. Your source does not state that Hadi was successful in reducing defection to the STC. It states that the VP of the STC recognized Hadi's authority -- which fits into the preexisting "legitimate President" and "recognition of Hadi's authority" aspects of the "alliance of convenience" that have already been cited.
 * 3. Sure, let's get even more specific -- the Hadi govt, Saudi-led coalition, and STC share common enemies. All three are opposed to and at war with al-Qaeda, ISIS-YP, and the SPC. Much like how the US/UK and Soviet Union were allies of convenience to defeat the Axis in WWII. If an "alliance of convenience" is simply a group sharing common enemies like that, why would they not share an alliance of convenience? Do you agree?
 * 4. I named the CSA as an example because the CSA seceded from the USA, and it has been argued that the CSA never had the industrial capability to defeat the North. Does claiming that the CSA intended to leave the USA mean that I believe they had the capability to do so? Not necessarily. Yet I know that the CSA seceded, and I know that the CSA lost the American Civil War. Likewise, to claim that the STC wants to secede means not that the STC will actually succeed in doing so, but that it wants to do so.
 * 5. Can you two both cite more extensively? I have a feeling that at least one of you knows Arabic and can cite much more extensively than I can.
 * 6. Discussing "government business" doesn't necessarily mean they're actually part of the same faction. You could say that the Yalta Conference was, in a way, a discussion of government business. However, the participants were allies, not one government. Nuke (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually if you want to get more specific the clear definition states that they have similar aims, that means in general do they have common goals. As far as I am concerned, the only thing you could provide me with hard evidence is the “STC” is Anti-Houthi/SPC, the rest that you mentioned, it will take some reliable sources to prove that they’re Anti-Alqaeda/ISIS, especially since ISIS, Alqaeda, and the “STC” have the same areas of operations, and have shown defectors joining from one faction to another. While, I almost know for a fact that, you couldn’t possibly give me a source showing the “STC” and the Hadi Government have a similar outlook on what a future Yemen would look like. As for my source, it states that he was hired as a senior aide to the Hadi government to counter recent events.
 * Furthermore, I was able to have one of my friends help my find some sources, since in Arabic, generally speaking you should find a lot more information on the war in Yemen. While my Arabic is at best “iffy”. I had him send me the link showing that there are indeed Southern Commanders under the Hadi leadership, the one he sent me was a colonel in the Yemeni army and had just passed away recently.  Anyways, this should clear up, anymore of you concerns that would make you believe that the Southern Movement, either politically or military have stopped cooperation or have stopped working/supporting the Hadi Government. Chilicheese22 (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. I suppose you're right--perhaps their goal, then, is specifically to expel the Houthis from South Yemen.
 * 2. I won't even bother trying to cite STC's opposition to al-Qaeda; I've seen some sources like this about the Hadi govt / Saudi coalition supporting AQAP as well.
 * 3. Yep, precisely. I can't imagine Churchill wanting world Communism in 1945, for historical reference.
 * 4. As for what you just linked, as usual, I don't really know what it's saying very well, even in English, because Google Translate didn't do too good a job. But it seems he resigned, and didn't die, correct? Nuke (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it states that he died, and was given a "hero's burial". Furthermore, it has been as I have been precisely saying, most Southern Factions have this reoccurring theme of the South first, but I guess that's where the common ground between the Southern Movement and the "STC" end, just like how Hadi and "STC's" similarities are very slim. Now, if you agree that the Southern Movement is apart of the Hadi-Government, we can continue to make progress on this debate, but if you or panam have anymore objections/concerns, I will try to address them. Also, coincidentally I was reading, an article on the fall of communism, and found out that communism was the leading ideological cause of death in the 20th century, causing a total of 94 million people to die. Although, if you asked anybody on the west side of the "Iron Curtain" what his thoughts on communism are, I can almost guarantee you that their response wouldn't be positive at all. An would be extremely paranoid on any steps taken by the soviet union that may seem that they are beginning to spread there ideology around the globe. Chilicheese22 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Are you sure you got the right link? I just opened it again and Ctrl+F'd it. There was no "hero's burial" in there.
 * 2. I still believe they are in an "alliance of convenience" and do not see any reason to doubt this.
 * 3. I think that last part is entering WP:NOTFORUM territory so I won't respond to it. Nuke (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * CC have removed STC without consensus !! Enough is enough. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I really can't do anything about that. There is zero information in the article describing the STC or its position in the conflict, and until there is, it's not appropriate for it to be listed in the infobox at all. Please see WP:NOR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually that is the right link you could go back to my revision history, I never once touched the link or made any changes, I think that the article had just gotten deleted or something happened. Besides, you've already acknowledge what was said so that is besides the point. I don't think it is an "alliance of convenience" because the facts don't reflect what has happened. You could be right in the future, but when there is no real evidence to signify this matter we would be purely speculating.


 * Thank you for seeing it from my position. Although I don't understand why Panam, is so emotional he hardly contributed in this debate. Also I realize for some reason the verified user protection on the Yemeni Civil War was removed, I was wondering if you could put it back? Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * protection is normally only used to stop disruption that is already occurring, not just to prevent disruption that might occur in the future. As long as everyone here is discussing changes and not revert warring as before, I'm comfortable with the page remaining unprotected. If the situation deteriorates you should make a new request at WP:RFPP for an uninvolved administrator to review (see WP:INVOLVED).
 * This is not an original search. The soruces clearly speak of the STC as a faction and the article exists. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do think it would be worthwhile to write something in this article about the evolution of the STC and its position (if it has one) in the civil war. If everyone can agree on how that should look, then it would be a rational next step to talk about where it should go (if at all) in the infobox. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was trying to refrain from making any STC-related edits to the article but I'll make them when I think to do them now. Nuke (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the solution now? This contributor does not want to find a compromise for the STC and he allows himself to delete it discreetly on his own initiative, taking advantage of the fact that he was no longer being answered. For the rest, I, too, do not want to be sanctioned by reverting even if it is legitimate. But what is the solution? We will not accept these passages in force and this obstruction because of him. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Come on, for starters, thank you for stopping talking nonsense and telling me anything about me. I have said many times that I agree with NuclearWizard. For the rest, I also gave sources. And finally, just because you post many kilobytes of cobblestones and you often go off topic does not mean that your opinion is more important than mine. And there was no reason to delete the STC even though there was no consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind continuing this topic on whether or not the "STC" has a place in the Yemeni Civil War article, but Nuclear must conclude and accept the Southern Movement is apart of the Hadi Government, as it would be unorthodox to continue to move from discussion to discussion if, Nuclear can't accept something that has evidence, and his only objections to the matter is based on purely speculation. I also ask of Panam, to please stop this rhetoric of asking for sanctions to be placed against me, for every action he disagrees with. As this, will impede the ability of everyone, in trying to come up with an agreement if you continue too open AN/I's. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of not agreeing. You have clearly put oil on the fire by modifying the article without consensus while it was stable for weeks, and there is no consensus for these changes. Your attitude is not collaborative and I'm getting tired of it. So I reserve the right to create an "ANI" at the right time. For the rest, sources have been given about the existence of the STC, there is no reason to suppress him and his commanders. STC troops are also fighting against AQPA and the Houthis. And anyone have broken the 1RR because it took place in Commons not here. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, we turned this all into a mess again. To be honest I can't follow the conversation above, there are too many long, rambling comments, ordered lists that don't refer to each other, and abstract examples that don't really have anything to do with this discussion - what do the Canadian Monarchy or the Dutch War of Independence have to do with any of this? Please keep your comments on-topic. Let's start by getting some info on STC into the article, I suggest in the 2017 section which is currently kind of bare.
 * I don't think it really matters who makes up the STC, we should be going by how the coalition is viewed in reliable sources. Middle East Monitor in July reported that STC "recognize[d] Hadi's authority" but was prepared to take over government of the south if the legitimate government (Hadi) was unable to do so. By November, Le Monde takes the view that STC is actively working to replace Hadi and establish a newly independent South Yemen, and describes STC as a separatist group supported by the UAE, in contrast with pro-Hadi groups supported by Saudi Arabia. Al Jazeera said basically the same in October. As for an "alliance of convenience", Cairo Review described way back in February 2016 how the Saudis were working to ally with any group willing to oppose the Houthis, disregarding the preexisting political situations between those groups. But everything changed on Dec. 4 with Saleh's death: in The National the STC describes fighting alongside Hadi as "the only choice left", and Middle East Monitor reports on Dec. 11 that STC and Hadi forces are fighting alongside each other outside Sanaa.
 * If we can agree that this represents an accurate picture of the situation, then let's add something to the article. And just to note I was writing this while the back and forth above was ongoing; I've read it but there is nothing there for me to respond to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To return to the subject, we do not know anything about the post-Saleh period. Moreover, he is not sure that the transition between his death and the beginning of a new phase has ended. So far, we have the sources on the STC and the fact that it is a faction. For the rest, I would like to write a paragraph but I hesitate, seeing what CC22 has already done. And finally, that the STC recognize Hadi does not prevent to display it and separate it from Hadi. For example, for Iraqi Kurdistan, although its officials are paid by the government, and they recognize the Iraqi government, they are separated from it. Finally, we have many sources on the fighting between STC and AQAP. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath
But his behavior is unacceptable. CC22 has started again to edit the article while he is the only one to defend this point of view. There is no consensus for the chnages even though the article has been in a stable state for two weeks. For the rest, it is he who violated the truce for which we agreed not to change anything until a consensus was found. He put us in front of the fait accompli without warning anyone, he took advantage of the fact that there was no more discussion and that it turned out off topic. NuclearWizard himself said he would no longer discuss his off-topic. And finally, what would be the solution: openning a new ANI? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * CC22 have removed consensus map without consensus. What is the solution now ? I am strongly oppose to the change. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Panam2014 has been lying this whole time, there was no consensus reached on the module, because if you look at the Module's talk page Panam never went to discuss the subject of the Southern Transitional Council before adding it as a belligerent. (see here He simply added it and then a full on edit-war broke out between him and another IP user.  Therefore, he this debunks his notion that the previous map was a consensus one. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll have to stop this circus. When I added the progress of the STC, no one challenged. The rules of WP are clear: to change something, you need a consensus but in cases where no one reverts a first time, there is no reason to ask the question for anything and everything. And when a change has occurred for months, if someone disputes it, he has to start a discussion to change it. The addition of the STC dates from October. There is more than enough lies of this CC22. And and  have the both added STC's positions. Also, see here : there are no consensus for iP's edits and he have been blocked for that. I have not broken the 1RR and the iP commited disruptive editing. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we just end this dispute already? There may be more disputes over the STC in the future but I see the issue of "The STC cannot be in the infobox without content in the article." as essentially done, though disputes about future additions of STC content to this article may be waiting in the near future. Nuke (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I, and certainly believe you guys as well, are not looking for a TBAN to be placed on you, so any proposal, to fix this dispute should resolve all problems that range from this article to the Yemeni module, because not addressing everything, will certainly just delay another inevitable argument. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we have all been victims of injustice but we can not rewrite what happened. On the other hand, the future is in our hands and we can still write it. I propose to made a RfC or ask a mediator to settle the dispute. I think the topic ban is useless because not only did I not enter the game of CC22 and I did not revert his contributions but in addition to leaving in place his edits on en.wiki, I saved him and prevented him from participating in an edit warring. But apparently the changes on Commons are considered violations of the "1RR", which no one knew. And again, it remains to be confirmed as each admin has his own interpretation. But in doubt, I think we should stop there too, especially since we risk sanctions. And if I had been told that the editing occured in Commons were violations of 1RR, I would not have made them, and CC22 either. So I think that topic ban is not in our interest as we will be able to contribute more on a subject that is important to us, and then the article itself will remain outdated. I just think that in order to promote the sincerity of the debate, we must commit to making the slightest change until a consensus is reached. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now I think we just need to move to a new section since this one is a colossal eyesore, and add some STC-relevant content to the article based on the guideline that the infobox should be about information covered elsewhere in the article. Nuke (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I made some minor changes to the "STC". Furthermore, I do think Panam has a point we should reach some sort of agreement, and not make any changes to the articles until we do so. As we are now under heavy admin supervision, so we could easily have sanctions placed on us. Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I just partially reverted your edit. And yes, that's why I didn't make the revision I made earlier today during the first half of December even though Ivanvector said that the infobox should be based on article content. It's pretty much escalating an edit war, as has now occurred. That said, I've now posted on the ANI page that I believe that this should be resolved via RfC. Can you please post your opinion on this question? Nuke (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I engage myself. But as in the past, contributors participated in the writing of the article, and we posted in the talk page, I think it is interesting to notify them. However, I think it would be, as Ansh says, to rehearse the arguments for and against the addition of the STC, but I think that if there are new sources, it is important to mention them. Nuke, could you open the RfC and make it easier for others to read the RfC, sort out the sources that talk about the STC? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is a great idea, so will you guys open the rfc, or would you like me to do it? Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

News sources about STC's agenda
Hi guys. Please see the three sources :, ,. What is the next step ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the Southern Transitional Council talk page
There is an ongoing RfC titled "Existence and nature of the Southern Transitional Council" at Talk:Southern Transitional Council. Please comment. Nuke (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to the YCW article because it involves the role of the Southern Transitional Council in the Yemeni Civil War and if the STC is within the scope of it, by the way. Nuke (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

NATO
An anonymous editor or group of editors has added NATO as a combatant to the infobox twice, and it has been removed twice. Despite the involvement of individual NATO member states, there is no evidence for NATO's participation in the war as an organisation. As such, no source is ever given for these edits, although they may be good faith edits resulting from confusion. Is it worth blocking the IP and/or protecting the page to prevent this from happening a third time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabut.sidney (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Update
The Southern Movement broke with the Hadi government, see Battle of Aden (2018). Update the infobox! --201.68.190.42 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The map also desperately needs to be updated. Charles Essie (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am wondering what the yellow and orange areas represent, since they are not mentioned in the legend. --Lasunncty (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for the note. Map hasn't been updated since 20 December of last year, so yes, update needed. ansh 666 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I will fix the info-box once I have time, unless someone else has had it done. BTW here's just a POV for discussion: the so called Yemeni Civil War has now effectively ended, with de facto a northern fraction led by Houthi and a southern one led by STC both fighting against Saudi-led intervention forces.--霎起林野间 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My edition of the info-box has been reverted by another user who does not seem to be a moderator. He/she expresses his/her personal requirement on an explanation for widening the box 'than it has to be'. So far the English wiki is a place for those POVs and I will not update it any longer. Sorry about this.--霎起林野间 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is pro-Saudi US government propaganda
Like most Wiki articles of a political nature, this article is yet another stinking pile of bullshit and misinformation: if you look a the chart on the right column which is supposed to show who is fighting whom, the USA is nowhere to be seen! But it is a fact that the US military is providing logistical support, spotting, tracking, refueling Saudi war planes in the sky over Yemen, and also selling billions of dollars of ordinance and weapons to the Saudis to use in this conflict. The USA should most definitely be included as a belligerent fighting with the Saudis against the Houthis. To leave the USA out as this article does is disgraceful propaganda. Utterly sicking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8940:2C91:CD04:B7E8:7E31:9837 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Biased Use of Sources
I have been noticing that the 2018 development section, for the vast majority, is citing sources such as "http://www.shiitenews.org/", which is very pro Iran/Houthi. You can clearly notice that initially from the name of the website itself. Such citation is biased, and clearly depicting the Arabian coalition as warmongers and civilian-hunting criminals. In order to maintain neutrality in this page, I suggest also citing pro Arabian coalition sources (e.g. alarabiya.net, sabq.org, arabnews.com),which I can hardly see being cited.
 * I wonder really how a person see the website name and logo and still use it as a source ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdumu (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
(copied from User talk:Chilicheese22) I don't understand your reasoning. I have accepted that Tareq Saleh does operate mostly independently from Hadi, and added numerous references and details for the infobox for both Tareq Saleh's status as well as about the Houthis & the Saleh forces that fully joined Hadi. So why do you revert this? Your previous views I could understand, as we disagreed about Tareq at the time, but now we agree and you still don't like it and delete all those details (which confirm your claims). Furthermore, none of the sources say that Saleh joined the STC - only that he works with them. The current infobox makes that clear, as both are clearly shown to be seperate from Hadi, while also being not fully united. Applodion (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yahya Mohamed Abdullah Saleh is the brother of Tareq Saleh but he is pro Houthis. Also, about battle of Sana'a (2017) there are a problem because the pro-Houthi GPC emerged after the battle not during.--Panam2014 (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. Nuke (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Though it is true that the pro-Houthi GPC officially emerged after the battle, Abdul-Malik Badreddin al-Houthi said that GPC members defected to and aided the Houthis during the battle, see for example source 1 & source 2.
 * for Yahya Saleh, see his own website. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, Yahya and the Houthis do not appear to be on the best terms, and he resides in Lebanon - see this article Applodion (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * but Yahya is a Hezbollah's supporter. And he is opposed to the coalition. Also, I think we should create an article about National Resistance. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's simple the infobox is meant to give the reader a basic idea of the belligerents participating, your edit is just basically taking the original and making it more complicated. Furthermore, I've never said that Tarek Saleh joined the STC, I said there is cooperation between them, and in fact, if you take a look there is a lot more evidence that there is cooperation between them than with the Hadi government. Which I'll give you credit for accepting that fact. As for the SM and STC, I've shown you before that elements that have joined the STC no longer consider themselves part of the SM. Your only argument was that the source was outdated, well this is from one month ago, where the SM led by Fadi Baoum attacked STC and Tarik Saleh's forces that are loyal to the UAE and called them occupiers that have not allowed president Hadi to return to Aden. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough about the SM and STC, but does not explain why you mass revert details that give insight to the reader. It is simply not true that I only made the infobox "more complicated" - it is a simple fact that the infobox as it is now is not just simple but false. 1. You deleted references, good references, for absolutely no reason, 2. You deleted the more specific infos about the Houthis, namely that both Saleh forces & some popular commitees joined the Houthis. The current infobox has it look like all popular commitees and Saleh troops joined Hadi & Tareq, but this is wrong. 3. You just list the Repubican Guard, but do not explain that it has split into a pro-Hadi faction and a pro-Tareq faction. This is also misleading, as it suggests that the Republican Guard is monolithic entity, even though it has split like almost every other group in this war. 3. you list the pro-Hadi forces as "Saleh loyalist defectors" and Tareq's followers "Pro-Saleh forces" but this too is not correct - In which way do we determine thnat some Saleh family members & their private armies are the "true" Pro-Saleh faction, while the others are "defectors"? Tareq & Ahmed have their men, but others follow Yahya Hussein Salah and Ali Saleh Al Ahmar Afash - the latter have fully joined Hadi. They are not mere defectors, they have been appointed to high-ranking positions in the Hadi gov. 4. While it might be true that parts of the SM fight the STC, the STC IS a SM group - so by definition, at least part of the SM backs the STC (the SM is, after all, just a movement and was never fully united. I therefore suggest the following changes to make the infobox better (In regard to the SM, I have included them both as part of Hadi's coalition & the STC, so that both sides are represented): Applodion (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If Applodion is correct and Yahya Saleh is living in Lebanon, with no major backing (i.e. forces loyal to him) then I don't see how you can consider him a major player in the war. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But we should add pro-Houthi GPC and pro-Houthi Popular commeetees. And we should create an article about national resistance. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ali Saleh al-Ahmar (half brother of Ali Saleh) is the new commander of the pro-Hadi Republican Guard. Also, we should create an article about Tarek's milita. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I actually don't have any problems with adding GPC elements that are now apart of the Houthi movement, our disagreement, at it's most basic level is distinguishability vs preciseness. Let me start off with the STC and SM split, as this is the easier of the two disagreements, if the STC claims that it's the successor of the movement and is the only voice that represents the South, how could we still say that the SM still backs it when according to them this entity no longer exists, that's why, the only real SM with an actual functioning body is the one that supports Hadi.  As for Saleh family spilt,  was saying most of Tarek Saleh forces have taken up the name of "national resistance" so how about we call the current "republican guard" underneath Tarek Saleh's command "national resistance". Therefore, we can give the "republican guard" name solely to Hadi loyalists. That way we solve the Saleh family split and give the reader the ability to distinguish between the two separate entities. I propose the following changes to the infobox. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok, now I understand your problem regarding the SM. Nevertheless, the STC is still one of several SM factions, so I think we should eventually add a note about it being a (former) Southern Movement faction. I have added a reference about the SM backing Hadi & a major group under STC. I also think we should have the Tareq Saleh forces use the Yemeni flag - his troops do not just include Republican Guard units, after all, but also ex-special forces and tribesmen. By the way, the Republican Guard under Hadi also has a new name now: "Strategic Reserve". I have adjusted my example (the upper infobox) accordingly. What do you think? Applodion (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should create an article for Strategic reserve force and for National resistance. Also, we should write Southern Movement (pro-Hadi). --Panam2014 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should do that. Perhaps I will find the time for it in the coming weeks, but I am currently writing an article I want to finish first. Applodion (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't mind the minor edits that you've made which includes the name change of the Republican Guard under Hadi's command to "Strategic Reserve". My only concern is the placement of the "Security Belt" as one of the participating belligerents in this war, according to your source, and wiki they've launched offensives against Al-Islah, AQAP, and ISIL, which causes a problem down the line for future lengthening, and widening of the infobox, because in reality one thing they all have in common in the infobox, is that all the belligerents in the anti-Houthi column have in one shape or another participated in an offensive/war against the Houthis. Now by us adding the "Security Belt" we may have users in the future that will want to add forces like Hadrami Tribal Alliance, Yemeni Elite Forces, 1st military region, Marib Tribal Alliance, etc.. that have participated in offensives/wars against ISIL/AQAP, nearing tribes, or certain military officials, but never with the Houthis. It's a slippery slope, especially when currently all forces in the infobox have engaged in military offensives/wars. Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true. Then lets leave out the Security Belt. Applodion (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Casualties
, the Al Jazeera source says "according to state media", why do you attribute this claim to the Houthis ?---Wikaviani (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Because there is no such news in Saudi Arabian state media. Please find me/show me an article other than this Al-Jazeera article (once again have in mind the current Saudi Arabia-Qatar proxy war that has been going on for 1 year now and both parties have been posting propaganda/false news) against each other using state media (Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya etc.)

The official account of perished Saudi Arabian soldier is around 500 according to the Saudi Arabian government.

You are free to change it to Al-Jazeera claim which is probably more accurate.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "State media" can be Qatari state media, not Saudi. Anyway, Al jazeera claim is fine for me. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure it can be. However you have to admit that the article is rather short and not exactly full of details. Also I wonder how the Qatari government would know how many Saudi Arabian soldiers have perished in Yemen given that they moved out of Yemen 1 year ago. Honestly speaking this Al-Jazeera article smells of propaganda to me due to the unsubstantiated claims and the lack of details but since nobody really knows the exact number of casualties on each side (this will almost always be an impossibility to determine regardless of which conflict we are talking about, modern-day conflicts included) it will never be possible to satisfy everyone. As long as it is clearly stated which party is the origin of the source used, I do not think that many users should complain. Unless they can provide some truly "neutral" sources. I used the Yemen Data Project earlier (I think that the source is a rather neutral one) but it was removed by the other editor.

Regarding Risk Intelligence (The Twitter user I linked to - their official Twitter user) they are actually a quite serious source. I just linked to their Twitter user as it contains maps of conflict zones.

They are based in Denmark so hardly partial.

"About Risk Intelligence

Risk Intelligence provides independent, unbiased, intelligence-led advisory services to private and governmental clients on security threats and risks. Risk Intelligence has been specialising in analysing threats from and interaction between piracy, organised crime, terrorism, insurgency and military conflicts since 2001. We advise on preventing maritime security incidents at both vessel and company level as well as providing maritime security analysis to private and governmental organisations.

Risk Intelligence takes a holistic approach to these threats and includes studies into the types of organisations and tactics as well as the root causes of their existence. We believe that a thorough understanding of the threats in combination with insight into our clients' needs enables us to produce high-quality threat and risk assessments and consulting."

http://www.riskintelligence.eu

Regards.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you please post links pointing to the sources you're talking about here, on the talk page ? this would be easier for the community to check their reliability. If these sources are really reliables, i see no legit reason to include them in the article. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I used Yemen Data Project before (which was deleted).

http://yemendataproject.org

I called Al Jazeera biased in regards to KSA (not only but several other countries in the region - Egypt, UAE, Bahrain etc.) due to the ongoing Saudi Arabia-Qatar proxy conflict.

This conflict is described on Wikipedia actually;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar–Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Qatar_diplomatic_crisis

Risk Intelligence I linked too.

This page is also useful.

https://yemen.liveuamap.com/en/2018/24-may-yemeni-sources-67-alhouthi-militiamen-killed-in-clashes

Which shows how inaccurate and outdated the maps used on Wikipedia are. Case in point Hudaydah.--OxfordLaw (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)