Talk:Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Sources for new developments/news or still missing information

watchdogs: watch out! collect sources silently here for improving the article ;)

sources recommended for consideration (feel free to add other sources or webarchive links):

22 January 2016 (date of letter, possibly published about one month later) UN Panel of Experts - Final report
  • "Letter dated 22 January 2016 from the Panel of Experts on Yemen - Final report of the Panel of Experts on Yemen established pursuant to Security Council resolution 2140 (2014) (S/2016/73) [EN/AR]". UN Security Council. 26 January 2016. Archived from the original on 24 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) ("PDF". Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)) --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
[?February] 2016 - Control Arms Coalition
19 February 2016 - Larry Attree/Saferworld
19 February 2016 - Nasser Arrabyee (in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2016)
24 February 2016 - Yemeni Government (Hadi)
24 February 2016 - Security Council
25 February 2016 - European Parliament
25 February 2016 - AOAV
26 February 2016 - Amnesty International
27 February 2016 - Souk Khalqa (= Khulaqa market = Khaleq market) (first media reports)
28 February 2016 - Souk Khalqa (= Khulaqa market = Khaleq market) (reaction of the UNGS)
28/29 February 2016 - Presidential palace in Aden
29 February 2016 - AOAV - investigation (including Iona Craig's September 2015 case study in Yemen)
29 February 2016 - UN-OCHA, UNHCR, PC - 7th TFPM Report
March 2016 - UN Security Council
3 March 2016 - Stephen O’Brien, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator (at 7641st UN Security Council Meeting)
3 March 2016 - Russian Government
4 March 2016 - German Government
4 March 2016 - Saudi Arabian ambassador to the UN
4 March 2016 - UN-OHCHR
4 March 2016 - Reuters
9 March 2016 - Alistair Lyon/Reuters
10 March 2016 - UN-OHCHR
11 March 2016 - UN-OCHA - "Fuel Imports for February 2016"
14 March 2016 - Analysts (reported by AFP)
15 March 2016 - Amnesty International to UN-HCR (31st session - 29 February-24 March)
15 March 2016 - al-Khamees market War Crime

Location : al-Khamees market in Mustaba_District in the Hajjah province
Date : 15 Mar 2016
Death/Injuries toll: 120 on recent houthi sources [1]

  • UNICEF :

Some responses with sources:

16 March 2016 - Saudi Arabia-led military coalition ("Today we are in the end of the major combat phase")
17 March 2016 - joined "Alert" of ACTED, Action contre la Faim, Care, Handicap International, Médecins du Monde, Première Urgence Internationale
March 2016 - UN sources - One year overviews
March 2016 - German Government (mediation efforts)
18 March 2016 - UN-HCHR (Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein
"Looking at the figures, it would seem that the coalition is responsible for twice as many civilian casualties as all other forces put together, virtually all as a result of airstrikes"):

26 March protest

In 26th of March dozens as you can see in the videos protested against Saudis & there war crimes[6][7]

Location: al-Sabeen Square[8] after 1 year of the Saudi led intervention
Time: In the morning
Ali Abdullah Saleh made a big surprise by appearing on his crowds and giving a speech
Saleh confirmed his allegiance with Houthies against Saudis [9]
Saleh talked about being ready to have peace with Saudis if they stop the aggression [9]
Saleh then told his supporters to go to al-Seteen St. [9]
  • Pro Houtihes (Formally an invitation was sent to all Yemenis regardless of there leaning)
Location: al-Seteen St.[10]
Time: After noon
Mohammed Ali al-Houthi gave a speech and confirmed standing with all the Yemeni powers against aggression[11]

Personal comments:

  • I think should be included in the article. @Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki:
  • As you can see the videos they are not 1000s as the foreign media says, they much more than that.
  • Saleh made an unexpected appearance, after the speech an F-16(Saudi) flew down at very low level and very fast speed while Saleh was leaving after finishing the speech, but then he disappeared from the crowds, as for 2nd protest pro Saleh protesters were seen joining houthies in al-Steen St, and then protesting together. YemArabSf (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@YemArabSf: we could create article about protest. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

300 saudi soldiers killed

In "The Independent" sayd (Officially 300 are said to have died but reliable sources have told The Independent the figure is at least 10 times higher. ") but Ahmed al-Assiri told AFP that "375 (civilians) were killed and injured," [1] --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Dubious claims in Belligerents section

Countries that are "supporting" one side of this conflict should be left out of this section. This poorly sourced claims do not imply to real military involvement for which this section was designed, as in all other conflicts.Tritomex (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

3,000 Saudi's killed

Note (a) in the infobox says up to 3,000 Saudis had been killed according to The Independent, but the source doesn't say that at all. -- GreenC 23:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

SA for Saudi Arabia?

Assuming that this is true, Wikipedia has room for the name of the country to be spelled out completely. Kortoso (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'll go through and sort this out tomorrow. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Page splitting

Tag for page splitting needs due consideration. Condensing or removing heading/sub-heading is inappropriate. Therefore splitting content into sub-articles appears to be the best option. Nannadeem (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Can carve off the Western support into a new article? Ought to be able to summarise the UK–US support pretty concisely. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should split the article into Operation Decisive Storm and Operation Restoring Hope. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline for Yemeni Civil War

I created a page called Timeline of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Please add to it! I did this so a more concise and readable timeline of the war is available on the web, because none seems to exist. Problems with this page include: is it is hard to know the year in which events occurred; it is too long; the Saudi intervention is not the only part of the war. But many aspects of this article can transfer over to the other page. PBP (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Aqap is not a houthi cobeligrent.

The operation was launched to oust ex President Saleh and the Houthis allied with him. AQAP is not al-Houthis co-beligrent. Please dont confuse this military operation with the with the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present).Mr.User200 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, members of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen have targeted AQAP. As a result, AQAP has been a target of the intervention.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Political narrative being pushed

Over the last few months, myself and other users have made sourced edits to the main body of the article and the infobox regarding AQAP. Virtually every time, these edits are reverted within 3 days without explanation. There is no mention currently anywhere in the article of Arab coalition activity against AQAP, despite dozens of credible, mainstream sources stating that the UAE in particular (but also Saudi Arabia) has intervened in Yemen against AQAP during the Yakla raid and the Battle of Al Mukalla (2016). It is evident to me that some users are pushing a narrative that the states involved in this intervention are at best neutral to AQAP, and at worst, actively in league with AQAP, by scrubbing sourced material that relates to this topic. While this narrative have had some accuracy prior to the start of Arab coalition activity against AQAP, it no longer does.

Here are just a few sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/world/middleeast/yemeni-troops-backed-by-united-arab-emirates-take-city-from-al-qaeda.htm http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/gulf-coalition-operations-against-aqap-in-yemen http://www.dw.com/en/saudi-led-coalition-hits-al-qaeda-training-camp-in-yemen/a-19134916 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-emirates-idUSKCN0ZE1EA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/us-raid-yemen/ http://www.businessinsider.com/r-small-us-military-team-in-yemen-to-aid-uae-push-on-al-qaeda-2016-5?IR=T http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/us-middle-east-victory-al-qaeda-213864 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-yemen-exclusive-idUSKCN0XC19A http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/uae-troops-free-british-hostage-al-qaeda-yemen-150823095149287.html http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-coalition-bombs-al-qaeda-training-camp-yemen-746829673 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/6/us-military-in-yemen-supporting-uae-saudi-arabia-i/

One can try to make the case that this is a separate, UAE-led intervention in Yemen. That is something that ought to be discussed. Regardless, censoring sourced information is not the way to go.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not one of the people who reverted you, but it should be noted that evidence of events such as the bombing of a camp do not negate general statements. When it is noted that a country does much less against one group and that gets reported, we can use it as a source. If another source disputes this claim then we can use that as well. But we can't use a source of one event and claim it proves a well supported statement wrong (WP:SYNTH). Many of your links describe small scale operations, raids, intentions and considerations, most only against parts or branches of AQAP. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I also now see that you were reverted not for inserting these into the article but for adding them to the infobox as if they were a specific target for the intervention, which simply isn't true. And adding them to the Houthi "side" is also odd to say the least. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

I have added the same editing restrictions (1RR) as in the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). (Please note that any reverts made before this date are exempted.) El_C 06:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also protected the page for two days. El_C 06:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Crap sources

The Daily Mail, PressTV, al-Masdar News, RT.Com, FarsNews ... that's basically like a who's who of unreliable, crappy sources. And adding shitty sources to an article DOES NOT "provide balance", it just makes the article shitty. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV again. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

But citing an Iranian commander, wouldn't the ordinarily terrible PressTV be good enough for something like that? El_C 06:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Whose behind Al-Masdar News again? (Who is Leith Abou Fadel affiliated with?) El_C 06:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, Volunteer Marek has a point. Indeed, these are sources that are, at best, borderline reliable and whose use on Wikipedia is ordinarily highly limited. El_C 06:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who he is "affiliated" with. But:
1. He's advocated ethnic cleansing for people from the "wrong" parts of Syria, expelling them to Saudi Arabia
2. Al-Masdar News was the originator for the #SyriaHoax story which then spread to far-right Western media
3. The source is extremely pro-Assad with no "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:RS.
And.....
4. One of their editors is a neo-Nazi who had a long history of posting racist slurs and rants on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Another one of their editors defended the guy by saying that these racial slurs (calling people "sand niggers" (sic) and such) were just "controversial statements". Now, that guy got suspended (with pay!) after it came out, but that does show that the source is nowhere near reliable.
Al-MAsdar wouldn't be reliable EVEN IF they didn't have had a neo-Nazi working for them and writing their articles, but that just clinches any doubts about its lack of reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
That is disturbing. Full stop. Maybe you can find a more reliable source then, AHeneen. What do you find Al-Masdar, specifically, most vital for here? El_C 06:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
At the moment there is a discussion on the reliability of Masdar. In previous discussions it was deemed reliable or at least semi-reliable when it comes to military matters (non-controversial issues). At the moment, although the discussion is still ongoing, most editors agree that when it comes to territorial changes its mostly reliable and Marek himself said that in terms of territorial claims and/or military figures (casualties such as the mercenary deaths should fall under that category) Masdar can be used. As for any controversial claims made by Masdar (massacres etc), at the moment most editors agree that its OK to use it as long as the claim is attributed to Masdar (ofc Marek is against this). You shouldn't have gone through multiple articles removing Masdar as a source Marek while the discussion regarding it is still ongoing. But in any case, regardless of anyone's opinion regarding Masdar, removing one side's POV is not neutral behavior considering we are also using sources such as Gulf News and Al Arabiya which are pro-Gulf states (the other beligerent) in their views. Same thing with Fars news, it presents the Iranian viewpoint in contrast to the Gulf's viewpoint. Both sides point of view needs to be presented for sake of neutrality. If we remove Masdar or Fars news, which present the Houthi/Iranian POV, we would have to remove sources that present the POV of the Gulf states. EkoGraf (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, Volunteer Marek did initiate a discussion at RSN—no one has commented yet, however. *** Ah, but I see you were referring to the RfC. El_C 10:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C:, you are right by saying when citing an Iranian commander Fars news should be enough, and such things like The Iranian Navy 34th fleet commander dismissed Pentagon's claims and called the reports "media ballyhoo", saying that his warships, Alborz frigate and Bushehr helicopter-carrier, were conducting their regular anti-piracy patrol. that Marek removed should be reinserted. Or, the part (also removed) where Press TV reported on Abdul-Malik al-Houthi's (one of the beligerents) comments regarding Saudi Arabia. The removal of the personal viewpoints of one side is basically censorship and we should avoid such action. EkoGraf (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: You want us to go through each sentence that was removed and see which is appropriate to be included and which is not based on its content? EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. And maybe alternative, more reliable sources could be found. I agree that un-reliable sources from both sides need to be looked at, so as to avoid an (in this case, pro-Saudi) point of view imbalance. El_C 23:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"RT" Here we go again. Still waiting for a good reasoning behind this claim. At that point you would have to also label most Western mainstream media sources unreliable as well. If you want to talk about shit sources then you don't have to look outside of the West, why do you think trust in the media is only getting lower and lower, along with its viewership? The same supposedly "reliable" Western media that has recently been publishing articles saying that PewDiePie is a Neo Nazi because he made one joke in one of his videos that could be considered anti-Semitic. — Nikolai Romanov (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"10,000+ Yemeni civilians killed by Saudi-led airstrikes"

Underneath the war death tally, it says "10,000+ Yemeni civilians killed by Saudi-led airstrikes". However, the source it links to does not at all say it was from Saudi Arabian airstrikes, but that just the total death toll was this amount. It could have been by the terrorist groups there, bandits or the general ensuing chaos, and there's no direct evidence presented that it was all by Saudi Arabian airstrikes. This is incredibly misleading and factually wrong, so I'm going to be changing it. A fair and unbiased account of the war needs to be taken in to account. While we can certainly blame many of the civilian deaths on Saudi Arabia, claiming all 10,000 deaths were by Saudi Arabia is flat-out ridiculous, especially when the U.N. source cited does not say that.

https://apnews.com/43471432a8e949a7af6fc56928284d78/top-un-official-10000-civilians-killed-yemen-conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmithsz82 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Aljazeera report "Abu Dhabi mercenaries, from the jungles of Colombia to the mountains of Yemen"

http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/the-observatory/2017/7/17/مرتزقة-أبوظبي-من-أدغال-كولومبيا-إلى-جبال-اليمن ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 967Bytes (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for security contractors to be recruited and play a role in a conflict. It has been performed by various countries including the United States, United Kingdom, and France in Iraq War, War on Afghanistan, and Libyan Civil war. Academi is an organization which supplies mercenaries to armed conflict. Mercenaries should not be considered as a country's troop strength. Wikiemirati (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian-led Intervention vs Yemeni Civil war

There seems to be a huge confusion and overlapping between this article and Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) article. General clean up and removing overriding information is necessary. This article is way too long. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Blockade of Yemen (2016-2017)

I am pretty sure that the blockade warrants it's own page by now. Or an expanded top-level subsection of this article, but seeing how the article is already quite bloated i don't see how this can ever happen. Karl.i.biased (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between a supporter and a belligerant?

What qualifies the US and Uk as "supporters" of the Saudi coalition and not members? Egaoblai (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

Can we have a discussion about this? Seeing DPRK of all people in the infobox feels like a joke from a 50-s cartoon propaganda with all the bad guys allied to each other. I have searched for sources but came up with nothing. The infobox mention was sourced by a single passage in a single article on huffpost, a website I don't believe should be allowed on wikipedia anyway. But if it was an article or something like that, with some resemblence of a journalistic investigation or, god forbid, proof, it might have been okay. This, however, doesn't appear to be either of these two things. Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

It seems to me any colonel or other ranking official is added into the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the infobox. Shouldn't the infobox only involve Commanders or head of state involved in this conflict instead of adding every colonel or major in the army there, most of whom are known only because they are killed? Would love fellow wikipedians idea on this issue. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Academi Latin American mercenaries

I am opening this discussion because of a series of reverts made by User:Mr.User200 on insisting of adding 1,800 Latin American Mercenaries as part of the belligerents United Arab Emirates forces troop number. Academi is already listed as co-belligerents in the infobox as 'other state opponents'. Under my understanding Academi mercenaries are paid troops which belong to the infamous Blackwater private military company (currently called Academi). Under the source used by Mr.User200 the troops are being paid for by the United Arab Emirates. There is no source from the UAE military or otherwise which states that the paid mercenaries are participating as part of the UAE troop strength or if they are using UAE military equipment or flying UAE flag colors. Academi has participated in Iraq War before but were not considered part of a US military troop strength. Academi is a private military company and does fall under a country's military. Adding it on United Arab Emirates Armed Forces creates a confusion on the current participating Emirati troop strength or troop lost. The mercenaries as cited on the source used by Mr.User200 are from South America, not Emirati. The fact that UAE is paying them does not make them Emirati troops. Mr.User200 keeps adding them as part of UAE strength on the infobox duplicating the coalition belligerent troop strength which already lists academi security contractors. Mr.User200, I urge you to please discuss the reason why you keep on insisting on adding those troops to the UAE military troop strength Wikiemirati (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Mr.User200 did not comment or discuss his specific reasons, I am therefore moving forward with my edit. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Senegalese soldiers

It seems that no soldiers have been sent : Mankeur Ndiay, Senegalese Foreign Minister said in 2017 [2] :

Je peux dire aujourd’hui que le Sénégal n’a aucun soldat au Yémen. Le Sénégal n’a jamais envoyé de soldat au Yémen (Senegal never sent soldiers to Yemen.). Le Sénégal avait exprimé la volonté, si c’était nécessaire, de déployer 2 100 hommes au Yémen. Mais les conditions ont changé, et le Sénégal n’a, actuellement, aucun homme sur le terrain. (... and Senegal has, presently, no men on the field.)

--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

AQAP

@Chilicheese22 and NuclearWizard: I think we should add AQAP as coalition's opponent. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Losses.

Please stop reverting the Sourced Data displayed at the Battlebox. More than one (The Independent - March 2016 and Aljazeera - May 2018) International Mainstream media have reported KSA losses in Yemen passing the 1,000 KIA. So unless that number is updated or changes stop reverting the information displayed there.

The same for the articles of Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) and the Saudi–Yemeni border conflict (2015–present).

A lot of information have been displayed with photos about killed KSA soldiers and matériel lost. So the 1,00 number is not far from reality.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Mr.User200. please stop baseless removal of sourced informations. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
User OxfordLaw please stop unexplained reverts on the article. You already have shown a behaviour of 3-RR. You could get blosked again.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is actually under a 1RR sanction, so there is already grounds for a block. Agree with Wikaviani and Mr.User200, the reverts by OxfordLaw should stop and a constructive discussion on the talk page here should be made, instead of edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is precisely what the admin who blocked OxfordLaw told him, "discuss on the talk page". However, the Al Jazeera source is quite strangely vague about a "state media" source so that saying "according to Al Jazeera" instead of "officially" is a legit sentence for the article.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arab Coalition claim of 11,000 Houthis killed.

Just moved the Arab Coalition claim to the Note bottom of the Battlebox. Arab Coalition number of 11,000 surpasses the total killed according to the CFR and the UN. So moved alongside those other numbers for a better comprehension of the reader. Is misleading to have contradicting numbers here, especially one that encapsulate another. Until now, no consensus was made in the Yemen Civil War talk page regarding State media role. So i'm just moving this claim to the article itself (At the 2017 timeline) and the bottom of the Battlebox.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


The Arab coalition is not a state media. Moreover the CFR and UN numbers only concern civilians mostly. It is very realistic that Houthis and their allies have lost 11.000 fighters since the war began given the length of the civil war, firepower of the Arab coalition and Yemeni army and the estimated number of Houthi fighters (200.000) in total.--OxfordLaw (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Using that logic the Al-Jazeera and The Independent link should not be included either as those are unrealistic numbers and empty claims. Examples "A source told us that the number is 10 times higher" (only claim in that article to make the casualties 3000+ in 12 months time (!), or Al-Jazeera not even mentioning which state media has admitted to losing 1000 Saudi Arabian soldiers. Surely not the Saudi Arabian state media.--OxfordLaw (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Protection requested

I have made a request for the page to be protected. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to see where this goes. I felt this needed outside input.CMV512 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Request was denied, admin advised me to contact "already involved" admins, I won't do that at the moment. CMV512 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Splitting

While the current article is too large, a title of "Saudi Arabia war crimes" is considered as the notabale subject. In other words, I suggest that the part of "Reports of war crimes" move to a new article by the name of Saudi Arabia war crimes, knowing that reliable sources support it such as 1; 2; 3;4 and 5.Saff V. (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

A new article has blanked and redirected here.

A page you started (Destruction of Yemeni cultural heritage by Saudi-led coalition) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Destruction of Yemeni cultural heritage by Saudi-led coalition, Oranjelo100!

Wikipedia editor DBigXray just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

redirect to Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen#Infrastructure_damage_and_humanitarian_situation

To reply, leave a comment on DBigXray's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DBigXray 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you restore it? I think it should have its own article. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to restore it, provided we two can have a consensus on the WP:N of this article based on WP:SIGCOV and WP:NEVENT, based on the lack of individual notability it is best to redirect it and develop the subsection at the War page. If individual notability is established, it can be WP:FORKED at a later date. --DBigXray 14:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray:, @Oranjelo100:I think it is notable to have an article of its own as per WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. It has been covered here:
The topic is one that is notable, in depth and has received a lot of coverage from 2015 to date, enough to warrant its own article. Ahmer Jamil Khan 22:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Ahmer_Jamil_Khan, thanks for your kind comment and sharing all the refs. Ok. If so many sources does exist then we can create a separate article, but instead of starting on a fresh article, why dont you start from this article itself. As I see it, there is no section or subsection with this title. I suggest you start from this article. and continue expanding the section with all these sources. once it is of significant length, we can use WP:FORK and WP:CONTENTFORK rules to make a new article and leave a summary here on this page. in this way both these articles can be improved at the same time. Let me know your thoughts. you can start on this page, now itself as I suggested--DBigXray 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Civilians killed by artillery /rocket fire.

I will copy paste some links to build a total tally of Saudi civilians killed by Yemeni Army/Houthi fire during the War.
2 killed (05 May 2015)[12]
4 killed (07 May 2015)[13]
3 killed (Could be civilians) (5 May 2015)[14]
1 killed (02 August 2015)[15]
2 killed (08 November)[16]
3 killed (20 Dec 2015)[17]
3 killed (01 Jan 2016)[18]
New Changes for the record
Saudi Military Losses:

14 killed (25 March-30 April), [3] 1 killed (7 May) [4] 1 killed (20 May),[5] 2 killed (27 May),[6] 1 killed (31 May),[7] 6 killed (5 & 8 June)[8] [9] 1 killed (18 June) [10] 3 killed (24 June),[11] 1 killed (28 June), [12] 4 killed (31 July),[13] 2 killed (16 August), [14] 3 killed (21–22 August),[15] [16] 4 killed (25 August),[17] 10 killed (4 September),[18] 1 killed (10 September),[19] 5 killed (14 September),[20] 1 killed (15 September),[21] 2 killed (20 September),[22] 3 killed (25–27 September),[23] 1 killed (29 September),[24] 1 killed (1 October),[25] 1 killed (6 October),[26] 1 killed (7 October),[27] 1 killed (1 November),[28] 5 killed (30 November–1 December),[29][30] 1 killed (27 January 2016) [31] total of 79 reported killed</ref>


Saudi Civilian Losses:
3 killed (5 May 2015) [32] 4 killed (7 May 2015)[33] 2 killed (24 May 2015) [34] 1 killed (2 August 2015) [35] 2 killed (8 November 2015)[36] 3 killed (20 Dec 2015)[37] 3 killed (1 Jan 2016)[38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.User200 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "حجة: 120 بين شهيد وجريح إثر غارتين على سوق الخميس بمديرية مستباء". Retrieved 2016-03-17.
  2. ^ "المؤتمر نت - اتحاد نساء اليمن يدين مجزرة سوق الخميس بمحافظة حجة". Retrieved 2016-03-17.
  3. ^ "Saba Net :: سبأ نت". Retrieved 2016-03-17.
  4. ^ "Saba Net :: سبأ نت". Retrieved 2016-03-17.
  5. ^ "المؤتمر نت - المجتمع المدني يدين جريمة العدوان في سوق الخميس بحجة". Retrieved 2016-03-17.
  6. ^ http://www.euronews.com/2016/03/27/protests-in-yemen-against-saudi-led-coalition-on-air-strikes-anniversary/. Retrieved 2016-03-27. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ "Protesters object to U.S., Saudi role in Yemen's civil war - StarTribune.com". Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  8. ^ "تغطية كاملة لمهرجان الصمود والتحدي .. صنعاء ميدان السبعين 26مارس 2016 ج 1 - YouTube". Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  9. ^ a b c Ali Abdullah Saleh Speech in 26th March 2016
  10. ^ "مسيرة جماهيرية كبرى جوار الكلية الحربية بصنعاء بمناسبة ذكرى مرور عام من العدوان على اليمن 26-03-2016 - YouTube". Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  11. ^ Mohammed Ali al-Houthi Speech in 26th March 2016
  12. ^ "Deaths as Yemeni rebels fire rockets into Saudi Arabia". www.aljazeera.com.
  13. ^ Reuters (7 May 2015). "Houthi shells kill five in Saudi border town". {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  14. ^ "Yemeni rebels bombard Saudis, killing 3 people, capture 5 soldiers". Washington Post.
  15. ^ AFP (2 August 2015). "Saudi civilian killed in shelling on Yemen border".
  16. ^ "Saudi Gazette/ Saudi Arabia". saudigazette.com.sa.
  17. ^ "Missile fired from Yemen kills 3: Saudi - ARAB TIMES - KUWAIT NEWS". 21 December 2015.
  18. ^ "'No Kuwaiti soldier killed in Yemen' - Saudi says 3 civilians killed in missile fire - ARAB TIMES - KUWAIT NEWS". 1 January 2016.

New UN report

New report for the UN Human Rights Council saying that both sides may have committed war crimes, calling on the international community to stop "providing arms that could be used in the conflict in Yemen", and more. (Sources: Telegraph, Guardian, BBC, CNN, NYT). Should this be included? --Bangalamania (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like yes. Simonm223 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Have added now. There's probably a lot more that could be extrapolated from those sources, but since the article is too big as it is, I'll just keep it brief. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Indonesia and NATO involvement

Over the last few months, I and a Bruneian IP editor have been involved in a low-level edit war, Where he insists, without reliable sources, that Indonesia and NATO have been fighting the Houthis in Yemen. It is known that NATO members such as the United States and the United Kingdom have aided the Saudi Coalition[1][2], But as far as i know, NATO has not officially intervened in Yemen, Nor has Indonesia, And i did not make a talk page section because the WP:BURDEN lay on him. However, Since he has not made any topic on the talk page to explain his edits in detail, I will initiate WP:BRD.


This all began in last August, When i undertook a small project to add sources to the countries that supported the coalition, and remove the countries where i couldn't find any. A few hours later, this IP re-added Indonesia ([39]), and since he had no sources i reverted him.([40]). When he persisted ([41]), I decided to add a {{cn}} tag, and waited for him to add a citation([42]).

A week passed, And on 16 August Simonm223 decided to remove the links since there were no references. ([43]) This seemed fine to me, But the next day the IP editor returned to put NATO as supporting the Saudi Coalition.([44]) Wikaviani then began his own small edit war. ([45], [46]) Keep in mind that he was still not adding any sources despite being told to. After this, His unsourced edits started being reverted by multiple users,([47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]).

After a month of back-and-forth removal, he finally gave a source from an unverified twitter account ([53]), which was quickly removed by a bot. This source ( https://twitter.com/natovshouthis/status/1038628178380509185 ) is not allowed, as it is unduly self-serving (Anthem of Indonesia presented alongside this info), and it's an unverified account with less than a hundred followers. I would also like to clarify that i have been editing from IP:217.100.32.162, And that my recent edits ([54], [55], [56]) are a borderline WP:3RR violation, But i promise my edits have been in good faith.

If this IP editor ever wants to discuss this matter, I would gladly do so, But until then i will remove the unsourced claims he has been persistently added. Koopinator (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A new report of attacking bus

I suggest adding this https://m.dw.com/en/new-saudi-airstrike-hits-bus-carrying-civilians-in-yemen/a-45877705 SharabSalam (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: You should have the editing permissions to add them yourself.
I was just hoping someone would do that instead of me. The article is too big and my phone gets stuck when I open the editor it's almost impossible for me to edit in these long articles SharabSalam (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Okay, I have added it.Koopinator (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that both of you worked together to include this piece of information. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Technicalproblems on this article.

There is an On January 2018" that should be "In January 2018" that when you get inti ediut mode and click on it for some reason goes to a position in January and will not correct. Can you see if you have the same problem and fix it. Thank you.2605:E000:9149:8300:24E3:71B8:1306:273A (talk)

Fixed. Not sure what problem you encounered during editing. Huon (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

The article can be splited into two articles since it's about two operations. 1-Operation Decisive Storm. 2-Operation Restoring Hope. SharabSalam (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

SharabSalam and why so ?--DBigXrayᗙ 22:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
SharabSalam This is a very logical way to split the article, given its very large and increasing size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

removal of contents from the infobox

Onetwothreeip has removed a lot of sourced contents from the infobox without giving a valid reason. He/She removed countries that are supporting Saudi-led war against Yemen. It's almost impossible to explain why you would remove France for example these news are just one day ago. I would like to know what's the reason for this removal? --SharabSalam (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to explain and I think you will agree with me, and thank you for notifying me. First of all, I removed countries from the belligerents section because they are not belligerents, they are only involved in supplying military equipment. This section is for parties who are actively fighting, and countries like France are not currently deploying their military. Same with my removal of some military people from the commanders section, since they were not the highest ranking officials. These included captains and lieutenant generals, when this section is for heads of state/government of countries involved, and the highest ranking generals involved in the conflict.
It's certainly acceptable for information about countries like France being involved with selling arms into the conflict to be detailed in the article, but the infobox is meant to be a fairly brief summary. I hope this clears things up. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If that's the reason for the removal (since the countries/entities that you have removed are under supported by: section) then we should remove Iran, Hezbollah, North Korea etc from the infobox under the section allegedly supported by:. Yet I am still not convinced by the reason you gave. You will need to seek consesus for this removal. If many editors thinks that countries that have not deployed their military to the war should be removed from the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
We certainly shouldn't be including alleged support there. If Iran, Hezbollah or North Korea are not directly supporting a party of the conflict, as in by their own military forces, then I agree they should be removed from that column and their involvement can be explained elsewhere. I only focused on the left side because there was much more there, and I did leave countries that militarily supported a party to the conflict. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip sorry for tagging you, do you need me to tag you next time?. I weakly agree with you but I think we need to seek consensus for this change because it seems like a major change in the infobox. I feel that many editors will have objections if we removed (Qatar, Iran, North Korea) from the infobox or the countries that you have removed. RfC might be a good solution. Although it takes long time, it's better than the removal and two days later getting to an editwar.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
No need to tag me and no need to apologise. I don't think we need to make a big matter of it, and the most important elements of the infobox would remain. It might be appropriate to wait a short time but I think if we both agree then we can reduce the infobox how we have described and let someone object to it. I think maybe we should not remove Qatar and Iran, but probably should remove Hezbollah and North Korea, but I will investigate this. I also intend on moving the section about war crimes into the article about war crimes in the entire civil war. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree that we should not remove Qatar and Iran, Both are sourced to pro-Saudi sources not unbiased sources and Qatar source is Egypttoday which is a newspaper funded by the Egyptian government. Not to mention that these are allegations not yet confirmed in the infobox. I don't also understand why you supported removing North Korea and not Qatar or Iran. This actually needs RfC and votes should be supported by valid reasons not opinions.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean the section "Reports of war crimes" where are you transferring it? It's mostly about the Saudi-US backed war against Yemen. It's appropriate to be here. Moving it seems like whitewashing--SharabSalam (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sjö The one who added the "silly" addition is you! see. ALL of the informations there are supported by sources and this seems like whitewashing and why arent you in the talk page instead of reverting? This edit will make me remove the alleged support section in the infobox--SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here and I didn't have much to add. Yes, there are sources, but no, they don't support that those countries are belligerents and at least some sources don't even support that they side with Saudi Arabia. Sjö (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the alleged support section because it is in the same case of other countries that you have removed they are not involved in the war and all are allegations from opponents and if we are going to add the alleged support in the infobox then we should be fair and also mention that there are a lot of allegation of Israeli support to Saudi-UAE war against Yemeni civilians [57] and [58] and in this case some would say Israel deny that (although it hasnt) then Iran, North Korea, Qatar and Hezbullah deny the allegations. I believe we have covered this in the body of the article. It is laughable that you called your edit "silly" did you forget that you are the one who add it?-SharabSalam (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have to suspect bias in everything? This is a large article, and we can move sections into their own articles. In this case we can move sections to the same sub-articles that were split from the main civil war article. I think you will find that much of the information in this article is broadly duplicating information that exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. It was when I saw United Nations being listed as a belligerent (was that you?) that I knew this article contained much tenuous information. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Should I copy the section to the talk page so you can read it? It about airstrikes against Yemen children done by US-backed Saudi led intervention in Yemen (this page). Read the section it cant be more obvious than this--SharabSalam (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The one who added the UN is Sjö seems like editting to make a point to me [59] I didnt notice it at that time. I would have reverted what he/she called "silly"--SharabSalam (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and the section "Reports of war crimes" does not belong to Yemen civil war because thats a different war and different topic and it has its own article. This article is about the Saudi-Western led intervention in Yemen totally different topic--SharabSalam (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, first I removed it but then when I removed a non-RS source I must have happened on an old version of the page and unintentionally restored it. For the record I never considered the UN a belligerent. Sjö (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I am so sorry Sjö I thought it was your addition. Great, now that you have said that adding the UN was partially your fault although you didn't do it intentionally, please don't use it in arguments to justify your edit and forget about it as it's an exceptional mistake that doesn't necessarily mean all of the infobox belligerents are "silly". The above comment mention that French weapons were used by the Saudi regime to kill "civilians" we are not talking about killing Houthis. [60] this was after classified documents were leaked. with that been said I have said that removing countries/entities that there is no confirmation that they are involved in the war is not unreasonable but we should also remove the other side allegedly supported and as I said if we are going to list even allegedly involved countries then we should do that also in the other side or if that is not case in my honest opinion it would look like double standard. Again I am so sorry for my accusation.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hope you all settled your issues here. Iam reverting everything to it Original vertion.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mr.User200: What we have settled on is that we agree to remove what has been discussed as not properly belonging to the infobox. For example I removed countries which were not belligerents from the left side, and SharabSalam argued that certain forces should also be removed from the right side, which I agreed. We also agreed that the inclusion of the United Nations which Sjo inadvertently restored to the article should be reverted, and other removals which have not been contested. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15684870.British_support_of_Saudi_Arabian_military_should_shame_us_all__says_SNP_MP/
  2. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-rescues-saudi-pilots-gulf-aden/story?id=29965427
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_Yemeni_civil_war/Archive_5&oldid=1189434053"