Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map/Archive 1

stage one

adding the main cities and correcting positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumada (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is Balhalf all the way out in the sea? Someone want to move it back to land? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgoll774 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How To Make the Airport Yellow?

Major events have occured in Sana'a over the past week. How to make the airport yellow, to show Houthi control? Anyone?Eharding (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest updates

29th September 2014. by 0aali0 Added other cities in the sa'dah, sana'a map. Change the colour of the airport to yellow added other cities near Hajjah and Amran. Will add more cities in the future.

30th September 2014. by 0aali0 Added more cities example, Al Jawf Governorate, Al Mahwit Governorate, Abs district in the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0aali0 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1st October 2014. by 0aali0 Added more cities example, Al Hudaydah, Maabar, Al_Luḩayyah, Suq Al Inan, Al Anad, Lahij, Madinat Al Abid and Yarim on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0aali0 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article which can be used for some updates - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0I41KG20141015%7C77.240.103.2]] (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Mukalla, Riyan, and airport..

..should probably be placed on land -_- Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just added Ahwar, which is here, not even on the coast, and it shows up in the water. Greetings Jumada, could you help with this? Possible shift the template to the south? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ma'rib City

Aawsat article - "A local tribal source from the oil-rich province of Ma’rib, which lies approximately 75 miles (120 kilometers) east of Sana’a, told AFP news agency the Houthis had now also entered Ma’rib city, the province’s capital, coming by air from Sana’a airport." Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

al-Adeen

Gov't held after a recent raid source source source - have not been able to locate it yet though Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Mukalla

Aawsat from Friday indicates (all the way at the bottom) that gov't soldiers were still present in the city. Is Mukalla now definitely AQAP/SYM held? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ibb

Heavily armed Sunni tribesmen(Al-Qaeda militants) battled the Shiite rebels(Houthi) around the city of Ibb, southwest of the capital.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Manaseh

Anyone able to locate Manaseh? al bawaba reuters Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous

How can this map use the same colour for towns controlled by Al-Qaeda affiliates & South Yemen Movement? This is ridiculous, like if we have the same colour for ISIS & the Kurds. Im gonna add a fourth colour for SYM ASAP.--HCPUNXKID 16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As I havent been able to find sources stating SYM control over concrete towns, I will not add that fourth colour yet. Instead, Im going to remove SYM from the map legend, as they aint allied with Al-Qaeda, as the legend now suggests.--HCPUNXKID 23:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Update

Somebody should update this map soon. It says it was last updated in October 99.42.97.16 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Bayda and Rada'

I've updated the contested animation colours. The last edit had both Al Bayda and Rada' contested. Was this changes due to updated information, or were these left out due to the lack of the animations? Davo499 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Posible Geopolitical Background of Wikipedia Templates of Modern ME Conflicts.

I have just noticed, please dont make me wrong, that this template alongside the Iraqui and Syrian Template are three Scenarios of a greater Sunni-Shia Strugle in the Middle East. How curious with the current tide of events, the Hezbolah and AlQaeda Presence in this 3 conflicts. It really important to add that Libya is suffering from the same issue here, AlQaeda Presence in some of its cities, if this continues this way we will soon have maps like this in Lebanon or Bahreim.200.48.214.19 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Green for Houthis

To reduce this confusion of colours between Houthis and South Yemen-controlled areas, why don't we use green for Houthi-controlled area instead of using brown/orange? After all, Houthi logo slogan has a very greenish color painted on it.

Well done!!200.48.214.19 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Houthis vs Yellow Rebels

An Flash icon of Houthis, South Yemen cessesionist clashes its needed.200.48.214.19 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ta'izz

Changed Ta'izz to Houthi control following today's occupation.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/suicide-bombers-attack-shiite-mosques-in-yemen-killing-dozens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30B:8270:7539:61D2:C7DF:4041:6F10 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There are troops of both sides (Saleh loyalist+ Houthis and The Security committee) without clashes until now. (so it is not Houthi control until now) also we need a new color for Saleh supporters.3bdulelah (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Mukka and Ad Dalla taken by Houthis

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN0MK16O20150324 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

AQ

I dont know who is making all that things about AQ controlling half of the southern Yemen, but are you moronic? 5 sec google-fu will reveal that no one in Mukallah knows taht their city is controlled by AQ [1]. I am going to dig for another sources, because that is just ridicolious. AQ controlling border post with KSA. Yeah, right, that sounds legit... EllsworthSK (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

EllsworthSK Here the map dated 11 March.here Also here a source which showed situation in largest cities of Yemen and showed who controls these cities.here And here map from Al Jazeera which is showed who and what controls in Yemen.here So you were not quite right when you marked several towns which is under control of Al Qaeda as under control of the Yemeni troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I JUST PROVIDED YOU WITH SOURCES FROM THE CITY! And you are responding with a map from non WP:RS. You are joking, right? Has anyone ever had at least a quick look on the rules that Wikipedia operates under? EllsworthSK (talk)

EllsworthSK Why you think that Al Jazeera not a reliable source for this conflict. Map from Al Jazeera clearly shows that Shabwah Governorate under control of Al Qaeda. and that Abyan Governorate and Hadhramaut Governorate contested between Yemeni Government and Al Qaeda.Al Jazeera So that according to this map the Abyan Governorate and Hadhramaut Governorate cant be fully under controlled by government. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with Hanibal911 this is Vandalism beacause you cant change that with only one source but as I see no source was provided for this areas,we edit with reliable source also look the former president Hadi just left Yemen and you think that the Hadi supporters hold so much territory where the are so many faction in this country,there is the SYM which is another big faction where many tribes support this faction,and also Al-Qaeda is a big faction who took town and villages like Beihan and that confirmed many reliable sources,also the Houthi faction now who took half of Yemen and it's on it's way to Aden,If its not then why did Hadi leave Yemen beacause there is no safety anymore and he is target by the Houthi,the hole country is in chaos and might end up like Syria,this could happend after the U.S has confirmed that they lost their 500 million weapons given to yemen and allegedly this arsenal of weapons has fallen to A.Q.Lindi29 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about this Wikipedia Article? [2] Proletarii (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I Agree with you Lindi29! Many sources earlier also confirmed that the some areas in Yemen under control of Al Qaida. And Al Jazeera Al Jazeera showed that Shabwah Governorate under control of Al Qaeda. and that Abyan Governorate and Hadhramaut Governorate contested between Yemeni Government and Al Qaeda. But you EllsworthSK provide very strange sources:

• according to this source here you marked as under control of Yemeni troops (Zamakh,Shibam,‘Azzan,Tarim,Maqrat and Al-Wadiah border crossing) but this source not confirmed those your actions
• according to this source Strategy page you marked as under control of Yemeni troops the town of Shuqrah but this source said about situation for 2011 thus he cant confirmed your actions
• according to this source Critical Threats you marked as under control of Yemeni troops (Zinjibar, Jaʿār) but this source dated 14 January but since then, it took many time and his data already outdated and cant be used for editing on map
• according to this source Al Arabiya you marked as under control of Yemeni troops (Al Mukalla,Ghayl Ba Wazir,Ash Shihr,Al Hami,Qusay`ir,Ar Rukayb,Ar Riyan,Riyan International Airport) but this source just said that Yemen shut down its major seaports on Thursday as a Saudi-led military operation continued to strike Houthi forces and that Local sources in Yemen confirmed the closure. The ports closed include Aden, Al Mukalla, Al Mokha and Al Hudaydah, the sources said, giving no further details. But firstly Al Arabiya ant-Houthis source and secondly this source just said that source that major seaports closed include Aden, Al Mukalla, Al Mokha and Al Hudaydah but not said that all this ports under control by Yemeni troops (Al Hudaydah on 100% under control by Houthis) and that all these objects (Al Mukalla,Ghayl Ba Wazir,Ash Shihr,Al Hami,Qusay`ir,Ar Rukayb,Ar Riyan,Riyan International Airport) under control by Yemeni troops.

So your actions are not justified and fall under the concept Vandalism. So you need provide correct sources which can provide all your editings or revert all these editings. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Its not logic to change AQAP-controlled zones from a significant part of the territory to nearly nothing in a single edit. Individual sources must be provided for each town wich is colour-changed.--HCPUNXKID 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The massive changes in this map don't seem well enough sourced. The loss of almost all black coloured towns on one source seems ridiculous. I would also ideally want more sources for merging the southern movement and the Houthis. Even if they'd agreed to some formal alliance, I'm not sure I'd be for merging their control to one colour, in case they split.

Also, we currently have a black rural presence with the label Houthi rural presence. Banak (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

All edits made by user EllsworthSK will be reverted until he or she provides substantial evidence claiming Hadramout or Shabwa province are under "government control". Thank you. Myronbeg (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera clear reported and indicated that Houthis have now taken over 12 of the 21 Governorate of Yemen.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Just found this some minutes ago, any opinions?
http://sputniknews.com/infographics/20150327/1020092404.htmlMr.User200 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For Christ sake, going through this again. Read the wikipedia rules. WP:RS

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it

Placing a map from INTERACTIVE section and than supplying it with nonRS sources such as twitter is breaking this SOOO high that its even impossible to assertain.

Also I am getting wee-bit tired of this endless ignoration of sources. I HAVE TO PROVE THAT AQ DOES NOT CONTROL TOWNS? You have to prove it. I went way ahead and given several sources which state Tarrim under military control [3], you scholars have kept one of the largest city in Yemen as under AQ control and today you get the news that there has been a terrorist attack and a storm of AQ on what I provided source that after the breach from CNN which clearly states in its headline that اليمن: القاعدة تسيطر لساعات على مرافق - AQ controlled for several hours facilities in Mukallah city (notice the past tense) [4]. Your source about AQ controlling airbase? NOWHERE! Now Shibam [5]. And here is stated that former minister of telecommunication under Hadi, Ahmed Ubaid Bin Daghr who is wanted by Houthis arrived to his native city of Shibam [6]. Border crossing under AQ control on KSA border? Source? NOT NEEDED.

You are performing here WP:NOR and heavily encouraging WP:CIRC, resulting in maps on non-RS than you backtrack and use again as your source. You actually fallen into creation of AQ state by the size Jordan that no one, but scholars on Wikipedia, ever witnessed and than even come here defending it?! There is not one source that would ever claim any AQ territorial hold after their defeat in Zinjibar in 2012. Not one! But why bother with Wikipedia rules when we can just go on, spawn everything however we like, dont bother with sources (aside of linking me map on twitter user page) and there you go, accuse someone else who provides sources on these bogus claim as vandal.

If you believe so, click on this WP:AIV, report me and than we can have a nice chat in presence of admin where we can talk about what vandalism is. Meanwhile revertion of sourced edit is a vandalism and henceforth does not fall under WP:3RR and I shall enjoy doing exactly that. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What happened to all the black on the map

I know we merged Houthis and the southern movement, but why did we suddenly see almost all the black disappear from the map? Banak (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Banak Read this discussion.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't realise it pertained to so much of the map. I did read that conversation, thanks. Banak (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Updates which provide reliable sources!

Mocha is controlled by Houthis, and there's no al-Qaeda presence in al jawf, here's the map from CNN Map

I don't think CNN is pro Houthis. It's a reliable source. Ricardomoha (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course is not. Here is another source.

http://sputniknews.com/infographics/20150327/1020092404.htmlMr.User200 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So that according to data in map from CNN area where located the Sayma Airfield, Mocha Airport, Mocha, Murad, At Turbah under control by Houthis and troops by former president Saleh.CNN Hanibal911 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Naval Base at Bab el-Mandeb strait seized by Houthis.

Houthis manage to capture the Bab el-Mandeb strait overlooking naval base, all indicate a unopposed take over, See here. However its not clear where the base is located
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/31/yemen-security-base-idINL6N0WX5HZ20150331Mr.User200 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Another source "قام "اللواء 17" بالجيش اليمني والمسؤول عن حماية مضيق ‫‏باب المندب الإستراتيجي بتسليم كافة مقراته ‏للحوثيين دون قتال، وقد جاء ذلك في نبأ عاجل منذ قليل حسبما ذكرت وكالة الأناضول." http://rassd.com/22-136254.htm

It says that the houthis took over bab el mandib without fight. According to Anadolu Agency. Ricardomoha (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Al_Mukalla

Al-Qaeda frees 300 prisoners in Al Mukalla [7] Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda stormed the center of the port city of al-Mukalla in the province of Hadhramaut.Albawaba Hanibal911 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

update

Yemeni tribes enter coastal town to drive out al Qaeda (4/4/2015) Yemeni tribes enter coastal town to drive out al Qaeda Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

al Qaeda control of around half of the town of Al Mukalla.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Aden

I think we need to use a map of Aden like the one in Aleppo in the Syrian map. This is the best map of Aden I have seen so far https://twitter.com/HKarimi1991/status/583663723404922881/photo/1 .3bdulelah (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

3bdulelah You can refer to this editor he made maps for Aleppo, Hasakah, Deir ez Zor and some other.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, what are you waiting for? Ricardomoha (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think so, but we need a map of "Aden Governorate" [8] not just the "little aden" Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Little Aden status

Here is Little Aden location :https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Little+Aden,+Yemen/@12.7524447,44.8712306,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x161e18ff95efae39:0x290bc13f189f6323

Does anyone have any information regarding Little Aden? who controls it? Jumada (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Update detailed map file and AQAP influence

Could someone please update the map file that uses this template (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yemen_war_detailed_map.png) ? It is several days old, and is missing the arc showing the Houthi advance up to Ataq.

Also, what is the evidence for the huge areas of AQAP influnce shown both in the north and right smack in the middle of Houthi territory? There seems to be no basis for this.

--Cuparsk | ‏الحسين‎ 13:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Last updated four days ago, but I will update seeing as this map is relatively easy to update. No idea about the markers, my normal response to odd markers is to question them and not update the map (rather than unilaterally removing then updating the map). Banak (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Ataq some source regarding its capture by Houthis.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/houthis-capture-ataq-city-saudi-led-air-strikes-150409130453991.html
Really i dont see Operation Decisive Storm being decisive, unless for a Houthis Victory over Hadi forces.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Another update needed: The Houthis are alot farther in then previously reported...Saleh loyalists were even controlling Balhaf until Tribesmen seized it today. Yemen's main gas factory has closed because the fighting is too close.

• http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f774c16c-e26f-11e4-ba33-00144feab7de.html#axzz3XHYRj8ME
• http://www.albawaba.com/news/yemen-tribesman-seize-country%E2%80%99s-only-gas-terminal-681958--Cuparsk | ‏الحسين‎ 11:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanish and Zuqar Island

Based on this old report from Jazerra, Hanish Island is with the Houthis. Ricardomoha (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't both of the islands uninhabited? I didn't see anything on them on google earth

Al Qaeda controls Al Dhaba and Ash Shihr.

Al Qaeda controls Al Dhaba and Ash Shihr in Hadhramaut [source] Ricardomoha (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Update Marib

Please add Al-Mas Camp and Hilan Mountain on the map Both are under Houthis control source Hilan Mountain (15.523, 45.095), not sure about Al-Mas Camp. And please correct Ma'rib to (15.459, 45.323), Marib is above Marib dam not far from it. ِAlso Sahn Jin Camp which is under Houthis control but besieged by local tribes. (15.505, 45.326) source Ricardomoha (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Marib city coordinate is actually correct. Thanks for the reminding.

By the way, do show some Arabic articles if you got or help us editing it. Your contribution is highly appreciated. Myronbeg (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

They updated it recently, it was under the dam just yesterday :) Ricardomoha (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Marib is currently shown with the fighting and besieged symbols, something I've not seen both of put together before. Is this intentional? Banak (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Change name to Yemeni Civil War detailed map

I think we should change the name of this article to Yemeni Civil War detailed map. What do others think about this proposal? 2601:0:B200:F7D9:9D20:3A1A:2CA1:AE09 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's more than a simple insurgency now. Spenk01 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I also fully support this decision. This name will correspond to this article.Yemeni Civil War (2015) Hanibal911 (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per above.GreyShark (dibra) 07:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we all agreed upon it so i moved the map. Spenk01 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for claims?

Hello, I see some very audacious claims of AQAP control and some very outdated information. How are sources for the map given and what are the sources for the vast AQAP and Hadi control? ArabianWonders (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Grey color of Ansar al-Sharia/AQAP

The currently utilized color for Ansar al-Sharia/AQAP in this map is black, but actually the black is always used for ISIL in all other conflict maps in Middle East and North Africa, thus creating some discrepancy. The thing is that ISIL is also active in Yemen, and though they don't control territory, this may change in future. ISIL and Ansar al-Sharia/AQAP are certainly different forces, with the second being an Al-Qaeda affiliate, like Al-Nusra in Syria. I herewith propose to use grey color for the Ansar al-Sharia/AQAP, like in the Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map.GreyShark (dibra) 07:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. However, I think we should use this particular icon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_dot_grey.svg Instead of

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-dot-grey-68a.svg

The reason for this being that AQAP is not Jabhat al-Nusra, and because this color will blend in with the ocean less and be more distinguishable. I think you should make the edit immediately. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace3: I don't mind which shade of grey, as long as it is distinctive from ISIL black. Let's do it.GreyShark (dibra) 12:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is in Yemen, AQAP still remains as the only visible jihadist forces and IS has yet to emerge themselves in a large manpower forces like we've seen in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. Also, we have not seen any clashes erupted between ISIS and AQAP yet in this country. Since ISIS has no room yet to operate in Yemen, there is no reason to use grey to denote AQAP/AAS for now except its distinguishing for ISIS. Black colour usually represents any larger jihadi forces, and for this case AQAP takes the cake. Myronbeg (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear reason to use grey, for uniformity across all the other conflict maps across wikipedia. Since the Libyan, Syrian, and Lebenese conflict maps use grey for Al Qaeda forces it makes sense to use the same here.XavierGreen (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, except that Yemen has no rival jihadist forces emerging as of now. Let's wait until IS truly rises from Yemen and pose a greater challenge to Al-Qaeda, then we can talk about changing the colour to grey. Myronbeg (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Myronbeg: you are presenting here a minority view, while most of the above users expressed their justification to use grey for Ansar al-Sharia/AQAP. Per WP:GF, let's wait a few more days in case more opinions are risen, but if not - the change to grey should be made per consensus.GreyShark (dibra) 05:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh Ar Riyan needs to go grey and the Mukalla Port, some other black areas still need to be fixed to grey Tgoll774 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User GreyShark. I don't care if I'm presenting a minority view. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. The fact is that Yemeni situation isn't like in Libya or Syria where we are witnessing competition between rival Islamist groups. In Yemen, IS is emerged but so far they are fluid together with AQAP and they have never engage military fights with each other. So if this all about consensus, then there is no consensus to change the colour to grey since I'm objecting it.

As I said, let's wait until IS truly rises from Yemen independently and pose a greater challenge to Al-Qaeda, then we can talk about changing the colour to grey and add black for an independent ISIS. For now, the black will remain for joint jihadi forces of AQAP, ISIS, Al-Shabaab and Ansar al-Shariah, just like green denotes joint Houthi and Saleh forces. Myronbeg (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not democracy, but there are strict policies, such as page ownership and WP:SCWGS sanctions, which i advise you to take a look into the next time you revert this.GreyShark (dibra) 13:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - 4 users out of 5 suggest to utilize grey for the AQAP forces. It is sufficient in my eyes to implement.GreyShark (dibra) 13:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

By your logic, we should have separate areas under Houthi and areas under pro-Saleh control into different entities in different colors not ONE as green, and by that logic we should have added TWO colors for southern secessionist and those under pro-Hadi control respectively since separatists and Hadi forces do not share common goal and NOT paint them all as red color. Are you considering about editing these too? Myronbeg (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should change the color to grey simply because they are al-Qaeda and not IS. We use black for IS on the Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese and Libyan map same goes for grey, it stands for (all groups aligned to) al-Qaeda. I have not followed al-Qaeda in Yemen but unless they have given their oath to IS i'd say change the color to grey. Besides changing the color we do need to indicate where IS has actual presence Spenk01 (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You forget Myronbeg that the Pro-Saleh factions in the Yemeni security forces and the Houthi militia are fighting for the same goal, at least at the moment. AQAP and IS are not allies in this conflict. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not my logic. ISIL and Ansar al-Sharia are entirely separate forces, who fight each other. ISIL do not yet have a significant presence in Yemen, but it doesn't imply we should calculate them together with their foes.GreyShark (dibra) 20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support It follows consistency with other articles, namely the Libyan and Syrian conflicts that al-Qaeda affiliated groups or at the least non-IS affiliated jihadist groups use either Grey or White shading. It is stupid to use the black color scheme for AQAP just becuase they are the main jihadist faction. The Islamic State and AQAP are not even on the same side in this conflict, so why shade them both in the same color? --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph, please provide evidence ISIL and AQAP in Yemen are foes. They are foes in Syria, Lebanon, and Libya yes I can vouch to that, but the situation in Yemen is entirely different. They are to foes at this moment what pro-Saleh factions and Houthis are 'foes'. Besides, we cannot verify if AQ branch in Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have heat tensions with ISIL as compare with other al-Qaeda terror networks around the world do. There is no such consistency can be compared between the situation in Yemen and other Arab states. Myronbeg (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to assert that the two factions are on the same side when other al-Qaeda affiliates have hostilities with the Islamic State. AQAP is the most loyal al-Qaeda affiliate in its network.

Here: This source documents spies in AQAP who were executed and accused of having links with the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia intelligence [9].

This source documents the rejection of the Islamic State caliphate [10]. As you well know, any group who rejects allegiance to the Islamic State is automatically hostile. They don't believe in allies, only followers. In any case, the burden of proof is on you to show that the two are not hostile forces, becuase the status quo is that the two groups al-Qaeda and IS are hostile to one another, when they are found in the same sphere of influence. I'll be looking forward to see some sources from you Myronbeg which detail AQAP and IS as being the best of friends. --Ritsaiph (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I read that story before. First, these were just allegations. If you read the story properly it says:

The controversy over al Hamid’s purported role is difficult to untangle, as his critics have alleged that he is connected to both the Islamic State, AQAP’s rival, as well as the American and Saudi spy agencies. It could be the case that these assertions are intended to paint the Islamic State in a negative light within the jihadists’ ranks, as Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s organization is frequently accused of working with the jihadists’ enemies in order to buttress its own cause. Still, al Hamid did work for the Al Battar Media Foundation, which backs the Islamic State, before joining AQAP’s ranks.

So overall, there's no telling if this was a solid evidence of fighting between ISIL and AQAP. This is more like infighting between AQAP themselves. Besides, ISIL did not provide statements claiming responsibility saying they were behind these backstabbing.

Secondly, they rejected the establishment of the 'caliphate' concept. Didn't say they announced hostility against ISIL. Rejecting what ISIS establishing caliphate doesn't necessarily means they are immediately being hostile towards ISIL. AQAP also did tried to pledge alliance with ISIL despite their ideological differences at few occassions. [11] [12] Furthermore, AQAP these days doesn't have core centralize network as in all key figures agree to whatever their Emir stands. The man who announced rejection of caliphate concept is now dead, but his late Emir was considered a key mediator to stop the infighting between Nusra/AQAP and ISIL. Since then, we haven't heard from his own view confirming whether AQAP has confirmed stance against ISIL, and we don't know what's the new Emir stance on Islamic State. How is AQAP being the most loyal affliate to Al-Qaeda will be entirely depends on the leadership. So for time being the situation remains unclear as of now.

Another thing you should ask yourself is how come ISIL and AQAP didn't fight each other although they have reached Aden after kicking out Houthis last month July. But like I said before, I don't mind if you want to use separate colours provided if you consistently do that for Houthi and Saleh factions, and Hadi/Islah and southern separatist groups since all 6 of them do not share common goals. Then again, welcome to Yemen where the enemy of my enemy is my temporal friend. Myronbeg (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice what you just quoted:

The controversy over al Hamid’s purported role is difficult to untangle, as his critics have alleged that he is connected to both the Islamic State, AQAP’s rival, as well as the American and Saudi spy agencies. It could be the case that these assertions are intended to paint the Islamic State in a negative light within the jihadists’ ranks, as Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s organization is frequently accused of working with the jihadists’ enemies in order to buttress its own cause.

So why oh why would AQAP attempt to cast a negative light on the Islamic State if the two are supposedly allies?

If AQAP rejected the concept of a caliphate being formed by the Islamic State, they have rejected the Islamic State group. [13] The idea of the caliphate underpins the entire ideology of the Islamic State. You cannot reject this idea and then expect to remain on the same page as the Islamic State. You also mistakenly associate the word 'support' for the word 'alleigance'. There is no doubt that AQAP, AQIM and even the Taliban supported the Islamic State mid to late last year. They tried to mediate the conflict between the al-Nusra Front and a plethora of other jihadist factions and call for unity amongst the mujaheddin. See AQIM also voicing support and solidarity with the Islamic State in July 2014. [14] Over a year later, they are now voicing support for al-Qaeda affiliated militants in Libya such as Ansar al-Sharia and Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade against the Islamic State there. [15]. The Taliban also voiced solidarity with the Islamic State. Now that IS have opened a branch in Afghanistan, they are fighting one another. [16],[17] The same thing will happen to AQAP now that the Islamic State has announced a presence there.

AQAP and its leadership have always unanimously supported al-Qaeda. The late Nasir al-Wuhayshi was made the deputy of the overall organisation and had pledged himself to Ayman al-Zawahiri time and time again.[18]. You would have to be a delusional fool to believe that the Islamic State and AQAP are allies in the Yemeni theater despite these differences in allegiances which matter allot to the Islamic State.

The situation regarding AQAP's stance on the Islamic State is clear: The new Emir and former military chief for AQAP, Qasim al-Raymi pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda central and praised the al-Nusra Front and the Army of Conquest in Syria, but not the Islamic State. [19]. With himself swearing allegiance to al-Qaeda, he is a de-facto enemy of the Islamic State for failing to swear the oath of allegiance to their leader. Remember, before the Islamic State came along, virtually (with maybe a few minor exceptions) all jihadists world wide were more or less on the same side. All the powerful ones gave fealty to al-Qaeda and if you did not swear allegiance to them, you would no doubt support them but either way, it was not obligatory. The Islamic State have changed that. If you don't swear allegiance to the Caliph, you are an enemy. You are not an ally or partner. Groups like Boko Haram, Jund al-Khilafah, Jundalla and the majority of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis have all sworn allegiance to the Islamic State, and in doing so, become apart of a Wilayat or Province.

And your source about Islamic State fighters in the city of Aden has apparently been denied by residents in Aden.

At the most, the two groups are enemies in Yemen. At the least, they are competitors who are limiting interactions with one another. Either way, they are not friends in this conflict and you have yet to prove that they in fact are. --Ritsaiph (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph, what you stated there are referring to other Al-Qaeda network branch around the world like Taliban, AQIM, Nusrah, all of which has nothing to do with AQAP, the al-Qaeda branch in ARABIAN PENINSULA itself. Different al-Qaeda branch has its different terror operatives, and they all have different ultimate motivations -- just like Islamic State in Iraq WAS part of al-Qaeda once before it got broke away due to leadership differences between the core Al-Qaeda network and ISI, later known as ISIS. And secondly, you are making your own assumptions when you stated With himself swearing allegiance to al-Qaeda, he is a de-facto enemy of the Islamic State for failing to swear the oath of allegiance to their leader. This is your opinion, NOT a fact. Also, did you ever read my quote properly and ever notice what I was highlighting, "It could be the case that these assertions are intended to paint the Islamic State in a negative light within the jihadists’ ranks"? Do you know what does it could be the case means? Do you know the word alleged? If you do not know the meaning please find out dictionary for yourself. And the fact shows that despite ideological differences between both IS in YEMEN and AQAP in YEMEN (not to be confused with central AQ network), there is no visible evidence indicating they are truly enemies nor we're seeing them fighting each other despite other Al-Qaeda branch around the world like Taliban, Jundullah, and Al-Nusrah has openly attacked ISIL, that these I won't dispute. But this isn't the case for Yemen.

Let's face it. The situation in Yemen is never black and white as the mainstream media wants you to portray. The media labels that Hadi loyalists, Islah militias, and Southern Resistance as loyalist, resistance, or government forces, not knowing that if you read the southern resistance media they DID reject Hadi regime and insists in separatism and complete independence, whereas Hadi loyalist insists in a unity state. Still, you have no qualms labeling all of them as "government forces" only because they fought Houthi forces, again which are backed by Saleh forces and again Houthi and Saleh factions have different goals and they were once enemies. But you have problems with putting ISIL and AQAP (NOT AQ itself) on the same side even though they are as frienemies like Hadi and southern resistance, or Houthi and Saleh forces.

Because all your points claiming that ISIL and AQAP are automatically enemies are mere ASSUMPTIONS, and ISIL and AQAP have not come out with statements or responsibility declaring war on each other, at least not even till now, your argument will be considered invalid. As I said many times, Yemen situation is a place where allies can become enemies, while enemies can be allies.

PS: Just a trivial fact did you know that AQAP raises the exact same jihadist black flag as ISIL? Let's just assume if you are one of AQAP members and you met another group of jihadist convoys waving the same flag, how do you identify them if they are Islamic State or AQAP-AAS members? Asking them questions like "Salam alaikum, are you Daish?"

PPS: You mentioned that residents denied there's ISIS in Aden. I doubt it. Here is my Yemeni source also reported executions (and this) while forced prisoners to wear orange clothes, and this isn't AQAP doing since we have never seen them executing like this except ISIL themselves. Myronbeg (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Myronbeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritsaiph (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

1.) I used the other organisations such as AQIM, Nusra and the Taliban as examples of groups who have voiced 'support' for the Islamic State only to find itself engaged in hostilities with it. You were the one who cited sources of AQAP highlighting support for IS over a year ago, and I merely gave examples of other groups who gave that exact same support only to find themselves fighting the Islamic State or supporting groups who are fighting the Islamic State.

2.) That's not an assumption, that is a FACT. If you have been paying attention to the Islamic State as far back as November 2013, you'd realize that they demand complete obedience to their leader. The Islamic State will never ally with AQAP as long as they call themselves "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula". If you do not give the Bay'ah you are not their ally/friend. Of course, there are exceptions on the micro-level (i.e individual commanders on the ground). For example, the Taliban, despite heavy fighting with Islamic State in Nangarhar Province, Kunar Province and Helmand Province, were believed to have co-operated with one another in Kunduz Province in the April offensive against the Afghan government (According to Afghan government sources). The al-Nusra Front which has been fighting the Islamic State the longest out of all al-Qaeda affiliated groups has even co-operated with IS from time to time, with individual commanders organizing "truces" in an effort to combat Hezbollah and Syrian government forces. And no doubt somewhere in Yemen right now, if in a situation overwhelmed by Houthi forces, AQAP and IS will most certainly put their differences aside temporarily. This does not mean the two groups are formally allied. This does not mean that most members among the groups are friendly with one another. These isolated cases of co-operation are the absolute exception to the rule.

3.) "If you do not know the meaning please find out dictionary for yourself" - Seems like you need to learn some proper grammar. Let me assist you: "If you do not know the meaning, please find a dictionary for yourself.

4.) And there is no visible evidence that the two are co-operating either. Again, the onus of proof falls onto you. My argument that the two are hostile in Yemen already has a good track record from coming into fruition. This has been seen with Islamic State fighting other jihadist groups in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan (And to a lesser extent Egypt and Lebanon). Therefore, all claims you make that the two are allies are INVALID. I will aknowledge that the two could be considered 'Frenemies'. But that description could also fall upon the suspected Taliban-Islamic State relationship in Kunduz or the al-Nusra Front-Islamic State relationship in the Qalamoun Mountains along the Lebanese/Syrian border. And yet al-Nusra and Islamic State are still portrayed in different color schemes.

5.) I have no issue with making a separate color scheme for the Southern Movement. Preferably a yellow color, which will follow the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and the Tuaregs in Libya.

6.) That could be one possible scenario of a confrontation between the two groups, but I am assuming that IS/AQAP members would be in contact with a commander who would direct them in the field and communicate via radio channels. If a convoy was seen carrying such flags, I'm assuming the higher-ups in each group would be aware if a convoy of their members was going to be deployed in the area. Alternatively, they could also use the radio frequencies themselves to communicate.

7.) Read some of the comments in your first source. There doesn't seem to be consensus on the Islamic State presence in Aden. I am aware of AQAP emerging in Aden and in Abyan Province however. --Ritsaiph (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If we were to use a single, consistent coloring scheme, then Al-Qaeda affiliates (Jabhat al-Nusra, AQIM, AQAP) would be colored a form of grey, and ISIS/Islamic State would be colored black. It is that simple. I personally don't support a separate color for the Southern Movement, as they and various other Hadi loyalists/Sunnis are incredibly intermingled, and finding a source of control would be very hard, as everyone else groups them as the same. The point here is consistency: we need to be consistent to avoid confusion. For someone who just visited the Syria map visiting this one, they might get the impression that ISIS controls a large portion of Yemen (Mukalla, Aden, etc.) when they do not. This is why the grey color should be used instead of black. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph, you wrote You were the one who cited sources of AQAP highlighting support for IS over a year ago, and I merely gave examples of other groups who gave that exact same support only to find themselves fighting the Islamic State or supporting groups who are fighting the Islamic State. Exactly. This hasn't happened yet in the case of Yemen and we cannot assume whatever intra-jihadist conflicts happened in other countries will automatically happen the same situation in Yemen. You are still treating this conflict in a very black and white manner when in reality their relationships are very complicated. In few countries they engage military attack against each other like Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, while they are neutral towards each other in other countries like Algeria, whereas in other countries they co-operate together to fight their common enemy, as in the case of Yemen. But this isn't why are we debating whether they should have separate colors.

Then you wrote And there is no visible evidence that the two are co-operating either.

For now, it seems that the jihadists of AQAP and IS have largely put aside their differences to fight their common enemy, the Shia Houthi rebels.[20]

This has been seen with Islamic State fighting other jihadist groups in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan (And to a lesser extent Egypt and Lebanon). Therefore, all claims you make that the two are allies are INVALID. No buddy, I didn't say ISIL and AQAP are necessarily allies. And did I not stated they are frenemies? They are neither friends, but they weren't necessarily enemies either. But you on the other hand are still hanging with your "Either you are with me, or you are against me" argument, so I prove it to you the situation was far complicated than you think (heck, you even ironically said all out the examples yourself where there's co-operation and fighting at certain times).

Then you wrote Read some of the comments in your first source. There doesn't seem to be consensus on the Islamic State presence in Aden. Not so. Actually Arabic sources reported this and even HRW also reported it, but since I take it you insists in English source it all don't matter. Here, same BBC source I've just cited earlier:

As far back as February, when the Houthis were advancing into Aden, IS declared a new province, a "wilaya" of Aden and Lahej.

After launching an attack on Houthi rebels on 18 July, they reportedly executed seven of their captives in the district known as Crater.

Now, in a new report on the mistreatment of prisoners by both sides, Human Rights Watch cites reports that on 23 August, IS dressed a number of Houthi prisoners in orange jumpsuits, placed them in a boat which was then towed out into the harbour.

Reportedly watched by local residents of Aden, the boat carrying the prisoners was then blown up, killing those on board, the report says.

I have no issue with making a separate color scheme for the Southern Movement. Preferably a yellow color, which will follow the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and the Tuaregs in Libya. Also add another color for areas under pro-Saleh control, and colors under local tribal control. You gonna do that too? If you done doing these then I will be okay with using AQAP as grey while ISIL as black. And for Hirak I personally prefer blue for this regard since the southern movement waves their former PDRY flag which has blue background on it, but heck I ain't gonna argue with this in case we're coming to silly endless argument over what colour to choose. You are on your own.

I really suggest you should calm your tits down and have nice rational debate before getting emotional things you may disagree. You ain't gonna help anything if you are resorting to verbal attacks against other users. Cheers. Myronbeg (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Myronbeg, I am not interested in the al-Islah or Pro-Saleh military forces being represented in the map. Those words are putting it very mildly. You can do that yourself. But you will not impede any effort for AQAP and the Islamic State to have different color schemes, just becuase we aren't talking about doing the same for " Houthi-Saleh and Hadi-Hirak". This section of the talk page is dedicated solely to the Islamic State/AQAP coloring, of which consensus is to have separate coloring for each. Secondly, you don't actually get to dictate what happens to this map unless you have WP:CON. There are multiple editors in favor of separating the two groups. Spenk01, Pbfreespace3, GreyShark, and myself. That's four against one. Doesn't really look like consensus is on your side at the moment. We could ride roughshod over you and you can't really do anything about it. And if your intransigence still kept the coloring from being implemented, I could always file a WP:AN or WP:ANI against you for disruptive edits. --Ritsaiph ([[User talk: |talk]]) 13:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if its 4 vs 1. Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Yes it's about WP:CON and unfortunately each of you fails to provide any satisfied consensus or agreement that all users agree to explain why it should have separate colors for AQAP. If you can't even made such consensus for this then how do you expect users to reach the same consensus for what you propose next time. Secondly, we are talking about consistency and what you are adding here isn't consistency. Who on Earth decides black color must be ISIL and grey must be always al-Qaeda? What about red? Should they be classified under government entities, or Shia government entities? The entity denoted red color in Syria (a pro-Iran/Russia 'Shia' government) and red color in Yemen (a pro-Saudi Sunni government) are opponents to each other. Not consistent. And yellow for Kurds but yellow for Hirak (presumably if we are gonna separate them)? What's their relationship between Kurds and Hirak? What logic and what kind of 'consistency' is this? Thirdly, don't make threats against users. If I want, I can also file WP:AN or WP:ANI against you for not only disruptive and unconstructive/unwarranted edits, but also attempts to made personal attacks on another users, harassment, and making threats. And for your record I won't be getting banned because I did not made any vandalism to this template as the original color was always black for AQAP, red for government forces, and yellow for Houthis (later I requested changing to green, but at least at that time no one objected it unlike I do for AQAP-grey). I always respect rules and never got banned (well, except few small infights but we later settled it 'cause he reverted my edits on the Bahraini article but I eventually let go because I agreed with his argument). And on other hand, I looked at your profile briefly and you seem to once got banned for insulting others, so chances you getting banned than me would be higher because I can argue that people are vandalizing this page by imposing their own opinion changing to grey color, and I still won't be violating any rules. Plus, you did not made ONE single contributions to this map as far as I've been the main contributor of this map since 20 November 2014. Look up at the history of edits in this template and you will see what I mean.

You are not helping anything except attacking other users. You are not in a position to challenge me. So please try not to make threats or challenge other users. I'm very being nice to you, user. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Myronbeg (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it sure as hell isn't owned by you Myronbeg. We have all expressed our opinions and have decided to maintain consistency with other article maps such as in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon where the Islamic State is portrayed in black and other salafist jihadists are depicted in a grey/white color. The coloring is consistent, and has been consistent. The red is largely the internationally recognized entity or at least the one with more control over state institutions (Syria - Syrian Arab Republic, Libya - Council of Deputies, Yemen - Republic of Yemen (Hadi), Iraq - Republic of Iraq. The green portrays the main actors who are fighting for the overthrow of the existing entity and/or recognized by other actors as being the legitimate authority (Syria - Syrian National Coalition, Libya - New General National Congress, Yemen - Supreme Revolutionary Committee irrespective of ideology or religion. The Black/dark grey is the Islamic State group. The Grey/white represent other jihadist groups (Syria - Al-Nusra Front, Libya - Ansar al-Sharia, Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade), Yemen - al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula/Ansar al-Sharia.

Your ranting is really growing weaker and more pathetic now, Myronbeg. Are you really that helpless that you can not make the changes you want to the map yourself? Or do you need to pester others on this talk page to make the changes for you? Nobody is separating anything for you. Do it yourself and stop whinging. No one has threatened you Myronbeg. I have never once threatened the use of violence or force against you. The maximum extent of what I have typed, which you have interpreted as a 'threat' is that I will simply ignore you - "ride roughshod over you". If you consider that a threat, then you must live a very meek existence in this world.

Of course, you can file an WP:AN or WP:ANI against me, and I would support it if you did. Because you have nothing on me Myronbeg. You would just be wasting the time of administrators and casting a negative light on yourself, both of which I would enjoy, as it would humiliate you. "If I want, I can also file WP:AN or WP:ANI against you for not only disruptive and unconstructive/unwarranted edits, but also attempts to made personal attacks on another users, harassment, and making threats." If by "personal attacks, harassment and making threats" you mean correcting your poorly typed-grammar, then I fully agree, I am being a terrible person for doing something your grade 2 teacher should have taught you a long time ago... or maybe not so long ago.

The original color for AQAP was black, and now, through discussion and consensus on the talk page, it has been decided to become grey. If you revert that repeatedly, it will become vandalism. So you will claim that 4-5 other editors are vandalizing the page and, after an admin sees this discussion, that you expect you will somehow be in the right? Don't think it works like that Myronbeg. Remember, you are no different to any other Wikipedia user. You seem to think that your word carries allot of weight around here which it fortunately doesn't. You are not worth 2,3,4,5 or 6 Wikipedia users. You are just one user. Your word will only carry the weight of one user. And your word means little compared to 4-5 users who have agreed upon and discussed any editing change done to this page. You reverting any edits made is therefore imposing your own opinion, just like you stated before: "I can argue that people are vandalizing this page by imposing their own opinion ". It doesn't matter if I haven't made any contribution onto this article page. I'm making contributions on the talk page right now and you don't need to make edits in order to have an opinion in an article. You do no own this article or have any more rights to it than I do just becuase you have edited it longer than I have, more than I have or have been on Wikipedia longer than I have. If you think that way, you are wrong. Finally Myronbeg, I am in a very good and comfortable position to "challenge" you. And it wouldn't really be challenging you becuase there is nothing to challenge; You are just a poor soul ranting on Wikipedia and having what I like to call a wiki-tantrum. The case is closed. Consensus has been reached.

You are very deluded if you think I give a personal sh** that you are being nice to me. You are not going to receive anything from me that will make things easier for you, lest my co-operation. That is only awarded to people I respect, not things I disdain. I shall not waste anymore time on you Myronbeg, you are very far beneath me and not quite worth it. --Ritsaiph (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bingo, User talk:Pbfreespace3 we are talking about consistency, no doubt. You wrote I personally don't support a separate color for the Southern Movement, as they and various other Hadi loyalists/Sunnis are incredibly intermingled, and finding a source of control would be very hard, as everyone else groups them as the same Why shouldn't they? They are to incredibly intermingled with Hadi loyalists what AQAP and ISIL intermingle with each other, what Houthi and Saleh forces are incredibly intermingled with each other. Frenemies. Neither necessarily allies nor necessarily enemies. They may co-operate together to fight their common enemy, but in the end each of them has their own separate conflicting goals. And THIS is what I called consistency: You wanna separate Islamic State and AQAP into different colors fine but then also do it for the same for Houthi and Saleh forces, or Hadi and Souther Movement forces, or else if you can't do that for Houthi-Saleh and Hadi-Hirak then don't do it for AQAP-ISIL because we don't have solid prove they are in conflict with each other IN Yemen (not Syria, not Lebanon, not Libya, not Afghanistan, not Pakistan whatsoever). Then again, we don't even know which specific factions are controlling specific areas, hence that's the main problem for us to separate them. Plus, if you are doing this since you guys are making a bigger map of so-called "Greater Jihadist War", how can this be consistent enough if let say, the Lebanese map indicates blue for Hezbollah and red for Lebanese government, which the map indicator even claims they had conflict with each other, but if compare with the Syrian map there's no blue for Hezbollah and they are coined as red along with Syrian government forces? Where is the consistency as people claimed? That's why I have trouble split into different colors and then merge them into a single bigger map. Each nation has its own conflict pattern and their own allies which is very inconsistent with other nations. Not all of them shares the same war. I hope you understand the main issue I'm currently debating. Myronbeg (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Myronbeg I think you are mistaken. I want the color of AQAP on this map to be grey. There is not proof ISIS controls any territory in Lebanon. So why the black color? Why not the grey color? Please explain this. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually the real question is, who decides grey colour should be denoted for Al-Qaeda and why must be grey? Is there any so-called Wikipedia consensus rules or protocols stating any factions belonging to al-Qaeda must be denoted in grey? Why don't just stick to the original black color itself? I usually just denote red for government forces, green for mainstream rebel factions, and black for extremist or jihadist factions, because its the fact that all 3 of them are temporal alliance groups of Hirak-Hadi, Houthi-Saleh, and AQAP-ISIL even though Hirak is knowingly pro-UAE, Hadi is knowingly more pro-KSA than pro-UAE, Houthi is pro-Iran, and Saleh is pro-UAE or more or less independent. Unless there's rise of ISIL in Yemen and they launch attack against every factions including AQAP, I don't see the need to change colors just to make things more complicated. To simply change a color means you need to consider separate other factions into different colors. This task is not as simple if you ask me. Myronbeg (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You are presenting a very specific POV on the Middle Eastern and North African conflicts, describing it through a Westernized prism ("legal" government, "illegal rebels" and "jihadists"), which is very far away from the complete picture, in which there are numerous governments - all claiming legitimacy (Yemeni Houthi government sees itself as much legal as Hadi's Sunni government). I also believe that the Ansar al-Sharia Emirate considers itself legitimate no less than Houthis and Sunnis. The grey color for Al-Qaeda affiliated Salafists was decided at the Syrian civil war map - i believe this is one of the first discussions where editors agreed to color Al-Nusra in grey following their discourse with Opposition and ISIL. Finally, it is already 5 out of 6 opinions in favor of grey (adding Ritsaiph), so your minority position on the issue is further marginalized.GreyShark (dibra) 06:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What does the Syria's Idlib link has to do with Yemen? This is a Yemeni map, not Syrian map. This is a civil war in Yemen, not civil war in Syria. You do know that the conflict in Yemen does not share with the conflict in the Levant? Although you could plausibly argue that the conflict in Syria shares with the conflict in Iraq, so its okay to merge the Syrian and Iraqi map like this, but you can't do that for the Yemeni case because this is totally a different type of conflict with complicated relationships between warring factions. You do know that all these three colors used here does not denote a particular faction fighting, but a coalition armed factions? When I say red for government forces I mean red for Hadi government forces and its co-operators like Hirak and Islah and tribal fighters, even though Hirak, Islah, tribal fighters does not share end goals with Hadi regime; green does NOT means Houthis only, but coalition of Houthi and Saleh factions even though they are frenemies; just as black which is coalition of ISIL and AQAP, even though they both do not share the end goal and they are frenemies too? This is why these three colors are picked. Why does Nusra being grey means AQAP must be denoted in grey? And btw, for the 3rd time, this is NOT a democracy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, this is about WP:CON and right now there's no such consensus reached because I'm objecting it. Ridiculous to change the color you like because you are ruining the whole map here. Heck, even the Wiki admins not many months ago already are starting to dislike how the Syrian map has been done, just FYI. Please consider the consequences before changing colors. It can distort visitors if the map is not done properly. Myronbeg (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Look at this discussion here RfC: infobox country?. You think no change can be implemented until one of us concedes to the other? Look at how many people opposed that debate. Look at how many supported. Roughly the same ratio as in this discussion. --Ritsaiph (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Myronbeg First of all, am I really "ruining the whole map" by wanting grey for al-Qaeda instead of black? No. You say "It can distort visitors if the map is not done properly." This is the whole reason I want AQAP to be grey! People see the black icons and think ISIS controls it. I thought that when I first saw this map. Thus, the map would be better if we showed AQAP as different from ISIS by using a different icon.

Second, you keep saying that the fact that ISIS-AQAP have a de facto alliance because they have the same ideology justifies the same color. Al-Nusra and ISIS have a very similiar ideology, and yet they fight each other. Would you mark Nusra and ISIS the same color on the Syria map?

Third, and most important: can you prove that ISIS has land control in any city or town in Yemen? If not, then grey should be used for Al-Qaeda, because it is the color used for al-Qaeda on another map. We need color consistency. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

1) In the Lebanese insurgency map, the blue represents Hezbollah and PFLP-GC, but in the Syrian map, the blue represents local tribes. 1They both are unaffiliated to each other yet no one complains how confusing the blue indicators are or calls to change the indicator color for Hezbollah-PFLPGC? Likewise, the red in Lebanon represents the government which has complete opposite relations with the government forces in Syria and Iraq indicated in red, let alone Hadi forces denoted in red? If anything, the Lebanese government should have its totally different color not red, Hezbollah should be red, and Hadi forces should be green while Houthis should be red if all its to make it consistent as you requested, but I don't see people questioning the need to change these colors? Yet I do not understand why the fuss over this so-called 'confusion' between ISIL and AQAP indicator color.

2) Yes. Because ISIL and AQAP in Yemen are currently fighting under a coalition of jihadist forces attacking Houthi-coalition and Hadi-coalition forces. Even mainstream media pundits like BBC also admitted this. And that's why the black color is chosen same like why green is chosen for both Houthis and Saleh forces, even though they don't share the same ideology. Not to denote a particular faction but now to denote a coalition forces. So if you want to separate them we need to also consider separate Houthi and Saleh forces, and separate Hadi and Hirak forces into separate colors. Whenever did I said ISIL and AQAP have the same ideology?

3) Everyone is talking about ISIL presence. They don't have to 'control' cities, they played major role in fighting Houthis just as AQAP and AAS did. Did you read the BBC source article I've just linked earlier? It tells how ISIL went to execute prisoners in Aden and blow them up. Also, ISIL has huge presence in Shabwah of Azzan town and they just recently carried out spate of executions, that's another indicator you should take note.

Finally, its not that I don't want the AQAP color change it to grey, but there are many other things we need to consider changing such as separating all warring factions into different colors (Hirak, Hadi, Houthi, Saleh, Islah, unaffiliated local tribes), and we also need to change color for Hadi (to green since they are part of KSA-Libyan/Syrian opposition-Gulf-Sunni axis) and Houthi forces (to red since its part of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Shia axis, altho I personally really hate this kind of bias sectarian term) before we can finally safely change AQAP to grey and ISIL for black. However, if we fail to consider all these things then what's the point changing the AQAP color and then insists calling it 'consistency'? This is hardly consistent at all. This is selective changing and its oxymoron to just call it consistency. Myronbeg (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe, whatever we do, we should use different colours for ISIS and AQAP, so we don't have to worry about splitting colours. I'm not sure how far I'd advocate for colour consistency, though I do advocate it in general. In particular, we use white foreground shading shading on Syria's png maps for grey, but if grey isn't being used, I'd prefer to use grey for this purpose. Banak (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am going to change the color to end the fighting and resolve this argument. If you want to continue arguing, go ahead, but do not change it back until you have consensus. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Colors for Sunni government vs Shia rebels

On both the Iraqi and Syrian maps, the Shia government forces are listed as red, and the Sunni forces are either black, green, or grey. I think it would make the map more clear if the Shia Houthi rebels are red (or magenta/pink) and the Sunni government forces are green. I already changed AQAP from black to grey to avoid confusion with ISIS, but I am hesitant to make this change, as many people want red to symbolize the 'accepted government' and the green to symbolize the 'rebels'. I think that firstly, Iran and Syria support the Houthis as the 'legitimate government', and in Syria the US, Turkey, Saudis, etc. do not recognize Assad as the legitimate governor. With all of this confusion, I think everything would be clearer if the colors were based on alliances and religious sects, rather than 'legitimacy'. There needs to be consensus before a change is made. What do you think about this? Opinions? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Yemen isn't Iraq or Syria. Protocol speaking, red usually defines the de jure government while green refers to the rebels. In Yemen, the Houthis are still the rebels while Hadi forces are considered the government forces, since Houthi 'government' isn't internationally recognized. Furthermore, why not use green color to denote Houthis when their slogan is colored in green? Secondly, AQAP still makes the biggest presence for jihadist groups than ISIS and we have yet to see the latter making large presence let alone engaging fighting against AQ, except a few recruits conducting suicide bombing in several cities. Until we start seeing ISIS making first large presence enough to openly declare war against all sides, all color edits will be reverted back to normal. Myronbeg (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the Shia government is first of all as legitimate as the Sunni exiled government - depends whom to ask and wikipedia shouldn't "decide" on such issues. Secondly, we are in a process of making a large scale Middle East conflict map, where red is associated with the Syrian/Iranian axis, while the Green is for Sunni Arab League members (including Syrian Opposition), black is for ISIL and grey is for al-Qaeda network organizations (al-Nusra, etc.). Therefor in this map - Houthis red, Hadi loyalists green and Ansar al-Sharia grey.GreyShark (dibra) 12:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WOW! Where is this map, GreyShark? I want to see it and help work on it! Yes, this is my exact point: religious affiliation and alliance is far more important than whether one group is the de jure government. I'm sure ISIS thinks it is the right government, the same with sunni rebels, shia rebels, etc. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Map should be named the Great Jihadist War. Be perfectly accurate and its causes can be directly attributable to US backing of oppressive states, the disastrous Iraq War, Iran's desire to never again be a puppet state of the US and backing groups to tie the US down from attacking it, constant Israeli Crimes against Humanity going unchecked and unpunished, the war in Afghanistan, perceived war on Muslims by NATO States, and rampant corruption, droughts, and climate change. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - @Pbfreespace3: it seems this discussion is stuck since July 2015. At this point we have just 4 commenters in this thread, which is not sufficient. Shall we invite users from the above discussion on Ansar al-Shariah's map color?GreyShark (dibra) 09:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

GreyShark, no, i don't think so. AQAP is al-qaeda's branch, which is why they are grey. Same as Nusra in Syria and Taliban in Afghanistan. ISIS is black, and their affiliates are black, like Shuhada al-Yarmouk, Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, and Boko Haram. I don't really think there is a sustainable argument for making these icons black.

Also, I though we were talking about green vs red rather than black vs grey. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace3: - i'm talking about green vs red of course; i totally lost you here. I just want to invite more participants into this discussionGreyShark (dibra) 04:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Greyshark09, you'll need to wait a month to get a reply from them. Consider watching the general sanctions page to reduce the risk of pinging users who can't reply. Banak (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Banak: Oh dear, it's a pity. I'll do it myself then. Hope Pbfreespace3 won't get into trouble after his return.GreyShark (dibra) 06:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please make such a map with roads ! --212.75.52.4 (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker

I think we can all agree that AQAP should be grey now, yes? Given that IS holds territory here, that should be marked black. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

AQAP in Zinjibar

Zinjibar should be marked for mixed control between Hadi forces and AQAP, if not colored solid black. AQAP controls government buildings in the city and has set up checkpoints. Also have apparently made advancements in other parts of Abyan. Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.198.80 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Considered both AQAP and Hadi forces have entered Zinjibar and there's no conflict among both till now. Myronbeg (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs update on al-Qaeda gains in the Aden region

The map needs to update AQAP gains in the south

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/23/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0QS07820150823

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/yemen-officials-al-qaida-seizes-key-areas-aden-33247412

--Ritsaiph (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Great source for details on events in Yemen

Hey guys, I just wondered if you knew about this excellent source for updates on Yemen: http://www.criticalthreats.org/node/6712

It's pretty detailed, and could probably help make this map more accurate and comprehensive. I haven't noticed it being cited in the edit history so far.

GeoEvan (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is great. Thank you. PutItOnAMap (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Zinjibar under AQAP control

Source [[21]] claims that Zinjibar is under control of AQAP. Are there any sources which indicate Hadi presense in the city or should I mark it as under AQAP control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area, what? First, the source you cited does not mention the town in question. PErhaps you accidentally put in the wrong link? Secondly, the source is pro-kurd and anti-ISIS/Al-Qaeda, but specializes in Kurdistan. I don't think they are a reliable source for this. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 Apologies, I must've done. I cannot remember the source I intended to link either.Prohibited Area (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please include bordering Saudi towns

This war seems to be spilling over into South-Eastern Saudi Arabia more and more, as the Houthis capture border posts and attack towns there. Wouldn't it make sense to also show affected positions on the other side of Yemen's northern border? Esn (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, the spilling into Saudi Arabia is more frequent now, with border posts & small towns controlled by the Houthis.--HCPUNXKID 23:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hanish Islands

Hanish Islands now under the control of Hadi-affiliated groups

please remove the green color on the island because it's not under control of Houthis/Saleh anymore.

the source: here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.45.120.38 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Zuqar Island

also Zuqar Island under control of Hadi-affiliated groups

skynews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaomar222 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Midi, Tawwal border, Harad District

Hadi army take control of "Tawwal border crossing", "midi port" . and Harad in haja, Al Hazm, Yemen in Al-Jawf .

• [22] [23] [24] [25]

--Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Description on revision

Most independent and impartial yemeni sources emphasize that Midi & Harad not had fallen by Pro-Hadi forces & Clashes between 2 sides in Al Tawwal to be continued.

• Sources: [26] [27] [28] [29]

K!lluminati (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Iranian pro-Houthi source Press TV claim "pro-Hadi militants seized border crossing and the town of Harad northwest of Yemen". http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/18/442245/Yemen-truce-violation-Hadi Khalifa trooper (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Militants loyal to the fugitive former president Hadi captured Hazm, the provincial capital of the Jawf province and the northwestern town of Harad.http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/19/442322/Yemen-Saudi-Arabia-Marib-counterattack Khalifa trooper (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

♦The official Saudi Press Agency Al Ekhbariya TV minutes ago reported that fighting continues in Al Tawwal border post. Tweet pic

• more detail → [30]

---K!lluminati (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't even care about my country sources, in yemen most of it not honest --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

All of those sources are extremely biased, not to mention unreliable. None of the articles from those sites can be used on this map module. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

al buqa in sa'dah

[31] [32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaomar222 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not serious sources

The french page is multi sourced by serious sources. Haradh and Nihm are under Hadi control. Your source are not serious. And Jabal Salb is under Hadi control. Because of K!lluminati, there are a not seious map. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit [33]

Your source is uncredible and pro Houthi. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Midi

[34] [35]

Yes, Midi is mostly under Pro-Hadi Yemeni Gov. control. The changes were made, but another reliable source indicated that Midi city is contested. To know for certain if the city is under full Pro-Hadi Gov. control, we will need a new, more recent, reliable source. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Random, unsourced pro-Houthi edits

Random, unsourced pro-Houthi edits are being made far too frequently on the map. One reason frequently cited for these edits was 'Houthis will win'. Whether or not something may happen in the future is no excuse to change the map until that thing has happened. Accuracy must be upheld first and foremost.

Please, stop making unsourced edits, or using unreliable sources, or pro-Houthi sources for Houthi advances, or pro-Hadi advanced for Hadi advances. I think the exception to this rule is Al Masdar because it is supposed to be a very reliable source according to the other more experienced editors of this map and the Syria map. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I reverted a wave of absolute BS, biased edits over a week ago. It was absolutely ridiculous; none of it was sourced, most of it was obviously crap, and the changes made this map look like it was crafted by a bunch of kindergartners compared to a bunch of the other Middle East war maps. Today, I made some changes from a reliable source (it was Pro-Houthi, so I didn't carry over any of the Houthi advances documented there) according to the rules for editing with reliable sources. Now, the next time someone reverts or makes any biased changes using an unreliable source, or worse, with no source at all, I will bring an admin to stop all of the nonsense, childish changes that have been erupting across this module. If you don't want to use reliable sources or edit by the rules, then don't edit at all. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Map

People who edit here and think that they can POV-push their own opinions, or force the map to bend to their heart's desire, need get things straight. Too often unreliable sources are being used to justify advances by a certain side, and sometimes, an editor would revert or make a change without providing any source at all. For starters, see the following list:

Unreliable Sources that Cannot be Used:

• AlWasat
• Khabaragency
• Yamanyoon
• Yemennewsgate
• Yemen today
• PressTV
• Alsomoud
• AlMasirahTV
• Sabanews
• Sabanew
• Yemensky
• Any and all video-only sources, (including YouTube), unless it is from an internationally-reputable source
• Any and all local sources. The only exceptions are Internationally-recognized Yemeni Government sources, neutral sources, or sources directly from journalists/activists who are known for their reliability.
• "Personal experience" - Anyone can make up anything or lie about "living there" or "seeing this" on the battlefield. "Personal sources" are absolutely unacceptable.

• If your source fails the reliability criterion, it is not acceptable under any circumstances, unless it is discussed here first and an exception is made upon consensus, within reason. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• If a map or a social media source does not have an accuracy rate of at least 70%, for the purpose for which it is being used, under no circumstances can it be used.

Any edits made based on any of these sources or the like will be subject to immediate reversion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Any repeated violations will result in a report to the admins. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems very POV to assume there is only one internationally recognised government of Yemen, and that they (the pro US faction) are the only reliable source on the military situation. This is a biased source. Is this really enforced with admin action? 1.144.96.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

♦♦♦ you are not refrence & bencher of decisions and diagnosis about unreliable sources that create for your-self banned list and publish it here. each of sources mentioned above are the best and most reliable and the most accessible and most authoritative sources that inform situation in yemen's war carefully, quickly, rightfully and quite fair and away from prejudice and personal bias. the point that should be considered due to internal problems there Such as; unavailability of Internet, lack of international journalists and Reporter, generally civil war, deficiency infrastructure & inactivity international media to legally ,so even most agencies and TV around the world and the Middle East cover their news based on local sources in yemen. differences and handoffs some areas is just because high rate of conflict and developments of battlefield and not due to being biased and unreality of these sources. only remedies and solution to dispel opacities and achieve optimal situation LT is:

• First: Media which are reliable, credible and valid, no naming Unreliable and Invalid.
• Second: for inserting & actions of edit in Template Map use both side of opinions & sources.
• Third: per any change in map is obligatory & should be mentioned WEB NEWS LINKS.
• Fourth: references, cited components & constituent parameters & elements in web news links MUST be clear, specified & availability.
• Fifth: forcefully avoid of bias, prejudice, hatred & grudges of Partisan, Ethnic & Factional.

I hope to be effective & illuminate my explanation. --K!lluminati (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: K!lluminati is right, your personal list of unreliable sources is just that a personal list, wich suspiciously only includes sources close to one side, and no sources close to the other...I'm so tired of seeing people distorting, misinterpretating, etc... in order to POV-push, examples? Dozens of them, see for instance almost every Ukraine-related article. Some editors should realize that WP is an encyclopaedia, not a political blog...--HCPUNXKID 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And how are they reliable? In a number of previous discussions on this talk page, the vast majority of sources listed above were deemed by other experienced users to be unreliable. So please use well-known, reliable sources in the future. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And local sources include both Pro-Houthi and Pro-Hadi outlets, except for those that have a history of known accuracy. By the way, video sources cannot be used, per Wikipedia policy. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: YemArabSf in order to make local Yemeni sources unreliable you should also list Pro-Saudi sources as unreliable sources as well, such as Al Arabia & other related gov sources, and use external sources that does not participate directly or indirectly in the conflict such as :

• Al Arabia < Saudi
• Al Jazeera < Qatari
• SkynewsArabia < UAE

YemArabSf (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Al jazzra and Arabiya and Sky News arabe serious sources. Yemen today and Masirah are not pro Yemen. They are pro Houthis. I am for their forbid.Your opinion is not serious. Almayadeen TV, Russia Today & FARS and Masdar are propaganda. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is probably the best international news organisation based in the Arab world, even if it cannot criticise Qatar too openly (or it would see a crackdown on it). It is even prepared to criticise Qatar's close allies like Saudi, and in my opinion it is a worthy source to use on this map. PutItOnAMap (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: Just an appeal to reason. The situation in Yemen is changing incessantly, so a possible error will be uncovered when a bigger change happens. Furthermore, for all with a strong POV: It really doesn't create sympathy or antipathy if one side holds or doesn't hold Beihan or any other small town. It's just a little difference on the map. Of course, "unreliable" sources should be avoided. But this can't just be one sided. I'd be really careful with the pro-Houthi sources as well as clearly pro-Hadi sources in Yemen. Most of international sources, especially Al Jazeera are reliable. But I'd actually make an exception if a national Yemeni newspaper tells something about the situation in smaller villages (which are then sometimes to be added to the map, if they aren't there yet), since a capture of a small settlement really doesn't help anything for propagandistic purposes. This doesn't need to become an edit war.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Al Houta capital of Lahij Governorate seized completely by AQAP

Sources:Ajel News YemenBuYemenYemenLinesourceArabi 21El WehdaAl Mlab Khalifa trooper (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Aden and three-way mixed control

Aden is currently controlled (in a stable condition, but only just) by AQAP, IS and pro-Hadi forces. We will need an icon to represent this, which I am going to make, but for now we wil simply have to indicate an AQAP presence in the city until we have the correct graphic to represent it. Are there any objections to this? PutItOnAMap (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert Condition to before editing. any time new icon created, you authority change & edit Template Map. also, you can getting help from André437 for making that.

Regards. --K!lluminati (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I know how to edit the template map. All I need is to upload the graphic itself. What I am going to do is have it as mixed control (red and black) with an AQAP presence within to indicate 3 way mixed control until I have made the icon. My source specifically said that it was 3 way. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you prefer the edit. It's better at indicating 3 way control than just having 2 colours. I'll get the graphic up for 3-way and leave that up in the meantime, ok? PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Source

Hi appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. It removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing War

There is currently an editing war involving which side controls certain towns (Ataq being a key example), focused around one side arguing that the sources are unreliable.

You should resolve this issue of source reliability here in the talk page before making any more reverts, even if you think that these reverts are probably corrections. The most common reason I'm seeing for edits is 'unsourced edit' - in fact, most of these are simply reverts of previous unsourced edits made to previous unsourced edits, and so on...etc, until eventually you presumably reach a sourced edit with a source which has questionable reliability. The Chinese whispers edit means that occasionally, a real unsourced edit slips through our fingers unnoticed while we have this editing war.

Don't revert on the basis of 'unsourced edit' any more unless you can point to the original edit at the start of any editing war you are having here, and prove that it is completely unsourced, or establish by consensus here in the talk page that the source behind it is unreliable. These editing wars are making the development of this map unprofessional, and, at times, factually incorrect. We need to stop them now.

At the same time, it is worth mentioning that the prevalence of unsourced pro-Houthi edits is still a problem that has not fully subsided. We should be extra-vigilant for these. PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

URGENT: We need to talk about this map

1. There are too many editing wars over a series of never-ending reverts. 2. We have not agreed on what sources can be used where. 3. Unsourced edits.

These are causing the Yemeni Civil War Map's standards to fall below that of other maps. We need to discuss things here first if you have a problem with a revert or edit someone has made, we need to engage in civil discussion and we need to resolve our disputes without having them out over changes to a map which everyone will see. Don't threaten endlessly to call in admins or revert every last edit that you can. Viewers will notice territory changing hands much faster than in an actual war due to our embarrassing editing crisis on this page.

This needs resolution, and it needs it now. I haven't got all the answers - I don't pretend to - but we need to find them here as a team of editors. This is what the talk page is for - now we must use it. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there are WAY too many pro-Houthi edits being done without reliable sources. The map is not accurate any more and changed much in favor of Houthis. For example when towns become contested the label is kept that way for months if its a pro-Houthi move, but removed rapidly when its the coalition attacking Houthi towns. Can't be right that Saudi border towns are still labelled as green or contested, when Nihm which was contested just 24 hours ago is already changed back to green. (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the pro-Houthi unreliable edits seem to be more prominent than pro-Hadi edits, but the same applies to the latter, too. We really need to decide here which sources are reliable so that they can be used for this map, rather than unreliable sources such as SANA. Otherwise, we'll end up having the map locked, like it was recently by an administrator, again. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Nihm: [36] [37]

Midi: [38] [39]

AQAP in Habban town near Ataq

AQAP in Habban town near Ataq http://www.criticalthreats.org/gulf-aden-security-review/gulf-aden-security-review-february-3-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 February 2016

File:Map-ctl4+red+lime+grey+black.svg does not exist, it appears to be unused so could either be removed from index or changed to the png that does exist File:Map-ctl4-red+lime+grey+black.png KylieTastic (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC) KylieTastic (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note, if this is somehow part of the content dispute above (I don't think it is) please revert me without consult. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

AQAP take Ahwar and Shuqrah

AQAP have taken the towns of Ahwar and Shuqrah on the southern coast, attempting to link their Zinjibar pocket with the caliphate in Hadramawt

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/qaeda-tightens-grip-south-yemen-coast-160107330.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.119.131 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

- as a PS - admins, if you're going to protect this module then please update it, AQAP are in Habban as well, this map is now lagging behind current developments

Done all 3 towns. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Source on ISIS control of Lawdar?

I have not been able to find one. I guess Baghdadi uses Wikipedia. Recommending Lawdar be changed back to Hadi control.

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-emerges-in-yemen-city-captured-and-camps-established/PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yemen Today TV related to Ali Abdullah Saleh also had confirmed it before ⁽¹⁾ K!lluminati (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Disturbing sources

When we use a source with pictures of dead people close up or that comes from jihadist media, please could we mention this in our edits? It's not that I, personally, object to seeing these images, but I think those trying to verify sources have a right to know what they're going to view when they click on a link. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If your means was I; You're right & I'll apologize you. it be considered, news sources containes disturbing pictures and violent should be warned to that in edits. thank you for remind it. K!lluminati (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

SURVEY: Rules for Editing the Map

This regulations about editing map uses in Syrian Civil War map that has been successful to restore order at there. think that's it can be fruitful in here, leave a comment after reading text at the end.

• K!lluminati (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Bigles: Are you kidding me? Pro Hadi Sources?! http://www.almasirahnews.com/ is the main PRO SALIH Source! stop spreading such lies

Review once again above rules. in first clause said: “A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.” if abandon source validity & say nothing about that, do you present which source(s) lieu of Maton, Ghayl, Khalq & Labnat edits ? you rely on video that:

1. expired and dated on 21 December 2015
2. just related to fall of Al Hazm district and not elsewhere

but after a while some other Pro-Hadi sources (such as al-KhabarNow and Today Press quoted from Al Jazeera) confessed to Houthis dominance on Maton, Ghayl, Khalq & Labnat (1) , (2) Now if you know other independent sources that break each of these items separately, specify at here for Re-analysis. K!lluminati (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: in cited news link 1 from GulfNews to date February 6, 2016 (23 days ago!!) not in general and not in Partial didn't mention to liberating/capturing nowhere & news details not speak about seizure special region/district or anything with the name at all. It seems to me, this edit can be an instance of abvoius Vandalism and Projection. However if you have extra & more explanatory tell it otherwise your edit will be reverted. K!lluminati (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It said that the Sana'a was surrounded (to the east), with Pro-Hadi forces pushing near the Arhab District. It doesn't get any simpler than that. And like I told other users so many times, not every single village or hilltop will be mentioned, because most of them are tactically insignificant. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: Firstly it doing overall taking and spoke of advancing Pro-Hadi troops in east San'a and no further. Secondly not spoken to fall that you brought some dots to red colour ! everyday happens wide movements on various fronts but whose of them bear fruit or get positive result? mere per attack should not be assumed that goal has collapsed. the fallen aim where is, agency or webnews site published officially that's specifications with refer to the name precisely. with this argument due to daily Houthi's advance in different battlefields can dye much icons Green color!!.

N accept it your lagic is false & Unreasonableness.

please revert wrong changes or i do that. thanks. K!lluminati (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Panam2014: "pov pushing." in edit summary Revision as of 19:21, 29 February 2016 ⁽¹⁾

Hi, i eliminate wrong data of previous edit version regards to consensus opinions at here(see above) and i explain it with refer to talk page link at edit summary, but you reverted without mention reason (why? :|) i think this action was not right. anyway if you have something to say tell it to me. waiting... ! K!lluminati (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sayma Airfield (Alumari - Dhubab)

• The location on the map makes it seem its South of Dhubab town, when Sayma airfield starts out of the gate of Brigade 17 North of Al-Umari
• Control due to location, is unlikely Pro-Hadi/Coalition
• Its possible the Pro-Hadi/Coalition forces established a new airfield to the South of Dhubab where they still have a checkpoint, could be considered an Airfield if someone has reports on an Airfield they still control near Dhubab, but its not Sayma airfield Pilescrewb (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No mistake, hadn't been established new one air-base south of Dhubab, indeed went wrong in entering geographical coordinates on edit board. at the moment Sayma Airfield is in Houthi's hands and located between brigade 17-HQ & al-Umari mounts behind Dhubab entrance gates. look at screen that taken from WIKIMAPIA ⁽¹⁾ K!lluminati (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: That's a rationally whenever one position surrounded on three sides, it's means that spot has fallen. when Jabal al-Umari, 17 Brigade even town of Dhubab captured by Houthis, so definitely Sayma Airfield been owned to Houthis. if you have proofs that violate this argument show it or edit will be revert as soon. thanks K!lluminati (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@K!lluminati: We must not interpret the sources. No source said the base was taken, we have nothing to deduct. She may be under siege. So I let you restore the geographical coordinates but leave the base in red. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Suddenly, for settle disputes we need to interpret sources, Question! initially based on which specified source claim Sayma Airfield is in Pro-Hadi control's ? I contend since as whole of surrounding areas belong to houthis so, Sayma dominated by Houthis. now you disaffirm this matter accord which source ? K!lluminati (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@K!lluminati: No, it's up to you to prove that the base is bound by the Houthis by source. If no source which makes clear, the base is still under the control of Hadi (last news found). --Panam2014 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Because of not finding any sources to confirm that(from both parties), Sayma Airfield icon's remove from map so that be found verified source. it's best solution. K!lluminati (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Al Masdar

Hi Al Masdar are pro Iran. They are not credible . The mainstream media does not show the info. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I know that Al Masdar are the most credible pro-Houthi source we've come across, and it is quite reliable for territorial changes on the Syrian map. However, its problem is that it often fails to mention territorial losses by the Houthis, so we have to use other sources a lot to update those. As for it being unreliable for the Yemen map - perhaps. It's just my experience but it seems a bit more propaganda infused than for the Syrian war, and this may affect its reliability. We ought to decide here whether it's suitable to use on the Yemen map, as a group. PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not credible . His information comes from PetoLucem , pro Iran, and its information are not included in the mainstream. For the mainstream, yet they say loyalist control Misrakh . --Panam2014 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - per Wikipedia guidelines "mainstraem" or "POV" sources are not a criteria for being reliable. POV sources can be reliable and mainstream sources can be unreliable - the question is whether the source shows reliability:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered

Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 17:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Panam2014 See above text posted by GreyShark, those writings been extracted from ventricle law of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, so following them to everyone is binding. review them once again. K!lluminati (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again Al-Qaeda & ISIS,

ISIS and other Islamist forces are taking control of most ex-Goverment held areas. Keep an eye on edits.

Aden

Clashes between AQAP and Hadi forces.sourcesourcesource SvEcHpInXID (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Taiz Siege

sources: [40] [41] [42] [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaomar222 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Reverting to True Status

Sources needed for edit map was gathered finally, important note that's this pack mostly taken from sources related to Hadi or Pro-Hadi websites and this will be tight place of pretext seekers! i would bias not be cause to backwardness once!! take a peek to ensure more.

• Sirwah: [44],[45],[46],[47]

• Jabal Haylan: [48]

• Makhdarah: [49],[50]

• Kofel Camp: [51],[52]

• Ad Dayq, Jabal Marthad & Jabal Bahrah : [53]

• Al Baqqa Border Crossing: [54]

• Harib Al Qaramish: [55]

• Nuqub, Beihan & Usaylan: [56],[57]

• Ain: [58]

• Ataq: [59],[60],[61]

K!lluminati (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Colors on the map

Continuing the previous thread from last year - with the coming creation of all-Middle East Crises map, we would be required to change the colors here. I suggest to switch: The Saudi Arabian and Southern Yemeni Sunni government forces to be marked green (to correspond to the Sunni Arab League states and Turkey), while Houthis to be marked as red (to correspond Syrian Ba'athist and Iraqi Shi'ite pro-Iranian forces). Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 18:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Does make sense, if this map is coming. But as long as that isn't sure that this map comes, I wouldn't change it, because it might be very confusing.

Another thing is, are there colours which the Houthis use primarily? I just know this one , which is green, red and white.

It's actually much more problematic to choose the colours of the combatants in Libya for this middle east map, because none of the rivalising governments belongs to the shia block.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ermanarich and Greyshark09: I'm against. The red refers to the official government and the green to the rebels. Moreover, to Libya, Tobruk government must be recolorisé blue or orange as it is no longer recognized by the international community to the government in exile. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How do you define "official" government? The UN-member on behalf of Syria is Ba'athist Syrian Arab Republic; however, Syrian opposition is the member of the Arab League - recognized by dozens of countries as "legal". Same with Yemen - Arab League sees Hadi's Yemen cabinet as official Yemen, but Houthis control the capital and legally declared Supreme Revolutionary Committee government, recognized by several states. So which governments are the official ones? Answer - the ones you choose per your POV.GreyShark (dibra) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Ermanarich: - this map is in preparation stages. Just to be clear - the map is including Middle East countries (Western Asia), while Libya is in North Africa, which doesn't belong to the Middle East in mainstream view.GreyShark (dibra) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Greyshark09: houthi government is recognized by any country. I am against that proposition. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I know that Libya isn't in the middle east, I just thought that this map just shows the civil wars in the Orient in general. But does this map really make sense? Because I would say that the happenings in Libya are actually more related to the happenings in the Levante than the Yemeni Civil War is. In the Libyan Civil War, Daesh plays a significant role, while they are just a small group in Yemen.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ermanarich: - i agree that we have similar players in Libia, however also in Yemen - the Houthis are clearly a pro-Iranian force (part of the Iran-Ba'athist Syria-Lebanese Hezbollah-Iraq axis), whereas Hadi's government is a Saudi puppet and Ansar al-Sharia is from the same family as Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria. We have 5-6 major fighting factions in the mid-East: Iranian Shia axis, Saudi-led Sunni Arab coalition + Turkey, Kurds, al-Qaeda's branches and Islamic State. It is pretty ease to picture all those with red, green, yellow, grey and black colors as we can use shades to differentiate Arab League (lime) and Turkey (dark green), as well as Syrian Kurds (yellow) and Iraqi Kurds (dark yellow), with little alterations to existing maps. We can also utilize blue and purple if we decide to add some local faction.GreyShark (dibra) 17:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ermanarich and Greyshark09: I am against the color change to the Yemeni government . --Panam2014 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Which of the two governments?GreyShark (dibra) 18:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ermanarich and Greyshark09: No country officially recognizes the government of the Houthis . As with all cards, the government recognized by all countries in red and green rebel . For your global map on connflits the middle east , I 'll let you do what you want to color. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm neither for nor against a change. I think they both have their advantages and disadvantages. By the way, regarding the thing you wrote about the Sabanew/s-thing: Don't worry, I'm actually not even able to read arabic. That's the reason too why I can't really help here adding sources for changes (because the majority of sources about Yemen is in arabic), I'll stay only changing the .svg maps.--Ermanarich (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

POV Pushing

Hi @Ermanarich, Greyshark09, PutItOnAMap, and LightandDark2000: per WP:POVPUSH http://www.sabanews.net/ar/ and http://www.sabanew.net/ are unreliable source but some users have POV puishing and used them. The first is pro-Hadi news agency and the second the Houthi news agency. That sources are biased, we couldn't use them. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. You reverted K!lluminati's changes, because the pro-Hadi news agency "sabanews" says that the Houthis conquered Khanjar Camp? Also he listed another newspage that isn't listed as "Unreliable Sources that Cannot be Used:".

I can't understand your arguing there, sorry. I think a bit more constructivity and teamwork would be good.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ermanarich hi comrade, you'r right and i liked your words but he has been deprived and couldn't gave any answer untill may 1. K!lluminati (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Saba is the news agency in Yemen, and it's a reliable source [62] the second site is "Sabanew" without "s", it's a fake masquerade website, that is not listed or written in any formal place YemArabSf (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed edited YemArabSf CM. K!lluminati (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Aden town

This is really ridiculous. According to this map, 66% of the town is controled by ISIS/Al Qaeda lol. But Government and pro-Government sources all say that ISIS has no presence nside the town but sleeper cells which pro-Hadi forces are trying to clean. They also say that Al Qaeda (Ansar Sharia) has only presence in some district. The town is marked as under 66% of ISIS/Qaeda control because various sources from Chinese, London etc say that "there are clashes inside the town" which is not wrong but you are pushing the POV for yourself. I mean, the united nations, embassies from other countries, and Saudi Arabia, have their HQ in the town, with only 30% of gov. control ? Yes, sure. I am now asking for sources who confirm the 66% presence of anti-gov troops inside the town. That must be easy ? If not, we will see what I can change instead of that. DuckZz (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@DuckZz, Ermanarich, Greyshark09, PutItOnAMap, and LightandDark2000: I am aggree. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

you've problem of eye, there is 33% for al qaeda and about 15% for IS on the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.53.171 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is - when there is stable control, we need an icon to represent that three factions are controlling. Now, the government controls most of Aden, but we know that IS and Al Qaeda have (or, at least, in the case of Al Qaeda, had until Al Mansoura district was cleared) some neighbourhoods under their control in Aden. We needed to represent this, and we can't make icons saying 15% controlled by X faction, 20% controlled by Y faction. Either we make a detailed map like Aleppo showing each faction's control in different parts of the city, or we have the triple-joint-control icon, which shows all colours, even if it does not represent which percentage is controlled by which faction.

We specifically say on the key of the map that the joint control icon represents just that: joint control, NOT what percentage is controlled by each faction. PutItOnAMap (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Daesh control only part of the port and AQAP was removed . So you have to use a black arrow for the port. --Panam2014 (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@PutItOnAMap Agreed, joint control implies some sort of power sharing arrangement, joint governance, or accepted zones of control. I highly doubt that the government has any official zones of control agreement with either IS or AQ (unofficially who knows), but for certain they do not have a power sharing arrangement with them for the city, or joint governance of the city. This symbol should absolutely be changed to a contested symbol of some sort, even if IS or AQ are left out of the representation. Right now the symbol is very misleading and gives the average lay reader the wrong impression. If we can, a new symbol may need to be created to show a three way contested city, but until such time as that problem is resolved we need to represent the situation with an appropriate symbol and not mislead the reader. Wiz9999 (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Since we have not heard of any AQAP control since al Mansoura was cleared, we can change it to a joint IS-government icon. Moreover, if we can find a source mentioning that IS control no neighbourhoods, but only have a number of cells or part of the port, we can use a red icon for Aden and a black presence icon within the city for IS. Does that sound like a good solution? All we need are sources. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @PutItOnAMap: I am agree. Could you change the map ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of a detailed map for Aden like the detailed map of Aleppo. It's quite likely that clashes in Aden will go on. The Houthis may be expelled from there, but they could come back, AQAP is getting stronger as well as Daesh in Yemen. And then there are also tensions between the Southern Resistance and pro Hadi-troops which may lead to fightings in the future. If the situation remains difficult to depict, the detailed map would be profitable. If it's likely to be more clearly in the nearer future, I wouldn't create a map there.

What do you think?--Ermanarich (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The best option is to make it red with a grey smaller circle inside the town which represents the AQAD presence. Gov. forces are not hiding this situation because they are always writing about Coalition helicopter airstrikes on Ansar Sharia buildings inside the town etc. But the ISIS presence is really not noticable, it's bascially just like in Europe, we all know they are there, but we can't locate them, and they show us their presence by conducting suicide attacks, just like in Aden. There have been no reports about direct clashes with ISIS in Aden, only hit run attacks by ISIS cells. DuckZz (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban ?

@DuckZz, Ermanarich, Greyshark09, PutItOnAMap, and LightandDark2000: Greyshark09 added a topic ban in Yemen with 1RR but any administrator confirmed . So I deleted the documentation. Also , I notice that in Yemen , ISIS is not implanted , unlike Libya. Now, for the map of the war in Libya , there is no topic ban. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly brings you to the conclusion that there is no Daesh in Yemen?--Ermanarich (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@DuckZz, Ermanarich, Greyshark09, PutItOnAMap, and LightandDark2000: In Aden , there are just attacks without control territory except Lawdar. Lawdar is not disputed. Knowing that in Libya , the presence is larger with territory control but there is no ban topic . So a RR1 for Yemen is meaningless. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There are Daesh(ISIS)s in Yemen, thanks to Saudis [63] [64] [65] YemArabSf (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed edited YemArabSf CM. K!lluminati (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The page is under WP:GS/ISIL sanctions regime, due to ISIL involvement.GreyShark (dibra) 07:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Al Maton under conrol of local tribes

According to official published news, local tribes in al-Maton satisfy Ansarullah & Saleh troops to leave the district and withdrawal in return of no entering up Hadi forces to the there. with regards to negotiations conducted between maton's tribemans and agent of Hadi forces with mediation, right now Al Maton District be controlled & held by locally and devoid from 2 sides of conflict. thus maton icon color needs be changed to blue. K!lluminati (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Source: [66]

While I don't disagree with you, I have to say that we need to remove this blue color and I will tell you why. If you follow the SyrianCivil war map, you may notice that we had a blue color there 2 years ago, it represented local tribes in some provinces. We removed the color because we realized that those local tribes are basically inside already existing groups together with other Rebels. When you have a side, for example Rebels, you can seperate them as much as you want, for example in Syria, the Rebel color can be seperated into tribes, opposition FSA, islamists, Turkmens, extremists, Shaitat tribe etc.. but we did avoid that problem. In Yemen, the situation is almost the same. Tribes, represented in blue, are allied with pro-Hadi forces, which represent various groups, from the former SouthernMovement brigades, to official Yemen armed forces divisions etc, while all tribes are part of the "Popular resistance groups" and in most cases (60%) they are participating in every battle. Here1, Here2, Here3....... Seperating them makes no sense, they are pro-Hadi forces, and that's what "Red color" represents. DuckZz (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. But what should we do then with the situation in al-Hawtah northwest of 'Azzan? It's depicted as being contested between AQAP and local tribes. How does the situation look there?--Ermanarich (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your personal judgment is completely wrong! first how did you know all tribes in yemen allied with Hadi and are members of "Popular resistance groups"? The second for what reason compare Syrian Civil War with developments in Yemen? "All that glitters is not gold" country of Yemen had been governed by tribes and clans from hundreds of years ago & its statusis is quite different with Syria. over there tribes are holder of main roles. all of them not cling to one faction or particular stream & like everywhere divided to various grouping such as Pro-Hadi, Pro-Houthi, Pro-Saleh, Pro-Salafists, Pro-Wahhabism and etc even impartial attitudes. for example, if until now hadi troops failed to seize the capital was only because disassociate Pro-Saleh tribes with hadi forces. now at maton district due to daily conflict and lack of security inner tribes decide to cut off assist with both groups so that handle daily routines as locally. Thus attracted their consent with this issue.

Not think perception of this matter be very hard. K!lluminati (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I can now give you 20 sources that half of Taiz town is actually controled by Popular Resistance forces, or Tribes in that matter from Taiz town. Tribes control almost all the eastern country of Yemen. You may think now, "Only a pro-Houthi would say this, to remove Gov. presence from this map as much as possible" but it's quite different. When I say "20 sources" I mean basically sources from Official Gov. or Pro Gov. sites like YemenToday, TaizToday, MaribToday etc... just open any of these twitter accounts, and you will see that almost every third post contains the words "Army and Tribe, or Army and resistance etc" or just open articles. I think you don't understand that Pro-Hadi forces are either the Yemen Army or Resistance Tribes loyal to Hadi. If we follow your logic, we should need to analyze the entire map Houthi controled areas aswell, bec. as you say, they also have tribes which are loyal to Saleh, but that's why we keep them in green bec. green means "Pro-Saleh" and we don't care if that's the Houthies, Rep.Guards, various tribes etc.... the same goes for Pro-Hadi forces, the same goes for Al Qaeda and ISIS. Blue color is misleading. I hoppe you get the point. DuckZz (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No matter we have what interpretation but also it's important that what just happened. something has happend as follows that Houthis have the capital and formed Supreme Revolutionary Committee government also Revolutionary Committee, Special Security Forces & Republican Guard are behind them. The reality is that Pro-Hadi forces are Pro-Hadi force no further, his self-proclaimed government is exiled government and he is fugitive former yemeni president that recognizes Aden as the capital!

Anyway at present time something has happend that's Saleh & Houthis are in one camp exactly counterpoint of Hadi and in maton, tribal elders not support of any party. of course let us not forget that majority of tribals in yemen have not signed pact of brotherhood to any factions congenitally but merely loyalty to them through time depending on their-circumstances. K!lluminati (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable or Unreliable !

• LightandDark2000: “While Al Masdar News is normally a good source to use, it is too biased to be used for any edits on the Yemeni Civil War module.”

What's the criterion to recognize validity of a source? surely our opinions not scale to measure it. such situations; we should refer to the law. by WP:RELIABLE:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."

So realized that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. now what be considered as a reliable source? WP:SOURCES tells us that any source acquire those triple conditions could be reliable to its essence. as well accord to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS purity of source reliability depends on context in other words,"each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

When spoken biased source (that about to be or not to be there isn't consensus) should be noted as definition WP:BIASED "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." and "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."

So better instead of insisting on misinterpretations and classification of resources arbitrarily cooperate with together otherwise vicious cycle will continue & leads to endless Edit War. i said honestly choice is yours. K!lluminati (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

sirwah

just to say, sirwah is still under houthi control https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/979898/yemen-12-morts-dans-des-combats-entre-rebelles-et-loyalistes-a-lest-de-sanaa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.155.61 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Big coalition offensive against AQAP territory in south

Al Kawb already under coalition control, fighting in Zinjibar and AQAP retreating to Shukrah - at the same time, Mukalla being pounded by shells, soldiers airdropped in and amphibious assault from the coast

Don't have any confirmation yet that the regulars here will consider a good enough source but prepare to edit quite a bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.180.203 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the last edit of the recapture of al Mukalla: As far as I've read in the article, the troops only entered al Mukalla. But no word says it was liberated. A liberation of such a big town in one day sounds quite strange to me.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Remain skeptical by all means but I can definitely believe it - according to Twitter they bombed and Blitzkrieged the hell out of that town, I saw videos of huge airstrikes - some higher up decided that it was time for the embarrassment of having so many southern provincial capitals in AQAP hands to end — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.180.203 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

good sources say it was an agreement between aqap and the govt to leave mukalla--81.129.234.55 (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary operations, a massive assault, and the fact that AQAP suspected this (and prepared to leave) in advance meant that Houta was liberated quickly. They did not put up much resistance, instead melting back into the desert to fight other battles later (in Zinjibar, however, they are fighting back). PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation «Azzan and Lahij Governorate»

• PutItOnAMap: “Reverting. What is in the town does not account for what's outside it.”

You claims Lahij Governorate liberated from AQAPs and for this reason rely on [67] (the source that quoted from other sources!) & [68].

Gulf News has noted on April 28, 2016: “Munir Mahmoud Al Yafae, the commander of government troops, said his forces booted the militants out of the main regions, including the capital Huta, Tuban, Wahat and Al Husaini and they are combing farms for fleeing Al Qaida.”

A Few Tips; imprimis you edited Ja'oulah, Ash Shuzayf, Nawbat & Zaida village given that hadn't been any reference to them in details. probably you know that based on rules "ANY edited components SHOULD be mentioned in source link." secondly, all of them addressing to withdrawal of al-Qaeda issue and basically there is no talk about Houthis or Ansarullah but you've edit a large part of Houthi possessions!!!

also about Azzan it must be said that "Jabal Bin ‘Aţash" is a mount and shouldn't be specified with dot sign. as well as you didn't provide any proof for lack of ISIL in Jul al-Ridah and Jabal Bin ‘Aţash. evidence is required to prove them. K!lluminati (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Al Masdar said the entire governorate was under Hadi control.

As for Jabal bin Atash and Jud Al-Rida, they were changed by another user, and you reverted without source. But, looking at that original edit, they weren't justified, so I won't change them back. PutItOnAMap (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Al Masdar news title : “Yemeni force liberate Al-Lahj province from Al-Qaeda” from al-qaeda nor Houthis! houthis hold in hands several areas in lahij gov. (e.g. Al Qabbaytah District). as an example the news that released from Qabbaytah hours ago [69].

you wrote in edit summary moments before "Source used to indicate contesting of Al Houta actually said only positions east and west of the city" Pro-Hadi source said exactly gatherings of al-Qaeda forces exist in east & west Houta suburbs hence purging of lahij gov. not happened to be perfect & it means AQAPs still presence at Ja'oulah, Ash Shuzayf, Nawbat & Zaida and all of these means that Gulf News claims hasn't been true.

As regards to presence of AQAPs troops in east & west Houta city [70] and also having control of some regions by houthis is essential current status be reverted to before that. K!lluminati (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It was Al Masdar's claim (not gulf news - this is pro-Houthi), and we should assume that all those places are now gov-controlled unless they are specifically mentioned as not gov controlled. This source says it wasn't in the city itself. http://www.criticalthreats.org/gulf-aden-security-review/gulf-aden-security-review-april-29-2016 PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

AMN quoted from Gulf News indirectly. insomuch initial line news was worked by G.N.

in the source that you put here [71] or other words [72] clearly to emphasis on focusing al-Qaeda in east & west of Houta. in addition other source tell us al-Qaeda forces are in Shuzayf & Nawbat [73] since these 2 village are in west of houta of course are just themselves [74] nonetheless it seems there is no reason to refuse it. K!lluminati (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

AMN considered it credible. They are to east and west, and if they are mentioned, we can change them to contested, but as there is no mention of the other areas, we should leave them as red as per our latest sources. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

AMN only said push backing of AQAPs from lahij nor houthis also ragards to Pro-Hadi sites newer confessed about having dominated Houthi & Saleh forces on some areas in lahij gov. [75] (8 hours ago), [76] (1 day ago) and [77] (1 day ago) should to be consider this unnecessary controversy as ended. K!lluminati (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

AMN was perfectly clear, but if newer sources say otherwise, bring them up in the other area. Until they have been accepted by a majority of editors as reliable, we cannot use them, PutItOnAMap (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

AMN is clear source but when said nothing about Houthis why would we slander to that?

it's mockery! are you going to reproduct rules? dont work hard! no need to creation. WIKI has done it. just once referred to that → WP:RELIABLE , WP:VERIFY , WP:NOT & ... K!lluminati (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

They may have said nothing about the Houthis because they might not have been present in those parts of Lahij for some time anyway. I haven't read any reliable sources claiming that they were in Lahij at all for some time, only propaganda outlets. If even Masdar can admit that they weren't there, it's probably true.

We need to talk about sources

Some of the sources currently being used do not sit comfortably with me as reliable, or neutral. We need to draw up a list of reliable sources, because I think a lot of the ones being used in this module at the moment are little more than propaganda outlets. That is to say, I propose we use reliable, neutral or opposing sources for all edits. With the exception of jihadists (we can use any source to change their territory, except pro-jihadist ones - i.e. AQAP/IS), we should only use reliable, neutral or opposing sources for changes, as we work in the Syria module.

So, next time any of us use a source in our edits, put it in this talk thread, and together, the editors and administrators can work together to decide whether it is sufficiently reliable or not (yes, if a majority say it's reliable, we can use it again, and if not, we should revert). PutItOnAMap (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't reliable sources be required regardless of whether it's jihadists? Everyking (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That's where I disagree. Usually, we can only use sources pro-one side if they are (1)reliable or (2)concede a loss for that side. In the case of jihadists, there aren't any reliable pro-jihadist sources, so we just have to accept it when any source says there is an advance against them or loss to them. That's how things work in the Syria module, anyway, IIRC. PutItOnAMap (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source, yes. All sides in these conflicts often claim victories and advances that didn't really happen, so you can't just take anyone's word for it. Everyking (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Any source acquire those triple conditions “piece of work, creator of the work & publisher of the work” could be reliable to its essence. whether be pro-jihadist or anti-jihadist & viewpoints behind the resources no reason for credibility or lack thereof. we shouldn't transgress of WP laws and limit them. K!lluminati (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There aren't any reliable pro-jihadist sources, as they rarely admit defeat and even then, they understate it. But, if the majority say otherwise, I suppose we should only use reliable source to display jihadist changes, too, rather than just anti-jihadist sources. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Jihadist mainstream media are similar to their counterparts in all over the world. in a world are medias that cover their victory & boycott their failure. that's not surprising! and this matters no any related to reliability and credibility. but also authentication of a subject only achieve & obtain by discussion and exchange of views. in WP rules and laws mentioned to this point as dispute resolution and final word. K!lluminati (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is, whilst you can rely on some pro-Hadi and pro-Houthi sources to be reliable, you cannot rely on any jihadist sources to be reliable, because victory is so essential to their narrative that they loathe admitting defeat more than most other news agencies. Consequently, the likes of Amaq would rarely admit defeat. I have not found a single reliable jihadist news source. You can use them for jihadist defeats - but not for victories, which they claim more of than they have. PutItOnAMap (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources people have attempted to use since this began:

www.hunaaden.com/ www.almasdaronline.com/ adenpost.info/ http://www.reuters.com/

I am not sure about the first three, but it is certain that reuters is a reliable source. It is one of the most reliable on the planet, actually. Therefore, I am voting to allow the use of reuters as a reliable source. PutItOnAMap (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much every sourced listed in this discussion are unreliable for use on this map module. Although Al Masdar is normally a reliable source, it is much more biased when it comes to the articles it publishes on the Yemeni Civil War, so Al Masdar should be used carefully here, and only with corroboration with other reliable sources in cases of dubious/potentially biased reports. Additionally, all sources originating from international/accredited news agencies (such as Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN News, Reuters, Al Arabiya) are reliable sources for any and all edits by default. Almost all of the sources that I used (along with those of another user) fall under this category. So please re-examine the edit history. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is WIKIPEDIA and we voted to WIKI's rules not now but also when we register our accounts! for this sweet reason we cant let it break. i guess you have problem with comprehension. you cant getting remark for stipulated law. ok? repeat once again, accord to WP:RELIABLE: “all of sources whose to earn those triple values are reliable.” whether we liked it or not that's binding for everyone. so i repeat no trying to construct arbitrary anarchy supposedly as law!

I restore all of subprime edits if be reverted to back immediately flag of Wikipedia:Five pillars as well as report of ignoring WIKIs basic rules will be sent to admins noticeboard to investigate. Good luck. K!lluminati (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

( FYI )

as well accord to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS purity of source reliability depends on context in other words,"each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

should be noted as definition WP:BIASED "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." and "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." K!lluminati (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course non-biased sources can be reliable, but they aren't always. In this case, state news agencies controlled by the Houthis are very unreliable, because they are essentially propaganda outlets (the same goes for Hadi ones). I have not broken any basic rules, but I am trying to introduce quality control to a module which has none of it. At the moment, this place's accuracy is marred by the use of unreliable local news sources.

If we are going to use Al Arabiya, we should be prepared to use Al Masdar, too, and also Al Jazeera. These are all reliable enough. Reuters; bbc; vice news, etc: these are also reliable. I am not sure that these local sources can be depended upon at all due to the state's control of the media there (both the Houthi part and the Hadi part). PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are none of us discussing which sources are reliable? This is important; I don't want an edit was but we do need to sort out what sources are ok to use.

Can we agree that local and national sources should not be used? I'd feel much more comfortable sticking to reliable, international ones. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Support. I think that's the best way to end this uncomfortable situation. There is only one thing that makes me hesitate: Would international sources also report about little conquests, like from mountains or small villages?--Ermanarich (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

^That was a worry: that they would not report on the small details. However, we have seen Masdar (which is Lebanese) report extensively on Syria before, so it can be done. Nihm district has been reported on by Masdar, Arabiya and Jazeera in the past. Criticalthreats, which finds standalone reliable articles (often from sometimes unreliable news agencies that happen to produce reliable articles) reports on small details well. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Source Question

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiKWfuYW0AEHrA1.jpg:large Can we use this as a source? Its a map by pro-Hadi source. Can towns be changed from Hadi to Houthi based on this? 24.131.58.63 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

hi, thank you for asking good questions.

based on Rules for Editing the Map: “2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.” K!lluminati (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

AQAP withdraw Zinjibar and Ja'ar

[78] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)