This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Al Hudaydah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Battle of Al Hudaydah was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Yemen may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why were the contributions from the 14th to the 18th of June removed? Tri nitro brick, 12:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that's most of the attention this subject has received from the media, and the battle has only just begun, so there's not a whole lot to talk about. Still, half the lead and more than half the article is way too much. Flagging as undue. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 12:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Takinginterest01: no it is not sourced. The source is about 12/2017 not 06/2018. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The Saudi-led coalition announced today that its forces were engaged in clashes with elements of the "Ansar Allah" (Houthis) on the outskirts of the city of Al Hudaydah in western Yemen.
The coalition said in a statement that its forces are currently working to secure the airport, stressing the imminent launch of the next phase of operations to put pressure on the Houthis on several fronts, including coastal points and other parts of the city as well as inland port, supported by local resistance.
According to the statement, the priority in operations is to avoid civilian casualties. Maintain the flow of humanitarian aid and allow the United Nations to pressure Ansar Allah to evacuate the city as fighting intensifies and intensified shelling intensifies.
The al-Houthis spokesman, Mohamed Abdel Salam, said on Friday that the "United Nations envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffith has done nothing so far, a cover for the continuation of the war, and does not differ from the former".
The United Nations has expressed concern that the Saudi-led coalition attack on Al Hudaydah, the strategic seaport and one of the country's main seaports, could hamper the lifeline of most of the country's citizens, with 22 million currently dependent on aid and 8.4 million facing famine. Kingston, CA ( talk) 02:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Yemeni government forces, backed by the Saudi-led coalition, took control of the southern and western entrances of the strategic city of Al Hudaydah on Saturday.
According to local sources, al-Houthi gunmen fled from places they had fortified in the the city perimeter and moved to the port of the city, under heavy and intense blows launched by UAE planes.
Hodeidah Airport has been under the control of Yemeni government forces since 13 June. The control of the airport came amid large collapses in the defenses of the Houthis forces stationed at the eastern entrance of the port of Hodeidah, with the participation of various forces including troops backed by the United Arab Emirates.
The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen launched military operations in Al Hudaydah on Thursday, according to the Yemeni government. The military operation aims to ensure that the Houthis forces are prevented from controlling the waterways and international corridors overlooking the Red Sea as part of the restoration of Al Hudaydah.
In a statement for Saudi-led coalition said "that this battle is in line with the reasons that called for the intervention of the coalition militarily in Yemen, represented by the request of the Yemeni government and relevant United Nations resolutions for the year 2015, especially resolution No. 2216." Kingston, CA ( talk) 16:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am opening this discussion to prevent an edit war for edits regarding three paragraphs added under headline Battle, Analyses and Impact on the humanitarian situation.
Both paragraphs under Battle and Analyses report subjective opinions issued by journalism sources, which can be describes as analytic journalism. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity. Saying things like "The alliance has superior weaponry" or "The Houthis, highly experienced in mountain warfare" is subjectivity. Statement such as "If the Houthis are driven out, the coalition could get the upper hand in the war." are purely analytical and subjective.
As for the paragraph Impact on the humanitarian situation, the information provided can be placed within the context of the main paragraph. Adding it under a separate header implies that "closure of the northern entrance of the western city Hodeidah, which leads to Sanaa, blocking a main exit out of the city and making it harder to transport goods from the country’s largest port to mountainous regions." leads to an Impact on the humanitarian situation, which is by itself a subjective report.
I have linked to Wikipedia is not a newspaper article on my initial revert as it holds multiple Wiki Policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT. Wikiemirati ( talk) 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
A huge template about how to solve potential copyright problems in the middle of paragraphs about the Battle of Al Hudaydah is not helpful. That's very bothersome for the reader. Shouldn't that be on the talk page? How is this article featured on the main page in a state like this? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: Unfortunately your recent removals also don't appear to be based on a good understanding of policy. Note you can't simply remove materials you don't like by citing a policy without mentioning why the policy is even relevant. See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. And examining your removals, made clear they were not warranted based on the policies you cite. I have explained each case in my revert summaries. Having said that I found some of your other edits sound and didn't touch them. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 06:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This is still considered vandalism as it was not written in your own wording. There is a guide for embedding freely licensed content (either public domain or Wikipedia Compatible licenses), at Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. The paraphrasing was not adequate, you may add this once you rewrite it in your own words.The alliance has superior weaponry, including fighter planes. The Houthis, resilient and highly experienced in mountain warfare, have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck in battles across Yemen.
@ Wikiemirati: Thanks for your good faith and explanations. Here is my response:
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: four different news sources. Please see the page history for specific urls. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 12:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and apologies for the violations. These are the texts that were deleted for violations or close paraphrasing I believe:
(Redacted)-- Expectant of Light ( talk) 12:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Our best and brightest @ Diannaa: removed this one piece of tactical point that has fascinated me. While I am not sure I exactly understand the edit summary, but I think it has to do with the same copy-right issue. How can we include this info in the page? Paraphrased suggestions, any? I don't try myself since I have lost much confidence in this area after the above convictions! :) I hope it is ok quote this here for this discussion.
According to Reuters "The alliance has superior weaponry, including fighter planes. The Houthis, resilient and highly experienced in mountain warfare, have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck in battles across Yemen." [1]
References
The commander of the first brigade of the Yemeni government forces, Brigadier General Mohammed Saleh, said his forces are waiting for zero hour to enter the city of Al Hudaydah in the next few days after the success of the liberation of Al Hodeidah airport, pointing out that the military operation is in stages. Mohammed confirmed from Hodeidah airport that Yemeni government forces began clearing Hodeidah airport of mines after it succeeded in controlling it.
He said that in the next few days that his forces "will proceed to the city of Al Hudaydah and then to its port and all other areas to liberate it from the Houthis."
The field commander pointed out that the morale of his forces is high, and is waiting for the zero hour to move to all remaining areas and liberation.
We are now in control of the airport and tomorrow we will enter the city and then (we will move) to its port until the liberation of the Al Hudaydah Governorate, "he said.
The general commander of the battle of Al Hudaydah, Ahmed Hassan announced on Tuesday that the Yemeni government forces, with the support and participation of the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia, imposed full control of the airport.
Thus, the Yemeni government forces, 10 kilometers from the port, the main target of military operations, have opened the way to a larger strategic objective: to prevent the Houthis from receiving military supplies through Hudaydah .
The airport is located south of the city of Al Hudaydah overlooking the west coast of Yemen, and includes a 3-kilometer runway and a military air base. It is about 10 kilometers from the port of Hudaydah, making it a strategic hub during the liberation from the Houthis. Kingston, CA ( talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The commander of the Saudi-led coalition forces in the Battle of Al Hudaydah, Brigadier General Mohammad Hassan, announced on Tuesday the liberation of Hodeidah airport from the Houthis. The commander of the forces of the battle of Hudaydah, Tuesday, that the liberation of Hodeidah airport was the participation of Yemeni government forces and support from the aircraft coalition, and confirmed full control and the clearance of the airport in full.
Brigadier Hassan revealed that the losses of the Houthis of the dead are estimated at hundreds since the start of the fighting, and pointed to the fall of more than 250 people in Houthis and 87 prisoners in Hudaydah on Tuesday, which witnessed the liberation of the airport.
The commander of the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia in the battle of Hodeidah that humanitarian aid will flow on Hodeidah in parallel with the ongoing military operation according to plans, stressing that the liberation of Hodeidah airport is part of an integrated plan to liberate the entire city. Kingston, CA ( talk) 20:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: I don't have problem with mentioning different chapters of this conflict so long as their true sequence and casual links are preserved. Depending on how far back you want to go we can trace everything to the 2011 Yemeni Revolution or earlier to Sa'dah War. However the sources are unanimous that it's been aerial strikes and naval blockade by Saudi-UAE-USA coalition that has resulted in the human catastrophe not the Houthi takeover in Yemen or the civil war. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 06:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikiemirati, Expectant of Light The Saudi intervention is clearly a major factor in the humanitarian situation, check what UNO says about that : [1]. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 08:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: You are not responding to my arguments but repeating your civil war rheotric. We do present facts neutrally here but that's not what you are proposing! Your proposal is to remove views whereas all views have to be reflected faithfully as per WP:NPOV. And UN can't call the Saudi-led intervention "the worst humanitarian disaster" because the Saudi intervention is not technically a humanitarian disaster but a military operation. But this military operation is responsible for the said humanitarian disaster and this has been indeed stated by UN and other international legal bodies several times! I think you are engaging in some lingual acrobatics here to dismiss obvious facts. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 08:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And btw, that sentence was not in such a bad need of sourcing because it was actually summarizing another hefty page that had already documented just that sentence using numerous sources. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am referring to this which stated "In 2015, the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe." I've added a source in which the UN talks about it which prompted me to add the Yemen civil war link, and I agreed with you on adding that Saudi led intervention caused it as well. The sentence in quotes reflects your opinion to me. You can add that the UN, HRW, or whoever stated it and reinforce your sentence. Just don't leave it as your opinion and consider it fact without citing who said it. Again, as per WP:NPOV an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Please read the policy page. Wikiemirati ( talk) 09:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
All these words are synonymous, we just waste our time discussing this. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 10:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Mercenary is not a neutral word. Hadi army is internationaly recognized like Assad army. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 11:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
But when the fighters are members of army who are part of the coalition, they are not mercenaries. And for Houthis all of the pro-coalition fighters, including National Army and southerners are merecenaries. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sudanese who wear the uniform of the Sudanese army by being members of the Sudanese armed forces are not mercenaries.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I am not justifying anyone actions, I only aim to establish neutrality in this article. There are a lot of pro-Houthi and pro-Coalition news sources out there. I am constantly bombarded of the pro-Saudi coalition propaganda which says that Houthis use child soldiers or plant mines and blow children limbs just as Pro-Houthi propaganda says that coalition kill civilians etc etc. Our role here in Wikipedia is to convey both sources neutrally. I can find multiple sources of pro coalition sources which say that Houthis are terrorists and kill children and add it to the article too, just like how Houthi say Saudi are all mercenaries. I am not denying the accusations Houthi say about the coalition, just as I do not deny the coalition accusations when they say that Houthis plant mines in residential areas. This is Wikipedia and articles on it deserve to be represented fairly, not sided to pro-Houthi or pro-Saudi. Hence, our tone should reflect neutrality or else this article turns into a war mongering article. Best regard. Wikiemirati ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This gives the Houthi POV some credibility. anything. Sudanese soldiers members of the sudanese armed forces are not mercenaries and for Houthis, all of the anti Houthi forces are mercenaries. Also, Southerners are not mercenaries. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 01:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutral sources do not describe the Sudanese army operating in Yemen as mercenaries.Sudanese qualified as mercenaries are not members of the Sudanese army. Say this is an OR. On the other hand, a coalition may also be based on ideological motives since Sudan has similar points with Saudi Arabia. Our views are of no importance here. In the same way that the Ukrainian troops who were in Iraq in 2003 at the request of the US and the UK, in exchange for money are not mercenaries, even if the Ukrainians have no interest in Iraq and that they had no problem with Saddam Hussein. And as we know that "mercenaries" are used by the Houthis to designate all anti Houthis, it is not acceptable to put this quote. In addition, Southerners have a local agenda even if the KSA support them for the sake of mercenary skills. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@ NightsideAEB, Ukrpatriot98, WorldRecognisedAE, LightandDark2000, Applodion, NuclearWizard, and Dvbdfxgn: what do you think?-- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Sudanese army/Sudanese government forces or private contractors. Ukrpatriot98 ( talk) 15:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
"Yemeni mercenaries" is an OR. The mercenaries have not the yemeni citizenship. We should write pro-Hadi merecenarie or mercenaries. And we should not use Al Arabiya and Al Masirah. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: You have nothing to say that the Houthis are more ethical than the coalition. Let's not forget that the Houthis are anti-Semitic, and call for US death. They are objectively extremist. In the end, it's just your own opinion of them. This is war propaganda, we have no evidence that the Saudi or Houthi lied. We need to use reliable sources like NYT, The Telegraph, Washington Post, Reuters, etc. It is better to have late news than relay the potential lies of the belligerents. And running a part of the country is not an argument for their news to be reliable. The Sana agency in Syria is no more reliable. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@ NightsideAEB, Ukrpatriot98, WorldRecognisedAE, LightandDark2000, Applodion, NuclearWizard, Dvbdfxgn, Chilicheese22, Wikiemirati, and Wikaviani: what do you think? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Panam2014: Look at Houthis and read their campaign objectives. They are pro-reform, anti-corruption, pro-democracy, pro-independence, pro-justice. This is what several sources have stated. As for anti-Semitism, they have rejected the charge. Their slogans must not be read out of context and taken literally. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 03:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikaviani: Western sources seldom cover Houthi positions and statements probably because of their political biases. Several western governments have been involved in this gang rape of Yemen. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 03:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: No, it's not out of context. You have the right to support the Houthis but you can not say that their eulogy is an objective point of view. He is not. We have several reports on the violation of human rights, the use of child soldiers, and their anti-Semitism is not limited to their slogan. There is no reason to consider that they are pro-democracy, for human rights or that their news is more reliable than that of Al Arabiya. Please read WP:NPOV. Also, western sources are reliables and not biaised because they reported KSA's human rights violations. When some western countries supports KSA and UAE, the media does not support KSA and UAE because the media are free and independent. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light:It's wrong. Amnesty clearly condemns the use of child soldiers, and I find that the use of quotation marks is misplaced. For antisemitism, it is not enough for them to deny, secondary sources of quality have given evidence. Then talk about mistakes is a bias. Thank you for not comparing the incomparable by using an off-topic example with Obama. In short, the Houthis are not pro democracy, they claim it only. For media reliability, you have no proof other than your own opinion that is not proof.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light:Once again, you only give your personal opinion. The use of child soldiers is unjustifiable, whatever the circumstances. For the accusations of anti-Semitism, they are substantiated and they have nothing to do with the fact that Iran is the model of the Houthis. Houthis are objectively anti-Semitic and call for hatred against the US and Israel. Which makes it objectively an extremist group, you can not do anything about it. For the rest, intervening in Libya is not against democracy, since Gaddafi was not democratic and the people wanted him to leave. That the intervention was poorly managed, just as the transition is one thing, but to say that it is the same thing as for the Houthis is another. It is at least an off-topic comparison. Otherwise, by the way, Iran supported the intervention against Gaddafi. Houthis are not democratic and independent sources do not describe them as such. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 16:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light:None of the Houthi's practices are democratic, but despite the justified criticism of the US, there is no reason to say that they are not a democracy. You still compare the incomparable. There are sources that say the US is a democracy, by no means the Houthis. Finally, do not change the subject, we are talking about the practices of the Houthis who are unjustifiable, not the USA. For you other sources, these are the statements of the Houthi officials and they have no value. For the teacher from Sanaa, he talks about the beginning, not about the current situation. Your comparison with the USA is an OR. Finally, objectively, the Houthis are an extremist group even if you support it.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 16:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Expectant of Light:|Again, you only give your opinion or you just relay their own statements. For the rest, a group can fight extremism while being extremist. See in the West the antagonism between the far right and the far left. For the Houthis, sources say that initially they were not extremists but they drifted over time. For their demonstrations, it's part of their propaganda. If Gaddafi in July 2011 organized a very big rally in Tripoli, this does not make him a Democrat. For the parliament, it is a puppet registration chamber. The USSR had it, the dictatorial regime of Saleh too. Moreover, if they were Democrats, they would never have allied with Saleh. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
04:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The article is not neutral. Many unreliable sources like Al Manar or Al Massirah are used at too high a dose. And opposite, we used very little Saudi sources, like Arab News, MBC, Al Arabiya. I think that only reliable and independent sources should be used for the core of the article. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 04:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reading OR. Your interpretation of the sources is not based on anything. Saudi sources have every interest in inventing false advances on the ground, as well as pro-Houthi sources. Al Masirah and other pro-Iranian sources are unreliable and nothing confirms the advances they are talking about. Western sources are neutral in the conflict and you have never proved their bias. If not, again, to say that Houthis are moderate is only your partisan personal opinion. Finally, it is the Houthis who say they fight against corruption and for the people, the source quotes the word of the officials. In short, this article is to be rebalanced. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
13:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Expectant of Light:It's not for me to quote, I'm not asserting anything. On the other hand, you do not distinguish between passages where the article quotes the opinion of Houthi leaders and when the article or the journalist gives information. In all your sources, it is either a description of the early Houthi movement or the words of its leaders. I will make quotations when you have given the sources I am asking for, ie descriptions of the Houthi movement now and not old descriptions or partisan descriptions. Finally, you clearly support them when you say they are for democracy when no source says it. This article is not balanced. Either we add all Saudi sources that have appeared to balance, or we use independent sources. I prefer the second option.--
Panam2014 (
talk)
14:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf, Mr.User200, CMV512, BiggestSataniaFanboy89, and XavierGreen: @ OxfordLaw, GWA88, Isanae, Vinithehat, Tobby72, Davemck, Jacsam2, and Chad The Goatman: @ Meeepmep, Snowsky Mountain, and SUM1: what do you think ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You do not like Reuters but Reuters is neutral, whether you like it or not. Otherwise, I have read everything, either the article quotes the statements of the officials or it gives its interpretation of the positioning that the Houthis give themselves. And it is the independent sources that describe the anti-Semitism of the Houthis, as well as the fact that they organized public executions. Please read WP:NPOV. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It's an OR. Reuters talks about the crimes of the coalition so they are neutral. For the protests, Reuters only talks about them when they are really large. The Houthis as any belligerent is likely to make fake news and the Houthis can lie when they deny. --
Panam2014 (
talk) 15:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
OR is inevitable in determining neutrality/reliability of the sources and that's how it works across Wikipedia. Btw, it is not our job to determine whether a party may or may not lie. You describe the Houthis as belligerent but you could as well call them a anti-colonial social movement. Lastly I think dragging this discussion further is pointless. As per
WP:NPOV I agree we should add the POV of all major parties involved. That should put an end to this discussion. --
Expectant of Light (
talk)
16:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: In Wikipedia both facts and claims are covered. No. For example, we does not considers that Axis POV and Allies POV are both part of the truth. The proportion should be respected. Please read Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Pro Hadi are the puppet of KSA and USA and Houthis are puppets of Iran. The official agencies of the belligerants are propaganda outlets, they are not reliables. For Reuters when it does not cover all of the Houthi rallyes, it is because all of them were not bigger than the previous. When the press is not free, the reports are not reliables. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: It's wrong. Neutrality is not giving as much importance to all points of view. If the sources cover more than one point of view, another must be taken into account. If someone commits a robbery, is seen by many that he stole but denies, his word is not as important as that of others. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. For the Guardian, the both are proxy.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 03:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It's wrong. These two sources are equally credible. So the relations between Iran and Houthis are controversial For the sources, they say that the Houthis are anti-Semitic but they deny it. The Houthi view is a primary source, and the sources that accuse them are secondary sources. On WP a secondary source is more important than a primary source.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Alright, this is the second time I've been pinged in a month: the first was by Chilicheese22 and the second just now by Panam2014. All that because I fixed formatting on an article three months ago. Can you guys try to be a bit more subtle with your canvassing? Can I ask all of you to stop pinging me to know "what I think"? Isa ( talk) 17:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Chilicheese22: you are right. Canvassing is the act of notifying a contributor because of their opinions that are close to the contributor who has notified. You have nothing to prove your accusations. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: Citing Iran in support gives the misleading impression that Iran is currently involved in the war or is arming the Houthis which can't be true since Iran is not involved in the war and can't send arms, at least since the battle started and the port became dysfunctional. And indeed none of the sources you've used state that Iran is involved in this battle, whereas US and France have been directly involved. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 07:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Coalition claims Iran is directly involved by supplying arms and logistics to the Houthis, hence they are supported by Iran. Both sources state that coalition claims Iran is involved. This information is sourced. You may add "alleged" as support since Iran denies arming the Houthis. Thanks. Wikiemirati ( talk) 13:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: Considering this edit, I think here you are confusing the general perception that Houthis are supported by Iran (a support with a disputed nature and extent even when admitted by RSs)and that they are being supported by Iran in this particular battle! This is important because for countries involved in support of the coalition there are detailed, verified, specific and widely acknowledged info such as US, UK, France selling arms to the coalition, France sending special forces and minesweeping equipment for this particular battle, Sudan lending its military for this particular battle, US providing intelligence and logistic support for this particular battle and so forth. These are clearly defined and detailed in the sources. Whereas when it comes to Iran's support, the sources only make a general statement such as "Iran-backed Houthis", "Iran-aligned Houthis", "Houthis are supported by Iran". These vague statements don't specify the nature of Iran's involvement in this particular battle. Also note that all the countries actively involved in this war on the side of the coalition have admitted their role, whereas Iran and Houthis have both denied material support and in RSs Iran's role or at least its nature and extent remain disputed. That's why I think adding Iran on par with the coalition supporters is misleading. Based on what we know, Iran has not been as nearly involved in this conflict as has been the coalition's supporters and for this particular battle we don't have verified info on the kind of material support that Iran may have given the Houthis. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 04:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you on that regards that the support is not specified. However, both sources talk regarding the circumstances of the battle and hence refer to "Iranian backed Houthis" in the battle to the Houthis in Al Hudaydah . Therefore, the adjective applies to the Houthis in Al Hudaydah specifically not to Houthis in general. Also, the deployment of Iranian warships on the gulf of Aden was seen as a response by Iran to the coalition attack on Al Hudaydah (even though Iran specifies that's not the intention). Regardless, I think this battle is an important part of the Saudi Iranian proxy war. "Alleged" is included since Iran denies it, but other sources: Reuters, NYT, BCC all has stated that Houthis in Al Hudaydah are "Iranian backed", not just adding it as a regular adjective to describe that all Houthis in Yemen are Iranian backed, but to specify that Houthis in Al Hudaydah battle are "Iranian backed". Wikiemirati ( talk) 04:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh also, specifically that most resources claim the objective of the assult on Al Hudaydah is to "stop Iranian support through the port of Al Hudaydah". Hence, they acknowledge to a certain extent that Iran is involved in this battle whether it is by supplies or anything else. Wikiemirati ( talk) 04:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Wikiemirati, Chilicheese22, and BiggestSataniaFanboy89: the article remains unbalanced but Expectant of Light have removed the template without consensus. We are three to say that the article is not balanced by using uneliables sources from one side. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedians are not journalists. This article is not intended to cover the "daily" activity of the belligerents. Regardless, your point is still invalid as it is giving undue weight to the article. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. As per WP:NPOV "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." The article needs to include everyone's point of view to be considered balanced. Regards. Wikiemirati ( talk) 03:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Then we should add more balanced information instead of warring on whether to remove the template. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 04:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: Whether it's a speculation or a POV (not sure why the latter is more acceptable than the former), it does not belong in the infobox. The infobox is for countries that are actually involved. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 13:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Israeli involvement doesn’t seem far-fetched at all to be dismissed as an evident falsehood. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the coalition has managed to takeover the airport for if they had captured such a strategic position in Hudaida they could have easily advanced for the city center. Just two days ago, Almasirah reported a mass rally in Hudaida in opposition to the coalition assault, which seems impossible if the coalition had any strong presence in the city . In any case, if the claim is to be added in the infobox I believe Houthi's denial must be also mentioned. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 05:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The airport is under the coalition control according to Reuters, Al Jazeera, and the New York times despite almasirah claims and videos. As Houthis claim it is not under the coalition control, this information is added as a "coalition claims" instead of being presented as fact despite popular view. I do agree with your analysis that the airport is probably not under coalition control, but since reliable news sources reported it should stay as the information is cited. I think it's worded well to present that the coalition claims control, and the Houthis deny those claims in a neutral tone. Wikiemirati ( talk) 06:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Apart from occasional airstrikes there has been little to no ground to ground combat. There have been no coalition updates on any captured territory since the supposed capture of Al-Hudaydah International Airport on June 20. The last reported clashes I could dig up were from June 5, and after that there is nothing. It is simply incorrect to claim this battle is “ongoing”, because it is not, it ended over a month ago. The page itself even includes Emirati statements claiming that the battle was paused. Coalition forces may launch another assault but this with such a long interlude, I don’t think both attacks can be called the same battle. Therefore I believe a change in the status section is required. “Stalemate” works best.
As for the airport, I don’t understand why my edits are being removed. The explanation was that there was no consensus, but therefore, my removal of the claimed capture of the airport from the territorial changes section was justified, no? It is not necessary to remove the coalition claim itself, but using SAUDI sources to back the claim is irresponsible. If there is no reply to this post challenging my views on the subject within the next 2 days, I will repeat my edit once again. Cupofteaguy ( talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Even the pro-American regime UN envoy has admitted that “They(AnsarAllah) would have liked to get here, we didn’t make conditions sufficiently correct to get them here,” [8] . anyway I added another linked and removed the biased POV SharabSalam ( talk) 20:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
the Houthis refused to attend talks in Geneva after three of its "demands" were not met.. The Reuters source you provided state
Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, whose forces control northern Yemen and the capital Sanaa, accused the Saudi-led coalition of blocking his movement’s delegation from traveling to the peace talks... Yes, the conditions were not met as per Griffiths which may mean they did not get their demands or that the coalition blocked them. Why are we using the houthi POV? I guess the most neutrally correct way to phrase this is to say it "..peace talks collapse due to Houthi absence in Geneva peace talks" in the infobox. They were absent and that was a fact. Why they were absent may be explained with the different point of views in the article itself. Wikiemirati ( talk) 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea why does this template still in this page. Can anyone address the issues that are in this article? Both sides sources are used so? Where is the PROBLEM? The template seems misleading! Thanks-- SharabSalam ( talk) 08:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
press TV (pro-Houthi) used ~ 13 times
@ شرعب السلام: until the day when PressTV, Massirah and Arabiya will be removed from the article, there are no reason to remove the template without consensus.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
There are no consensus here to remove the template and in Houthi there are no consensus to add the template. You must taking account that. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. When a source is clearly unreliable we couldn't use it because of risk that the other info is too false. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Muhammad Abdel Salam, the Houthi spokesman also stated: "Despite the UN envoy's visit to Sana'a more than once and meeting with Houthi officials for a comprehensive political solution, he has not done anything yet, which appears as a cover for the continuation of aggression."Do you think that this is violation of NPOV? This is why using sources like this is important to quote or to add a secondary sources SharabSalam ( talk) 16:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It is an enough reason. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 10:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm a member of the typo team and use the Moss tool, which detected typos. I want to make the following non-controversial edits because the contractions violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the last one is a missing space after a sentence. Thanks. Ira Leviton ( talk) 00:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Al Hudaydah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Battle of Al Hudaydah was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Yemen may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why were the contributions from the 14th to the 18th of June removed? Tri nitro brick, 12:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that's most of the attention this subject has received from the media, and the battle has only just begun, so there's not a whole lot to talk about. Still, half the lead and more than half the article is way too much. Flagging as undue. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 12:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Takinginterest01: no it is not sourced. The source is about 12/2017 not 06/2018. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The Saudi-led coalition announced today that its forces were engaged in clashes with elements of the "Ansar Allah" (Houthis) on the outskirts of the city of Al Hudaydah in western Yemen.
The coalition said in a statement that its forces are currently working to secure the airport, stressing the imminent launch of the next phase of operations to put pressure on the Houthis on several fronts, including coastal points and other parts of the city as well as inland port, supported by local resistance.
According to the statement, the priority in operations is to avoid civilian casualties. Maintain the flow of humanitarian aid and allow the United Nations to pressure Ansar Allah to evacuate the city as fighting intensifies and intensified shelling intensifies.
The al-Houthis spokesman, Mohamed Abdel Salam, said on Friday that the "United Nations envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffith has done nothing so far, a cover for the continuation of the war, and does not differ from the former".
The United Nations has expressed concern that the Saudi-led coalition attack on Al Hudaydah, the strategic seaport and one of the country's main seaports, could hamper the lifeline of most of the country's citizens, with 22 million currently dependent on aid and 8.4 million facing famine. Kingston, CA ( talk) 02:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Yemeni government forces, backed by the Saudi-led coalition, took control of the southern and western entrances of the strategic city of Al Hudaydah on Saturday.
According to local sources, al-Houthi gunmen fled from places they had fortified in the the city perimeter and moved to the port of the city, under heavy and intense blows launched by UAE planes.
Hodeidah Airport has been under the control of Yemeni government forces since 13 June. The control of the airport came amid large collapses in the defenses of the Houthis forces stationed at the eastern entrance of the port of Hodeidah, with the participation of various forces including troops backed by the United Arab Emirates.
The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen launched military operations in Al Hudaydah on Thursday, according to the Yemeni government. The military operation aims to ensure that the Houthis forces are prevented from controlling the waterways and international corridors overlooking the Red Sea as part of the restoration of Al Hudaydah.
In a statement for Saudi-led coalition said "that this battle is in line with the reasons that called for the intervention of the coalition militarily in Yemen, represented by the request of the Yemeni government and relevant United Nations resolutions for the year 2015, especially resolution No. 2216." Kingston, CA ( talk) 16:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am opening this discussion to prevent an edit war for edits regarding three paragraphs added under headline Battle, Analyses and Impact on the humanitarian situation.
Both paragraphs under Battle and Analyses report subjective opinions issued by journalism sources, which can be describes as analytic journalism. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity. Saying things like "The alliance has superior weaponry" or "The Houthis, highly experienced in mountain warfare" is subjectivity. Statement such as "If the Houthis are driven out, the coalition could get the upper hand in the war." are purely analytical and subjective.
As for the paragraph Impact on the humanitarian situation, the information provided can be placed within the context of the main paragraph. Adding it under a separate header implies that "closure of the northern entrance of the western city Hodeidah, which leads to Sanaa, blocking a main exit out of the city and making it harder to transport goods from the country’s largest port to mountainous regions." leads to an Impact on the humanitarian situation, which is by itself a subjective report.
I have linked to Wikipedia is not a newspaper article on my initial revert as it holds multiple Wiki Policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT. Wikiemirati ( talk) 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
A huge template about how to solve potential copyright problems in the middle of paragraphs about the Battle of Al Hudaydah is not helpful. That's very bothersome for the reader. Shouldn't that be on the talk page? How is this article featured on the main page in a state like this? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: Unfortunately your recent removals also don't appear to be based on a good understanding of policy. Note you can't simply remove materials you don't like by citing a policy without mentioning why the policy is even relevant. See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. And examining your removals, made clear they were not warranted based on the policies you cite. I have explained each case in my revert summaries. Having said that I found some of your other edits sound and didn't touch them. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 06:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This is still considered vandalism as it was not written in your own wording. There is a guide for embedding freely licensed content (either public domain or Wikipedia Compatible licenses), at Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. The paraphrasing was not adequate, you may add this once you rewrite it in your own words.The alliance has superior weaponry, including fighter planes. The Houthis, resilient and highly experienced in mountain warfare, have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck in battles across Yemen.
@ Wikiemirati: Thanks for your good faith and explanations. Here is my response:
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: four different news sources. Please see the page history for specific urls. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 12:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and apologies for the violations. These are the texts that were deleted for violations or close paraphrasing I believe:
(Redacted)-- Expectant of Light ( talk) 12:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Our best and brightest @ Diannaa: removed this one piece of tactical point that has fascinated me. While I am not sure I exactly understand the edit summary, but I think it has to do with the same copy-right issue. How can we include this info in the page? Paraphrased suggestions, any? I don't try myself since I have lost much confidence in this area after the above convictions! :) I hope it is ok quote this here for this discussion.
According to Reuters "The alliance has superior weaponry, including fighter planes. The Houthis, resilient and highly experienced in mountain warfare, have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pickup truck in battles across Yemen." [1]
References
The commander of the first brigade of the Yemeni government forces, Brigadier General Mohammed Saleh, said his forces are waiting for zero hour to enter the city of Al Hudaydah in the next few days after the success of the liberation of Al Hodeidah airport, pointing out that the military operation is in stages. Mohammed confirmed from Hodeidah airport that Yemeni government forces began clearing Hodeidah airport of mines after it succeeded in controlling it.
He said that in the next few days that his forces "will proceed to the city of Al Hudaydah and then to its port and all other areas to liberate it from the Houthis."
The field commander pointed out that the morale of his forces is high, and is waiting for the zero hour to move to all remaining areas and liberation.
We are now in control of the airport and tomorrow we will enter the city and then (we will move) to its port until the liberation of the Al Hudaydah Governorate, "he said.
The general commander of the battle of Al Hudaydah, Ahmed Hassan announced on Tuesday that the Yemeni government forces, with the support and participation of the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia, imposed full control of the airport.
Thus, the Yemeni government forces, 10 kilometers from the port, the main target of military operations, have opened the way to a larger strategic objective: to prevent the Houthis from receiving military supplies through Hudaydah .
The airport is located south of the city of Al Hudaydah overlooking the west coast of Yemen, and includes a 3-kilometer runway and a military air base. It is about 10 kilometers from the port of Hudaydah, making it a strategic hub during the liberation from the Houthis. Kingston, CA ( talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The commander of the Saudi-led coalition forces in the Battle of Al Hudaydah, Brigadier General Mohammad Hassan, announced on Tuesday the liberation of Hodeidah airport from the Houthis. The commander of the forces of the battle of Hudaydah, Tuesday, that the liberation of Hodeidah airport was the participation of Yemeni government forces and support from the aircraft coalition, and confirmed full control and the clearance of the airport in full.
Brigadier Hassan revealed that the losses of the Houthis of the dead are estimated at hundreds since the start of the fighting, and pointed to the fall of more than 250 people in Houthis and 87 prisoners in Hudaydah on Tuesday, which witnessed the liberation of the airport.
The commander of the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia in the battle of Hodeidah that humanitarian aid will flow on Hodeidah in parallel with the ongoing military operation according to plans, stressing that the liberation of Hodeidah airport is part of an integrated plan to liberate the entire city. Kingston, CA ( talk) 20:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: I don't have problem with mentioning different chapters of this conflict so long as their true sequence and casual links are preserved. Depending on how far back you want to go we can trace everything to the 2011 Yemeni Revolution or earlier to Sa'dah War. However the sources are unanimous that it's been aerial strikes and naval blockade by Saudi-UAE-USA coalition that has resulted in the human catastrophe not the Houthi takeover in Yemen or the civil war. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 06:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikiemirati, Expectant of Light The Saudi intervention is clearly a major factor in the humanitarian situation, check what UNO says about that : [1]. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 08:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: You are not responding to my arguments but repeating your civil war rheotric. We do present facts neutrally here but that's not what you are proposing! Your proposal is to remove views whereas all views have to be reflected faithfully as per WP:NPOV. And UN can't call the Saudi-led intervention "the worst humanitarian disaster" because the Saudi intervention is not technically a humanitarian disaster but a military operation. But this military operation is responsible for the said humanitarian disaster and this has been indeed stated by UN and other international legal bodies several times! I think you are engaging in some lingual acrobatics here to dismiss obvious facts. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 08:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And btw, that sentence was not in such a bad need of sourcing because it was actually summarizing another hefty page that had already documented just that sentence using numerous sources. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am referring to this which stated "In 2015, the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe." I've added a source in which the UN talks about it which prompted me to add the Yemen civil war link, and I agreed with you on adding that Saudi led intervention caused it as well. The sentence in quotes reflects your opinion to me. You can add that the UN, HRW, or whoever stated it and reinforce your sentence. Just don't leave it as your opinion and consider it fact without citing who said it. Again, as per WP:NPOV an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Please read the policy page. Wikiemirati ( talk) 09:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
All these words are synonymous, we just waste our time discussing this. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 10:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Mercenary is not a neutral word. Hadi army is internationaly recognized like Assad army. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 11:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
But when the fighters are members of army who are part of the coalition, they are not mercenaries. And for Houthis all of the pro-coalition fighters, including National Army and southerners are merecenaries. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sudanese who wear the uniform of the Sudanese army by being members of the Sudanese armed forces are not mercenaries.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I am not justifying anyone actions, I only aim to establish neutrality in this article. There are a lot of pro-Houthi and pro-Coalition news sources out there. I am constantly bombarded of the pro-Saudi coalition propaganda which says that Houthis use child soldiers or plant mines and blow children limbs just as Pro-Houthi propaganda says that coalition kill civilians etc etc. Our role here in Wikipedia is to convey both sources neutrally. I can find multiple sources of pro coalition sources which say that Houthis are terrorists and kill children and add it to the article too, just like how Houthi say Saudi are all mercenaries. I am not denying the accusations Houthi say about the coalition, just as I do not deny the coalition accusations when they say that Houthis plant mines in residential areas. This is Wikipedia and articles on it deserve to be represented fairly, not sided to pro-Houthi or pro-Saudi. Hence, our tone should reflect neutrality or else this article turns into a war mongering article. Best regard. Wikiemirati ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This gives the Houthi POV some credibility. anything. Sudanese soldiers members of the sudanese armed forces are not mercenaries and for Houthis, all of the anti Houthi forces are mercenaries. Also, Southerners are not mercenaries. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 01:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutral sources do not describe the Sudanese army operating in Yemen as mercenaries.Sudanese qualified as mercenaries are not members of the Sudanese army. Say this is an OR. On the other hand, a coalition may also be based on ideological motives since Sudan has similar points with Saudi Arabia. Our views are of no importance here. In the same way that the Ukrainian troops who were in Iraq in 2003 at the request of the US and the UK, in exchange for money are not mercenaries, even if the Ukrainians have no interest in Iraq and that they had no problem with Saddam Hussein. And as we know that "mercenaries" are used by the Houthis to designate all anti Houthis, it is not acceptable to put this quote. In addition, Southerners have a local agenda even if the KSA support them for the sake of mercenary skills. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@ NightsideAEB, Ukrpatriot98, WorldRecognisedAE, LightandDark2000, Applodion, NuclearWizard, and Dvbdfxgn: what do you think?-- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Sudanese army/Sudanese government forces or private contractors. Ukrpatriot98 ( talk) 15:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
"Yemeni mercenaries" is an OR. The mercenaries have not the yemeni citizenship. We should write pro-Hadi merecenarie or mercenaries. And we should not use Al Arabiya and Al Masirah. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: You have nothing to say that the Houthis are more ethical than the coalition. Let's not forget that the Houthis are anti-Semitic, and call for US death. They are objectively extremist. In the end, it's just your own opinion of them. This is war propaganda, we have no evidence that the Saudi or Houthi lied. We need to use reliable sources like NYT, The Telegraph, Washington Post, Reuters, etc. It is better to have late news than relay the potential lies of the belligerents. And running a part of the country is not an argument for their news to be reliable. The Sana agency in Syria is no more reliable. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@ NightsideAEB, Ukrpatriot98, WorldRecognisedAE, LightandDark2000, Applodion, NuclearWizard, Dvbdfxgn, Chilicheese22, Wikiemirati, and Wikaviani: what do you think? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Panam2014: Look at Houthis and read their campaign objectives. They are pro-reform, anti-corruption, pro-democracy, pro-independence, pro-justice. This is what several sources have stated. As for anti-Semitism, they have rejected the charge. Their slogans must not be read out of context and taken literally. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 03:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikaviani: Western sources seldom cover Houthi positions and statements probably because of their political biases. Several western governments have been involved in this gang rape of Yemen. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 03:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: No, it's not out of context. You have the right to support the Houthis but you can not say that their eulogy is an objective point of view. He is not. We have several reports on the violation of human rights, the use of child soldiers, and their anti-Semitism is not limited to their slogan. There is no reason to consider that they are pro-democracy, for human rights or that their news is more reliable than that of Al Arabiya. Please read WP:NPOV. Also, western sources are reliables and not biaised because they reported KSA's human rights violations. When some western countries supports KSA and UAE, the media does not support KSA and UAE because the media are free and independent. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light:It's wrong. Amnesty clearly condemns the use of child soldiers, and I find that the use of quotation marks is misplaced. For antisemitism, it is not enough for them to deny, secondary sources of quality have given evidence. Then talk about mistakes is a bias. Thank you for not comparing the incomparable by using an off-topic example with Obama. In short, the Houthis are not pro democracy, they claim it only. For media reliability, you have no proof other than your own opinion that is not proof.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light:Once again, you only give your personal opinion. The use of child soldiers is unjustifiable, whatever the circumstances. For the accusations of anti-Semitism, they are substantiated and they have nothing to do with the fact that Iran is the model of the Houthis. Houthis are objectively anti-Semitic and call for hatred against the US and Israel. Which makes it objectively an extremist group, you can not do anything about it. For the rest, intervening in Libya is not against democracy, since Gaddafi was not democratic and the people wanted him to leave. That the intervention was poorly managed, just as the transition is one thing, but to say that it is the same thing as for the Houthis is another. It is at least an off-topic comparison. Otherwise, by the way, Iran supported the intervention against Gaddafi. Houthis are not democratic and independent sources do not describe them as such. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 16:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light:None of the Houthi's practices are democratic, but despite the justified criticism of the US, there is no reason to say that they are not a democracy. You still compare the incomparable. There are sources that say the US is a democracy, by no means the Houthis. Finally, do not change the subject, we are talking about the practices of the Houthis who are unjustifiable, not the USA. For you other sources, these are the statements of the Houthi officials and they have no value. For the teacher from Sanaa, he talks about the beginning, not about the current situation. Your comparison with the USA is an OR. Finally, objectively, the Houthis are an extremist group even if you support it.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 16:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Expectant of Light:|Again, you only give your opinion or you just relay their own statements. For the rest, a group can fight extremism while being extremist. See in the West the antagonism between the far right and the far left. For the Houthis, sources say that initially they were not extremists but they drifted over time. For their demonstrations, it's part of their propaganda. If Gaddafi in July 2011 organized a very big rally in Tripoli, this does not make him a Democrat. For the parliament, it is a puppet registration chamber. The USSR had it, the dictatorial regime of Saleh too. Moreover, if they were Democrats, they would never have allied with Saleh. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
04:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The article is not neutral. Many unreliable sources like Al Manar or Al Massirah are used at too high a dose. And opposite, we used very little Saudi sources, like Arab News, MBC, Al Arabiya. I think that only reliable and independent sources should be used for the core of the article. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 04:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reading OR. Your interpretation of the sources is not based on anything. Saudi sources have every interest in inventing false advances on the ground, as well as pro-Houthi sources. Al Masirah and other pro-Iranian sources are unreliable and nothing confirms the advances they are talking about. Western sources are neutral in the conflict and you have never proved their bias. If not, again, to say that Houthis are moderate is only your partisan personal opinion. Finally, it is the Houthis who say they fight against corruption and for the people, the source quotes the word of the officials. In short, this article is to be rebalanced. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
13:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Expectant of Light:It's not for me to quote, I'm not asserting anything. On the other hand, you do not distinguish between passages where the article quotes the opinion of Houthi leaders and when the article or the journalist gives information. In all your sources, it is either a description of the early Houthi movement or the words of its leaders. I will make quotations when you have given the sources I am asking for, ie descriptions of the Houthi movement now and not old descriptions or partisan descriptions. Finally, you clearly support them when you say they are for democracy when no source says it. This article is not balanced. Either we add all Saudi sources that have appeared to balance, or we use independent sources. I prefer the second option.--
Panam2014 (
talk)
14:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf, Mr.User200, CMV512, BiggestSataniaFanboy89, and XavierGreen: @ OxfordLaw, GWA88, Isanae, Vinithehat, Tobby72, Davemck, Jacsam2, and Chad The Goatman: @ Meeepmep, Snowsky Mountain, and SUM1: what do you think ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You do not like Reuters but Reuters is neutral, whether you like it or not. Otherwise, I have read everything, either the article quotes the statements of the officials or it gives its interpretation of the positioning that the Houthis give themselves. And it is the independent sources that describe the anti-Semitism of the Houthis, as well as the fact that they organized public executions. Please read WP:NPOV. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It's an OR. Reuters talks about the crimes of the coalition so they are neutral. For the protests, Reuters only talks about them when they are really large. The Houthis as any belligerent is likely to make fake news and the Houthis can lie when they deny. --
Panam2014 (
talk) 15:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
OR is inevitable in determining neutrality/reliability of the sources and that's how it works across Wikipedia. Btw, it is not our job to determine whether a party may or may not lie. You describe the Houthis as belligerent but you could as well call them a anti-colonial social movement. Lastly I think dragging this discussion further is pointless. As per
WP:NPOV I agree we should add the POV of all major parties involved. That should put an end to this discussion. --
Expectant of Light (
talk)
16:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: In Wikipedia both facts and claims are covered. No. For example, we does not considers that Axis POV and Allies POV are both part of the truth. The proportion should be respected. Please read Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Pro Hadi are the puppet of KSA and USA and Houthis are puppets of Iran. The official agencies of the belligerants are propaganda outlets, they are not reliables. For Reuters when it does not cover all of the Houthi rallyes, it is because all of them were not bigger than the previous. When the press is not free, the reports are not reliables. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: It's wrong. Neutrality is not giving as much importance to all points of view. If the sources cover more than one point of view, another must be taken into account. If someone commits a robbery, is seen by many that he stole but denies, his word is not as important as that of others. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. For the Guardian, the both are proxy.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 03:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It's wrong. These two sources are equally credible. So the relations between Iran and Houthis are controversial For the sources, they say that the Houthis are anti-Semitic but they deny it. The Houthi view is a primary source, and the sources that accuse them are secondary sources. On WP a secondary source is more important than a primary source.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Alright, this is the second time I've been pinged in a month: the first was by Chilicheese22 and the second just now by Panam2014. All that because I fixed formatting on an article three months ago. Can you guys try to be a bit more subtle with your canvassing? Can I ask all of you to stop pinging me to know "what I think"? Isa ( talk) 17:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Chilicheese22: you are right. Canvassing is the act of notifying a contributor because of their opinions that are close to the contributor who has notified. You have nothing to prove your accusations. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: Citing Iran in support gives the misleading impression that Iran is currently involved in the war or is arming the Houthis which can't be true since Iran is not involved in the war and can't send arms, at least since the battle started and the port became dysfunctional. And indeed none of the sources you've used state that Iran is involved in this battle, whereas US and France have been directly involved. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 07:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Coalition claims Iran is directly involved by supplying arms and logistics to the Houthis, hence they are supported by Iran. Both sources state that coalition claims Iran is involved. This information is sourced. You may add "alleged" as support since Iran denies arming the Houthis. Thanks. Wikiemirati ( talk) 13:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikiemirati: Considering this edit, I think here you are confusing the general perception that Houthis are supported by Iran (a support with a disputed nature and extent even when admitted by RSs)and that they are being supported by Iran in this particular battle! This is important because for countries involved in support of the coalition there are detailed, verified, specific and widely acknowledged info such as US, UK, France selling arms to the coalition, France sending special forces and minesweeping equipment for this particular battle, Sudan lending its military for this particular battle, US providing intelligence and logistic support for this particular battle and so forth. These are clearly defined and detailed in the sources. Whereas when it comes to Iran's support, the sources only make a general statement such as "Iran-backed Houthis", "Iran-aligned Houthis", "Houthis are supported by Iran". These vague statements don't specify the nature of Iran's involvement in this particular battle. Also note that all the countries actively involved in this war on the side of the coalition have admitted their role, whereas Iran and Houthis have both denied material support and in RSs Iran's role or at least its nature and extent remain disputed. That's why I think adding Iran on par with the coalition supporters is misleading. Based on what we know, Iran has not been as nearly involved in this conflict as has been the coalition's supporters and for this particular battle we don't have verified info on the kind of material support that Iran may have given the Houthis. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 04:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you on that regards that the support is not specified. However, both sources talk regarding the circumstances of the battle and hence refer to "Iranian backed Houthis" in the battle to the Houthis in Al Hudaydah . Therefore, the adjective applies to the Houthis in Al Hudaydah specifically not to Houthis in general. Also, the deployment of Iranian warships on the gulf of Aden was seen as a response by Iran to the coalition attack on Al Hudaydah (even though Iran specifies that's not the intention). Regardless, I think this battle is an important part of the Saudi Iranian proxy war. "Alleged" is included since Iran denies it, but other sources: Reuters, NYT, BCC all has stated that Houthis in Al Hudaydah are "Iranian backed", not just adding it as a regular adjective to describe that all Houthis in Yemen are Iranian backed, but to specify that Houthis in Al Hudaydah battle are "Iranian backed". Wikiemirati ( talk) 04:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh also, specifically that most resources claim the objective of the assult on Al Hudaydah is to "stop Iranian support through the port of Al Hudaydah". Hence, they acknowledge to a certain extent that Iran is involved in this battle whether it is by supplies or anything else. Wikiemirati ( talk) 04:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Wikiemirati, Chilicheese22, and BiggestSataniaFanboy89: the article remains unbalanced but Expectant of Light have removed the template without consensus. We are three to say that the article is not balanced by using uneliables sources from one side. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 23:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedians are not journalists. This article is not intended to cover the "daily" activity of the belligerents. Regardless, your point is still invalid as it is giving undue weight to the article. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. As per WP:NPOV "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." The article needs to include everyone's point of view to be considered balanced. Regards. Wikiemirati ( talk) 03:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Then we should add more balanced information instead of warring on whether to remove the template. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 04:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Expectant of Light: Whether it's a speculation or a POV (not sure why the latter is more acceptable than the former), it does not belong in the infobox. The infobox is for countries that are actually involved. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 13:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Israeli involvement doesn’t seem far-fetched at all to be dismissed as an evident falsehood. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the coalition has managed to takeover the airport for if they had captured such a strategic position in Hudaida they could have easily advanced for the city center. Just two days ago, Almasirah reported a mass rally in Hudaida in opposition to the coalition assault, which seems impossible if the coalition had any strong presence in the city . In any case, if the claim is to be added in the infobox I believe Houthi's denial must be also mentioned. -- Expectant of Light ( talk) 05:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The airport is under the coalition control according to Reuters, Al Jazeera, and the New York times despite almasirah claims and videos. As Houthis claim it is not under the coalition control, this information is added as a "coalition claims" instead of being presented as fact despite popular view. I do agree with your analysis that the airport is probably not under coalition control, but since reliable news sources reported it should stay as the information is cited. I think it's worded well to present that the coalition claims control, and the Houthis deny those claims in a neutral tone. Wikiemirati ( talk) 06:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Apart from occasional airstrikes there has been little to no ground to ground combat. There have been no coalition updates on any captured territory since the supposed capture of Al-Hudaydah International Airport on June 20. The last reported clashes I could dig up were from June 5, and after that there is nothing. It is simply incorrect to claim this battle is “ongoing”, because it is not, it ended over a month ago. The page itself even includes Emirati statements claiming that the battle was paused. Coalition forces may launch another assault but this with such a long interlude, I don’t think both attacks can be called the same battle. Therefore I believe a change in the status section is required. “Stalemate” works best.
As for the airport, I don’t understand why my edits are being removed. The explanation was that there was no consensus, but therefore, my removal of the claimed capture of the airport from the territorial changes section was justified, no? It is not necessary to remove the coalition claim itself, but using SAUDI sources to back the claim is irresponsible. If there is no reply to this post challenging my views on the subject within the next 2 days, I will repeat my edit once again. Cupofteaguy ( talk) 00:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Even the pro-American regime UN envoy has admitted that “They(AnsarAllah) would have liked to get here, we didn’t make conditions sufficiently correct to get them here,” [8] . anyway I added another linked and removed the biased POV SharabSalam ( talk) 20:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
the Houthis refused to attend talks in Geneva after three of its "demands" were not met.. The Reuters source you provided state
Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, whose forces control northern Yemen and the capital Sanaa, accused the Saudi-led coalition of blocking his movement’s delegation from traveling to the peace talks... Yes, the conditions were not met as per Griffiths which may mean they did not get their demands or that the coalition blocked them. Why are we using the houthi POV? I guess the most neutrally correct way to phrase this is to say it "..peace talks collapse due to Houthi absence in Geneva peace talks" in the infobox. They were absent and that was a fact. Why they were absent may be explained with the different point of views in the article itself. Wikiemirati ( talk) 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea why does this template still in this page. Can anyone address the issues that are in this article? Both sides sources are used so? Where is the PROBLEM? The template seems misleading! Thanks-- SharabSalam ( talk) 08:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
press TV (pro-Houthi) used ~ 13 times
@ شرعب السلام: until the day when PressTV, Massirah and Arabiya will be removed from the article, there are no reason to remove the template without consensus.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 02:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
There are no consensus here to remove the template and in Houthi there are no consensus to add the template. You must taking account that. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. When a source is clearly unreliable we couldn't use it because of risk that the other info is too false. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 15:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Muhammad Abdel Salam, the Houthi spokesman also stated: "Despite the UN envoy's visit to Sana'a more than once and meeting with Houthi officials for a comprehensive political solution, he has not done anything yet, which appears as a cover for the continuation of aggression."Do you think that this is violation of NPOV? This is why using sources like this is important to quote or to add a secondary sources SharabSalam ( talk) 16:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It is an enough reason. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 10:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm a member of the typo team and use the Moss tool, which detected typos. I want to make the following non-controversial edits because the contractions violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the last one is a missing space after a sentence. Thanks. Ira Leviton ( talk) 00:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)