This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Prosperity Guardian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Maritime / National / African / Asian / British / Canadian / Dutch / European / Middle East / Nordic / North America / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force National militaries task force African military history task force Asian military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Nordic military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force Africa: Seychelles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Seychelles work group (assessed as Low-importance). Bahrain Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BahrainWikipedia:WikiProject BahrainTemplate:WikiProject BahrainBahrain articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Denmark Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles Norway This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles Spain Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help! Yemen Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Red Sea crisis#Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (2023–2024)|Houthi-led attacks on shipping in the Red Sea]] The anchor (Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (2023–2024)) has been deleted. [[Red Sea crisis#Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (2023–2024)|at least seventeen civilian vessels]] The anchor (Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (2023–2024)) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

As of today 68.199.243.137 ( talk) 22:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Seconded, can someone with clearance make that change? SirShaunIV ( talk) 21:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I believe I was exceedingly clear, including writing the exact sections, intaking multiple rounds of feedback, and including well sourced content. I believe I also specifically noted where, and why the section should be added. 173.79.229.156 ( talk) 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

War Powers Criticism Operation Prosperity Guardian continued beyond the 60-day limit set by the War Powers Resolution without Congressional authorization, in violation of the Act, as noted by Michigan State assistant professor Shireen Al-Adeimi. The War Powers Resolution stipulates that any armed forces engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, must cease operations within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants an extension, or is unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States.

Representative Ro Khanna, the first member of congress to succeed in passing a War Powers Resolution, published a statement critical of Operation Prosperity Guardian, writing "in the narrow case where self-defense requires immediate action. But in the absence of such a national emergency, the president must seek authorization from Congress."

US Airstrike Criticism Following the Yemen strikes Cori Bush, a Missouri congresswoman, called the strikes "illegal" and told Biden, "stop the bombing and do better by us". Oregon Representative Val Hoyle stated "These airstrikes have not been authorized by Congress." "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of part." Washington state representative Pramila Jayapal stated the strikes were an " unacceptable violation of the Constitution" and "Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social "So, let me get this straight. We’re dropping bombs all over the Middle East, AGAIN (where I defeated ISIS!), and our Secretary of Defense, who just went missing for five days, is running the war from his laptop in a hospital room." President Biden is the fourth president to bomb Yemen. 173.79.229.156 ( talk) 07:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think a separate Criticism section is necessary when the Reactions section exists; and the numerous quotations seems unnecessary. I think it would be best to just say something like "The Biden administration has received bipartisan criticism..." ^[1] – macaddct1984 ^{( talk | contribs)} 14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I have updated my request to align to this feedback, but must note that I find the suggestions went to too far and in my view would cause euphemistic concern, and I would also call attention to the reactions section including repeated quotes from unidentified protestors, a section which has limited to no public official commentary, outside from a provably false claim from USCENTCOM with no counter point. Please include this section at the start of the Reactions section, as it is the most accurate English language depiction of the topic given the given the importance, and identification, of individuals listed.

War Powers Criticism Operation Prosperity Guardian continued beyond the 60-day limit set by the War Powers Resolution without Congressional authorization, in violation of the Act, as noted by Michigan State assistant professor Shireen Al-Adeimi. The War Powers Resolution stipulates that any armed forces engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, must cease operations within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants an extension, or is unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States.

Representative Ro Khanna, the first member of congress to succeed in passing a War Powers Resolution, published a statement critical of Operation Prosperity Guardian, writing "in the narrow case where self-defense requires immediate action. But in the absence of such a national emergency, the president must seek authorization from Congress."

US Airstrike Criticism Following the Yemen strikes Cori Bush, a Missouri congresswoman, called the strikes "illegal". Oregon Representative Val Hoyle stated "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of part." Washington state representative Pramila Jayapal stated the strikes were an " unacceptable violation of the Constitution." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social comments critical of the Yemen airstrikes. President Biden is the fourth president to bomb Yemen.

173.79.229.156 ( talk) 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I could see the two proposed additional paragraphs under a new section or sub-section titled "alleged unconstitutionality" or some such. They seem well cited and pertinent to me. There needs to be some cleanup to eliminate the inline external links. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Should there be some mention that the War Powers Resolution does have some constitutional concerns and has been generally considered as ignored by most, if not all presidents since it was past? Interesting article here about the this operation and the War Powers Resolution. Another article with congress raising the concerns highlighted by the IP's suggestion. There's a couple of source issues with the suggestion - Daily Mail needs to go. The second para is basically a press-release, and maybe better to find a source with more than just quotes, but a more nuanced exploration of the Legislative branch vs Executive branch tug of war happening here. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Whoops, missed that Daily Mail citation. You're right of course. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Bri I have completed all requested edits and resubmitted. 173.79.229.156 ( talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ravensfire, the Daily Mail citation is a literal quote, it is not editorial. I have updated the link to the Politico article, regardless of this fact, as it contains direct links to her statements as well as the other quotes. Regarding whataboutism related to War Powers as being ignored by most Presidents, this is a reductive argument which attempts to invalidate a host of legislators formal opinions and US Federal Law. Your argument does not cite any single stance whereby the US engaged in a seven month military engagement, to say nothing of one with billions of dollars expended, thousands of munitions used, and casualties. By your logic we should not write anything related to any violations of US Law simply out it being done before. It is an concerning and lackluster viewpoint antithetical to Wikipedia in my view. Additionally, the claim is false as in 2019 congress employed War Powers to attempt to end the bombing of the very same nation we are discussing here which was led in part by Ro Khanna.

Bri, the section on Ro Khanna has now been nested properly without segmentation, the statement has been slightly shortened, and a wiki-link has been removed. The Politico article also references all quotes with direct links to the statements, and as such one external hyperlink was removed.

I have additionally altered the titling and will re-submit based on the request as a separate subsection "Alleged Unconstitutionality"

173.79.229.156 ( talk) 17:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Operation Prosperity Guardian. (  · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Per reviewer Bri, with all requested edits completed.

War Powers Criticism Operation Prosperity Guardian continued beyond the 60-day limit set by the War Powers Resolution without Congressional authorization, in violation of the Act, as noted by Michigan State assistant professor Shireen Al-Adeimi ^[1]. The War Powers Resolution stipulates that any armed forces engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, must cease operations within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants an extension, or is unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States. Representative Ro Khanna, published a statement critical of Operation Prosperity Guardian ^[2], writing "in the narrow case where self-defense requires immediate action. But in the absence of such a national emergency, the president must seek authorization from Congress." A bi-partisan letter ^[3] was delivered to President Biden on January 26, 2024, signed by twenty-seven sitting members of congress.

US Airstrike Criticism Following the Yemen strikes Cori Bush, a Missouri congresswoman, referenced the strikes as "illegal." ^[4] Oregon Representative Val Hoyle stated "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of part." Washington state representative Pramila Jayapal stated the strikes were an "unacceptable violation of the Constitution" President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social comments critical of the Yemen airstrikes. ^[5] President Biden is the fourth president to bomb Yemen. 173.79.229.156 ( talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Still problems here. There are primary sources being used when it's flatly not needed here. Same with the quotes. The Representatives quoted aren't experts in constitutional law, and the presentation is purely one-sided. It's pretty trivial to find good sources on the contitutional issues here - [ https://apnews.com/article/biden-war-powers-israel-gaza-yemen-houthis-c9cfce9a874fbc520ddcc4ef182bf63a], [ https://archive.is/20230916012646/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/biden-war-powers.html] and more than a few others. This could be summarized that as some members of congress have objects to Prosperity Guardian and the air strikes on Yemen, saying that the War Poers Resolution requires Congressional authorization. President Biden has rejected that view, saying it did not need additional congressional approvals for these actions. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply