This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It struck me that Al Arabiya might not be a terribly unbiased source for a Saudi military operation, and indeed, a story that was entitled "Saudi warplanes bomb Houthi positions in Yemen" written in a fairly neutral and objective tone yesterday has today become the decidedly more bombastic "Saudi wages ‘Decisive Storm’ to save Yemen": [1] Right now, Al Arabiya is a fair bit ahead of most other news outlets on reporting certain information; it's also cited repeatedly throughout this article and other Yemen coverage.
My suggestion for now is that we try to find other, non-Saudi sources where possible (this goes for Iranian sources as well, which generally have a pronounced pro-Houthi bent) and use Al Arabiya where we need to. For my part, I'd like to be as little-dependent on a clearly biased source, even one that meets WP:RS criteria, as possible. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 08:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
94.219.102.140 ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.france24.com/en/20150326-turkey-support-saudi-yemen-erdogan-interview-france-24/
I don't understand how it is possible that two of the four groups that were on the map 24 hours ago have now either completely disappeared (as in the case of the Southern Front forces) or lost almost all of the cities and territory that they had controlled (as in the case of the Al Qaeda forces). Is someone fact checking these maps because it seems clear that either someone put up maps with false information or half the entire country of Yemen was miraculously able to fall into the government's control despite the fact that it's a failed state and is so weak that until 48 hours ago they were on the brink of total collapse. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
How can Lebanon be included in the list of intervention supporters when in the 1st source article one can read: "The speech did not clearly state Lebanon’s official position on the Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen launched overnight, but Bassil said that there was more agreement than disagreement in the case."? The 2nd source is a personal opinion of a member of the Lebanese government, not a official statement. I therefore recommend removing Lebanon for the sake of preventing ambiguity. Otherwise, Hezbollah's position should also be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozion ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
...then you have to put GB to this list too. I'm from Germany and in every newspaper article we can read that London is supporting Saudis intervention in Yemen.
For example: Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/saudi-arabien-bekommt-unterstuetzung-gegen-huthi-rebellen-a-1025714.html Stern: http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/jemen-saudi-arabien-weitet-kampf-gegen-huthi-rebellen-aus-2183267.html Handelsblatt: http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/eskalation-im-jemen-praesident-hadi-in-saudi-arabien-angekommen/11558344.html
and so on...
The position of Ankara and London is up to this point congruent.
94.219.102.140 ( talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there possibility (good action) of resolving the issue of military intervention in Yemen, by UNO? UNO may stop this by resolution of referendum (Plebiscite) whether the people of Yemen wants the previous regime or not, without intervention of any foreign nation. This peaceful solution may also serve as a tool for filtration of involvement of other nations into the affairs of Yemen. Nannadeem ( talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Some analysts have already pointed out that the attacks have been illegal. In fact it is illegal under UN charter to violate territorial integrity of any country without Security Council resolution, but despite all pretensions we are not really living in a world where rules and laws genuinely matter! Powerful governments act in the spirit of "might makes it right" and UN's Ban Ki-moon can at best complain like a kid or spew his typical "inviting all sides to restraint" and preaching about superiority of dialogue over war, but those are his usually non-binding pure rhetoric to keep up an image of a really mattering "United Nations"! But even that would be in cases when he doesn't practically support the aggressors and pressure the victims as he did in this case! Strivingsoul ( talk) 02:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources (including us) often refer to it as a coalition of "Gulf states" or "Arab states" but neither is right. Gulf state is wrong because Morocco and Egypt are involved. Arab states: are Morocco and Egypt considered Arab? But more so the USA has a significant role in this operation, helping to organize the coalition and providing essential satellite, logistical and other support. Excluding the USA one could call it a "regional coalition" but to get it right one would simply have to call it a "coalition" or "Saudi-led coalition of states". -- Green C 13:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It has been made clear both by Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well by Prime Minister that Pakistan is not participating in this military intervention so please avoid adding Pakistan in the infobox and labeling it as supporter of military intervention. Pakistan was called in by Saudi Arabia to join the coalition but it decided to stay neutral and will only decide to intervene if Saudi Arabia territorial come under attack. -- Saqib ( talk) 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the fact that many politicians and military stand on the side of the Houthis, obviously the government actually collapsed. Far as legitimately speak on its behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.204.86 ( talk) 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The official Saudi Arabian news agency calls it "Determination Storm", not "Decisive Storm"
http://www.spa.gov.sa/english/readsinglenews.php?id=1343684&scroll=1
I would say that needs to be changed throughout the article.
87.173.198.98 ( talk) 15:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I added Saudi's claim about the strength of its force. However, as if it is the whole of the Saudi's army and this claim is part of psychological war. In practice, a small part of this army participate in the operation and there is not any plan for sending ground troops [2]. -- Seyyed( t- c) 06:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ User:ZxxZxxZ, I found you've done this edit [5], however I could not find the figures in this source as well as the others?-- Seyyed( t- c) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1, Mar4d, Cuparsk, and Strivingsoul: Benjamin Netanyahu warned against Iran's role in Yemen and said “The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous for humanity and must be stopped,” [6] While his position is clearly pro-Saudi intervention, Israel does not support it officially due to its political expense for Arabs. There is also unconfirmed reports of the Israel's involvement in the operation, [7] which is frequently added and removed from the article.
How should we add this issue in the article?-- Seyyed( t- c) 02:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks OK. thank you.-- Seyyed( t- c) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Saqib, Kristijh, Nannadeem, and Hanibal911: Please discuss about Pakistan's position here to avoid editorial war. Thank you.-- Seyyed( t- c) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The name of the Operation is "Operation Decisive Storm" and so should be the title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.116.68 ( talk) 08:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that name is a propagandistic one, developed, as so many others, by one of the actors in this war. From an NPV, if you ask me, it is an invasion or attack on Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Even the current title, "intervention", is a massaged one that tries not to raise conflicts. However, I think many people concurs in that no baptizing of a military attack by the propagandistic forces of an interested party in a conflict can conceal the facts. Frankly, the number of "baptized operations" in the Middle East, baptisms that only try to create a veil, looking for acceptable or optimistic titles in the evening news, is already numbing. Acting as a long time editor that is suspicious of any unsigned comments on current news that, apparently, try to paint one side of problems with an "enhanced" view, I recommend to follow the lead of the original editor, that tiptoes between strong interests as well as he can. I think we should never use names devised by one warring party without qualification (unless we're showing that fact, and then, in the article body or in redirection pages), no matter how many times they have appeared in the news sources, specially if they are, evidently, "generated operation names" that clearly try to paint a war in a way that people find comfortable. -- Ciroa ( talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Working for their Uncle Sam?
“A NSC spokeswoman said the US would work jointly with Saudi Arabia to provide military and intelligence support while not participating in "direct military action".
“President Obama declared that he had authorized US forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the operation against Houthis as a Joint Planning Cell' with Saudi Arabia.
So perhaps the title might be changed to read: US backed military intervention in Yemen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.182.136 ( talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite all the fanfarre and criticism/support, the offensive itself have not a clear outcome. After a week of airstrikes the Houthis have even maneged to capture more terrain. The Result Section should indicate something else that just "Ongoing". Mr.User200 ( talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: Regarding your [8], the lead include the summary of the article and there is no problem if there is similar information in the lead and the body ( WP:LEAD). So, I think this deleting such important information from the lead in not good idea.-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to get opinions from y'all: should Djibouti be included in the infobox as a supporter of the coalition, based on its FM appearing to provide intelligence about Houthi actions in the Bab al-Mandab strait? I don't know if that constitutes material support, but I'm interested in your thoughts. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@ User:ZxxZxxZ I disagree with merging these two categories. Let's discuss before merging.-- Seyyed( t- c) 14:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose to remove the categories altogether. There is so much ambiguity from many states and classifying these on short statements imo borders on Original Research. Let the reader make up his opinion. Lozion ( talk) 05:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Should be made clear in the information template that killings of civilians as a result of battles and Houthi forces and Saleh and against the tribes of Shabwa and Marib and Southern Movement -- ابوهايدي ( talk) 09:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
At the first, there was a Analysis part at the article, but now it seem to be removed. I think it is necessary that is devoted one part to it. @ Kudzu1: What's your opinion? Savior59 ( talk) 18:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I added the following text at background section, but it was removed because of WP:UNDUE. I've used this article from Al jazeera and the text is combination of some portions of the article. I try to being careful and my personal opinion is not in it. Any way please check the text by reference and if there is a problem, please notice me. Thanks!
text: According to the Aljazeera, this military intervention did not start between Saudi Arabia and Iran as a Sectarian contention. Although It might seem, due to regional conditions in Yemen and the recent debacle in Iraq and Syria , it is beyond any notion of Sunni and Shia divisions. Houthis’s dissatisfaction of the government had been got up from its relatively poor treatment of regions around Saada (the Houthis nominal capital), and issues of socio-economic distribution of wealth. This violence led to the President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi's ouster.
reference: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/yemen-defining-moment-king-salman-150327065530744.html Savior59 ( talk) 07:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand Savior59 is attempting to point out the position in background that “issue is not a sectarian factor in the power game”. If sectarian issue is the very basis then what is the role of countries which do not belong to any sects of Islam. Sectarian issue may be a sideline issue but it is not a route cause, because:
“ |
By negotiating President Saleh’s resignation, the initiative avoided a civil war, but the underlying factors that brought about the unrest-intra-elite rivalries, corruption and economic distress – were not addressed. Instead, the new leaders fought over political control and spoils, while average Yemenis saw their economic and security conditions deteriorate. The transition became one in name only, much to the frustration of almost everyone. |
” |
In view of above facts based on secondary and tertiary sources, I request sectarian issue at main article may please be negated clearly. Nannadeem ( talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
For those who are concerned with the root causes of Yemenis crisis and real goals and grievances of the Houthis, this photo essay by Newsweek provides some very vital insights. Of particular importance are
“ | In essence what the Houthis call for are things that all Yemenis crave: government accountability, the end to corruption, regular utilities, fair fuel prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis and the end of Western influence | ” |
“ | Many Yemenis believe the Houthis are right in pushing out Western influence and decision making, and blame U.S. interference for allowing former President Ali Abdullah Saleh to avoid prosecution or exile for crimes against his people during the Arab Spring uprising. Under a deal he was allowed to step down and still remain in the country. | ” |
“ | The presidency was essentially handed over in a one-man election, mandated by the Gulf Cooperation Council as Yemen’s first step in transition, to Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who many Yemenis regard as a puppet of the United States. | ” |
These observations question many assumptions about the nature of the Yemenis crisis as depicted by many uncritical western sources i.e. of being primarily and originally "a sectarian" conflict, that the ousted president enjoyed full "legitimacy," and hence the ouster was a "coup." These characterizations seem to be very far from reality on the ground, and we need to be wary of adopting them in this and other articles related to Yemen's developments. Strivingsoul ( talk) 10:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither AQ & ISIS are aligned with the Saudi Coalition, despite both consider beheading as a punishment . Obviously they are not aligned with the Houthis neither. So a thrid column should be added, Also the map display 3 colors (3 warring sides) and the battle box only display 2 forces. Mr.User200 ( talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The United States has been added as a belligerent despite the only source of this being an article ran by Sputnik, the Russian state media, which has been echoed by only PressTV, the Iranian state media, without any other sources backing this claim up, I think it's safe to say that this is not a trustworthy story and I have removed the United States from the list of belligerents until proper sources have been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurryaany ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
While the true level of U.S. involvement is unclear, the fact remains that President Barack Obama did authorized "logistical and intelligence support to the military operations". Despite being limited, is it not clear that US help and backing indicates a level of involvement in military operations? Given this, might not American be termed a belligerent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.131.38 ( talk) 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
well guys, you can definately add the united states from now on, they're giving an enormous amount of weapons to the saudi led coalition. add the united states!
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Apr-07/293627-us-speeds-up-arms-supplies-to-saudi-led-coalition-official.ashx
I'm new here, sorry, but does this paragraph at the end of the "Military Operations" section fit the NPOV principle? It reads like an opinion to me:
"Although nearly two weeks have passed from the beginning of military intervention, with backed by other Persian Gulf countries and the United State, the evidences including Saudi Arabia requests for military equipment from Pakistan, shows that Saudi Arabia has not succeeded in suppressing the Houthis.[52]" (emphasis added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal grey ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I created new part as ceasefire and decided to add more news about it, but it is moved to Yemeni Civil War (2015). Would is better that be here and in the this particle? The ceasefire is related to Operation Decisive Storm. @ Kudzu1: what is your reason? Thanks. Savior59 ( talk) 12:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I might just be a copy-editor at heart, but is anyone else having trouble understanding the section called "Retrospective and Prospective Gist of Conflict"?
From what I can parse, it seems to be some kind of background on the Saudi/Iran proxy war and the Houthis? I'm not sure what to suggest other than re-writing, which I could do if that's the right course of action.
Tal grey ( talk) 21:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I re-wrote the first two paragraphs. I also removed the Counterpunch and Yemen Times sources since they are not reliable sources (the Yemen Times article is an opinion piece). I didn't rewrite the analysis paragraph as I personally don't feel it is needed. I'm wondering whether the paragraph I re-wrote is needed - it is basically repetition of the Yemeni Civil War (2015) article and would probably be better off being merged in the background section (as I earlier suggested). Elspamo4 ( talk) 23:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Do we really have any good source to claim that Iran supports Houthis? Clearly Tehran opposes the Saudi attack on Yemen but there's zero evidence of their material support for the rebels. The two sources shown in the infobox say only: Iran has denied providing money and training to the Shiite Houthi militia in Yemen, as claimed by some Western and Yemeni officials. and Iran provided weapons to the Shiite Houthi militants as well which lacks any further explanation. Add today accusations by Kerry, also without any evidence. So for now we have words against words. I think it's not enough to list Iran among supporters. -- Emesik ( talk) 15:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In the recent developments, I have noticed various amounts of information is coming from one side of the battle only. Yemeni media releases various amounts of information and reports only to be ignored for the more apparently "unbiased" reports of Saudi media. When in fact, both are just as biased. Saudi media is known to continually downsize the deaths or reports and their news articles and news reports on TV have taken a firm stance with the Saudi government, calling it a "righteous liberating" and so on. I believe the use of Saudi (and allied) media is extremely dangerous to the integrity of this article. The best course of action is to report both media - source them and then let the reader decide.
Leorion PO ( talk) 15:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I could not understand what confusion is there? Nannadeem ( talk) 17:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ali Abdullah Saleh, former Yemen President told the Gulf leaders via his envoy that he has no ties whatsoever with the Houthis and he is not part of this war. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/yemeni-leader-asks-gulf-states-safe-exit-150415182159599.html .
I think background section of the article has crossed the neutral point of view. Besides it is further pointed out that poor English is not the criteria for deletion, which I have noticed during my revisions. Nannadeem ( talk) 20:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This Al-Jazeera article (oddly) shows news of US analyst and US officials against the coalition. Where should it be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a strong Pro saudi Bias in the article even some numbers of the article have been changed from the own source. The Shia-Sunni divide its 42% Shia, the rest Sunnie, and the article stated 25% shia, even the Pro Saudi editors dont respect the same sources they use to "edit" their POV article. Please come on, we(WP) wont get far with this Biased edits, be more neutral, whats the problem with it! Mr.User200 ( talk) 01:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If the result will show that Saudi claims it has achieved goals, it should also mention that Saudi failed to achieve the initial goals set out at the start of the operation. In fact, the opposite happened, the Houthi's gained more territory. Saudi Arabia wanted them to retreat from all area's, give up their weapons, and bring Hadi back in. Of which, nothing happened. ArabianWonders ( talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sure someone will object to me citing Yemeni newspapers but sadly, Saudi Arabia and other media don't really report on this. Please have a look at this before you undo my edits. (did not references this, I references other article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Once again, this article was reading like Saudi propaganda. Words such as "terrorists" should not be included in the article, and Saudi Arabia's preposterous claim of killing over 500 Houthi fighters shouldn't be included either, unless Houthi/Yemeni claims are included too.
This isn't the first time this article came across as Saudi propaganda. Either we accept the claims of both sides of the conflict or we refrain from mentioning their claims altogether. What we shouldn't do is accept only one side's claim while ignore the other side's. I can't stress enough the importance of ensuring fairness and neutrality in this article. --Nadia (Kutsuit) ( talk) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
In regard to the casualties, claims by one side of casualties suffered by the other should not be included because those are 100 percent certified propaganda. Only ones own losses admitted by one side should be included or those confirmed by a third-party (medical sources, UN, etc). And please stop including in the infobox casualties for the overall civil war. Those are already present in the infobox of the overall war. This article deals with the Saudi military campaign only, which is only one part of the whole war. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This article read like Saudi propaganda, so I made a few changes in order to ensure fairness and neutrality. The Saudis undercounted their casualties the last time they fought the Houthis, so why should it be any different this time around? Neither sides of the war are 100% honest, nor are the media outlets unbiased either. I provided claims from both sides of the conflict to make this article appear more neutral than it was prior to my recent edit. Also, nobody knows the exact death toll in this war so far, therefore it's best to be more general about the casualties and avoid giving exact figures. --Nadia (Kutsuit) ( talk) 15:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
ArabianWonders ( talk) 09:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Claims of a chemical attack in Sana'a on April 18 should be removed as they were reported by two biased sources: Iranian and Russian state media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O mnp11 ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22
It appears that a number of editors are failing to discuss this article's disputes in the talk page and are continuing to engage in disruptive editing before establishing a consensus on the additions that they'd like to make.
This article must be as fair/neutral as possible and must avoid coming across as pro-Saudi propaganda.
I think we should take this issue to the admins if disruptive editing continues. --Nadia (Kutsuit) ( talk) 14:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. User mno is constantly removing my edits again and again, despite me asking for a discussion here and starting one in his own talk page.
ArabianWonders (
talk) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Page editing needs to be monitored by neutral observers.
Nannadeem (
talk) 06:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I realise I'm probably a bit premature for this, but at what point do we split the "Operation Restored Hope" thingy onto a new page?
I'm just picturing the article becoming quite unwieldy, with this operation and then a variety of sections coming out underneath as sub-sub sections of the main article (Yemeni + international responses to it, etc.). Tal grey ( talk) 10:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tal grey Operation Restoring Hope should have a separate page as it marks the END of what this page is all about that is the "2015 military intervention in Yemen."
I just found this article that quotes locals as saying there is fighting in Sanaa between Saleh forces and Houthi forces. Can anyone find any other sources? ArabianWonders ( talk) 20:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Houthi's and the spokesman for the Army have not confirmed a single death. All casualties presented in the infobox are claims from "military sources and medics" that all remain unknown. Since we are putting Saudi-confirmed deaths for the Saudi side, it would only be fair to put Yemen-confirmed in the Yemen side. Since they haven't confirmed any, Unknown should be put back up there. ArabianWonders ( talk) 11:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The military and medical sources are mostly on casualties from deep within Houthi-held territory (as the case with Sana'a), so they are ether pro-Houthi (in the case of the military sources) or neutral (in case of medical sources). EkoGraf ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't find this outside the usual Iranian/Russian sources, although it has been picked up by the Beeb ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32458774) -- rumours that Iran summoned the Saudi envoy because KSA had turned back (presumably Iranian) humanitarian flights destined for Yemen? I don't want to add it without consensus because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere credible outside the BBC. Tal grey ( talk) 23:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I see how we don't need a new page, but can I suggest dividing the article up a bit differently?
That is, make sub-subsections for "air strikes", "naval role", "ground forces" and "casualties" under "Operation Restoring Hope" and move all strikes (etc) that happened after the KSA announcement to the new subsections... The way it is now, it reads like we are accidentally implying the most recent strikes have come under Decisive Storm. Admittedly it's merely a semantic difference but it does seem more accurate in my mind.
It also seems like the article could use a sub-section for "efforts at mediation/diplomatic solution/peace talks" or similar, as right now that aspect is being kind of bundled haphazardly under "international responses", which right now includes everything from diplomatic manoeuvrings and vague expressions of international support/condemnation to NGO statements and comments from random academics. Perhaps it could be a sub-sub section of "International Responses"?
Tal grey ( talk) 13:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
We all know that the civilian casualties is severely under-reported so is it possible to add up confirmed civilian casualty reports and create a total based on that? Counting OCHA reports alone should give a credible figure. ArabianWonders ( talk) 16:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes there should be a picture of casualties(man, woman and children) and destruction of buildings i.e. schools, mosque, hospitals etc. Someone has already shown his/her intention (on this talk page) of showing IDPs position, thus it is desired that IDPs problems and flow may please be reflected for our future guidance and record. Per my best knowledge IDP flow has crossed 120,000 to 150,000 from March to April in addition to 100,000 IDPs prior to Military Intervention. Nannadeem ( talk) 19:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be better to change the heading of this section to "Humanitarian Effects" or similar, to give space for information regarding food and fuel shortages, injuries, refugees and IDPs, and so on? Tal grey ( talk) 22:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
claims that 30 civilians were killed Saudi airstrikes in Bajel District on April 28th need to be cited O mnp11 ( talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have found news that is reported on Arabic-language websites and not in English-launguage websites. Do I link the information to the Arabic sources or is that not allowed? ArabianWonders ( talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Arabic speakers can easily realise that none of the following news outlets is reliable: Hezbollah-owned Al-Mayadeen, Syrian state SANA news agency, Iran's FARS news and the pro-Houthi Khabar news and Akbar al-Yaman. Of course same is true about Pro-Saudi AAWSAT and Arab News and the like O mnp11 ( talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Al-Mashhad Al-Yamani, Arabic news website, seems to be neutral O mnp11 ( talk) 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite all the unsourced edits made by that user and its biased opinions, he continues to change all the work done by past editors regarding the Battle box. He tries to scale down Saudi losses by all means, downplaying the number of dead to 8 when the source backing that claim states 10 dead. He errases the Saudi military wounded number using the lame escuse that its higher. But in the end that wounded numbers are documented by reports of RS. It is clear the type of Bias being displayed by that user, while most of edits tries to make the Battle box the most balanced. Showing the losses suffered by the parties in a neutral way. Mr.User200 ( talk) 12:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Says Ramadani is a lecturer at London Met, while he isn't listed on their faculty page: http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/faculties/faculty-of-social-sciences-and-humanities/people/#N-S
He is correct about what Yemen's constitution says, so I'm not particularly opposed to that idea remaining in the article -- but given that he is apparently no longer an academic (and in the past has mainly focussed on Iraq, where he's from), and that he gave his comments to Press TV (& RT), should we be including his thoughts in an encyclopaedic article? Tal grey ( talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The titles has to be moved to Saudi led intervention in Yemen per similar articles and many secondary reliable sources using the term "Saudi-led" and the fact that the intervention is really led by Saudi. So, I did the job. Mhhossein ( talk) 04:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
References
I would just like to inquire about the stance of referencing WikiLeaks documents? There is a WikiLeaks document regarding a US intelligence report that states that the Houthi's are not being armed by Iran. Is WikiLeaks an acceptable reference? ArabianWonders ( talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
On April 13, HRW stated that 311 civilians have been killed by the airstrikes. Based on confirmed reports on this article, that can be updated.
Total : 476 (Only Reuters and UN reports).
@ EkoGraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It seemed like there was a pretty clear consensus under Talk:2015_military_intervention_in_Yemen#New_page.3F to keep the events of Operation Restoring Hope on this page. I'm not sure why Timeline of Operation Restoring Hope was created or what purpose it serves, especially considering there is no Timeline of Operation Decisive Storm that I can find; its content is either already duplicated here or could be easily merged. I suggest we do merge the fork into this article. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 05:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Iran has made a few peace/negotiation proposals (as well as sending aid, and now warships to the Gulf). Does this merit an "Iranian responses" section, given the Saudi–Iran power dynamics in the region?
Right now all the discussion of Iranian involvement is split between "International Responses", "Casualties" and "Naval Role", as well as "Suspected Iranian Involvement" which discusses their possible role in supporting/arming the Houthis. Tal grey ( talk) 23:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
While I was moving timeline bullets from Decisive Storm to Restoring Hope, I noticed a number of dubious reports pro-Iran sources. I have kept them in for now, but seriously, I strongly agree with them being included per WP:RS.
I have no idea how to go about changing the sources to credible ones or indeed deleting the claims where no credible sources can be found; I know if I do they'll just get restored and I'll get censured (it's happened in the past even after bringing it up on the talk page). For example:
Tal grey ( talk) 16:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify some confusion that arise when trying to define if something is "Opposition" or "Support" in Yemen, I believe that under the Yemen section before the actual Opposition and Support subsection we be able to put general Yemen updates that don't need to be defined as Support or Opposition. For example, Hadi asking for GGC membership and Houthi's calling for an early presidential election. Thoughts? ArabianWonders ( talk) 18:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We should provide a table like the one here. This way, the readers will have a quick understanding of the losses. Mhhossein ( talk) 11:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It struck me that Al Arabiya might not be a terribly unbiased source for a Saudi military operation, and indeed, a story that was entitled "Saudi warplanes bomb Houthi positions in Yemen" written in a fairly neutral and objective tone yesterday has today become the decidedly more bombastic "Saudi wages ‘Decisive Storm’ to save Yemen": [1] Right now, Al Arabiya is a fair bit ahead of most other news outlets on reporting certain information; it's also cited repeatedly throughout this article and other Yemen coverage.
My suggestion for now is that we try to find other, non-Saudi sources where possible (this goes for Iranian sources as well, which generally have a pronounced pro-Houthi bent) and use Al Arabiya where we need to. For my part, I'd like to be as little-dependent on a clearly biased source, even one that meets WP:RS criteria, as possible. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 08:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
94.219.102.140 ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.france24.com/en/20150326-turkey-support-saudi-yemen-erdogan-interview-france-24/
I don't understand how it is possible that two of the four groups that were on the map 24 hours ago have now either completely disappeared (as in the case of the Southern Front forces) or lost almost all of the cities and territory that they had controlled (as in the case of the Al Qaeda forces). Is someone fact checking these maps because it seems clear that either someone put up maps with false information or half the entire country of Yemen was miraculously able to fall into the government's control despite the fact that it's a failed state and is so weak that until 48 hours ago they were on the brink of total collapse. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
How can Lebanon be included in the list of intervention supporters when in the 1st source article one can read: "The speech did not clearly state Lebanon’s official position on the Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen launched overnight, but Bassil said that there was more agreement than disagreement in the case."? The 2nd source is a personal opinion of a member of the Lebanese government, not a official statement. I therefore recommend removing Lebanon for the sake of preventing ambiguity. Otherwise, Hezbollah's position should also be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozion ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
...then you have to put GB to this list too. I'm from Germany and in every newspaper article we can read that London is supporting Saudis intervention in Yemen.
For example: Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/saudi-arabien-bekommt-unterstuetzung-gegen-huthi-rebellen-a-1025714.html Stern: http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/jemen-saudi-arabien-weitet-kampf-gegen-huthi-rebellen-aus-2183267.html Handelsblatt: http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/eskalation-im-jemen-praesident-hadi-in-saudi-arabien-angekommen/11558344.html
and so on...
The position of Ankara and London is up to this point congruent.
94.219.102.140 ( talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there possibility (good action) of resolving the issue of military intervention in Yemen, by UNO? UNO may stop this by resolution of referendum (Plebiscite) whether the people of Yemen wants the previous regime or not, without intervention of any foreign nation. This peaceful solution may also serve as a tool for filtration of involvement of other nations into the affairs of Yemen. Nannadeem ( talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Some analysts have already pointed out that the attacks have been illegal. In fact it is illegal under UN charter to violate territorial integrity of any country without Security Council resolution, but despite all pretensions we are not really living in a world where rules and laws genuinely matter! Powerful governments act in the spirit of "might makes it right" and UN's Ban Ki-moon can at best complain like a kid or spew his typical "inviting all sides to restraint" and preaching about superiority of dialogue over war, but those are his usually non-binding pure rhetoric to keep up an image of a really mattering "United Nations"! But even that would be in cases when he doesn't practically support the aggressors and pressure the victims as he did in this case! Strivingsoul ( talk) 02:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources (including us) often refer to it as a coalition of "Gulf states" or "Arab states" but neither is right. Gulf state is wrong because Morocco and Egypt are involved. Arab states: are Morocco and Egypt considered Arab? But more so the USA has a significant role in this operation, helping to organize the coalition and providing essential satellite, logistical and other support. Excluding the USA one could call it a "regional coalition" but to get it right one would simply have to call it a "coalition" or "Saudi-led coalition of states". -- Green C 13:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It has been made clear both by Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well by Prime Minister that Pakistan is not participating in this military intervention so please avoid adding Pakistan in the infobox and labeling it as supporter of military intervention. Pakistan was called in by Saudi Arabia to join the coalition but it decided to stay neutral and will only decide to intervene if Saudi Arabia territorial come under attack. -- Saqib ( talk) 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the fact that many politicians and military stand on the side of the Houthis, obviously the government actually collapsed. Far as legitimately speak on its behalf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.204.86 ( talk) 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The official Saudi Arabian news agency calls it "Determination Storm", not "Decisive Storm"
http://www.spa.gov.sa/english/readsinglenews.php?id=1343684&scroll=1
I would say that needs to be changed throughout the article.
87.173.198.98 ( talk) 15:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I added Saudi's claim about the strength of its force. However, as if it is the whole of the Saudi's army and this claim is part of psychological war. In practice, a small part of this army participate in the operation and there is not any plan for sending ground troops [2]. -- Seyyed( t- c) 06:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ User:ZxxZxxZ, I found you've done this edit [5], however I could not find the figures in this source as well as the others?-- Seyyed( t- c) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1, Mar4d, Cuparsk, and Strivingsoul: Benjamin Netanyahu warned against Iran's role in Yemen and said “The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous for humanity and must be stopped,” [6] While his position is clearly pro-Saudi intervention, Israel does not support it officially due to its political expense for Arabs. There is also unconfirmed reports of the Israel's involvement in the operation, [7] which is frequently added and removed from the article.
How should we add this issue in the article?-- Seyyed( t- c) 02:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks OK. thank you.-- Seyyed( t- c) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Saqib, Kristijh, Nannadeem, and Hanibal911: Please discuss about Pakistan's position here to avoid editorial war. Thank you.-- Seyyed( t- c) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The name of the Operation is "Operation Decisive Storm" and so should be the title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.116.68 ( talk) 08:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that name is a propagandistic one, developed, as so many others, by one of the actors in this war. From an NPV, if you ask me, it is an invasion or attack on Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Even the current title, "intervention", is a massaged one that tries not to raise conflicts. However, I think many people concurs in that no baptizing of a military attack by the propagandistic forces of an interested party in a conflict can conceal the facts. Frankly, the number of "baptized operations" in the Middle East, baptisms that only try to create a veil, looking for acceptable or optimistic titles in the evening news, is already numbing. Acting as a long time editor that is suspicious of any unsigned comments on current news that, apparently, try to paint one side of problems with an "enhanced" view, I recommend to follow the lead of the original editor, that tiptoes between strong interests as well as he can. I think we should never use names devised by one warring party without qualification (unless we're showing that fact, and then, in the article body or in redirection pages), no matter how many times they have appeared in the news sources, specially if they are, evidently, "generated operation names" that clearly try to paint a war in a way that people find comfortable. -- Ciroa ( talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Working for their Uncle Sam?
“A NSC spokeswoman said the US would work jointly with Saudi Arabia to provide military and intelligence support while not participating in "direct military action".
“President Obama declared that he had authorized US forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the operation against Houthis as a Joint Planning Cell' with Saudi Arabia.
So perhaps the title might be changed to read: US backed military intervention in Yemen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.182.136 ( talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite all the fanfarre and criticism/support, the offensive itself have not a clear outcome. After a week of airstrikes the Houthis have even maneged to capture more terrain. The Result Section should indicate something else that just "Ongoing". Mr.User200 ( talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: Regarding your [8], the lead include the summary of the article and there is no problem if there is similar information in the lead and the body ( WP:LEAD). So, I think this deleting such important information from the lead in not good idea.-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to get opinions from y'all: should Djibouti be included in the infobox as a supporter of the coalition, based on its FM appearing to provide intelligence about Houthi actions in the Bab al-Mandab strait? I don't know if that constitutes material support, but I'm interested in your thoughts. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@ User:ZxxZxxZ I disagree with merging these two categories. Let's discuss before merging.-- Seyyed( t- c) 14:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose to remove the categories altogether. There is so much ambiguity from many states and classifying these on short statements imo borders on Original Research. Let the reader make up his opinion. Lozion ( talk) 05:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Should be made clear in the information template that killings of civilians as a result of battles and Houthi forces and Saleh and against the tribes of Shabwa and Marib and Southern Movement -- ابوهايدي ( talk) 09:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
At the first, there was a Analysis part at the article, but now it seem to be removed. I think it is necessary that is devoted one part to it. @ Kudzu1: What's your opinion? Savior59 ( talk) 18:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I added the following text at background section, but it was removed because of WP:UNDUE. I've used this article from Al jazeera and the text is combination of some portions of the article. I try to being careful and my personal opinion is not in it. Any way please check the text by reference and if there is a problem, please notice me. Thanks!
text: According to the Aljazeera, this military intervention did not start between Saudi Arabia and Iran as a Sectarian contention. Although It might seem, due to regional conditions in Yemen and the recent debacle in Iraq and Syria , it is beyond any notion of Sunni and Shia divisions. Houthis’s dissatisfaction of the government had been got up from its relatively poor treatment of regions around Saada (the Houthis nominal capital), and issues of socio-economic distribution of wealth. This violence led to the President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi's ouster.
reference: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/yemen-defining-moment-king-salman-150327065530744.html Savior59 ( talk) 07:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand Savior59 is attempting to point out the position in background that “issue is not a sectarian factor in the power game”. If sectarian issue is the very basis then what is the role of countries which do not belong to any sects of Islam. Sectarian issue may be a sideline issue but it is not a route cause, because:
“ |
By negotiating President Saleh’s resignation, the initiative avoided a civil war, but the underlying factors that brought about the unrest-intra-elite rivalries, corruption and economic distress – were not addressed. Instead, the new leaders fought over political control and spoils, while average Yemenis saw their economic and security conditions deteriorate. The transition became one in name only, much to the frustration of almost everyone. |
” |
In view of above facts based on secondary and tertiary sources, I request sectarian issue at main article may please be negated clearly. Nannadeem ( talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
For those who are concerned with the root causes of Yemenis crisis and real goals and grievances of the Houthis, this photo essay by Newsweek provides some very vital insights. Of particular importance are
“ | In essence what the Houthis call for are things that all Yemenis crave: government accountability, the end to corruption, regular utilities, fair fuel prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis and the end of Western influence | ” |
“ | Many Yemenis believe the Houthis are right in pushing out Western influence and decision making, and blame U.S. interference for allowing former President Ali Abdullah Saleh to avoid prosecution or exile for crimes against his people during the Arab Spring uprising. Under a deal he was allowed to step down and still remain in the country. | ” |
“ | The presidency was essentially handed over in a one-man election, mandated by the Gulf Cooperation Council as Yemen’s first step in transition, to Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who many Yemenis regard as a puppet of the United States. | ” |
These observations question many assumptions about the nature of the Yemenis crisis as depicted by many uncritical western sources i.e. of being primarily and originally "a sectarian" conflict, that the ousted president enjoyed full "legitimacy," and hence the ouster was a "coup." These characterizations seem to be very far from reality on the ground, and we need to be wary of adopting them in this and other articles related to Yemen's developments. Strivingsoul ( talk) 10:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither AQ & ISIS are aligned with the Saudi Coalition, despite both consider beheading as a punishment . Obviously they are not aligned with the Houthis neither. So a thrid column should be added, Also the map display 3 colors (3 warring sides) and the battle box only display 2 forces. Mr.User200 ( talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The United States has been added as a belligerent despite the only source of this being an article ran by Sputnik, the Russian state media, which has been echoed by only PressTV, the Iranian state media, without any other sources backing this claim up, I think it's safe to say that this is not a trustworthy story and I have removed the United States from the list of belligerents until proper sources have been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurryaany ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
While the true level of U.S. involvement is unclear, the fact remains that President Barack Obama did authorized "logistical and intelligence support to the military operations". Despite being limited, is it not clear that US help and backing indicates a level of involvement in military operations? Given this, might not American be termed a belligerent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.131.38 ( talk) 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
well guys, you can definately add the united states from now on, they're giving an enormous amount of weapons to the saudi led coalition. add the united states!
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Apr-07/293627-us-speeds-up-arms-supplies-to-saudi-led-coalition-official.ashx
I'm new here, sorry, but does this paragraph at the end of the "Military Operations" section fit the NPOV principle? It reads like an opinion to me:
"Although nearly two weeks have passed from the beginning of military intervention, with backed by other Persian Gulf countries and the United State, the evidences including Saudi Arabia requests for military equipment from Pakistan, shows that Saudi Arabia has not succeeded in suppressing the Houthis.[52]" (emphasis added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal grey ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I created new part as ceasefire and decided to add more news about it, but it is moved to Yemeni Civil War (2015). Would is better that be here and in the this particle? The ceasefire is related to Operation Decisive Storm. @ Kudzu1: what is your reason? Thanks. Savior59 ( talk) 12:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I might just be a copy-editor at heart, but is anyone else having trouble understanding the section called "Retrospective and Prospective Gist of Conflict"?
From what I can parse, it seems to be some kind of background on the Saudi/Iran proxy war and the Houthis? I'm not sure what to suggest other than re-writing, which I could do if that's the right course of action.
Tal grey ( talk) 21:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I re-wrote the first two paragraphs. I also removed the Counterpunch and Yemen Times sources since they are not reliable sources (the Yemen Times article is an opinion piece). I didn't rewrite the analysis paragraph as I personally don't feel it is needed. I'm wondering whether the paragraph I re-wrote is needed - it is basically repetition of the Yemeni Civil War (2015) article and would probably be better off being merged in the background section (as I earlier suggested). Elspamo4 ( talk) 23:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Do we really have any good source to claim that Iran supports Houthis? Clearly Tehran opposes the Saudi attack on Yemen but there's zero evidence of their material support for the rebels. The two sources shown in the infobox say only: Iran has denied providing money and training to the Shiite Houthi militia in Yemen, as claimed by some Western and Yemeni officials. and Iran provided weapons to the Shiite Houthi militants as well which lacks any further explanation. Add today accusations by Kerry, also without any evidence. So for now we have words against words. I think it's not enough to list Iran among supporters. -- Emesik ( talk) 15:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In the recent developments, I have noticed various amounts of information is coming from one side of the battle only. Yemeni media releases various amounts of information and reports only to be ignored for the more apparently "unbiased" reports of Saudi media. When in fact, both are just as biased. Saudi media is known to continually downsize the deaths or reports and their news articles and news reports on TV have taken a firm stance with the Saudi government, calling it a "righteous liberating" and so on. I believe the use of Saudi (and allied) media is extremely dangerous to the integrity of this article. The best course of action is to report both media - source them and then let the reader decide.
Leorion PO ( talk) 15:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I could not understand what confusion is there? Nannadeem ( talk) 17:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ali Abdullah Saleh, former Yemen President told the Gulf leaders via his envoy that he has no ties whatsoever with the Houthis and he is not part of this war. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/yemeni-leader-asks-gulf-states-safe-exit-150415182159599.html .
I think background section of the article has crossed the neutral point of view. Besides it is further pointed out that poor English is not the criteria for deletion, which I have noticed during my revisions. Nannadeem ( talk) 20:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This Al-Jazeera article (oddly) shows news of US analyst and US officials against the coalition. Where should it be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a strong Pro saudi Bias in the article even some numbers of the article have been changed from the own source. The Shia-Sunni divide its 42% Shia, the rest Sunnie, and the article stated 25% shia, even the Pro Saudi editors dont respect the same sources they use to "edit" their POV article. Please come on, we(WP) wont get far with this Biased edits, be more neutral, whats the problem with it! Mr.User200 ( talk) 01:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If the result will show that Saudi claims it has achieved goals, it should also mention that Saudi failed to achieve the initial goals set out at the start of the operation. In fact, the opposite happened, the Houthi's gained more territory. Saudi Arabia wanted them to retreat from all area's, give up their weapons, and bring Hadi back in. Of which, nothing happened. ArabianWonders ( talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sure someone will object to me citing Yemeni newspapers but sadly, Saudi Arabia and other media don't really report on this. Please have a look at this before you undo my edits. (did not references this, I references other article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Once again, this article was reading like Saudi propaganda. Words such as "terrorists" should not be included in the article, and Saudi Arabia's preposterous claim of killing over 500 Houthi fighters shouldn't be included either, unless Houthi/Yemeni claims are included too.
This isn't the first time this article came across as Saudi propaganda. Either we accept the claims of both sides of the conflict or we refrain from mentioning their claims altogether. What we shouldn't do is accept only one side's claim while ignore the other side's. I can't stress enough the importance of ensuring fairness and neutrality in this article. --Nadia (Kutsuit) ( talk) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
In regard to the casualties, claims by one side of casualties suffered by the other should not be included because those are 100 percent certified propaganda. Only ones own losses admitted by one side should be included or those confirmed by a third-party (medical sources, UN, etc). And please stop including in the infobox casualties for the overall civil war. Those are already present in the infobox of the overall war. This article deals with the Saudi military campaign only, which is only one part of the whole war. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This article read like Saudi propaganda, so I made a few changes in order to ensure fairness and neutrality. The Saudis undercounted their casualties the last time they fought the Houthis, so why should it be any different this time around? Neither sides of the war are 100% honest, nor are the media outlets unbiased either. I provided claims from both sides of the conflict to make this article appear more neutral than it was prior to my recent edit. Also, nobody knows the exact death toll in this war so far, therefore it's best to be more general about the casualties and avoid giving exact figures. --Nadia (Kutsuit) ( talk) 15:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
ArabianWonders ( talk) 09:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Claims of a chemical attack in Sana'a on April 18 should be removed as they were reported by two biased sources: Iranian and Russian state media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O mnp11 ( talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22
It appears that a number of editors are failing to discuss this article's disputes in the talk page and are continuing to engage in disruptive editing before establishing a consensus on the additions that they'd like to make.
This article must be as fair/neutral as possible and must avoid coming across as pro-Saudi propaganda.
I think we should take this issue to the admins if disruptive editing continues. --Nadia (Kutsuit) ( talk) 14:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. User mno is constantly removing my edits again and again, despite me asking for a discussion here and starting one in his own talk page.
ArabianWonders (
talk) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Page editing needs to be monitored by neutral observers.
Nannadeem (
talk) 06:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I realise I'm probably a bit premature for this, but at what point do we split the "Operation Restored Hope" thingy onto a new page?
I'm just picturing the article becoming quite unwieldy, with this operation and then a variety of sections coming out underneath as sub-sub sections of the main article (Yemeni + international responses to it, etc.). Tal grey ( talk) 10:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tal grey Operation Restoring Hope should have a separate page as it marks the END of what this page is all about that is the "2015 military intervention in Yemen."
I just found this article that quotes locals as saying there is fighting in Sanaa between Saleh forces and Houthi forces. Can anyone find any other sources? ArabianWonders ( talk) 20:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Houthi's and the spokesman for the Army have not confirmed a single death. All casualties presented in the infobox are claims from "military sources and medics" that all remain unknown. Since we are putting Saudi-confirmed deaths for the Saudi side, it would only be fair to put Yemen-confirmed in the Yemen side. Since they haven't confirmed any, Unknown should be put back up there. ArabianWonders ( talk) 11:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The military and medical sources are mostly on casualties from deep within Houthi-held territory (as the case with Sana'a), so they are ether pro-Houthi (in the case of the military sources) or neutral (in case of medical sources). EkoGraf ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't find this outside the usual Iranian/Russian sources, although it has been picked up by the Beeb ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32458774) -- rumours that Iran summoned the Saudi envoy because KSA had turned back (presumably Iranian) humanitarian flights destined for Yemen? I don't want to add it without consensus because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere credible outside the BBC. Tal grey ( talk) 23:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I see how we don't need a new page, but can I suggest dividing the article up a bit differently?
That is, make sub-subsections for "air strikes", "naval role", "ground forces" and "casualties" under "Operation Restoring Hope" and move all strikes (etc) that happened after the KSA announcement to the new subsections... The way it is now, it reads like we are accidentally implying the most recent strikes have come under Decisive Storm. Admittedly it's merely a semantic difference but it does seem more accurate in my mind.
It also seems like the article could use a sub-section for "efforts at mediation/diplomatic solution/peace talks" or similar, as right now that aspect is being kind of bundled haphazardly under "international responses", which right now includes everything from diplomatic manoeuvrings and vague expressions of international support/condemnation to NGO statements and comments from random academics. Perhaps it could be a sub-sub section of "International Responses"?
Tal grey ( talk) 13:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
We all know that the civilian casualties is severely under-reported so is it possible to add up confirmed civilian casualty reports and create a total based on that? Counting OCHA reports alone should give a credible figure. ArabianWonders ( talk) 16:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes there should be a picture of casualties(man, woman and children) and destruction of buildings i.e. schools, mosque, hospitals etc. Someone has already shown his/her intention (on this talk page) of showing IDPs position, thus it is desired that IDPs problems and flow may please be reflected for our future guidance and record. Per my best knowledge IDP flow has crossed 120,000 to 150,000 from March to April in addition to 100,000 IDPs prior to Military Intervention. Nannadeem ( talk) 19:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be better to change the heading of this section to "Humanitarian Effects" or similar, to give space for information regarding food and fuel shortages, injuries, refugees and IDPs, and so on? Tal grey ( talk) 22:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
claims that 30 civilians were killed Saudi airstrikes in Bajel District on April 28th need to be cited O mnp11 ( talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have found news that is reported on Arabic-language websites and not in English-launguage websites. Do I link the information to the Arabic sources or is that not allowed? ArabianWonders ( talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Arabic speakers can easily realise that none of the following news outlets is reliable: Hezbollah-owned Al-Mayadeen, Syrian state SANA news agency, Iran's FARS news and the pro-Houthi Khabar news and Akbar al-Yaman. Of course same is true about Pro-Saudi AAWSAT and Arab News and the like O mnp11 ( talk) 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Al-Mashhad Al-Yamani, Arabic news website, seems to be neutral O mnp11 ( talk) 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite all the unsourced edits made by that user and its biased opinions, he continues to change all the work done by past editors regarding the Battle box. He tries to scale down Saudi losses by all means, downplaying the number of dead to 8 when the source backing that claim states 10 dead. He errases the Saudi military wounded number using the lame escuse that its higher. But in the end that wounded numbers are documented by reports of RS. It is clear the type of Bias being displayed by that user, while most of edits tries to make the Battle box the most balanced. Showing the losses suffered by the parties in a neutral way. Mr.User200 ( talk) 12:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Says Ramadani is a lecturer at London Met, while he isn't listed on their faculty page: http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/faculties/faculty-of-social-sciences-and-humanities/people/#N-S
He is correct about what Yemen's constitution says, so I'm not particularly opposed to that idea remaining in the article -- but given that he is apparently no longer an academic (and in the past has mainly focussed on Iraq, where he's from), and that he gave his comments to Press TV (& RT), should we be including his thoughts in an encyclopaedic article? Tal grey ( talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The titles has to be moved to Saudi led intervention in Yemen per similar articles and many secondary reliable sources using the term "Saudi-led" and the fact that the intervention is really led by Saudi. So, I did the job. Mhhossein ( talk) 04:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
References
I would just like to inquire about the stance of referencing WikiLeaks documents? There is a WikiLeaks document regarding a US intelligence report that states that the Houthi's are not being armed by Iran. Is WikiLeaks an acceptable reference? ArabianWonders ( talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
On April 13, HRW stated that 311 civilians have been killed by the airstrikes. Based on confirmed reports on this article, that can be updated.
Total : 476 (Only Reuters and UN reports).
@ EkoGraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianWonders ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It seemed like there was a pretty clear consensus under Talk:2015_military_intervention_in_Yemen#New_page.3F to keep the events of Operation Restoring Hope on this page. I'm not sure why Timeline of Operation Restoring Hope was created or what purpose it serves, especially considering there is no Timeline of Operation Decisive Storm that I can find; its content is either already duplicated here or could be easily merged. I suggest we do merge the fork into this article. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 05:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Iran has made a few peace/negotiation proposals (as well as sending aid, and now warships to the Gulf). Does this merit an "Iranian responses" section, given the Saudi–Iran power dynamics in the region?
Right now all the discussion of Iranian involvement is split between "International Responses", "Casualties" and "Naval Role", as well as "Suspected Iranian Involvement" which discusses their possible role in supporting/arming the Houthis. Tal grey ( talk) 23:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
While I was moving timeline bullets from Decisive Storm to Restoring Hope, I noticed a number of dubious reports pro-Iran sources. I have kept them in for now, but seriously, I strongly agree with them being included per WP:RS.
I have no idea how to go about changing the sources to credible ones or indeed deleting the claims where no credible sources can be found; I know if I do they'll just get restored and I'll get censured (it's happened in the past even after bringing it up on the talk page). For example:
Tal grey ( talk) 16:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify some confusion that arise when trying to define if something is "Opposition" or "Support" in Yemen, I believe that under the Yemen section before the actual Opposition and Support subsection we be able to put general Yemen updates that don't need to be defined as Support or Opposition. For example, Hadi asking for GGC membership and Houthi's calling for an early presidential election. Thoughts? ArabianWonders ( talk) 18:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We should provide a table like the one here. This way, the readers will have a quick understanding of the losses. Mhhossein ( talk) 11:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)