![]() | 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 |
@ Kudzu1: I noticed that you removed my edit to this article. Your edit summary was informative but please consider that some parts of the air strikes occured in the southern area hence reactions may be included here. What do you think? Mhhossein ( talk) 15:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1 and Mhhossein: I think we should make a third column in the template and add Al-Qaede to it. Please look at this news: Today, the fighting centered on the Shabwa Province, in the oil-rich Usaylan region, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Ansar al-Sharia hold sway. 38 were killed in fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribesmen. [1]-- Seyyed( t- c) 08:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So obviously this article used to look a lot different. But in discussing the matter with User:EkoGraf, we agreed that the conflict has proven durable enough and has had enough impacts across Yemen, not just in the governorates targeted by the southern offensive, that it needed an overarching article. Reliable sources are increasingly describing this conflict as a "civil war", albeit one with significant foreign military involvement (there's precedent, e.g. Libya and Syria).
From now on, all casualties associated with fighting or bombing or shelling in Yemen (or across the border into Saudi Arabia, or in the waters of the Bab-el-Mandeb or Gulf of Aden) should be counted here. This article's scope now covers victims of Saudi bombing in Sana'a, Sa'dah, and wherever else, as well as violence between jihadist groups and others throughout Yemen. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 06:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Any comments on that?-- 93.137.158.240 ( talk) 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's completely unnecessary. ISIL has claimed (not even necessarily made) one attack that could be considered part of this conflict. It controls no territory in Yemen. It has not been a target of the Saudi air campaign. Giving it its own infobox column is WP:UNDUE and makes the page look unnecessarily messy. As one of the editors who actually got Wikipedia to allow 4+ column infoboxes in the first place, I strongly believe they should only be used when it is absolutely needed to convey the dynamics of this conflict. There is no information I have seen in reliable sources to suggest ISIL has clashed with Hadi loyalists or AQAP has part of this conflict. There is no independent verification of their claim to have perpetrated a terrorist attack in the capital. They shouldn't be in the infobox, at least not with their own combatant column. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are the order of events in the article ordered by location? It's better to have everything in chronological order. Also, the section about military intervention should be placed before events that happened after it began.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
in the intro paragraphs it mentions that the US provided Saudi coalition with Intel and logistics and links to an NYT article. the article does not mention this anywhere. so the citation should be removed. (citation 5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 ( talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have put most of Yemen's Army on the side of the Houthis / Saleh, and I've sourced it well: my source was Mr. "President" Hadi's foreign minister, quoted by Reuters on 01/04/2015, saying:
I also listed army units known to be loyal to Hadi one by one, adding a source for each of those. However, someone with the nick "LightandDark2000" just put Yemen's army then on the side of Mr. Hadi again without giving any source for this, deleting my sources and just saying "That section is for the military strength, not units." See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_%282015%29&diff=659268951&oldid=659266998
As I'm just a guest here, I don't want to start any "edit war." However, I would like to review someone with credentials here at this platform the reverse edit by "LightandDark2000" - which was done without any addition of sources, but deleting sources. The key question in substance is here: "On which side Yemen's Armed Forces are fighting?" Or put it in another way: Which parts of Yemen's Armed Forces are with or against whom? I think this question is a crucial one for the whole Yemeni Civil War 2015, isn't it? So I think the answer to this question shall be well sourced. -- 84.189.1.143 ( talk) 12:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Why so??--
78.0.1.237 (
talk)
13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Kudzu1, RGloucester, Nannadeem, Mhhossein, Googol30, Mbcap, and EkoGraf:; Regarding this discussion I propose to merge that article in this one. What is your idea?-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
focused on the political developments after the coupand another about military confrontations, which kind of constitutes original research, as suggested in a discussion above. Isn't the civil war itself is part of the aftermath? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
complaint @ Kudzu1: I also complaint against your behavior. You can not send me warning. Do you think what you say is correct and others don't know anything ?!?!? Oh please be LOGICAL. OK? I wish you have better solution to solve the problems. Regards, Rastegarfar.mo
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/05/31/did-saudi-arabia-bomb-yemens-ancient-marib-dam/
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/u-s-and-saudi-bombs-target-yemens-ancient-heritage/
19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not a civil war because of direct external parties. Regards.
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/06/yemeni-al-qaeda-seizes-three-towns-near-southern-port-of-aden/
104.243.111.224 ( talk) 17:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
According to the "more detailed map" Daish control Lawdar while Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns are controlled by Aqab. According to this map, at first blush, Dais control Saudi Arabia, Oman, Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia. On comparing greyscales and zooming in they control Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns.
We should choose a distinct colour, and ensure that the maps correspond to reliably sourced information.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC).
I don't like to reach into another person's fridge without asking (especially the first PP of a highly charged issue), but I'm unclear what work this phrase does in the intro. Are Southern Separatists the largest force among all Hadi government belligerents, or among all belligerents generally? The non-pay walled reference does not distinguish among these two choices or some other, nor does the statistical data in the infobox imply that the Southern Separatists holds numbers sufficiently greater to qualify as the largest force "by far." Was there an archived discussion on this I missed with relevant pro/cons, or can I dump the phrase?
CM ( talk) 17:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Some users seem to have an obsession with adding Israel in every military infobox on Wikipedia. This time an IP did so citing an article by Veterans Today, which is filled to the brink with holocaust denial and conspiratorial theories. Unless claims of Israeli involvement can be backed by serious, mainstream sources, please stick it with your personal agenda and refrain from inserting them anywhere on Wikipedia. This is vandalism at best. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 23:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Propose to split the section on GCC military intervention in Yemen (2015) into a separate article, as this is clearly a notable and differing event. GreyShark ( dibra) 05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
According to the Saudi news outlet Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia is contributing 100 warplanes and 150,000 soldiers to the military operation in Yemen. According to Reuters, planes from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain are also taking part in the operation. In addition, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Sudan are ready to participate in a ground offensive-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed to re-merge the 2015 military intervention in Yemen article back into Southern Yemen offensive (2015). GreyShark ( dibra) 07:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Accord to the article, A senior Hezbollah said that Russia is providing weapons to the Houthis. This article is not poorly written, biased or libelous. For the North Korean part, if you read carefully it stated that North Korea's military support for Houthi rebels in Yemen is the latest manifestation of its support for anti-American forces". Article made by student also counts a source. The reason why this is not biased, libelous and poorly written is because International Buisness Times and Huffington Post are good news source. UA Today has some positive views about Russia and all Russians. Based on your edits, I suspected you are from the Russian military. If am wrong, explain who you actually are. You are really misunderstanding the articles if you have not read these carefully. But since you have misunderstood these article, we must discuss this in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard FrankieL1985 ( talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yemeni civil war (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
According to the strength section the revolutionaty committee has a total amount of 400.000-500.000 fighters on it's site while the hadi government stands with 37.500 fighters. There is no way this could be possible because otherwise the Houthis would have ran over entire Yemen a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.79.185 ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The red faction does not control all of Taiz as shown on the map. Regards.
69.166.122.245 ( talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-- Qrmoo3 ( talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Qrmoo3 ( talk) 19:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I must put your attention that we do not add "alleged" parties to the infobox per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Moreover, currently only Turkish-language sources seem to support the claims regarding Iran and Hezbollah and frankly - even though sources are reliable (Hurriyet and al-Jazeera) this is not sufficient, since most English-lang wikipedians do not speak Turkish and cannot verify the claims. Would be happy if someone brings English lang sources or otherwise i delete those parties from the infobox. GreyShark ( dibra) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yemen map: Fighting continued along the frontlines areas in Hajja, Jawf, Marib, Nihm and Taiz - no major changes in almost locked conflict https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxYE_LpUUAA3TDQ.jpg -- Qrmoo3 ( talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing it, but shouldn't this article and/or a subarticle contain a timeline of the war? This article is heavily focused on events in early 2015, with not a lot about recent changes in territory or clashes. The most recent stuff I can find is about ceasefire talk in April 2016, something which of course did not last. Is there any article with a chronology of the war? Even Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen seems to taper off around the end of 2015. PBP ( talk) 15:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The article says that the US conducts only airstrikes against al Qaeda while worldwide press reported on multiple occasions that the US also gives intel to the Saudis on Huthis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.113.212 ( talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Navy SEAL commando William Owens got killed in an operation in Yemen. Update this. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.117 ( talk) 14:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Since there was another civil war going on in Yemen in 1994, should the title of this article be renamed to Second Yemeni Civil War or should it stay the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 ( talk) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Other editors: Please vote on whether or not you think "
Southern Movement" should be removed from the infobox (thus not being underneath "
Popular Resistance"). Please reply below with either Support or Oppose and your reasoning in bullets. To clarify, Support means you want it removed or moved some where else on the infobox, Oppose means you want it to stay as it is.
– GeneralAdmiralAladeen (
Têkilî min)
01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This vote has been suspended due to a lack of clarity and confirmation in the above discussion. Replies to this thread have been hidden (commented out). Please continue discussing this issue above and remember to keep it civil; do not attack other users, only state your own ideas and/or suggestions. We want this minor issue to be resolved, not a needless comment war on the talk page. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 00:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Replies/Votes:
Some person named RainbowSilver again putted up this "alleged support", with highly outdated sources written by some student in 2015 claiming that DPRK, Russia and Iran are participating in the conflict. I mean seriously, alleged support is not support at all! Could anyone please remove all the alleged support section altogether? It does nothing to improve quality of the article, besides of causing unnecessary friction and demonizing the nations in question. Governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and US have long argued that Iran is somehow involved in that conflict without providing any proof whatsoever but addition of DPRK and Russia to the list is absolutely libelous and against the spirit of Wikipedia if not against some of the rules themselves, the proof against those countries is virtually non-existent apart from some article written by a student in 2015 speculating that Russia somehow could be possibly involved, I mean come on, I could write an article about United States supporting ISIS or Al-Qaeda and add it as a source justifying labeling US as supporter of those groups and that source would carry more weight than this piece of crap 78.63.161.19 ( talk) 22:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please post your arguments and discussions below my comment instead of in the edit summaries. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 06:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
So Chilicheese22, the SM is 1) a part of the Popular Resistance and 2) it is a participant in the Yemeni Civil War. Those are enough reasons for thus adding it to the Belligerents section under the PR label in the infobox. Now, counter me with arguments and not hypocritial ad hominem about my perceived political bias. -- 176.23.1.95 ( talk) 13:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of which side is correct (as it is difficult for a third party like myself to verify either claims with English sources) it is not strange for Wikipedia to list units or subgroups of larger organisations in infoboxes. There has also been no argument until recently that the Southern Movement should be removed from the infobox because "it doesn't make sense to put it[the Southern Movement] in the infobox twice". Thus, I am granting the request and until the other side replies to this thread and provides sources for me and other third parties to look at and evaluate, the Southern Movement will (and should) remain visible. I would also like to note that other editors must assess the purpose of removing things from articles, and what purpose it serves; "it doesn't make sense" is an opinion not a reason. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 21:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I am aware that Chilicheese22's argument is that by having the Southern Movement displayed it suggests that the Popular Resistance and the Southern Movement are separate entities; however, this issue of perception has never been brought up before. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 21:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The Southern Movement should be inside the popular resistance tab and not underneath already had a debate about this. Chilicheese22 ( talk) 22:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ GeneralAdmiralAladeen: if you can talk to the map maker that the map is inaccurate because Hadi forces did take the city of Mocha but they don't have control that far out west their goal was and still is just to take a very thin strip that will seal off Houthi forces from the red sea as they have been targeting Saudi & UAE ships (Hadi Allies). Also another mistake is Hadi forces don't have control of Harad again Hadi forces aim is to have a very thin strip that will seal off Houthis forces from the red sea (Midi To Bab Al Mandab) and the only thing that Hadi forces have control in that region is Midi Port. Chilicheese22 ( talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Chilicheese22: The creator of the map is Ermanarich. Leave a message on his talk page and he'll likely respond. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ Ermanarich: I unfortunately do not know how edit the Module: Yemeni Civil War detailed map but my source is from this reputable map maker ( https://twitter.com/YemConfMaps). He updates many battlefronts weekly and is most of the time 100% accurate. If you need more information feel free to contact me. Thank you for your service.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheese22 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The map legend shows (dark?) gray as the color for ISIL-held territories. Unfortunately, because the ISIL territories are very small, and because the dark gray looks close to medium gray, at first (and second) glance it appears the Yemen is surrounded by huge ISIL-held territories.
How about picking a fourth color which *isn't a shade of gray? WikiAlto ( talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sources that are cited are not credible at all and it is really unlikely that these two countries are supporting Houthis. So I suggest that names of Russia and North Korea is removed from the support list for Houthis. Nochyyy ( talk) 09:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, seems to be highly biased opinion of lone writers without substantial facts, lots of fallacies and weasel words. Will remove until more credible sources are added. GroundlessAir ( talk) 15:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Have not ISIL lost it's Controlled areas which are shown on the map? I think they already did... If they do not control any areas please fix it then.
InfiniteGreen ( talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi We should add that in the article. Aidarus al-Zubaidi is the new southern leader. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Yemen War (2015–present) → Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) – moved without consensus Panam2014 ( talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a civil war anymore since Saudi forces and other Arabic countries started interveningwas provided by IbrahimWeed. Do you agree or disagree? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
User:EkoGraf, could you explain, where you got this civilian casualty number "1,630" from? You are citing channelnewsasia.com ( http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/yemen-truce-begins-relief/1976692.html), but there is no such number given. And you even claim it was a "UN" number, so why don't you cite the original UN source or at least any reliable source that gives "your" special number. If it exists at all. Greetings,-- Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki ( talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The exact number of civilian casualties seems to be problematic. The article claims that 10,000+ civilians were killed, but just Today, the UN said: "Since March 2015, OHCHR has recorded a total of 13,504 civilian casualties, including 4,971 killed and 8,533 injured." [5] Maybe the 10,000+ figure includes wounded as well? Should we then include the lower number of 4,971 killed, as well?-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 08:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I demand answers for how the following mentioned sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE" cf. your comment in edit history:
To me, it seems like you're deleting WP:RS for the sake of battling against me, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. Lay down your hostile intentions, you're lowering the quality of the article. -- ContraVentum ( talk) 10:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A line in "Impact on Citizens" -> "Education" which states "Education one of the basic human rights in United Nation. It is not fair the Yemen's children be deprived their opportunity of education due to civil war." is biased and non-informative. Request that it is deleted. Lyssaodr ( talk) 04:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi
I noticed it says Saudi-Led coalition as part of the 'main belligerents' section. The coalition is not led by saudiarabia, despite 'saudi led' becoming a popular term for this coalition, it is truly led by the British, as well as the United States, with Saudi Arabia acting simply as a base of sorts in the region for the war. This is evidenced by the fact that american and british drones are spotting targets for saudi pilots (whose equipments is most propably given to them by the brits/americans) as well as running the operational command at regional bases in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of political stance 'saudi led' is obscurantism in hiding the real belligerents of this war, namely America and Britain. I suggest to changed this to UK-Saudi-led coalition, or simplu UK-Led coaltion, with the main ally and partner being Saudi Arabia. I put this here because the subject is locked and i can therefore not attempt to edit it.
Thanks for ur time Anonmwm ( talk) 6:11pm, 24 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi We should add that new political organization. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
See here for the source https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/03/568142767/bloody-battles-waged-on-the-streets-of-yemens-capital-as-alliances-appear-to-shi?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202903. The page protection prevents me from adding the info.
"As of December 3rd, there have been clashes in Saana between Houthis forces and those loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. This follows a statement by Saleh offering to initiate talks with the Saudi-led coalition in exchange for a lifting of the blockade."
Feel free to adjust the wording of that. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 20:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@ XavierGreen and NuclearWizard: After the murder of Saleh and the breaking of the alliance, we have two choices. We could add a new belligerant case for the GPC or we could also add (until 2017) mark in the botten. What do you think ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh was killed in action on December 4, 2017 by the Houthis for "treason". Perhaps we should switch his alliance. Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Please change this. Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why some editors are showing Saleh as a casualty or KIA in the infobox as part of the Houthi-led alliance. He died in fighting the Houthis as part of a collaboration with Saudi-led coalition. Therefore he shouldn't be shown as "KIA" or casualty under the Commander section of Houthi-led alliance section. He should be shown as a commander till Nov. 2017, when fighting between Pro-Saleh forces and Houthis broke out. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (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 |
@ Kudzu1: I noticed that you removed my edit to this article. Your edit summary was informative but please consider that some parts of the air strikes occured in the southern area hence reactions may be included here. What do you think? Mhhossein ( talk) 15:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1 and Mhhossein: I think we should make a third column in the template and add Al-Qaede to it. Please look at this news: Today, the fighting centered on the Shabwa Province, in the oil-rich Usaylan region, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Ansar al-Sharia hold sway. 38 were killed in fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribesmen. [1]-- Seyyed( t- c) 08:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So obviously this article used to look a lot different. But in discussing the matter with User:EkoGraf, we agreed that the conflict has proven durable enough and has had enough impacts across Yemen, not just in the governorates targeted by the southern offensive, that it needed an overarching article. Reliable sources are increasingly describing this conflict as a "civil war", albeit one with significant foreign military involvement (there's precedent, e.g. Libya and Syria).
From now on, all casualties associated with fighting or bombing or shelling in Yemen (or across the border into Saudi Arabia, or in the waters of the Bab-el-Mandeb or Gulf of Aden) should be counted here. This article's scope now covers victims of Saudi bombing in Sana'a, Sa'dah, and wherever else, as well as violence between jihadist groups and others throughout Yemen. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 06:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Any comments on that?-- 93.137.158.240 ( talk) 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's completely unnecessary. ISIL has claimed (not even necessarily made) one attack that could be considered part of this conflict. It controls no territory in Yemen. It has not been a target of the Saudi air campaign. Giving it its own infobox column is WP:UNDUE and makes the page look unnecessarily messy. As one of the editors who actually got Wikipedia to allow 4+ column infoboxes in the first place, I strongly believe they should only be used when it is absolutely needed to convey the dynamics of this conflict. There is no information I have seen in reliable sources to suggest ISIL has clashed with Hadi loyalists or AQAP has part of this conflict. There is no independent verification of their claim to have perpetrated a terrorist attack in the capital. They shouldn't be in the infobox, at least not with their own combatant column. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are the order of events in the article ordered by location? It's better to have everything in chronological order. Also, the section about military intervention should be placed before events that happened after it began.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
in the intro paragraphs it mentions that the US provided Saudi coalition with Intel and logistics and links to an NYT article. the article does not mention this anywhere. so the citation should be removed. (citation 5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 ( talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have put most of Yemen's Army on the side of the Houthis / Saleh, and I've sourced it well: my source was Mr. "President" Hadi's foreign minister, quoted by Reuters on 01/04/2015, saying:
I also listed army units known to be loyal to Hadi one by one, adding a source for each of those. However, someone with the nick "LightandDark2000" just put Yemen's army then on the side of Mr. Hadi again without giving any source for this, deleting my sources and just saying "That section is for the military strength, not units." See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_%282015%29&diff=659268951&oldid=659266998
As I'm just a guest here, I don't want to start any "edit war." However, I would like to review someone with credentials here at this platform the reverse edit by "LightandDark2000" - which was done without any addition of sources, but deleting sources. The key question in substance is here: "On which side Yemen's Armed Forces are fighting?" Or put it in another way: Which parts of Yemen's Armed Forces are with or against whom? I think this question is a crucial one for the whole Yemeni Civil War 2015, isn't it? So I think the answer to this question shall be well sourced. -- 84.189.1.143 ( talk) 12:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Why so??--
78.0.1.237 (
talk)
13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Kudzu1, RGloucester, Nannadeem, Mhhossein, Googol30, Mbcap, and EkoGraf:; Regarding this discussion I propose to merge that article in this one. What is your idea?-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
focused on the political developments after the coupand another about military confrontations, which kind of constitutes original research, as suggested in a discussion above. Isn't the civil war itself is part of the aftermath? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
complaint @ Kudzu1: I also complaint against your behavior. You can not send me warning. Do you think what you say is correct and others don't know anything ?!?!? Oh please be LOGICAL. OK? I wish you have better solution to solve the problems. Regards, Rastegarfar.mo
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/05/31/did-saudi-arabia-bomb-yemens-ancient-marib-dam/
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/u-s-and-saudi-bombs-target-yemens-ancient-heritage/
19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not a civil war because of direct external parties. Regards.
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/06/yemeni-al-qaeda-seizes-three-towns-near-southern-port-of-aden/
104.243.111.224 ( talk) 17:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
According to the "more detailed map" Daish control Lawdar while Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns are controlled by Aqab. According to this map, at first blush, Dais control Saudi Arabia, Oman, Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia. On comparing greyscales and zooming in they control Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns.
We should choose a distinct colour, and ensure that the maps correspond to reliably sourced information.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC).
I don't like to reach into another person's fridge without asking (especially the first PP of a highly charged issue), but I'm unclear what work this phrase does in the intro. Are Southern Separatists the largest force among all Hadi government belligerents, or among all belligerents generally? The non-pay walled reference does not distinguish among these two choices or some other, nor does the statistical data in the infobox imply that the Southern Separatists holds numbers sufficiently greater to qualify as the largest force "by far." Was there an archived discussion on this I missed with relevant pro/cons, or can I dump the phrase?
CM ( talk) 17:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Some users seem to have an obsession with adding Israel in every military infobox on Wikipedia. This time an IP did so citing an article by Veterans Today, which is filled to the brink with holocaust denial and conspiratorial theories. Unless claims of Israeli involvement can be backed by serious, mainstream sources, please stick it with your personal agenda and refrain from inserting them anywhere on Wikipedia. This is vandalism at best. -- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 23:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Propose to split the section on GCC military intervention in Yemen (2015) into a separate article, as this is clearly a notable and differing event. GreyShark ( dibra) 05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
According to the Saudi news outlet Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia is contributing 100 warplanes and 150,000 soldiers to the military operation in Yemen. According to Reuters, planes from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain are also taking part in the operation. In addition, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Sudan are ready to participate in a ground offensive-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed to re-merge the 2015 military intervention in Yemen article back into Southern Yemen offensive (2015). GreyShark ( dibra) 07:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Accord to the article, A senior Hezbollah said that Russia is providing weapons to the Houthis. This article is not poorly written, biased or libelous. For the North Korean part, if you read carefully it stated that North Korea's military support for Houthi rebels in Yemen is the latest manifestation of its support for anti-American forces". Article made by student also counts a source. The reason why this is not biased, libelous and poorly written is because International Buisness Times and Huffington Post are good news source. UA Today has some positive views about Russia and all Russians. Based on your edits, I suspected you are from the Russian military. If am wrong, explain who you actually are. You are really misunderstanding the articles if you have not read these carefully. But since you have misunderstood these article, we must discuss this in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard FrankieL1985 ( talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yemeni civil war (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
According to the strength section the revolutionaty committee has a total amount of 400.000-500.000 fighters on it's site while the hadi government stands with 37.500 fighters. There is no way this could be possible because otherwise the Houthis would have ran over entire Yemen a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.79.185 ( talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The red faction does not control all of Taiz as shown on the map. Regards.
69.166.122.245 ( talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-- Qrmoo3 ( talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Qrmoo3 ( talk) 19:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I must put your attention that we do not add "alleged" parties to the infobox per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Moreover, currently only Turkish-language sources seem to support the claims regarding Iran and Hezbollah and frankly - even though sources are reliable (Hurriyet and al-Jazeera) this is not sufficient, since most English-lang wikipedians do not speak Turkish and cannot verify the claims. Would be happy if someone brings English lang sources or otherwise i delete those parties from the infobox. GreyShark ( dibra) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yemen map: Fighting continued along the frontlines areas in Hajja, Jawf, Marib, Nihm and Taiz - no major changes in almost locked conflict https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxYE_LpUUAA3TDQ.jpg -- Qrmoo3 ( talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing it, but shouldn't this article and/or a subarticle contain a timeline of the war? This article is heavily focused on events in early 2015, with not a lot about recent changes in territory or clashes. The most recent stuff I can find is about ceasefire talk in April 2016, something which of course did not last. Is there any article with a chronology of the war? Even Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen seems to taper off around the end of 2015. PBP ( talk) 15:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The article says that the US conducts only airstrikes against al Qaeda while worldwide press reported on multiple occasions that the US also gives intel to the Saudis on Huthis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.113.212 ( talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Navy SEAL commando William Owens got killed in an operation in Yemen. Update this. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.117 ( talk) 14:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Since there was another civil war going on in Yemen in 1994, should the title of this article be renamed to Second Yemeni Civil War or should it stay the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 ( talk) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Other editors: Please vote on whether or not you think "
Southern Movement" should be removed from the infobox (thus not being underneath "
Popular Resistance"). Please reply below with either Support or Oppose and your reasoning in bullets. To clarify, Support means you want it removed or moved some where else on the infobox, Oppose means you want it to stay as it is.
– GeneralAdmiralAladeen (
Têkilî min)
01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This vote has been suspended due to a lack of clarity and confirmation in the above discussion. Replies to this thread have been hidden (commented out). Please continue discussing this issue above and remember to keep it civil; do not attack other users, only state your own ideas and/or suggestions. We want this minor issue to be resolved, not a needless comment war on the talk page. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 00:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Replies/Votes:
Some person named RainbowSilver again putted up this "alleged support", with highly outdated sources written by some student in 2015 claiming that DPRK, Russia and Iran are participating in the conflict. I mean seriously, alleged support is not support at all! Could anyone please remove all the alleged support section altogether? It does nothing to improve quality of the article, besides of causing unnecessary friction and demonizing the nations in question. Governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and US have long argued that Iran is somehow involved in that conflict without providing any proof whatsoever but addition of DPRK and Russia to the list is absolutely libelous and against the spirit of Wikipedia if not against some of the rules themselves, the proof against those countries is virtually non-existent apart from some article written by a student in 2015 speculating that Russia somehow could be possibly involved, I mean come on, I could write an article about United States supporting ISIS or Al-Qaeda and add it as a source justifying labeling US as supporter of those groups and that source would carry more weight than this piece of crap 78.63.161.19 ( talk) 22:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please post your arguments and discussions below my comment instead of in the edit summaries. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 06:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
So Chilicheese22, the SM is 1) a part of the Popular Resistance and 2) it is a participant in the Yemeni Civil War. Those are enough reasons for thus adding it to the Belligerents section under the PR label in the infobox. Now, counter me with arguments and not hypocritial ad hominem about my perceived political bias. -- 176.23.1.95 ( talk) 13:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of which side is correct (as it is difficult for a third party like myself to verify either claims with English sources) it is not strange for Wikipedia to list units or subgroups of larger organisations in infoboxes. There has also been no argument until recently that the Southern Movement should be removed from the infobox because "it doesn't make sense to put it[the Southern Movement] in the infobox twice". Thus, I am granting the request and until the other side replies to this thread and provides sources for me and other third parties to look at and evaluate, the Southern Movement will (and should) remain visible. I would also like to note that other editors must assess the purpose of removing things from articles, and what purpose it serves; "it doesn't make sense" is an opinion not a reason. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 21:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I am aware that Chilicheese22's argument is that by having the Southern Movement displayed it suggests that the Popular Resistance and the Southern Movement are separate entities; however, this issue of perception has never been brought up before. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 21:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The Southern Movement should be inside the popular resistance tab and not underneath already had a debate about this. Chilicheese22 ( talk) 22:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ GeneralAdmiralAladeen: if you can talk to the map maker that the map is inaccurate because Hadi forces did take the city of Mocha but they don't have control that far out west their goal was and still is just to take a very thin strip that will seal off Houthi forces from the red sea as they have been targeting Saudi & UAE ships (Hadi Allies). Also another mistake is Hadi forces don't have control of Harad again Hadi forces aim is to have a very thin strip that will seal off Houthis forces from the red sea (Midi To Bab Al Mandab) and the only thing that Hadi forces have control in that region is Midi Port. Chilicheese22 ( talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Chilicheese22: The creator of the map is Ermanarich. Leave a message on his talk page and he'll likely respond. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ Ermanarich: I unfortunately do not know how edit the Module: Yemeni Civil War detailed map but my source is from this reputable map maker ( https://twitter.com/YemConfMaps). He updates many battlefronts weekly and is most of the time 100% accurate. If you need more information feel free to contact me. Thank you for your service.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheese22 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The map legend shows (dark?) gray as the color for ISIL-held territories. Unfortunately, because the ISIL territories are very small, and because the dark gray looks close to medium gray, at first (and second) glance it appears the Yemen is surrounded by huge ISIL-held territories.
How about picking a fourth color which *isn't a shade of gray? WikiAlto ( talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sources that are cited are not credible at all and it is really unlikely that these two countries are supporting Houthis. So I suggest that names of Russia and North Korea is removed from the support list for Houthis. Nochyyy ( talk) 09:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, seems to be highly biased opinion of lone writers without substantial facts, lots of fallacies and weasel words. Will remove until more credible sources are added. GroundlessAir ( talk) 15:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Have not ISIL lost it's Controlled areas which are shown on the map? I think they already did... If they do not control any areas please fix it then.
InfiniteGreen ( talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi We should add that in the article. Aidarus al-Zubaidi is the new southern leader. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Yemen War (2015–present) → Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) – moved without consensus Panam2014 ( talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a civil war anymore since Saudi forces and other Arabic countries started interveningwas provided by IbrahimWeed. Do you agree or disagree? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
User:EkoGraf, could you explain, where you got this civilian casualty number "1,630" from? You are citing channelnewsasia.com ( http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/yemen-truce-begins-relief/1976692.html), but there is no such number given. And you even claim it was a "UN" number, so why don't you cite the original UN source or at least any reliable source that gives "your" special number. If it exists at all. Greetings,-- Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki ( talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The exact number of civilian casualties seems to be problematic. The article claims that 10,000+ civilians were killed, but just Today, the UN said: "Since March 2015, OHCHR has recorded a total of 13,504 civilian casualties, including 4,971 killed and 8,533 injured." [5] Maybe the 10,000+ figure includes wounded as well? Should we then include the lower number of 4,971 killed, as well?-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 08:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I demand answers for how the following mentioned sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE" cf. your comment in edit history:
To me, it seems like you're deleting WP:RS for the sake of battling against me, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. Lay down your hostile intentions, you're lowering the quality of the article. -- ContraVentum ( talk) 10:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A line in "Impact on Citizens" -> "Education" which states "Education one of the basic human rights in United Nation. It is not fair the Yemen's children be deprived their opportunity of education due to civil war." is biased and non-informative. Request that it is deleted. Lyssaodr ( talk) 04:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi
I noticed it says Saudi-Led coalition as part of the 'main belligerents' section. The coalition is not led by saudiarabia, despite 'saudi led' becoming a popular term for this coalition, it is truly led by the British, as well as the United States, with Saudi Arabia acting simply as a base of sorts in the region for the war. This is evidenced by the fact that american and british drones are spotting targets for saudi pilots (whose equipments is most propably given to them by the brits/americans) as well as running the operational command at regional bases in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of political stance 'saudi led' is obscurantism in hiding the real belligerents of this war, namely America and Britain. I suggest to changed this to UK-Saudi-led coalition, or simplu UK-Led coaltion, with the main ally and partner being Saudi Arabia. I put this here because the subject is locked and i can therefore not attempt to edit it.
Thanks for ur time Anonmwm ( talk) 6:11pm, 24 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi We should add that new political organization. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
See here for the source https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/03/568142767/bloody-battles-waged-on-the-streets-of-yemens-capital-as-alliances-appear-to-shi?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202903. The page protection prevents me from adding the info.
"As of December 3rd, there have been clashes in Saana between Houthis forces and those loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. This follows a statement by Saleh offering to initiate talks with the Saudi-led coalition in exchange for a lifting of the blockade."
Feel free to adjust the wording of that. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 20:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@ XavierGreen and NuclearWizard: After the murder of Saleh and the breaking of the alliance, we have two choices. We could add a new belligerant case for the GPC or we could also add (until 2017) mark in the botten. What do you think ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh was killed in action on December 4, 2017 by the Houthis for "treason". Perhaps we should switch his alliance. Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Please change this. Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Thenabster126 ( talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why some editors are showing Saleh as a casualty or KIA in the infobox as part of the Houthi-led alliance. He died in fighting the Houthis as part of a collaboration with Saudi-led coalition. Therefore he shouldn't be shown as "KIA" or casualty under the Commander section of Houthi-led alliance section. He should be shown as a commander till Nov. 2017, when fighting between Pro-Saleh forces and Houthis broke out. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)