Talk:Yemen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rashad al-Alimi[edit]

We should make a page about Rashad al-Alimi 196.65.122.248 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Africans in Yemen[edit]

Why are there separate demographics for Somalis in Yemen and Afro-Yemenis? I think Somalis should fall under the Afro-Yemeni group. Unknown... (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree Nlivataye (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of Yemen[edit]

@Vif12vf I think Allah and Rabb have different meaning. Which one is used in Yemen's motto?

Maybe you are highly fluent in Arabic. @Vif12vf Please teach me something I haven't known about those two words. Satrio.m (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no language expert, but all sources I have ever used uses Allah as the arab word for God, regardless of which religion the source discusses. Arab christians to my knowledge also say Allah when referring to God. At no point have I come across any other terms being used except for polytheistic religions. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the Christian, Yes because God in Islam and Christianity is the same, The God's name in Islam and Christianity is "Allah". Christianity thinks that Jesus is the Son of God, and the God here is Allah. ::Okay the source, did the source and the arab Christians you mentioned tell you about the difference between the word "Ilahi" and "Allah"? Satrio.m (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you don't understand but keep changing it by reading another source, please give us the source telling the differences between the three. Satrio.m (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Satrio.m: You are now at 3 reverts. If you have a legitimate argument to make that you believe will allow editors to reach a consensus agreeing on the content you think is correct, please make that argument clearly and succinctly (preferably identifying sources that support your position) instead of baiting other editors with sarcastic comments. General Ization Talk 00:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a concensus because I'm sure many non-Arabic will intervene it saying "Allah" means God and has no difference with Ilahi as well as Rabb. Satrio.m (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is how decisions are made here. If you're unwilling to make the effort to achieve consensus, please don't edit articles. General Ization Talk 00:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that once challenged, in the absence of a compelling argument supporting a change and the adoption of a new consensus, the existing consensus version will be the one that remains. General Ization Talk 00:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many non-Arabic article will tell many people who don't know Arabic that Allah means God. After that, that is, after reading the source, people will vote that Allah means God. Satrio.m (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Wikipedia cannot be used and unacceptable to be used as a reference in academic journal and books, because of this kind of people. Satrio.m (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please give us guidance if you have it to offer, and as I said, point to – hopefully English-language – sources that address the question. Other editors are not interested in playing games with you. Please see Assume good faith as a start. General Ization Talk 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the policies of Wikipedia, please don't edit and you won't find yourself having conversations like this. General Ization Talk 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, settle the issue here before you start another edit war at Sudan. General Ization Talk 00:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why Wikipedia cannot be used and unacceptable to be used as a reference in academic journal and books, Because of this kind of people.
Thanks guys for making Wikipedia untrusted source for Academic texts. Again thanks. Satrio.m (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more reliable person to handle vandalism. To decide who made vandalism and who really try to correct something. I mean, those who have deep knowledge about many fields. We call them Polymath. Satrio.m (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I invited you to "get to the point" and tell us what you know or believe you know about the subject, instead of playing a game of cat and mouse with other editors. If that's too much to ask of you, it's a shame, but it shows your motives to be something other than to help us build an encyclopedia. General Ization Talk 00:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hope those help! Thanks :) Satrio.m (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said to me, "...but it shows your motives to be something other than to help us build an encyclopedia."
Yes, now facts are made by concensus, means that fact is something many people agree with, not the meaning of fact itself.
One thing to know, to solve vandalism, concensus is not the answer.
You seem to know my "other" motive. Tell me what that was.
And I'm gonna tell you your solution for fixing vandalism, YES, making concensus to determine the meaning of words. And the result is what Many people HAVE TO think of as the trusted NEW fact because it was chosen by many not-knowing-something people. Satrio.m (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After all, I don't care what the concensus will result in.
As long as it one day become reliable for academic text and journal, though it consists of most-chosen facts, hope that help make the world better. Satrio.m (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know my "other" motive. Tell me what that was. Again, we're not interested in playing rhetorical games with you. I don't claim to know your motives, I can only conclude what they are not from your actions. The invitation stands if you'd like to collaborate with other editors to improve the content. If you're not interested in collaboration, our conversation is done. General Ization Talk 01:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Facts were made by concensus? Satrio.m (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are waiting for you to state a fact, versus questioning other editors about their positions. General Ization Talk 01:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Facts are made by concensus? Satrio.m (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is how we solve vandalism, Discussion.
So, facts are made by Concensus all this time on WIkipedia? Satrio.m (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not blocked from editing due to many replies I made here. Satrio.m (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another rhetorical game? Sorry, no time for that. See Fact for an explanation if you need it. As to consensus, as WP:CONSENSUS (which I have repeatedly linked above) explains, no, facts aren't made by consensus here, decisions are. And you are so far providing nothing that contributes to that process. General Ization Talk 02:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking @Vif12vf for source he meant and suddenly here you say Concensus is done to determine facts. Haha
I need answer only from Vif12vf about the source. Don' reply. Satrio.m (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Decision are."
YES THAT"S WHY I'M ASKING VIF12VF FOR THE SOURCE HE MENTIONED.
And why you warn only me, and not him as well? He also made repeatedly same edits? Satrio.m (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, you may not instruct other editors not to participate in discussions here. Second, @Vif12vf is under no obligation to provide a source for restoring the existing, consensus version of the article. As the editor who changed the content, it is your responsibility to provide sources that support the change. See WP:BURDEN, which makes this very clear. Now if you have a source that explains why the current version of our article is wrong and should be changed, we are ready for you to identify it. General Ization Talk 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the existing text was something new added in the past. So mine will be the existing text in the past. Satrio.m (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article's editing history shows otherwise. The word "God", and not the word "Allah", appeared in the translation for weeks, if not months, prior to your edit. Again, if you have something to share with us to show that it is incorrect, please do. General Ization Talk 02:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the editor seems to have retired, I will close by suggesting that they look at the cited sources at our article Allah. It is clear from them that the common translation of the Arabic word "Allah" to English is "God". I was quite prepared for the editor to explain why the technically-accurate translation by an educated speaker of Arabic might be something else, but unfortunately I couldn't convince them to stop the games and veiled insults and make their argument (much less share sources to support it). If the editor would like to return and take a constructive approach to discussing the issue they raised, perhaps we can actually improve the article. General Ization Talk 03:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aden[edit]

should the term "capital-in-exile" be changed to "Temporary Capital" as it is the case Abo Yemen✉ 06:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length[edit]

At over 15k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. See WP:TOOBIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we summarise the sections about terrorism, civil war, etc. and link them to their full articles instead of talking about the entire subject in this article Abo Yemen✉ 05:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what IS the reasonable amount of words that an article like this should have, just to get an idea? Maybe even compare this to other articles about other countries. Not saying that this article is not unreadable (I have never been able to read it in its entirety), but still, I want to get an idea of how much characters aRE sKIMMABLE. :P BengalEmpire767 (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles like Germany for example which are the same size as this Yemen article but for some reason the article is too big but germany's article is a featured article? Abo Yemen✉ 11:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good comparison, I just did the calculations, Germany's entire history is (in the Wikipedia page) 2828 words. While Yemen's history up to 1990 is, and brace yourselves, a whopping 7,679! That is excluding the entirety of Yemen's modern History, which is obviously going to be longer because of uhm... (remembers that there is a civil war there) stuff. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually these calculations include image captions and stuff but these numbers are mostly accurate. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the introduction/lead but i've just realized that the maintenance tag was talking about the entire article and not just the lead Abo Yemen✉ 16:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no me talk about entire articl- Now that you mention it, yeah, that's true, both introductions are roughly the same size. Still though, this doesn't really answer my original question ( i literally forgot that i even asked anything lol). My theory is, shorten and divide the larger paragraphs so that... yeah I can't really think much other than "shorten it enough". But the truth is, how much is that "enough"? We're all here because of that "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." line and the fact that the article feels unbelievably long, but how much words need to be removed to make it "readable"?
Oh no, I'm getting too dramatic, I need sleep. Will be back tommorow. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the first person in this thread (or whatever it is called) said that "over 15k words of readable prose" so he might mean that there should be less than 15k words? Abo Yemen✉ 18:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria say something Abo Yemen✉ 18:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Germany article is about 8300 words total (for the whole article, not just the lead); this one is nearly double that. As outlined at WP:DETAIL, a broad article like one on a country should be limited to a high-level overview, with more details explored in child articles. So for example, the History section here would be expanded on at History of Yemen, and elaborated further at more specific articles like Modern history of Yemen. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so you're saying that we should remove stuff from this article to their main article ? Abo Yemen✉ 03:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alright bet Abo Yemen✉ 03:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it begins.... BengalEmpire767 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and i have no idea what im going to do but here we go BengalEmpire767 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria i used the prosesize gadget and it said that this article's prose size is readable:
  • HTML document size: 984 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 178 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 442 kB
  • Wiki text: 229 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 97 kB (15868 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 57 kB
Abo Yemen✉ 08:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can u compare to other articles BengalEmpire767 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
give me suggestions Abo Yemen✉ 08:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i was thinking germany or mongolia (weird duo but ok) BengalEmpire767 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mongolia:
  • HTML document size: 684 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 102 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 222 kB
  • Wiki text: 145 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8597 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 30 kB
Abo Yemen✉ 09:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Germany:
  • HTML document size: 883 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 143 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 383 kB
  • Wiki text: 196 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8381 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 48 kB
Abo Yemen✉ 09:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Readable prose size" is a technical term for the article body excluding the references etc; it's not a judgment of whether the prose is readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so we dont have to remove 8000 words somehow, we just have to remove 8000 words somehow. yeah that's totally different, my head's spinning now. I am literally scrolling to re-read the exact wordings of the individual comments now lol.
So basically to recap, a normal article should have between 8000 and 9000 words. The Yemen Article has over 15000 words. Congratulations!
What do you propose about this?
I, for my part, have Ctrl+C-ed the entire article into my sandbox. And am slowly going to shave off lines and words and characters in the background off the main article (not much though, i don't want to mess with citations much, or at all.) I am going to see what I can do. Drastic edits, if there are any, will be done in my sandbox. I am way too scared lol. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to take a long time Abo Yemen✉ 11:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i know. but its progress. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
true true. Abo Yemen✉ 11:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I can do is slowly chip away at the word count while not destroying the article. I don't really have much of a choice. Citations have officially now become the bane of my existence. I can't even think of removing or changing them cause they are just wayyyyyy above my league. I don't want to mess with them lol. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think though that at least some parts require re-writes but hey, thats just my opinion. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can start removing (or shorten) paragraphs/sentences that end in Citation needed Abo Yemen✉ 10:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canada and Japan our the FA level article that are best to follow as examples. Moxy- 12:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we will Abo Yemen✉ 15:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
are there any? BengalEmpire767 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alot down there Abo Yemen✉ 15:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
link to a few. cause telling me to read the entire article will be a violation of the Geneva Convention. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL.
they start to appear after the Unification and civil war section. they appear commonly at the end of each section after the unification one Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
btw see WP:RVREASONS Abo Yemen✉ 07:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also see Talk:Yemen#:~:text=Section sizes in Yemen Abo Yemen✉ 11:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long wait, I am still watching discussion from time to time, logged out, but I can't really do anything now because I have exam. In fact, I am studying right now. Will be back by 29 tho, I hope. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay gl on your exams bruv Abo Yemen✉ 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My internet is slower than a limping tortoise, so much so that I couldn't even open the editor. me is back tho, but for how long? BengalEmpire767 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
same thing for me Abo Yemen✉ 07:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a line break because this talk section is getting unreadable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

badly explained unification map[edit]

The gray area is unexplained in this article and the one on unification. -- Espoo (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The gray area is land gained by Yemen later after dealing with some border disputes with Saudi Arabia and Oman Abo Yemen✉ 09:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

@Discospinster sources say Zaydi Shia Islam: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

infobox needs to be updated Abo Yemen✉ 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Yemen". United States Department of State. Retrieved 2024-01-13.
  2. ^ "Yemen". United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved 2024-01-13.
  3. ^ The ARDA website, retrieved 2023-09-19
  4. ^ >Columbia University website, Gulf 2000 project
  5. ^ Merrick, Jane; Sengupta, Kim (20 September 2009). "Yemen: The land with more guns than people". The Independent. London. Retrieved 21 March 2010.
  6. ^ Sharma, Hriday (30 June 2011). "The Arab Spring: The Initiating Event for a New Arab World Order". E-international Relations. Archived from the original on 29 August 2020. In Yemen, Zaidists, a Shiite offshoot, constitute 30% of the total population

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024[edit]

Okay Yemen's land area very important elements and its actually around 453,000 sqkm I checked this through google maps Measure distance feature which also allows to measure total area which is actually really accurate. I found that the source that claims Yemen is 100,000 sqkm bigger than it actually is is very outdated and unreliable information. I suggest you put it to around my size or you could check for yourself if you wanted in google maps if you want the source well i guess my reddit post with the photo https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/1afny7e/yemen_why_does_its_size_mismatch/ Computment (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. see WP:OR as well Cannolis (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Yemen's size[edit]

Following @Computment:'s comment I did a little research and found out he was indeed correct. The Yemen's size is 455,000 km2 as can be seen on this entry in Encyclopedia Britannica: [1]. I published a YT video outlining all reasons for this mistake: link. The mistakes I noticed impact a lot of wikipedia pages, including: Yemen, Geography of Yemen, South Yemen, Yemen Arab Republic, Kingdom of Yemen, Geography of Yemen, List of countries and dependencies by area, List of Asian countries by area, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia, Governorates of Yemen and probably more.

I know my video contains a lot of original research and doesnt meet wikipedia standards for a source so I decided to start a RfC and seek consensus on this topic. Borysk5 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend we use actual sources and not google map's area feature thingy because we all know about the bugs in google maps Abo Yemen✉ 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking your video it seems true that Yemen's size has been exaggerated, but this may be WP:OR. Wikipedia's purpose is limited to citing what the reliable sources, regardless of whether they are accurate or not. If an error exists, the first place to change it should be Yemeni government documents or the CIA Factbook and not Wikipedia, to avoid fiascos from before like with the Austro-Hungarian flag or Scots Wikipedia. Nonetheless an RFC on the matter is necessary. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One way to determine Yemen's size estimate is to take measurement from OpenStreetMap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although this also is WP:OR, i would like to see the results Abo Yemen✉ 07:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you can measure area in OpenStreetMap? Borysk5 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yemen's government is a bit dysfunctional right now and we don't have to use the CIA world fact book. Probably worth looking at what can be dug up from other sources.
this report uses the 455,000 figure on page 5 and is the closest I can find to a large scale survey. We would also be looking for sources post the Treaty of Jeddah (2000) since thats the point where the 455,000 size becomes fairly fixed.©Geni (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found these sources: [2] (published by Yemeni government in I think 2005): "The area of Yemen is 455,503 sq. km. most of which is rocky land". Interestingly also I found World Bank document which notices this discrepancy, while in some parts using 555,000 km2 figure (page 26) and in others using 455,000 figure (page 83). Borysk5 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both these sources are much more presentable by Wikipedia standards compared to the video. They clearly show the discrepancy exists. I'll support changing the number to the 455,000 figure. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above discussion and the provided sources.
Youprayteas (t • c) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mentioning both figures. This is an impressive analysis and I tend to believe it's true, but the sources are split. Alaexis¿question? 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use other RS, and if necessary indicate that the Britannica figure is disputed, but certainly do not base any of this on someone's OR YouTube video. It's one thing to do that work as a tool for helping editors internally come to an understanding of what the issue might be, but the video and the OR behind it is not itself an RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese[edit]

The first paragraph of this section and the last line of the second section seem to be unverifiable. The English source doesn't mention any such. I know for a fact that the Portuguese invaded Shihr and Dhofar, but they sacked them and left. They (famously?) failed to conquer Aden, but carried multiple raids on it and on the rest of the coast. The only region they definitely occupied and ruled was Socotra, which was later abandoned. The same goes for Kamaran, although it was much shorter and not nearly as notable (source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41960556). However, Europeans, and non-Europeans, were still active in Yemen during the general very late medieval and pre-colonial (pre-colonial in Yemen) era, as they had multiple manufactories, the best known ones in Mukha. Trade in general remained relatively active, and internal matters can be also explored though I'll need to do more research on that. (source: https://www.academia.edu/73548627/Shipped_but_Not_Sold_Material_Culture_and_the_Social_Protocols_of_Trade_during_Yemens_Age_of_Coffee). So, maybe the Portuguese section can be deleted and a new "Early Modern" section or even "Pre-Colonial" (though this term can be problematic since the Ottomans were present, and will need to explore when and if they became colonisers). For this, the first subsection of "Modern history" will need to be moved to here. We even have a few images to replace the current suspicious map! (https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/kirk/sketch-from-the-windows-of-the-old-french-factory-mocha-1835-w-c-on-paper/watercolour-on-paper/asset/425083 among others). TheTraveller60 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese section needs to get updated and articles like the invasion of Shihr by the portuguese needs to be created
Portuguese invasion of Shihr (1523) in arabic: [3] Abo Yemen✉ 09:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ill translate it today Abo Yemen✉ 09:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Abo Yemen✉ 11:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National emblem change[edit]

The current emblem is not the official emblem, even if the coffee beans in the current one are more, they are not really “correct”. 

We can clearly see the national emblem on the front cover of the Yemeni passport, which is an official document, The coffee beans are indeed the same amount as the previous national emblem on this article. Also the color of the eagle of the current emblem on the article is incorrect, as per the page right under the cover in the passport. Therefore I suggest a revert to the previous emblem that was on this article. Mkfreal (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
passport does not look clear at all btw. there are many govt websites that use the current emblem Abo Yemen✉ 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some governmental websites do indeed use it, however, the current emblem on this article is made by a third party, and not the Republic of Yemen, so that’s a problem on the website designer’s part for not using the official emblem. isA I’ll be scanning an image of the first page of the passport that will give a clearer image, and prove my statement. Mkfreal (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wasn't talking about the websites them selves, i am talking about ministry logos that have the emblem that i have added. ill link one of them:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Abo Yemen✉ 13:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, :
Mkfreal (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Origin of the name Yemen[edit]

The earliest mention of the name Yemen we find is in the book of exodus - chapter 18. ״And thou shalt make the boards for the tabernacle, twenty boards for the south side southward״ the word south in Hebrew is "Temana" (facing south) or "Teman" South. וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים לַמִּשְׁכָּן עֶשְׂרִים קֶרֶשׁ לִפְאַת נֶגְבָּה תֵימָנָה

The misconception of the origin of the word is coming from the mistaken translation of the Bible.

The word "Teman" (South) is mention 11 times in the Bible The word "Temana" (Facing South) is mention also 11 times

This is the oldest text we find referring to the name Yemen Thejoto (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see Kingdom of Yemen#Etymology Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2024[edit]

Edit the HDI please Nhnnguyeneee (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2024[edit]

Change "The average Yemeni has access to only 140 cubic meters of water per year (101 gallons per day) for all uses, ..." to "The average Yemeni has access to only 140 cubic meters of water per year (383 liters per day) for all uses, ..." MatteSange (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Do you have any reason why you want the unit of measurement changed? Shadow311 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024[edit]

Tgbsww (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC) add [reply]
 Done Abo Yemen✉ 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yemen&oldid=1220582212"