Talk:Houthi movement

Ahmad al-Bahri

The name links to a Saudi Arabian footballer. He may well also be an expert in the Houthis, but shouldn't his personal page then reflect this expertise in some form or another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.251.177.138 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of the Article

Shouldn't we name this article: Al-Shabab al-Muminin, considering that's the groups official name and Houthis is just how they are referred to in the media?Kermanshahi (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Are they really Zaidis or are they Twelvers?

Check http://www.shia.bs/articles/ehexeoc-uncovering-the-hidden-realities-of-hizbollah-part-5.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.139.28 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Houthis in Syrian Civil War

If Im not wrong, all the proof of Houthi involvement in that conflict is a single source. Need to improve that, otherwise that claimed involvement is dubious...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious "Houthi Logo"

What is this logo that is kept being uploaded? I have removed it since it is not an official or trustable one. One source (a Christian Website) shows a graffiti on the wall of a Mosque (can be seen here) while the other displays a salesman selling a sign, which does not mean an official logo (link cited as source). As seen in Brazilian protests, some signs and popular grafitti logos can go popular and have a widespread use alhough not referring to a single movement or an official and unique "logo" source.

Also, the message displayed has a message that can be very tendentiously used by Western sources - it has already been used in that manner -, and given the large growth of visits in the last two months due to recent events (313,7% per month), withouth a proper explanation this image can be mistaken by an official stand used by the group - that is neither homogeneous or an organisation with a pattern of membership quite like the ones movements in Western countries - as well as the message portraited in it. It is well known that the use of anti-American message can be manipuled by groups in order to create an "enemy" or "terrorist" image of a supposed Other in relation to a "peaceful" Own Self. This is commonly seen in war (or war-on-terrorism) discourse of conservative Western politicians and pressure groups - moral crusaders -.

The article would be better seen without such controversial image. At least it would be plausible given the amount of recently published news concerning the group, together with the contrasting issued messages. We must praise for this status until the flux of informations is stabilised.

The Christian Science Monitor is a mainstream news service, not a "Christian Website", and the logo has been widely reported on by many other WP:RS. For example, the BBC shows the logo in an offical Houthi ceremonial funeral for their founder [1], while a video release by the Houthi's of a military operation in northern Yemen has them flying the banner as reported by Reuters [2]. The Yemen Times gives some background [3] Many may remember the Houthis first announcing their presence in Sana’a in 2002 by chanting the sarkha (the Houthi’s slogan) at the Grand Mosque in Old Sana’a. The sarkha, written by Hussein al-Houthi says “God is Great/Death to America/Death to Israel/Curse the Jews/Victory to Islam,” and also acts as the group’s symbol, painted on city walls and emblazoned on flags. The logo is also used on the Arabic Wiki page [4] and by the Houthis on their own websites [5].

It is completely inappropriate for the image to be removed because it could be manipulated by "conservative Western politicians and pressure groups", it is a message that is directed at their popular base in Yemen and has nothing to do with westerners. If you want to add a section providing background and context on the slogan that would be a preferable option. Gazkthul (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing I want to say in connection to this is that their logo is not a proof that they have a certain ideology, as some have repeatedly reinserted in the infobox and categories, such as Anti-Americanism or antisemitism. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Official website hacked and defaced

This site is listed in the article as official. It used to be the official website of Ansarullah, but it's now defaced and full with all sort of anti-Houthi propaganda. I'll add that info. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/23/world/meast/yemen-violence/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

¿Non-state opponent?

The Islamic State recognizes itself as a sovereign country, while the rest of the world doesn't, it's listed here as a non-state opponent ¿should we continue to treat it as a terrorist organization or as a terrorist state? Just asking as I don't know the guidelines for unrecognized states. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia, somewhat arbitrarily, doesn't consider self-proclaimed countries to be "states", recognized or otherwise, if they are involved in an active conflict and have not emerged as self-governing, de facto independent polities in peacetime. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Iranian arms

There seems to be a dispute about how to address the issue of whether Iran has supplied arms to the Houthi. Please discuss. --Bejnar (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have somewhat less of an issue with that than I do User:Strivingsoul's blatant injection of WP:POV and unencyclopedic WP:TONE regarding the Houthis' methods and goals. Waxing at length about their vital causes does not befit Wikipedia. Furthermore, the use of WP:SYNTH in construing the Wikileaks cable to mean the umpteen reliably sourced reports out there about the Houthis being armed and supplied by Iran are false is unacceptable and is again POV-pushing. Noting that the Houthis officially deny getting help from Iran seems appropriate and proper, but the rest of the edits by Strivingsoul are not going to fly, as far as I'm concerned. And Strivingsoul should know that, and should know well enough to follow WP:BRD rather than continuing to make major changes without consensus. That's just how it works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring editor behavioural issues (See WP:Civility), what specific input has been too POV, aside from in the Iranian arms presentation? --Bejnar (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned the "vital causes" language above, and you note the weasel words below; additionally, the "well-being of all Yemenis", "Western imperialism", and "massive base of support" language is clearly unencyclopedic and highly subjective. With the edits, the intro read like a pro-Houthi blog, and that just is not Wikipedia's purpose, whatever you think of the Houthis themselves. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The root cause of my difference with likes of Kudzul is more fundamental than this particular issue and too extensive and general to be properly addressed here. And that is the serious problem with prevalent reliance over Western corporate sources for reporting on Mid-East/Third world developments. This is such a fundamental topic that warrants an elaborate policy proposal for WIKI:Systematic bias (I'm planning and preparing one). But since this entry is also affected by the fore mentioned problem, here's some elaboration:

As the prime example of Iraq war showed, we should not rely uncritically on western Corporate media (if at all) for Mid-Eastern/Third-world topics, for their reporting is decisively affected by their participation and partnership with Western corporate order and its historical imperialistic ambitions in the third world countries. This, which is the most virulent and pervasive instance of systematic bias, undermines accurate, objective, non-biased reporting on Mid-East/Third world developments that have historically been the scene of Western Imperialistic and Colonialist policies. As for the Houthis, my research into sources alternative to Western corporate media, proves with no shred of doubt that the Houthis have been a socioeconomically and culturally marginalized group that over the last decade have managed to foment and inspire an admirable popular mass revolution against the corrupt US/Saudi-backed puppet governments. And their very political positions and agenda (freedom from foreign influence) is enough to make them an unfavorable sociopolitical force in Yemen for Western/Saudi imperialist interests. Western/Saudi negative coverage of Yemen and characterization of Houthis and their achievements as "coup," "Iran proxy," "insurgents", "sectarian", "violent" etc are live testimonies to my argument. This is a vital insight that should guide us in editing this page. In deciding between conflicting reports about the nature of the Yemeni's crisis, and the merits of the Houthis we should be wary of the malicious political biases of sources that reflect the foreign governments' imperialist agenda for Yemen and Western Asia in general. For my part, I have been updating and continue to update this page by alternative sources that provide insights beyond the biased and inaccurate characterizations of Houthis. But I understand that we will need to discuss and reach consensus over more accurate sources/reporting until with assert alternative POVs as facts. I will also treat the controversy over my recent edits (concerning Iranian arms, Houthis real agenda and merits) in particular in a separate post. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Your research. That's the problem. We can't just set aside Wikipedia's established reliance on verifiability (using reliable secondary sources) because your original research has led you to the conclusion that the Western and Arab medias are unfair and should be ignored. I am fully in support of portraying every group (including those with whom the U.S. or Saudis or whomever have a beef, from the Houthis all the way to the Islamic State) in an objective light and with a dispassionate, encyclopedic tone. But that means we need reliable sources to make factual claims. We are not here to write opinion judgments into Wikipedia articles.

I am worried that you are simply too close to the subject matter in this case, as you seem to have a difficult time separating your belief that the Houthis are a "marginalized group" leading "an admirable popular mass revolution" against the "corrupt" Yemeni government from your work toward improving the project. I am further concerned by past comments you have made that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic, not the least of which was you recommending an essay on "Jewish Supremacism" by David Duke.

I really do try to assume good faith in working with editors, especially those who take the time to register and discuss things on the Talk page. And I do believe your views are sincerely held. But I cannot understand how you thought this edit was remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia, much less worth edit-warring over, and I am troubled by your conflation of pro-Houthi and anti-Western advocacy with making substantive improvements to this topic area. Wikipedia is not a blog, Wikipedia is not a forum, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright! As I said I will supply reliable sources for having a more objective portrayal of Houthis than what we found in most western sources that are affected by various forms of systematic bias, e.g. political and corporate as I said. Read the PressTV interview by an American analyst that follows the anti-Imperialist tag under the groups ideology in the info box. There one instance of corporate interests involved in Mid-Eastern conflict is mentioned (BP). Also have a look at Orientalism which is a cultural form of systematic bias against Eastern cultures and communities. As for my critical views against Jewish/Zionist elite power, they have nothing to do with anti-Semtitism. I have already explained my thoughts about that subject in the discussion you linked. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words

Please avoid weasel words such as in this edit what the Western and Yemenis governments have called a coup d'état. If a specific armed take over does not meet the definition of a coup d'état, find a source that says that and present it in a positive way. --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)