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/ Merits of Houthis / Systematic bias of mainstream sources

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)

The "now, I'm not racist, but..." defense wears thin. When I see someone use phrases like "Jewish/Zionist elite power", I don't really care whether they identify as anti-Semitic or not. Their ideology is perfectly clear to me at that point already.

Furthermore, no, I am not going to read PressTV propaganda, which is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes and has no place on this or any other contentious article. And yes, I am in fact familiar with orientalism, and I don't need to take Sociology 101 from you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"The "now, I'm not racist, but..." defense wears thin. When I see someone use phrases like "Jewish/Zionist elite power", I don't really care whether they identify as anti-Semitic or not. Their ideology is perfectly clear to me at that point already." Then I condole you for having bought the predetermined notions of Zionist discourse, hook, line and sinker like a nice obedient kid! You deserve an A+ by ADL! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Coming from you, that means a lot to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And as for my edits and descriptions, they were exactly what the sources say about Houthis! And they are more reliable than any other sources, because one is a POV by a professor who have published two books on Houthis and the other is a Newsweek report by a reporter that has closely studied the Houthis in field, traveling with and speaking heart to heart with their members. That's why I thought those sources are more reliable than sources that just regurgitate speculations and charges by the US officials, ousted Yemenis government or Saudi Arabia who have a vested interest in demonizing Houthis. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, those are not reliable sources. They are commentaries. And saying that the Houthis are a Zaidi group operating in Yemen is hardly demonizing them. Having the lede be an ode to their "struggling for...vital causes", on the other hand, is lionizing them. I really don't think you are grasping the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not advocacy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote was exactly grounded in the source! One does not lionize lions! And how is this source with a hefty feature report is just a commentary? Strivingsoul (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote was editorializing off the source. Your edits weren't just inserting information -- it was using the story as a citation for POV-pushing and lionization of the subject. Furthermore, the Newsweek piece is a photo essay, rather than a dispassionate report; it is grounded in journalism, and its facts are generally not in dispute, but its conclusions regarding the Houthis are still the opinion and analysis of one photojournalist whose name isn't even given. It is certainly no basis for editorializing about the Houthis' "vital causes" and "massive base of support", among other WP:WEASEL and WP:POV constructions.

Where you may possibly misunderstand me is: I have no objection with including information that is favorable to the Houthis in this article, or any other relevant article. In fact, if it is factual information that is relevant to giving readers a fuller understanding of the subject, I think it should be included, whether it reflects positively, negatively, or neutrally on them. What I do have a problem with is waxing poetic about them, because it is unencyclopedic and represents a form of advocacy. Instead of saying they have "massive" support, that support should be quantified. What regions do they control? What was the response to their takeover of the government? How many have participated in their street demonstrations and sit-ins? How many fighters does the group command? (Much of this information is already included in the article, with sources.) But what it seems like you are trying to do is tell readers how great the Houthis are. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Removing systematic bias from the Wikipedia is important, but it must not undermine any of the five pillars of the Wikipedia, especially the second Wikipedia pillar which is that the Wikipedia is to be written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues in articles rather than engage in debate within them. Verifiability via reliable sources provides a mechanism for establishing as neutral a point of view as possible. Many sources even reliable ones can have a bias. If in doubt about a particular source, or if the reliability of a source has been questioned, information and views from other editors can be requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Bejnar (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Iran's support with different means including weapons has mentioned in the lead as a fact The Houthis have received significant support from Iran in the form of weapons, money and training since 2004 while this is a controversial issue among the sources and even this source narrates both views! --Seyyed(t-c) 08:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose neutral wording. --Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fact thus I added "according to Reuters". --Seyyed(t-c) 17:40, 5 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)

@Bejnar: Coup is certainly a "POV" as I have explained here and requested a page move here. Only opposing parties use the word "coup". Mhhossein (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: your edit does not indicate a reason that coup is the wrong word, it just makes that assertion. Simply saying only enemies use the word "coup" does not make it so. Look at the large number of events to which "coup" has been applied. Not all of those, or really even a majority were by enemies. If you don't like the word find a reliable source that says that the event was not a coup. --Bejnar (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Whether I like it or not is not my problem here. In fact, as you said, coup is used by majority of the enemies so we are reflecting their viewpoints here. What can it be called if it is not a "POV". This is simply how the enemies call the event! Mhhossein (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I said that the majority were not by enemies.  --Bejnar (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bejnar:Could I have your sources? As you know I have already presented some sources using the neutral word "takeover". Mhhossein (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Start with the Oxford English Dictionary here. See also the definition here. See the usage here. --Bejnar (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I could not tell what I was exactly asking you to provide. Could you please present the sources (for example news outlets) calling the event a coup? Btw, can you say that how the event is called a coup based on the meaning presented here? Mhhossein (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging more editors @Strivingsoul, Kudzu1, and Sa.vakilian:. Mhhossein (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles calling this a coup have been well represented in the discussion at Talk:2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état. No need to repeat. As to the French definition: A coup is taking power in a minority government through unconstitutional means, imposed by surprise and using force. What is the problem you have with that? Is it the surprise factor? I don't see a POV problem there, many were surprised. Is it the minority government? The Houthi are a minority in Yemen. Was force used? Yes. Was the taking of power done in accordance with the constitution? No. --Bejnar (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Nykterinos already made a comprehensive explanation on this matter and I won't repeat them. Nearly, none of the elements of "coup" definition is in accordance with the reality of Yemeni events. How can you call such a gradual process a surprise? Mhhossein (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

POV tag added

This article needs major improvement in POVs, accuracy and comprehensiveness. And since there are unresolved disputes on the content, I added the POV tag to the article until the disputes are settled. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Articulate clearly, please, the POV problems with the content. You can't just slap an orange tag on a page and say "I don't like this!" as your justification. What are the issues exactly? And what policy reasons do you have why they must be addressed? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The reasons are the recent sweeping removal of alternative POVs and information from the page which have been added for improving balance and neutrality. The information was verifiable and sources reliable. Yet they were removed based on bogus charges by MonoChrome Monitor. I'm going to discuss them separately. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Being unhappy over having your bold changes reverted is not a justification for tagging the article. That's not what tags are for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussing sweeping removals by Monochrome Monitor

Recently there was a series of removals by Monochrome Monitor on questionable grounds. I'm going to discuss the removals case by case along with explanations offered for each, to see whether they were justified.

On this edit, three sourced statements were entirely deleted and this explanation have been provided: "delete completely off-topic "praying the wrong way" anecdote, deleted description as "tolerant movement with broad cultural vision", patently absurd, deleted "flag and slogan", section solely defends while offering no dissent."

° Here's the statement deemed "off-topic"

The Houthis have told people they are "praying in the wrong way" by raising their arms, as is the custom among Sunnis in Yemen.

But I don't really see how this would be off-topic under the ideology section which is by definition to illustrate Houthi's distinct religious and political views! Note that I'm not particularly interested in keeping this statement for it doesn't seem to be a major ideological position but to claim that it is downright off-topic is clearly wrong.

° And here's the second removed statement:

Originally, according to Ahmed Addaghashi, a professor at Sanaa University, the Houthis began as a theological movement that preached tolerance and peace and held a considerably broad-minded educational and cultural vision; however, perceived social injustice led tier leaders to adopt a more proactive role.

This being a sourced expert POV was removed from the ideology section as "patently absurd" without any reasons explaining how this is not just a subjective opinion by the user, and more importantly how it can override the authority of a quoted expert!

° The third removal:

The group's flag reads as following: "God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam". This motto is modeled on the motto of revolutionary Iran. Commenting on the meaning of the slogan, Ali al Bukhayti, the former spokesperson and official media face of the Houthis said: "We do not really want death to anyone. The slogan is simply against the interference of those governments."

This was part of a subsection, "Flag and slogan" that was also linked under the infobox image of the flag. They were all removed on the ground that "the section solely defends while offering no dissent" but I'm not sure which Wiki guideline requires us to have a dissenting view against each POV! And in case there are POVs opposing the existing one, the right course of action according to WP:NPOV would be to add the opposing POV rather than deleting the existing one!

In summary all the deletions seem quite unreasonable, despite the user's adamant resistance against my reverts. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits themselves weren't objectionable, it's the fact that you added POV to an article that had no countering POV. If you are going to call it a tolerant movement, which is controversial, I wouldn't object if you used quotes. If you are going to quote "scholars", that's fine, but it should be in the appropriate section and given due weight. As for the "praying the wrong way" bit, it wasn't off-topic, I just didn't think it fit in the article very well structurally, and wasn't really significant enough to be included in my view.

Aa for the bit on the slogan, it didn't seem right with wikipedia standards of not being a chatroom. It felt like editorializing. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor and Strivingsoul: Wikipedia articles are made of POVs i.e., different view points are gathered to make a final rather neutral text. For the cases you see POVs, the onus is on the editors to add counter POVs based on their due weights to fix the problem. I think both you, as you said and wrote, know these concepts but there was a misunderstanding. As for edits, I believe that commenting on the slogan is one thing necessary and fits the the article. We'd better add different comments (POVs) on the flag and the slogan. By the way I would like to ask "Monochrome Monitor" to explain how quotes would matter and fix the problem here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They wouldn't "fix" anything, they would help to clarify respective POVs though. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So I reckon that you basically reaffirmed that there was nothing wrong with the removed content. And like already said, if you think there are alternative POVs, then add them to the article. Don't delete existing sourced content for personal disagreement or misgiving. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually there was plenty wrong with it, but I'm trying to be flexible. For one, a disclaimer about the logo shouldn't be necessary and isn't really in line with wiki policy. We aren't their PR team. Second, the opinion of the "scholar" pushed the limits of reality (linking to the article tolerance was cute though), it didn't even pass as an opinion, it was pure propaganda. As for the "praying the wrong way" bit, it just didn't add anything to the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussing sweeping removals by Monochrome Monitor (2)

Another element removed from the page was the anti-Imperialist tag. I had corroborated this ideological position by an additional source from Russia Today, and will provide a further reference from this scholarly paper that provides a close and detailed insight into the thoughts of the founder of the Houthi movement, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, which exposes Houthi's critical thoughts against US economic and military dominance of Yemen and other muslim countries. So with these three independent sources I think the anti-imperialist tag is beyond question. Will wait two days and then restore the tag in case of no objection. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If the sources don't directly mention the "anti-imperialist" term, you can't restore it until you find suitable sources. If this is the case and there's no mnention of that term in your sources, the tag might have been removed due to the problem original research. Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The only source it is directly included in is Press Tv, which as I said earlier is problematic as a reliable source considering Iran (and Russia for that matter) is not a free Press. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC) I'm up for putting the disclaimer about the logo back though, with various POVs.

The so called "Freedomhouse" is basically the NGO arm of US Imperialism for effecting regime change against governments that are not aligned with US imperialist interests. So don't pretend that this government-funded organization can be considered in anyway as an objective neutral party that should be taken seriously, especially when the NGO goes blind before such repressive monarchies as KSA and Bahrain that are allied with US interests! These along with charges of ideological bias and poor methodology are already pointed out by various critiques in wiki entry for Freedom House. As for alternative POVs about the logo, again, the onus would be on you to add them (if there are any) to the article. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can mention the view point here even using Press TV as a source but it should not be stated as a fact and consequently we can't have it in infobox if press TV is the only source. Mhhossein (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think what genuinely matters more than verbatim use of the term, is whether the source characterizes the movement as being one opposed to Imperialism which Wikipedia defines as "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means". Having said that, the expert POV by PressTV does even employ the term "anti-Imperialist" verbatim to describe the Houthis. Russia Today also suggests that the struggle is part of the post-colonialist movements' struggle against imperialists and colonialists. Likewise, the author in the linked paper from Taylor & Francis identifies the same anti-imperialist themes in Hussein al-Houthi's thoughts. Furthermore beyond these sources, the very fact that Houthis' antagonists are well-known to be in alliance with the living reality of US Imperialism and the blatant reality of the ongoing war against Yemen are themselves obvious clues reaffirming the nature of the struggle by the Houthis as being anti-Imperialist in nature. Houthi leaders have also numerously stressed that they are aspiring for independence from foreign influence (namely US and Saudi) as already mentioned in the article. So I think it must be now obvious that the tag represents a definite fact, and restoration is well due. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Freedom House is also very critical of the Golf monarchies (also it's not government funded), it says that Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the UAE don't have free presses.

It's ridiculous for you to call Freedom House an "arm of US imperialism". --Monochrome_Monitor 23:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but the so-called NGO is government funded, and it fails to mention systematic suppression of freedom (the most pernicious form of all) by the globalized, corporate, and Zionist-owned media in US and the West. Other than the government/corporate control, the liberal ideological (among other forms of) bias of the organization are more than adequate reason not to uncritically trust their reporting especially when it comes to a unique society like Iran with a culture, tradition and ruling political philosophy and system that are completely unfamiliar to the dominant secular/liberal culture of the West. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Joining a long and ever-growing parade of extreme fringe POV statements from Strivingsoul... -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Along with his comments about the "Jewish power elite". --Monochrome_Monitor 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yeah! I know I am going to expect more such rumblings as I happen to be questioning more of the dominant systematic cultural/political dogmas of "the average mid-class western Wikipedian!!" Strivingsoul (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I can testify to Strivingsoul's holding fringe views; he also participated in the drive to promote Ali Khamenei's recent propaganda letter on Wikipedia. Any controversial statements he or others add on the basis of rubbish sources such as Press TV or RT should be removed without blinking. The statement from professor Ahmed Addaghashi seems less controversial and could be considered for restoration, but random standard English words like "tolerance" should not be wikilinked per WP:OVERLINK.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think, those "rubbish" sources are specifically crucial for reducing such biases as espoused by likes of you! Self-centered, self-satisfied Zionist/US imperialist apologists who dismiss as "rubbish" whatever POV that doesn't reaffirm their deeply entrenched prejudices! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This Khamenei/Zionism stuff has cropped up on Yemeni Civil War (2015) as well. Does anyone know if there's some sort of outside website driving partisan editors to this content? It seems like a bunch of openly pro-Iran SPAs and IPs have sprung up out of nowhere lately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is such a website, I would like to know about it; to the best of my knowledge, they are driven by old-fashioned nationalism, though.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

References