Talk:Houthi movement

Violence Against The Native Jews

I modified the paragraph regarding Houthis' violence against the jews, as it contained serious unsubstantiated accusations. Several sentences in the paragraph did not have any reference, and the one that had referred to an article that can not be found on the website of the referenced journal, Al-mustaqbal (the current reference takes you to the homepage of the journal!). The cited author Wassam Sa'adah (وسام سعادة) doesn't seem to have published any article on May 19th, 2015 in Al-mustaqbal. Such heavy accusations can not be left within the main body of the article without proper references, as they undermine the credibility of the whole collective effort to produce an unbiased article. I bring the old paragraph here, in case someone finds the proper references and thus decides to transfer it back in its place:

The Houthis are allegedly expelling and bullying the ancient and impoverished rural Jews of Yemen according to the Lebanese writer Wissam Sa'ade. In January 2007 Houthis expelled Yemeni Jews from the Houthi stronghold of Al-Salem and again in July 2014, they were expelled from the town of Raydah in the Amran governorate. Sa'ade says that the Houthis were bullying a small group of impoverished rural Jews in the name of their war against Israel and Zionism. "Cursed be the Jews" is a Houthi slogan. Houthis have been destroying Jewish homes, confiscating their property, forbidding them to work and expelling them. Stones are thrown at children in the street.

Please note that I left the reference to the article in Al-mustaqbal intact inside the article, because I gave it a chance that the online archive of the journal is not complete. Please further verify the reference if you have access to a paper archive, or if you are able to find the referenced article in internet archives.

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)

Hello, I totally agree that the claim is dubious. All the web sources claiming that Houthis fight or fought in Syria seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that we should delete the claim in all the pages where it appears (including Syrian Civil Car and others) until better sources show up. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr)--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (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)

References

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)

You're not being flexible, you're only further trying to whitewash the flaws in your arguments that I had already pointed out. If you 'perceive' a POV to be 'propagandist' that could be because of your prejudice against the subject! Especially when that happens to be an expert POV. And the logo description does add value to the article in terms of giving info about the motives and positions of the leaders of the Houthi movement. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to be a bit more flexible. Feel free to reinstate the disclaimer about the logo, and the POV opinion if it's in quotes. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC) It's just a bit hard for me to accept some of your edits considering I know that behind them is a very fringe POV. Pro-tip, keep your more controversial political views to yourself, and wikipedia would be a much better place for you. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

References

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)

You aren't questioning anything. You are just trolling.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:44, 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)

Good luck defaming already marginalized views on Wiki due to inherent systematic bias! But "truth" will ultimately triumph! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly will.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So, where did we end up? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I was looking through a couple of sources right now, and I can't find much that isn't already covered in the "History" section. I am personally convinced the Houthis were not initially aimed at militancy, but "peace and tolerance" is difficult to substantiate in other sources; it seems to have begun as a Zaidi revivalist movement seeking "peace and tolerance" from others, specifically the growing Sunni population. I am going to remove the "POV" tag from the article; any legitimate additional information can be discussed per the regular procedures.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Peace and tolerance" are underpinned by their belief that muslims should unite against their common enemy which they believe is Western dominance of Islamic Ummah, in particular US and Israeli domination/occupation. This resonates with the call by the late founder of Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini for Islamic unity and resistance against the West, and that's also one reason the Houthis are claimed to be supported or influenced by Iran. The other ground for their tolerance is their opposition to Salafism/Al-Qaeda which is widely known as an intolerant, extremist and terrorist Islamic group which has engaged in sectarian infighting and division in the Islamic Ummah rather than staging any real, honorable resistance against Western domination. They have in fact destroyed the public image of Islam by committing all sorts of wrongs and excesses such as indiscriminate violence against non-Salafists and non-mulims and pretty much anyone who doesn't adopt their ideology. I'm elaborating on this to help better make sense of the Houthi ideology and such characterizations offered by the Yemeni professor. Also see how this is in line with the Newsweek identification of Houthi descent cause as being shared by all Yemenis. Houthis are genuinely inspired by Shia Islam but that's also exactly why they are striving for indiscriminate well-being of all muslims. You need to study about Shia Islam to understand this, especially Shia distinct appreciation for reason and universal justice. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fascinating. You are saying "peace and tolerance" in their belief system means to "unite against their common enemy which they believe is Western dominance of Islamic Ummah". "Uniting against" someone in standard English means to fight them, which in turn is the exact opposite of "peace and tolerance". Since this is the standard English Wikipedia, not the Zaidi English Wikipedia, we should not write "peace and tolerance" where the exact opposite meaning is intended.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No! You're falsifying what I said and ignoring the expert POV's context. "Peace and tolerance" is stated in the context of their theological view which means tolerance towards other religions and sects! And sure! There's nothing honorable about Western pillage and rape of the Mid-east to be indicated by any noble signifier! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not falsifying anything - you are falsifying yourself in every comment.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Lead update reversion!

Which statement of the updated lead did you identify as "POV"?! What's your reason for this new case of aggressive reversion?! @Anders Feder: --Strivingsoul (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit used unacceptable POV language for which there is no consensus. I support Anders Feder's reversion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's just a charge with no specifics. Explain your reasons! Which part of the updated lead is a POV language? Saudi invasion? Houthis resisting the invasion? Houthis fighting the Saudi invasion at all? Saudi's having attacked in the first place to restore Hadi government? Hadi being backed by the Saudis?! These are all attested to already in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen? Strivingsoul (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your victim-playing suggests you are still WP:NOTHERE and there is no need to feed the troll.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think throwing out allegations without caring to substantiate them is how Wikipedia works, then you qualify as WP:NOTHERE not me! Care to explain what segment of the updated lead you consider to be POV. I also ping @Sa.vakilian: for arbitration. 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No I don't.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul, Anders Feder, and Kudzu1:In such cases, we ask all of the participant to write their proposals. Then we can decide which one is better. It is a fact that Saudis are fighting with Houthis, thus it should be mentioned in the lead. Let's write the suggestions.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You can update the paragraph as you prefer. Just don't use any language that implies that one of the militant parties to the conflict is less villainous than the other or vice versa.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, ironically you're just suggesting a POV! It is not up to us to decide which part is villainous or not. We should stick to the facts! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That is complete BS. I am not suggesting any POV.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You just said that the edits should not suggest that "one party is less villainous than the other or vice versa" and that clearly implies that you have already assumed that all parties in the conflict are "villainous!" That, my friend, is POV! And considering your past performance on other Mid-Eastern/Islamic topics, you have already provided us much evidence of your general cultural prejudice against these subjects! Nobody is forcing you to edit these topics if you can't be neutral! Strivingsoul (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that in any way. Instead of disrupting Wikipedia, take a beginner's course in logic so you don't need to be blocked again.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You can keep throwing out your gross accusations, and I am keeping a record of your performance across different topics. And when the day of reckoning comes it is you who will be blocked forever for your persistent rude behavior! Strivingsoul (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For how much longer must I wait for this exciting day to arrive?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

When due, you will be inevitably notified! --Strivingsoul (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't wait.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is what I had already written in the updated lead. The burden is therefore on the opponents to specify and substantiate their allegations of POV. Here I also produce the reverted updated version as my suggestion:

Proposal 1: Ansar Allah (anṣār allāh أنصار الله "Supporters of God"), known more popularly as the Houthis (Arabic: الحوثيون al-Ḥūthiyyūn), are a Zaidi group from Yemen currently leading a resistance against the Saudi invasion of Yemen after they succeeded in toppling the Saudi-backed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. --Strivingsoul (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I look forward for the other proposals.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul:Proposal 2: Ansar Allah (anṣār allāh أنصار الله "Supporters of God"), known more popularly as the Houthis (Arabic: الحوثيون al-Ḥūthiyyūn), are a Zaidi group from Sa'dah, northern Yemen, which was founded by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi in ???. They started a rebellion in 2004 which led to a civil war against Yemen's former President, Ali Abdullah Saleh. The Houthis participated in the 2011 Yemeni Revolution, as well as the ensuing National Dialogue Conference (NDC). However, they rejected the provisions of the November 2011 Gulf Cooperation Council deal on the ground that "it divide[d] Yemen into poor and wealthy regions" and also in response to assassination of their representative at NDC. In 2014 Houthi tookover the government in Sana'a which led to the fall of the Saudi-backed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen in 2015.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Looting files about US spy operations"

So this now constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law? 184.160.48.249 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Houthis are Shia?

Nowhere does it specify it is a Shia group. Any Muslim is welcome to join it.

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)