Jump to content

Talk:Yemeni civil war (2014–present)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:8109:8940:2c91:cd04:b7e8:7e31:9837 (talk) at 10:30, 21 March 2018 (→On which side Yemen's Armed Forces are fighting?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


This article is pro-Saudi US government propaganda

Like most Wiki articles of a political nature, this article is yet another stinking pile of bullshit and misinformation: if you look a the chart on the right column which is supposed to show who is fighting whom, the USA is nowhere to be seen! But it is a fact that the US military is providing logistical support, spotting, tracking, refueling Saudi war planes in the sky over Yemen, and also selling billions of dollars of ordinance and weapons to the Saudis to use in this conflict. The USA should most definitely be included as a belligerent fighting with the Saudis against the Houthis. To leave the USA out as this article does is disgraceful propaganda. Utterly sicking.


On which side Yemen's Armed Forces are fighting?

I have put most of Yemen's Army on the side of the Houthis / Saleh, and I've sourced it well: my source was Mr. "President" Hadi's foreign minister, quoted by Reuters on 01/04/2015, saying:

"Although the only forces in Aden still loyal to the Saudi-backed Hadi are from local militias, some parts of the army continue to back him elsewhere including the eastern province of Hadramawt and near Marib, he said."

I also listed army units known to be loyal to Hadi one by one, adding a source for each of those. However, someone with the nick "LightandDark2000" just put Yemen's army then on the side of Mr. Hadi again without giving any source for this, deleting my sources and just saying "That section is for the military strength, not units." See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_%282015%29&diff=659268951&oldid=659266998

As I'm just a guest here, I don't want to start any "edit war." However, I would like to review someone with credentials here at this platform the reverse edit by "LightandDark2000" - which was done without any addition of sources, but deleting sources. The key question in substance is here: "On which side Yemen's Armed Forces are fighting?" Or put it in another way: Which parts of Yemen's Armed Forces are with or against whom? I think this question is a crucial one for the whole Yemeni Civil War 2015, isn't it? So I think the answer to this question shall be well sourced. --84.189.1.143 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Propose to split the section on GCC military intervention in Yemen (2015) into a separate article, as this is clearly a notable and differing event.GreyShark (dibra) 05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you made the split too early and without an agreement on proper article naming. The result was immediate re-merge request and i guess quite a few of us may challenge your naming of the new article.GreyShark (dibra) 07:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support the proposal while insist on maintaining the following sentence in this article:

According to the Saudi news outlet Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia is contributing 100 warplanes and 150,000 soldiers to the military operation in Yemen. According to Reuters, planes from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain are also taking part in the operation. In addition, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Sudan are ready to participate in a ground offensive--Seyyed(t-c) 06:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why you think that line needs to remain in this article when it more aptly relates to the military intervention? -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do not move all of the important information in such cases. There should be something which helps the reader to understand the importance of the issue in the main article and lead him/her to the sub-article. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand -- I just don't think we need to go into the specifics like that on this article. What about mentioning the other countries that are participating in the operation, without going into detail about a prospective ground offensive or force strength? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

It has been proposed to re-merge the 2015 military intervention in Yemen article back into Southern Yemen offensive (2015).GreyShark (dibra) 07:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per above discussion. The apparent consensus is that these are two discrete operations, with the offensive being a Houthi campaign directed toward Aden and the intervention being a Saudi-led campaign striking targets principally in the vicinity of Sana'a. They are connected, and one has clearly followed onto the other, but they are different. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudzu1's reasoning seems logical to me. Mhhossein (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

@Kudzu1: I noticed that you removed my edit to this article. Your edit summary was informative but please consider that some parts of the air strikes occured in the southern area hence reactions may be included here. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wondered if you might have put the section into the wrong article by mistake. Sorry about that. My thinking is that to keep a relatively bright line between the Houthi ground offensive and the Saudi-led intervention, we should just put reactions to the bombing campaign on that page, but if there were notable outside reactions to the Houthi advance that preceded it, then they would go here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting with Al-Qaede

@Kudzu1 and Mhhossein: I think we should make a third column in the template and add Al-Qaede to it. Please look at this news: Today, the fighting centered on the Shabwa Province, in the oil-rich Usaylan region, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Ansar al-Sharia hold sway. 38 were killed in fighting between the Houthis and Sunni tribesmen.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 08:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say let's wait on this. For one, Antiwar.com isn't a very good source. For another, I haven't seen compelling evidence to support the notion that AQAP is a significant faction in this offensive, the goal of which is the fall of Aden and the defeat of Hadi's holdouts. Clashes between AQAP and both the "official" government and the Houthis/Saleh loyalists have been ongoing for literally years, and while I certainly think jihadist groups are taking advantage of the power vacuum, that's best covered on al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen and Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état for right now. That could and very well may change, if this offensive brings the Houthis into a more direct confrontation with AQAP, Ansar al-Sharia, and/or ISIL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive overhaul

So obviously this article used to look a lot different. But in discussing the matter with User:EkoGraf, we agreed that the conflict has proven durable enough and has had enough impacts across Yemen, not just in the governorates targeted by the southern offensive, that it needed an overarching article. Reliable sources are increasingly describing this conflict as a "civil war", albeit one with significant foreign military involvement (there's precedent, e.g. Libya and Syria).

From now on, all casualties associated with fighting or bombing or shelling in Yemen (or across the border into Saudi Arabia, or in the waters of the Bab-el-Mandeb or Gulf of Aden) should be counted here. This article's scope now covers victims of Saudi bombing in Sana'a, Sa'dah, and wherever else, as well as violence between jihadist groups and others throughout Yemen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "civil war" did not begin in 2015. It began way earlier than that. The Houthi insurgency in Yemen began in 2004. We need to seriously organize these Yemen articles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are seriously organized in a way they were not before. The Houthis are no longer simply insurgents; they now claim to be the Yemeni government, and at this point, they probably have a better claim than anyone else. The civil war didn't start in 2004, according to reliable sources that indicate Yemen was "slipping into" or "on the verge of" civil war a couple weeks ago (and now refer regularly to "Yemen's civil war" or "the conflict in Yemen"). There was virtually no armed conflict between Hadi loyalists and the Houthis/Saleh loyalists from the Fall of Sana'a last September up until Hadi fired General al-Saqqaf last month; indeed, for a significant portion of that time, there was a "unity government" in place that was led by Hadi while the Houthis were calling the shots.
As structured now: there was the insurgency from 2004 to 2014/15, when the Houthis mounted their coup (starting with their takeover of Sana'a and ending with their "constitutional declaration" of a new government), then there was about a month and a half of chess pieces moving around the board in the aftermath of the coup, and then the civil war (or whatever we want to call it) broke out. These are discrete phases, broken down along obvious chronological dividing points, of the Yemeni crisis (which was preceded by the Houthi insurgency, which had its ebbs and flows until accelerating rapidly over the past couple years and culminating in the Houthis taking control of the government). The organization is sound, and each article has a distinct scope. That's really the best you can hope for in coverage of a crisis that has been anything but clear-cut. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 Libyan Civil War began with protests, then insurgency, then the rebels took over Tripoli (the capital), then defeated Gadafi's forces once and for all. This Yemeni conflict is very similar, although the amount of time it took is different. Since there was never a break in the fighting, this has been a continuous conflict since 2004. Dividing up this conflict into multiple articles is conufusing and misleading.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One solution is to create an article called "War in Yemen (2004-present)", similar to War in Afghanistan (1978-present).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been numerous breaks in the fighting, and there was actually little direct conflict between the Houthis and the Yemeni government after the 2010 ceasefire, up until much more recently. Most of the fighting in 2011-14 was between the Houthis and Sunni tribes.
It is a right mess, riddled with sourcing issues and missing quite a bit of pertinent information, but we do have the Houthi insurgency in Yemen page... I made some changes last night to cut it off at the point the Houthis announced the formation of a government, since at that point it seems like a real stretch to keep calling the conflict an "insurgency", but if you feel strongly that this current conflict should be considered part of that lengthier campaign, you can always revert my changes per WP:BRD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why is this article kept separate from the aftermath one? I'm not opposed to the "civil war" naming, but people like Robert Fisk described this conflict, along with others, as such even before the Houthis' takeover in early February. I'm just wondering: why shouldn't the scope of this article be broadened to also cover both the coup and post-coup events?
However, regarding FutureTrillionaire's other concerns; the "Yemen articles" are fairly organized at the moment, and "solutions" like that are the reason why we end up with a lot with conflicts that are hard to organize in the first place. This is also the reason why we sometimes fail to determine start/end dates. Contrary to your opinion, I believe that such splits are actually helpful for readers to make a distinction between the breaks and escalations in any conflict. After all, escalations are usually notable enough to merit separate articles, something you sadly failed to realize last summer during the IS offensive in Iraq when some editors kept calling for a new umbrella article. I strongly reject having 2004 as a start date for this war unless you provide sufficient reliable sources (if there are any) that explicitly say so, otherwise we are clearly in WP:OR territory. Please don't let this topic end up like Iraq and Afghanistan, FT, and kindly wait till the developments are a little clearer to go ahead with such procedures. Thank you, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agnostic on having this article fall under the umbrella of the aftermath article, so long as that article continues to be focused on the political developments after the coup. It's difficult, as we all know quite well, to write historiography of a history that is currently in progress; it may turn out, in the fullness of time, that this conflict is a relatively brief coda to the coup, as FT suggests. Or it may last months or years, especially if Saudi ground troops get involved. At this stage, who knows? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would add, at any rate, that the coup itself unfolded pretty slowly and was largely political maneuvering, at least after al-Ahmar was beaten and fled the country; even when the Houthis took over the presidential palace, I don't think anyone was killed, and Hadi and his ministers resigned (under duress) rather than being executed or even jailed. Hadi was under house arrest for one month, and then after he fled to Aden, another month went by before the full-scale clashes broke out (at the airport, and then the offensive). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name consistency

1. 1994 civil war in Yemen


2. Yemeni Civil War (2015)

Any comments on that?--93.137.158.240 (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth column

It's completely unnecessary. ISIL has claimed (not even necessarily made) one attack that could be considered part of this conflict. It controls no territory in Yemen. It has not been a target of the Saudi air campaign. Giving it its own infobox column is WP:UNDUE and makes the page look unnecessarily messy. As one of the editors who actually got Wikipedia to allow 4+ column infoboxes in the first place, I strongly believe they should only be used when it is absolutely needed to convey the dynamics of this conflict. There is no information I have seen in reliable sources to suggest ISIL has clashed with Hadi loyalists or AQAP has part of this conflict. There is no independent verification of their claim to have perpetrated a terrorist attack in the capital. They shouldn't be in the infobox, at least not with their own combatant column. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état

No consensus to merge. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Kudzu1, RGloucester, Nannadeem, Mhhossein, Googol30, Mbcap, and EkoGraf:; Regarding this discussion I propose to merge that article in this one. What is your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I don't think so. During the period covered in the aftermath article, there were no notable clashes between Hadi and Houthi fighters. There is no need to merge the pages, as their scopes are distinct. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the explanation in the moving discussion is clear. In my view, both of these articles include the 2015 conflict while this article has broader viewpoint.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I have read the draft constitution which was under final shape in January 2015. Personally I am of the opinion that present situation has route causes based on socio economics. Thus, it is more appropriate to a title of Civil war rather than a coup. Encyclopedia Britannica provides that: “a coup is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel. A coup rarely alters a nation’s fundamental social and economic policies, nor does it significantly redistribute power among competing political groups.” See here [2]. An example is 1999 Pakistani coup d'état
Yemeni Civil War (2015) has page length of 80,867 (in bytes), whereas the page length of Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état is 46,563 bytes. I have seen pages with approximate length of above 95,000 bytes. Page length issue can be covered in merger process with a concise gist of two texts on the same issue/subject. However, page length issue is a technical concern and cannot be ignored.Nannadeem (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - When we do eventually have a WP:SIZE issue, we can easily consider splitting the merged parts into a separate "Background of the Yemeni Civil War" article or anything of the same order. But right now I believe it is redundant to have an article focused on the political developments after the coup and another about military confrontations, which kind of constitutes original research, as suggested in a discussion above. Isn't the civil war itself is part of the aftermath? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

complaint @Kudzu1: I also complaint against your behavior. You can not send me warning. Do you think what you say is correct and others don't know anything ?!?!? Oh please be LOGICAL. OK? I wish you have better solution to solve the problems. Regards, Rastegarfar.mo

Oppose There was no conflict during the aftermath of the coup. Only political negotiations and re-negotiations. Some of it can be put in the background section though. EkoGraf (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - There was no actual conflict between the Houthis and the Yemeni Government forces during the aftermath of the coup (except possibly in 3 cities to the east of Sana'a). Also, the scope of the topic is distinct, and the focus is different from that of the Yemeni Civil War itself, despite their relation. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronological order

Why are the order of events in the article ordered by location? It's better to have everything in chronological order. Also, the section about military intervention should be placed before events that happened after it began.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having them broken down by location makes linking to their specific battle pages easier and more accessible. We can workshop it, but I think convenience and navigibility should be prized over simple chronology, especially as the areas of conflict have changed little since 24 or 25 March. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US providing intelligence/logistical support

in the intro paragraphs it mentions that the US provided Saudi coalition with Intel and logistics and links to an NYT article. the article does not mention this anywhere. so the citation should be removed. (citation 5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name consistency

1. 1994 civil war in Yemen

2. Yemeni Civil War (2015)


Why so??--78.0.1.237 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to historical sites

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/05/31/did-saudi-arabia-bomb-yemens-ancient-marib-dam/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150603-Yemen-ancient-Sheba-dam-heritage-destruction-Middle-East-archaeology/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/unesco_director_general_condemns_airstrikes_on_yemens_cultural_heritage/#.VXH3AEZGR9g

http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/opinion/its-been-done-before-it-can-be-done-again-saving-the-middle-easts-cultural-diversity_32653

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/u-s-and-saudi-bombs-target-yemens-ancient-heritage/

19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel

Some users seem to have an obsession with adding Israel in every military infobox on Wikipedia. This time an IP did so citing an article by Veterans Today, which is filled to the brink with holocaust denial and conspiratorial theories. Unless claims of Israeli involvement can be backed by serious, mainstream sources, please stick it with your personal agenda and refrain from inserting them anywhere on Wikipedia. This is vandalism at best. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikrobølgeovn: This is very problematic all across wikipedia - mainly concerning Israel and to some degree Turkey.GreyShark (dibra) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties: what kind of figures do you provide here?

User:EkoGraf, could you explain, where you got this civilian casualty number "1,630" from? You are citing channelnewsasia.com (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/yemen-truce-begins-relief/1976692.html), but there is no such number given. And you even claim it was a "UN" number, so why don't you cite the original UN source or at least any reliable source that gives "your" special number. If it exists at all. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki, source clearly says that according to the UN around half of the overall number of estimated dead are civilians. Half of the confirmed 3,261 is 1,630. PS Please refrain from using talk such as my special number...if it exists at all. Its not per WP: Civil or WP: Good faith. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just read carefully, you might understand then:
1.) Your source (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/yemen-truce-begins-relief/1976692.html) does not say "3,261", but "3,200". Why do you falsificate again the figure given in your own source?
2.) Even if it was saying "3,261" "around half of them" wouldn't mean "1,630". You give a special, a specified number, where your source does not do.
3.) You just admitted that you constructed your own number and did not use existing figures. This means, the number "1630" never existed but was your personal invention. You showed this kind of behaviour (wrong usage of sources according to the civilian death toll in Yemen) several times ago and I already recommended you to use the original figures of the UN-OHCHR. You'll find the Press Briefing Notes easily there on the home page. So why don't you just use them as recommended? It's completely improper to provide and spread private calculations via Wikipedia.
4.) There is no WP good faith existing that protects falsification of information. Instead of citing WP: Civil or WP: Good faith you should be grateful, if someone informs you when you are giving wrong figures. I never said, you are doing it intentionally. But it is too obvious that you proceed to misuse sources. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki Not seeing how its falsification when the UN says half of the dead are civilians and the latest confirmed number of dead by the UN is 3,261 (per the 1st of 2 refs cited). I did not construct my own number and I did in fact use existing figures. And its not private calculations when its per WP: CALC (calculated numbers based on sources). Instead of attacking and insulting me, and assuming bad faith from the start, you could have simply requested to change the number from 1,630 to 1,600 (which I would have gladly done as compromise). In any case, this latest report [3] which gives a concrete figure of 1,670 dead civilians per the UN makes this issue effectively resolved and done. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UN-OHCHR never gave the figure 1,630 for a civilan death toll in Yemen. This was your very own constructed number. You'll find it in no single UN source. I'm not interestet in a horse-trade. There is a good reason, why your source did not (and could not) provide a precise civilian death toll:
1) UN-OHCHR gives precise figures for the civilian death toll since March 26th, that is since begin of the Saudi-led military intervention.
2) UN-WHO and UN-OCHA give no precise figures for the civilian death toll since March 19. From the beginning it was said: "The WHO toll does not distinguish between civilians and fighters."
3) What your source did, was to compare the UN provided overall death toll (since March 19th) with the civilian death toll (since March 26th). That's why it did not give a precise figure, because it wouldn't be correct.
What you tried to construct is simply impossible. There is no precise correct number for the civilian death toll since March 19th existing. If you insist on giving a precise number, you have to cite the UN-OHCHR civilan death toll. The recent (as of July 14 for the period of March 26 to July 13) is: 1,670. The previous figure was 1,528. But there was never a figure existing as your "1,630" or "1,600" or whatever you are trying to launch here without any source. Once again I recommend you to use the original UN websites instead of all your ABC news and channelnewsasia.com and whatever you were digging out in the past. I got the impression, you are simply not understanding the sources and how the figures were generated, what they mean and what they don't mean. I hope you'll act some more precise in future instead of trying to "calculate" formally "precise" but in fact invented figures. Read the sources well. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was your very own constructed number. What you tried to construct is simply impossible. It was all per WP: CALC. horse-trade Nope, its WP: Compromise. In any case. An exact figure/source has been provided now. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP: CALC does not back clear corruption of a UN death toll figure. And WP: Compromise does not help you when you purport a non-existing statistic. Don't use WP rules for improper usage of sources. Better stick to the UN Press Briefing Notes as recommended and you get the civilian death toll for the period since March 26. There is no other UN civilian death toll existing. And you can't calculate a precise figure of a non-existing statistic. This is original research. And even more: it's simply wrong and when you continue to spread false information - in spite of being informed you are doing - it's even disinformation. Don't disinform the encyclopedia's readers in future. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact number of civilian casualties seems to be problematic. The article claims that 10,000+ civilians were killed, but just Today, the UN said: "Since March 2015, OHCHR has recorded a total of 13,504 civilian casualties, including 4,971 killed and 8,533 injured."[4] Maybe the 10,000+ figure includes wounded as well? Should we then include the lower number of 4,971 killed, as well?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

map is wrong

The red faction does not control all of Taiz as shown on the map. Regards.

69.166.122.245 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just terribly out of date. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

title should be renamed to Yemeni war

This is not a civil war because of direct external parties. Regards.

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to propose the same. I think the best name is (Yemen war 2015) as we have now troops on the ground from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. not merely Aerial support 3bdulelah (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of foreign troops does not change the identification of this conflict as a civil war. Se Spanish Civil War or Syrian Civil War as an example. --188.79.86.177 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

map needs to update with Qaeda gains in the south

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/06/yemeni-al-qaeda-seizes-three-towns-near-southern-port-of-aden/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/yemen-officials-al-qaida-seizes-key-areas-aden-33247412

104.243.111.224 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

map also needs to highlight the situation inside Saudi Arabia, where there are now constant fightings and gains by both sides. --188.79.86.177 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and North Korean involvement in Yemen

Accord to the article, A senior Hezbollah said that Russia is providing weapons to the Houthis. This article is not poorly written, biased or libelous. For the North Korean part, if you read carefully it stated that North Korea's military support for Houthi rebels in Yemen is the latest manifestation of its support for anti-American forces". Article made by student also counts a source. The reason why this is not biased, libelous and poorly written is because International Buisness Times and Huffington Post are good news source. UA Today has some positive views about Russia and all Russians. Based on your edits, I suspected you are from the Russian military. If am wrong, explain who you actually are. You are really misunderstanding the articles if you have not read these carefully. But since you have misunderstood these article, we must discuss this in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard FrankieL1985 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - providing weapons is defined as support, not involvement/intervention. Anyway doesn't seem Russia is in direct support of the Houthis, but rather Russian weapons are perhaps redirected to Yemen, with no Russian intention.GreyShark (dibra) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"(by far the largest force)" Language

I don't like to reach into another person's fridge without asking (especially the first PP of a highly charged issue), but I'm unclear what work this phrase does in the intro. Are Southern Separatists the largest force among all Hadi government belligerents, or among all belligerents generally? The non-pay walled reference does not distinguish among these two choices or some other, nor does the statistical data in the infobox imply that the Southern Separatists holds numbers sufficiently greater to qualify as the largest force "by far." Was there an archived discussion on this I missed with relevant pro/cons, or can I dump the phrase?

CM (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that phrase. It was clearly an unsourced POV, which inexplicably remained in the lead for months. Nykterinos (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daish/ISiL territory

According to the "more detailed map" Daish control Lawdar while Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns are controlled by Aqab. According to this map, at first blush, Dais control Saudi Arabia, Oman, Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia. On comparing greyscales and zooming in they control Al Mukallah and other nearby coastal towns.

We should choose a distinct colour, and ensure that the maps correspond to reliably sourced information.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

al-Qaeda gets grey for towns/villages and white for territory, and ISIL gets black for town/villages and grey for territory (on the map file). This is how the color was assigned for the other Middle East maps, so it will also apply to this map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US involvment

The article says that the US conducts only airstrikes against al Qaeda while worldwide press reported on multiple occasions that the US also gives intel to the Saudis on Huthis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.113.212 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the US provides intel to the Saudi-led Coalition on the Houthis, but that isn't really a full military intervention. The US is still airstriking al-Qaeda, and they will probabably start targeting ISIL as well, if they haven't yet already. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is still "support", rather than "involvement".GreyShark (dibra) 07:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Owens

Navy SEAL commando William Owens got killed in an operation in Yemen. Update this.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.117 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yemeni civil war (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strength ?

According to the strength section the revolutionaty committee has a total amount of 400.000-500.000 fighters on it's site while the hadi government stands with 37.500 fighters. There is no way this could be possible because otherwise the Houthis would have ran over entire Yemen a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.79.185 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Special Forces in yamen

--Qrmoo3 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houthi forces

--Qrmoo3 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/william-ryan-owens-navy-seal-obituary-facebook-family-donald-trump-yemen-al-qaeda-qaida-team-6-combat-death/
  2. ^ Arrival of Commander of Special Forces Major-General Prince Fahd Bin Turki Bin Abdulaziz to Marib
  3. ^ تعيين المقدم عبيد فاضل الشمري بدلًا من السهيان
  4. ^ Mukalla’s liberation sends a warning to supporters of terrorism, says UAE commander
  5. ^ "Coalition forces kill Houthi general on Saudi-Yemen border: sources". reuters. Sep 24, 2016.
  6. ^ "Houthi militia chief's brother killed in Yemen". Al Arabiya. 29 November 2015.
  7. ^ Houthi senior militia leader killed near Najran
  8. ^ "Houthi militiamen carry the coffin of a senior Houthi military leader, Hashim al-Barawi, killed three days ago while fighting Saudi-backed forces". Alamy. 27 August 2015.
  9. ^ "Commander of the Republican Guard and the commander of the Yemeni capital, security forces among the victims of the raids that targeted a funeral in Sanaa". National Broadcasting Network. 08 October 2016. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ a b "military leaders among the victims of the martyrs of the massacre Sanaa". Al-Alam News Network. 08 October 2016. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ "Al-Manar correspondent: the commander of the Republican Guard and the commander of the Yemeni Central Security Forces among the martyrs of the massacre Sanaa". Al-Manar. 8 October 2016.
  12. ^ "Yemen: Blasts hit event attended by Jalal al-Ruweishan". Al Jazeera. 8 October 2016.

Timeline?

Maybe I'm missing it, but shouldn't this article and/or a subarticle contain a timeline of the war? This article is heavily focused on events in early 2015, with not a lot about recent changes in territory or clashes. The most recent stuff I can find is about ceasefire talk in April 2016, something which of course did not last. Is there any article with a chronology of the war? Even Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen seems to taper off around the end of 2015. PBP (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage of the whole Yemeni war has been somewhat paralyzed by a petulant refusal to allow Al-Masdar News to be used as a source, despite the fact that Al-Masdar is one of the only media outlets in the world, especially in English, that frequently covers this conflict and has sources inside Yemen. Al-Masdar is already heavily used for Syria articles, but for Yemen it's not allowed for some reason. The claim is that Al-Masdar is "biased" in favor of the Houthis and against Saudi Arabia and the Hadi regime. So instead, only information from mainstream Western and Gulf Arab countries' media outlets, which in themselves are heavily biased against the Houthis and in favor of Saudi Arabia and the Hadi regime, are allowed. And even many of those outlets barely report on the Yemeni war. The result is that hardly anything is added to Yemeni war articles on Wikipedia, and when it is it's skewed against the Houthis and in favor of the pro-Hadi forces. It's a big problem, in my opinion. Since both sides are either biased or alleged to be so, it seems to me that both sides should be allowed to be used as sources (rather than just one of them) and then just compare the claims on specifics. Kawada Kira (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged

I must put your attention that we do not add "alleged" parties to the infobox per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Moreover, currently only Turkish-language sources seem to support the claims regarding Iran and Hezbollah and frankly - even though sources are reliable (Hurriyet and al-Jazeera) this is not sufficient, since most English-lang wikipedians do not speak Turkish and cannot verify the claims. Would be happy if someone brings English lang sources or otherwise i delete those parties from the infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen map "14 november"

Yemen map: Fighting continued along the frontlines areas in Hajja, Jawf, Marib, Nihm and Taiz - no major changes in almost locked conflict https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxYE_LpUUAA3TDQ.jpg --Qrmoo3 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on keeping the "Southern Movement" in the belligerents section

Please post your arguments and discussions below my comment instead of in the edit summaries. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 06:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Chilicheese22, the SM is 1) a part of the Popular Resistance and 2) it is a participant in the Yemeni Civil War. Those are enough reasons for thus adding it to the Belligerents section under the PR label in the infobox. Now, counter me with arguments and not hypocritial ad hominem about my perceived political bias. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chilicheese22, you have not contested my arguments for around 4 days - you've had enough time to respond, considering that you were quick reverting me. Thus, I request an editor with the necessary edit rights to make the Southern Movement visible again in the infobox. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of which side is correct (as it is difficult for a third party like myself to verify either claims with English sources) it is not strange for Wikipedia to list units or subgroups of larger organisations in infoboxes. There has also been no argument until recently that the Southern Movement should be removed from the infobox because "it doesn't make sense to put it[the Southern Movement] in the infobox twice". Thus, I am granting the request and until the other side replies to this thread and provides sources for me and other third parties to look at and evaluate, the Southern Movement will (and should) remain visible. I would also like to note that other editors must assess the purpose of removing things from articles, and what purpose it serves; "it doesn't make sense" is an opinion not a reason. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 21:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am aware that Chilicheese22's argument is that by having the Southern Movement displayed it suggests that the Popular Resistance and the Southern Movement are separate entities; however, this issue of perception has never been brought up before. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 21:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeneralAdmiralAladeen sorry I couldn't get back to you I had been sick but as you know we had already discussed this in the past and just because it hasn't been mentioned before doesn't make it any less truthful also I have cited numerous amounts times. Tell me what in particular are you looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheese22 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chilicheese22: I just wanted clarification on why you want the Southern Movement to be removed, as it's confusing reading your old edit summaries. If you could just put down your reasons on why you think the Southern Movement should be removed from the infobox that would be great, because it allows me and other editors to clearly see your opinion and make a judgement on if it should removed or not. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Movement should be inside the popular resistance tab and not underneath already had a debate about this.Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why we need this discussion is because "debates" in edit summaries are arbitrary; we need you to discuss it in the talk page so we (other editors) can determine if you are right or not and reach a decision. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 03:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: Let me just clarify I don't want the Southern Movement to be removed but for it to be placed in the proper place where it belongs. When you look at the rest of those factions you have to ask yourself what do they all have in common which is they all support the Hadi Government either politically or militarily. Now when you look at the Southern Movement they are not political party as they do not hold any seats in Government nor do they have or hold a military under their command. After you establish this point you have to ask yourself who represents the people in the South either politically or militarily and that is the Popular Resistance which it has been representing them from 2011 back when there were protests and riots against the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The popular resistance basically took over the Southern Movement in a peaceful transition back in 2011 during President Saleh's ousting. That's why I want the Southern Movement to be put inside the popular resistance tab and not underneath it. Also on a side note I was wondering if you could contact the person who is in charge of the map for him to update it or to delegate it onto someone else as that map is very outdated.
@Chilicheese22: Thank you for your input. I now urge other editors to vote on this matter now that both sides have been clearly established. I myself will not support or oppose either side as I am the one who initiated this discussion. Regarding the map, I have left a request on the creator's talk page, but they seem to be very busy as there was a similar request left on their talk page on December 2016, and they promised to "do it in the new year". Anyhow, all the best, – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 01:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chilicheese22: Can you clarify what you meant by "...I want the Southern Movement put inside the Popular Resistance tab"? The wording is a bit confusing, and it seems that you did not mean "remove from infobox". – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 02:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: What I meant was for the Southern Movement to be takin out of the info box and for it to be placed in the popular resistance page because if you click on the popular resistance tab and it opens up the page there is little to no information about the popular resistance in general. I can understand the confusion due too my adversary 176.23.1.95 misquoting me and trying to use my words against me instead of trying to create an argument. Also I am asking for you to remove the Southern Movement until consensus could be reached due to my opponent clearly attacking anyone that voted to remove the SM (2-0 Clearly in favor of it being removed) and calling them my puppet. If you also don't mind to warn him that this type of behavior is not acceptable as I have takin no personal shots against him yet anyone that seems like he's on my side continues to be insulted.
Firstly, don't blame me for "misquoting" you, blame your faulty communication skills for not being able to express yourself concisely. Secondly, don't insult anyone's intelligence here by pretending your votes were legit, it's not exactly rocket science to identify sockpuppeting in action. Enough fake posturing - threatening me with sanctions on a fake basis, considering your own flawed actions, makes you deserving of any such correctional measures, that you'd wish upon me. Lastly, mentioning the SM in the Popular Resistance article doesn't exclude also mentioning it in the infobox of this article, regardless of the extent of the PR article. For it is standard practice on WP to mention notable units or subunits of belligerent organizations in infoboxes, compare infobox at Internal conflict in Bangladesh. Case dismissed. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@176.23.1.95: First of all your theory of me and the other user as being one has been debunked when you tried to file a 3RR violation against me and him. Second if you honestly think that any new Wikipedia user or any person that is voting for me has no right then you are more delusional than I thought. You should actually look at how many people sign up on Wikipedia daily. An last but not least how bout you reference something that is relevant to the Yemeni Civil War (i.e. Iraqi Or Syrian War) not a 15 year old conflict that is hardly edited by anyone I mean there are even years (2006-2010) where there is not even a single word about the situation. Also you have no right of closing this discussion until a vote is reached.
1) My "theory" has never been "debunked", if you cared to read the conclusion at the report. 2) You don't like my example? Here you have some other examples: Soviet–Afghan War, CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion, 1958 Iraqi coup d'état etc. - confirming that it is standard practice to mention notable subunits in infoboxes. Why would you want to violate this practice? Thus, case dismissed. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@176.23.1.95: You continue to give irrelevant examples to the Yemeni Civil War whether you are just providing outdated conflicts or conflicts that are not even relatable to the Yemeni War. For example the Soviet-Afghan war was not even the slightest sense close to the Yemen conflict this was when the United States backed terrorists (mujahidin)(who were called heroes at that time especially Osama Bin Laden who's picture was splattered all over American newspapers) too fight the communist threat in Afghanistan. It was two superpowers colliding to show each other who was superior in ideology and militarily. Now give a conflict that is currently ongoing in the Middle East (i.e. Iraqi Or Syrian War) and give me in detail where two entities that are essentially one are in the info box.
Well, I do actually agree with your political viewpoint of the Afghan War. It's just irrelevant for this discussion of whether to include a notable subunit or not in this article. You misinterpret my intentions of showing these examples - it's for demonstrating a wide application of this practice, spanning various times and locations. I don't see any reason why "current Middle Eastern conflicts" should be given a special status and thus be excluded from this practice. But you can have other examples of your wish: Sinai insurgency, Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@176.23.1.95: What I meant was not the "Middle Eastern conflicts" should be given special status or be excluded, what I meant was since Yemen and most other countries in MENA that participated in the Arab Spring and didn't prepare for post-uprisings and ousting's are facing these civil wars. That's why I am referencing the "Middle Eastern conflicts" because their conflicts that are relatable too the Yemeni Conflict (i.e. Arab spring, Arab winter, Iran-Saudi Proxy Way). Now these practices may happen in some of the pages but if we use your logic and apply it to every war and conflict (which are very vast and diverse) you're basically painting every war or conflict with one brush. For example when one Muslim does something bad in the name of his religion and people go and condemn the entirety of the religion (which is vast and diverse) instead of that one person's action then you just painted the entire religion of Islam in one brush.
"Now these practices may happen in some of the pages". Yes, the mentioned practice can indeed be applied to every conflict, even though it only is necessary for some pages. "Painting every war or conflict with one brush" is a vague statement. Without some practices, the articles would be a mess, and you'd have to evaluate basic stuff from article to article repetetively. I do neither see any reason to exempt this article from the aforementioned practice. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@176.23.1.95:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: You continue to evade my question and continue to take things out of context which is quite concerning because it just shows that you really have run out of ideas to base your point off of. Anyways I will repeat the question again please give me a current middle eastern conflict/war (i.e Iraq or Syrian War) that mentions two of the same entities in the info box. If you can't answer the question and are going to continue to base your argument off of that then I am calling for the vote to be continued. Your main point which you really can't back up is "well everyone is doing it this way and if it's not broke don't fix it" which is just a weak and vague point.
You suffer from WP:IDHT. I am simply describing a practice, that you'd enjoy to violate for reasons, you owe to explain. You've got enough examples of this practice, you can search further yourself. It's your burden to justify making a special exemption for exactly this conflict, what are the particular reasons for deleting notable subunits (i.e. valid information)? You should do that before wasting more time with your nonsensical vote. I'm getting really annoyed by your inability to express clearly why you'd want to delete appropriate content and thus lower the quality of this article. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@176.23.1.95:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: It doesn't take a genius to realize that you are annoyed you've been annoyed since day one. You've managed to take this personally which it has nothing to do with you and it has everything to do with making sure the uninformed reader is getting the most accurate information. There is nothing wrong with making a mistake but it seems like when I called you out for it you acted like I just insulted your intelligence. An it seems like your failing to understand WP:IDHT how can something that has been replaced since 2011 by the Popular Resistance be considered a "notable" sub unit. You have failed to give any evidence on this claim and still haven't managed to answer my question so that's why I am calling for the vote to be continued and if you feel that you got your point across then you wouldn't be so scared for the vote to be continued. CLEAR ENOUGH?????
I feel too lazy to correct your factual inaccuracies regarding the SM, especially when you're in such a tantrum. So take a look at the infobox now, this ought to be a sound compromise. --ContraVentum (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ContraVentum:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: If it will be called the southern resistance and remove the other two subunits then that is a fair compromise as it meets mine and his concerns. Now it is just about him agreeing to the compromise so this topic can be settled.
Well, it's ok now. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@176.23.1.95:@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: Well I think that a fair compromise has been reached and as long as both parties well not engage in edit war on this topic it is safe to close this debate.

Vote to remove the "Southern Movement" from the infobox

Other editors: Please vote on whether or not you think "South Yemen Southern Movement" should be removed from the infobox (thus not being underneath "Popular Resistance"). Please reply below with either Support or Oppose and your reasoning in bullets. To clarify, Support means you want it removed or moved some where else on the infobox, Oppose means you want it to stay as it is. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This vote has been suspended due to a lack of clarity and confirmation in the above discussion. Replies to this thread have been hidden (commented out). Please continue discussing this issue above and remember to keep it civil; do not attack other users, only state your own ideas and/or suggestions. We want this minor issue to be resolved, not a needless comment war on the talk page. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies/Votes:

Possible title renaming

Since there was another civil war going on in Yemen in 1994, should the title of this article be renamed to Second Yemeni Civil War or should it stay the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No because since there is too many foreign governments involved it makes this civil very different from the previous one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.133 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Typically on Wikipedia, when a conflict is named the "Second" of an earlier one, there is a direct similarity; i.e. the Second Congo War happened because of the aftermath of the First Congo War. A conflict might also be named "Second" of an earlier one if historians reach a consensus and commonly refer to it as such, i.e. World War Two and Second Sino-Japanese War. Because the two Yemeni civil wars are not directly (or closely) related to each other in terms of cause and effect, and because the current conflict is not commonly called the "Second Yemeni Civil War", it has not been named such, as Wikipedia would be creating a new title for the conflict. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove alleged support!!!

Some person named RainbowSilver again putted up this "alleged support", with highly outdated sources written by some student in 2015 claiming that DPRK, Russia and Iran are participating in the conflict. I mean seriously, alleged support is not support at all! Could anyone please remove all the alleged support section altogether? It does nothing to improve quality of the article, besides of causing unnecessary friction and demonizing the nations in question. Governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and US have long argued that Iran is somehow involved in that conflict without providing any proof whatsoever but addition of DPRK and Russia to the list is absolutely libelous and against the spirit of Wikipedia if not against some of the rules themselves, the proof against those countries is virtually non-existent apart from some article written by a student in 2015 speculating that Russia somehow could be possibly involved, I mean come on, I could write an article about United States supporting ISIS or Al-Qaeda and add it as a source justifying labeling US as supporter of those groups and that source would carry more weight than this piece of crap 78.63.161.19 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map inaccurate

Hello @GeneralAdmiralAladeen: if you can talk to the map maker that the map is inaccurate because Hadi forces did take the city of Mocha but they don't have control that far out west their goal was and still is just to take a very thin strip that will seal off Houthi forces from the red sea as they have been targeting Saudi & UAE ships (Hadi Allies). Also another mistake is Hadi forces don't have control of Harad again Hadi forces aim is to have a very thin strip that will seal off Houthis forces from the red sea (Midi To Bab Al Mandab) and the only thing that Hadi forces have control in that region is Midi Port. Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chilicheese22: The creator of the map is Ermanarich. Leave a message on his talk page and he'll likely respond. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to underline, that the creator of the map is Ali Zifan and not me. I'm only the one who currently updates the map.
The other point is, that I only use the informations given by Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map and Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map. I can't make the changes you told me, since you haven't given sources for these informations yet. If you have sources but don't know how to edit at the Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map, you can just send me sources and I will implement the changes when I find the time to.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ermanarich: I unfortunately do not know how edit the Module: Yemeni Civil War detailed map but my source is from this reputable map maker (https://twitter.com/YemConfMaps). He updates many battlefronts weekly and is most of the time 100% accurate. If you need more information feel free to contact me. Thank you for your service.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheese22 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gray map color is quite confusing

The map legend shows (dark?) gray as the color for ISIL-held territories. Unfortunately, because the ISIL territories are very small, and because the dark gray looks close to medium gray, at first (and second) glance it appears the Yemen is surrounded by huge ISIL-held territories.

How about picking a fourth color which *isn't a shade of gray? WikiAlto (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

the information for the humanitarian crisis happening in Yemen is from an article written in 2015; has the situation significantly changed since then?Tommyupdate (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees

the refugee situation, especially for Yemen, has changed since the Donald Trump presidency, is this reflected in the article?Tommyupdate (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and North Korean support for Houthis

Sources that are cited are not credible at all and it is really unlikely that these two countries are supporting Houthis. So I suggest that names of Russia and North Korea is removed from the support list for Houthis. Nochyyy (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, seems to be highly biased opinion of lone writers without substantial facts, lots of fallacies and weasel words. Will remove until more credible sources are added. GroundlessAir (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nochyyy: What is your reasoning for removing North Korea and Russia from the infobox? I understand that some may think that it is "really unlikely that these two countries are supporting Houthis," but that is not reason enough for removing sourced information. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: The Huffington Post, The Daily Star, VICE News, alarabiya.net, www.upi.com, International Business Times and etc, none of them are reliable sources. The only reliable sources is Reuters that only indicates that "Yemen's missiles were amassed over the course of decades in legal acquisitions from the Soviet Union and North Korea", Yemen government bought them from Soviets and NK, not Houthies and it is done years ago. And almost all military groups use AK47, so should we consider that all of these groups are being supported by Russia?Nochyyy (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nochyyy: The Huffington Post, International Business Times, and UPI are definitely not unreliable sources. Where are you getting that idea from? Those news outlets are used consistently on Wikipedia without problem. And, what, how is Reuters the only reliable source? The claims for Ahrar al-Najran's involvement in the war don't come from Reuters. Should we remove that too? Kamalthebest (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Read these articles, just lone author accuses Russia and North Korea without providing any evidence. Words that is used in these articles are not professional and neutral, there are lots of false news in these "sources". Ahrar al-Najran is totally a hypothetical group, it can be removed too. Nochyyy (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nochyyy: But we don't require sources to justify their rationale for statements they make since they are reliable in their own right, assuming it is from a reputable and well-known source like HuffPo or UPI. Just because it's written using sensationalized language doesn't make the claims any less true. After all, what did the Reuters source claim as its source for asserting Iran is involved in the Yemeni Civil War? In the Reuters article on this topic, it simply states "Iran has stepped up weapons transfers to the Houthis, the militia fighting the Saudi-backed government in Yemen, U.S., Western and Iranian officials tell Reuters." They didn't name their sources. Later on in the article, it mentions unnamed diplomats but that's it. So how is that different from HuffPo's article where they say, "a South Korean intelligence official announced that Yemeni rebels had purchased 20 Scud missiles from North Korea... While Saudi Arabia initially believed that these missiles were from Iran, a former North Korean security official confirmed South Korean intelligence claims in an interview with the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap." It's the same thing, right? Unnamed officials? There's a reason this falls under "Alleged support:" in the infobox because they are alleged claims after all and I agree with you there that this is not concrete. Hence, the "alleged" label. Kamalthebest (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Note that Reuters report can be only used for justifying "alleged support" as Iran denies its involvement, but Huffington Post and others claim are very limited and their claim isn't even enough for the alleged support. Several countries officially accusing Iran of supplying Houthis while no country say that for Russia and North Korea, just some newspapers do that. And because it's a very controversial claim it "requires multiple high-quality sources" as it's been written in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Huffington Post and others are not exceptional sources. Also, currently Yemen is under very strict blockade, North Korea and Russia are being observed very carefully, if they done something like that, we would see a lot more on medias. For Iran's case, they claim that an Iranian ship full of weapons confiscated while trying to reach Houthis, they showed some photos too, that is enough for alleged support. Nochyyy (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nochyyy: I don't know the full history of the conflict, so I don't know if Yemen is under blockade right now but if officials say that weapons were used, maybe they were smuggled in before the blockade. And, the HuffPo article did make the claim that North Korea is under "alleged support" since giving weapons is clearly "support." If this is a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, who determines what is enough evidence? Because the Reuters article never "showed some photos" that they had of Iranian intervention in that linked article that I could see. Maybe, I missed them, could you link that to me? And what about claims of Hezbollah? The Reuters article on Hezbollah only said "Yemen's Gulf-backed government on Wednesday accused the Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim militia Hezbollah of training the Houthi rebels and fighting alongside them in attacks on Saudi Arabia's border." And when it comes to physical proof, they cited "many documents and physical evidence" but never showed any. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Differences between allegations of Iran supplying Houthis and, NK and Russia support them lay in that officials of several countries officially accusing Iran of that (even before current civil war Iran is always blamed for supporting Houthi rebels) and many mainstream medias talk about that, photos are not in Reuters report, but this report is just a example of these reports about Iran, not that it is contain every thing (I saw photos on BBC), another reason that both follow the same branch of Islam, also Iran verbally support Houthis but they deny their physical support. Reasons that we can include "alleged support" of Hezbollah is also similar to that of Iran. On other hand, claim of Russian and North Korean support is considered exclusive and exceptional because not even a country formally accuse either of them of doing this, there is no religious and ideological similarity between them and if they sold weapons to Yemen government before current conflict then that is not proving that they are supporting Houthis as Yemen government was fighting against Houthis before conflict, both governments do not even verbally support Houthis, also sources of these claims are only limited to some newspapers, all these reasons contribute to WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Nochyyy (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nochyyy: Well, if the idea that Iran and Hezbollah are supporting the Houthis is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL because they share a religion, I would say that Russia supporting the Houthis is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL seeing as Russia is allies with Iran in Syria right now and they abstained from the April 2015 UN resolution calling for an arms embargo against the Houthis. It is not unreasonable that they could have interests in siding with Iran here. Also, the claim that "not even a country formally accuse either of them of doing this" is not true because South Korea accused North Korea of sending weapons to Yemen in the article I linked prior. Obviously, Pro-Hadi governments are going to accuse Iran of aiding the Houthis because they are adversaries of Iran but there is no concrete evidence they Iran is aiding the Houthis, just like there is no evidence that Russia or North Korea is. Why do governments take precedence over newspapers anyway? Journalists hold a level of certain level of authority too. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Listen, the articles claiming the crazy conspiracy theories that somehow Russia or DPKR is "supporting" Yemenis are a joke. Also, you recently said that Republic of Korea somehow accused DPRK, well it didn't, if you haven't noted there is a logical fallacy in the article called Appeal to Anonymous Authority, i doesn't prove anything, says just some mysterious and unknown south korean official said that, the writer isn't notable in any department nor his article represents any investigative journalism, he likely just made it up cause he needed to make money, many people nowadays make a living from fake articles. As you like to draw comparisons to article about Iran, I believe it doesn't belong in the list of belligerents either, but we need further consensus to remove it, since some pro-Saudi and anti-Iranian people may just pop it up in belligerents list again which would cause a string edits and reverts, nobody wants that. I have noticed similar behaviour in other articles, for example inclusion of Iran and Russia as belligerents in War in Afghanistan, I mean, seriously, there's some people in wikipedia which do not believe in WP:NPOV or WP:EXCEPTIONAL and just wanna smear and slander entire countries they simply don't like. GroundlessAir (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GroundlessAir: All I want is consistency. If we're going to remove Russia and North Korea because "the articles claiming the crazy conspiracy... are a joke," then we should remove Iran and Hezbollah too because those articles are also a joke. They use the same "Appeal to Anonymous Authority" you point out. If you think we should keep Iran and Hezbollah, then we should keep North Korea and Russia too. I'd be down for an RfC poll/survey too if you'd prefer some more voices for consensus on this issue. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Absolutely agree with your opinion, I believe Iran and Hezbollah should be removed from the list on the same basis, however there are many, mainly gulf states which believe that these entities are involved therefore some pro-saudi invasion editor would just put them on list of belligerents if we'd just simply remove them, any ideas of how to prevent re-addition of them? GroundlessAir (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GroundlessAir: Hmm, well we could always write a comment in that section's editing box like this: "<-- Please do not add Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Hezbollah to infobox -->"; however I'd still rather include all four entities in the infobox because I think it fits "Alleged support." Maybe the best way to move forward would be to have an WP:RFC survey with the question like "Should we include Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Hezbollah in the infobox under 'Alleged support'?" to have some consensus. That way, nobody is unilaterally removing or adding potentially important information. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Good idea about the comment, though I disagree that this "information" (more accurate term would be disinformation or slander) is in any meaningful way improtant, look at what Greyshark said, these are vague allegations by inexperienced and unqualified specific individuals without any concrete sources to base their original research on. In my opinion WP:EXCEPTIONAL should apply to Iran and Hezbollah too. GroundlessAir (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GroundlessAir: Sorry for the delay in response, the ping never showed up in my notifications for some reason. So do you think we should move forward with an RfC? Because I don't think that we alone should be the arbiters of what appears in the infobox or not. We should probably get some consensus first. Kamalthebest (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamalthebest: Two to six people which have written in the talk page about this issue is enough for a consensus to form. However I think the most reasonable solution would be to keep the infobox as it is right now and end the discussion, because even with RfC, whether the addition of additional 2 belligerents or removal of currently remaining two would inevitably trigger an edit war, because this is extremely contentious issue, I understand your opinion about consistency, that alleged support is not really actual support, however lets be honest, many gulf governments believe in their own allegations, main stream media believes in it too and so does US/UK governments, we cannot convince them otherwise, they'll still continue with this narrative deliberately knowing that it is likely far from the truth. When it comes to Russia and DPRK, those allegations were thrown around by lone, possibly deranged individual editors which have wrote deliberately inflammatory articles for the respective sites, let alone those "sources" are already significantly outdated too, no major media outlet or government in its full capacity directly accused these countries of participation in the conflict, therefore these allegations are much weaker than the already feeble ones put forward against Iran and Hezbollah, they are based on highly hateful and biased personal opinion of an editor, nothing else. GroundlessAir (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL Claims in Yemen

Have not ISIL lost it's Controlled areas which are shown on the map? I think they already did... If they do not control any areas please fix it then. 

InfiniteGreen (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern secession

Hi We should add that in the article. Aidarus al-Zubaidi is the new southern leader. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen War (2015–present) → Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) – moved without consensus Panam2014 (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia, Anthony Appleyard, and IbrahimWeed: it is not an argument. The sources are clear : [5]. And it haven't made sense. The article will be renamed until a consensus will be reached for moving to the current title. In Syria also, Russia and Iran and Turkey participated to the war. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org

I demand answers for how the following mentioned sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE" cf. your comment in edit history:

  • criticalthreats.org
  • middleeastmonitor.com
  • alaraby.co.uk
  • theguardian.com
  • justsecurity.org
  • etc...

To me, it seems like you're deleting WP:RS for the sake of battling against me, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. Lay down your hostile intentions, you're lowering the quality of the article. --ContraVentum (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well number one its great that you finally came to your senses that the best way to solve this problem is through the talk page, although I do wish that you would have pinged me in order for me to have responded to you earlier. As for your sources on how they are WP:QUESTIONABLE you failed to mention that you not only use the sources to manipulate the truth and push your bias onto the info box, but you use unreliable sources like worldbulletin.net that are factually incorrect. For example, its well known that UAE has a military base in Eritrea where it trains Hadi Loyalist to fight houthis, yet you continually push this unreliable source that it supports the houthis. Explain how that's politically possible?? WP:LISTEN An last, but not least I don't know how you can call your "edits" higher quality than what's already there when every time you revert you continually change the sources and information, as if no one checks what your putting in the info box.WP:DISRUPTSIGNS It seems like you are just too arrogant to admit that you made a mistake and that by you pushing your personal bias onto the info box will somehow validate that you are just that much "better than everyone." Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC) @ContraVentum:[reply]
1) Don't manipulate the headline, as I am the author having created and signed this post - you should never alter what other people state, this is dishonest behavior as well.
2) Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wikipedia is not about presenting what you perceive as "truth", but presenting what WP:RS = reliable sources state regarding a topic. Thus you may not delete such reliable sources because you don't like the content, doing so is considered WP:POVPUSHING.
So, I'll be holding your hand and take baby steps with you to ensure that you get the point. You're claiming that the worldbulletin.net article [6] is factually incorrect. Why should I, or anyone, believe you? Because you say so? Prove to me that the article is a falsehood! You cannot just claim that every source you've deleted is fake content and expect everybody to trust your statements. You have to repeat this task of demonstrating the unreliability for every source you're going to delete - i.e. justifying why you'd delete, for instance, theguardian.com which is a reputable newspaper considered WP:RS, as this appears very strange. I'm going to start out softly with you - I've inserted the following sources: criticalthreats.org, middleeastmonitor.com and alaraby.co.uk. Your job now, if you want them removed, is to prove that they're "at best WP:QUESTIONABLE" (as you put it) sources publishing fake information. If you fail to do so, but keep reverting me, I'll immidiately report you for disruptive behavior and/or edit warring. So I'll be interested in your response here before you do anything to the article. --ContraVentum (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) You can keep the headline as you like it only proves my point that you have a personal vendetta against anyone that calls you out for putting biased & inaccurate sources.
2) You failed to answer any of my questions and resulted to weak debate tactics, where you just tried to manipulate what I said too try to further your argument.
An last, but not least your ignorance is absolutely laughable you must have not of heard of something called WP:3RR you should read it, it's something that you violated, but I am the one that will be reported for disruptive editing "ok". An once you finished reading that go to your talk page and read the one revert rule for all articles that relate to the "Syrian Civil War" that you have also violated.WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Now if you want proof it really isn't that hard you literally had to go to google and type "UAE base in Eritrea" and you'll find [7]. Which proves my point that you did little to no research and you continue to push biased sources for your personal agenda. Now its up too you to prove everything that your trying to put because obviously you must not understand editing rules. Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even though Bbb23 blocked ContraVentum, I feel like this needs to go on the incidents section of the administrators noticeboard. Abequinn14 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the section header to 'Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org' so it would not sound like a personal attack on User:Chilicheese22. Please be aware that admins have broad authority under WP:GS to ban people from the topic of the Syrian Civil War if they don't seem to be able to edit neutrally. Anyone who continues to criticize individuals rather than trying to accurately summarize the good sources could receive unwanted attention from admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Transitional Council

Hi We should add that new political organization. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For that I would also dominate them almost all the south Braganza (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They should be included. Nuke (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

A line in "Impact on Citizens" -> "Education" which states "Education one of the basic human rights in United Nation. It is not fair the Yemen's children be deprived their opportunity of education due to civil war." is biased and non-informative. Request that it is deleted. Lyssaodr (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done — IVORK Discuss 05:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Saudi-Led" coalition

Hi

I noticed it says Saudi-Led coalition as part of the 'main belligerents' section. The coalition is not led by saudiarabia, despite 'saudi led' becoming a popular term for this coalition, it is truly led by the British, as well as the United States, with Saudi Arabia acting simply as a base of sorts in the region for the war. This is evidenced by the fact that american and british drones are spotting targets for saudi pilots (whose equipments is most propably given to them by the brits/americans) as well as running the operational command at regional bases in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of political stance 'saudi led' is obscurantism in hiding the real belligerents of this war, namely America and Britain. I suggest to changed this to UK-Saudi-led coalition, or simplu UK-Led coaltion, with the main ally and partner being Saudi Arabia. I put this here because the subject is locked and i can therefore not attempt to edit it.

Thanks for ur time Anonmwm (talk) 6:11pm, 24 November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STC vs GCC

Moved from User talk:Chilicheese22
 – Wrong place to be having discussion. Chilicheese22 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to explain this to you, really, but your first reason for removing the STC from the infobox was based on a false assumption about how Wikipedia's infoboxes are meant to be interpreted. Your second was actually just a concealed reversion. Your third was the lack of a reason. Your revisions additionally state that the Southern Movement, which is part of the STC, is a pro-Hadi militia movement. It may be, but they are explicitly included as a separate belligerent in the same column. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are allied. They have stable mixed control over certain areas such as Aden, recognize Hadi's authority, and so on, so they are properly included in the same column, just as rebel infighting in the Syrian Civil War did not mean that Tahrir al-Sham and Ahrar al-Sham did not belong in the same column, even though they're separated. I don't know if there's a formal policy about this or anything, but it's just to prevent the infobox from getting too wide basically, and your revisions more importantly completely remove almost all, if not all, references to the STC. There's also used for like, separating parties that aren't really all too involved on the ground and all like the US when they don't have boots on the ground, and generally organizing things so they'll be nicer-looking. Nuke (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I am glad that you finally decided to talk about this rationally, I just wanted to tell you that this should have been placed in the article’s talk page as this is common practice, so it provides reference for any future arguments that may occur about this matter. Now with that out of the way let me offer my rebuttal to what you have stated and your consistent behavior of trying to interpret, what I am trying to do, or say. Your first revert, you said that my actions show that the Southern Movement is loyal to Hadi, and that you used the Syrian Civil War as reference to this idea. Which is not true at all, because you’ve been here long enough to know that with each article there are different practices, and policies that are implemented in particular for that article due to the situation that’s present (An in the Syrian Civil War article’s case we are nearing almost 7 years of this current civil war and the objectives of it have changed numerous times, therefore it’s almost incomparable to the Yemeni Civil War). If we were to use your logic, then in the Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) the PUK and the PKK should be broken up because there have been clashes between each party, militarily, and politically, for example one of them had clear control of the city of Kirkuk and was the main reason for giving up the city of Kirkuk to the Iraqi Army, when the other party strongly objected to the matter. Therefore, should we break up the Peshmerga units and say that they are split between party lines, of course not because they have the same objective and nationalistic ideas in mind and the same can be said between Hadi and the Southern Movement. Secondly, you said that I did “a concealed revision” which is also not true, because I addressed a disruptive user that felt it was necessary to make OVER 25 EDITS in something that could have been done in just a single edit. Lastly, if we look back at when you’ve first inserted the “STC” until now we see that your edits have lacked consistency, therefore discrediting your idea that this is some organized army or militia unit that actually has some real presence in the areas you have mentioned.
Now, since that I have addressed all of your points let me ask you some questions how can you justify this edit when your only source comes from Aljazeera, a news media outlet that has a clear political agenda of ruining the Saudi-Led Coalition’s image ever since the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis that occurred in June of this year. Which makes this a clear biased and propaganda news website, I mean come on for the first time in two and a half years they’ve released videos that actually came from the Houthis main channel Almasirah and have begun to show the number of Saudi soldier casualties that have occurred in the Saudi-Yemeni border. Where have they been since March 26th of 2015 and I know that your well informed on the matter of the border conflict between Yemen and Saudi Arabia because our path have crossed in the article Conflict in Najran, Jizan and Asir. Also I like how you ever so slightly insert the comparison of the USA as if there is a direct correlation between them and the “STC” I mean how can you compare a country that provides the Saudi Led Coalition military training, and logistical support to the “STC” something that has been denounced by the “GCC” and has been on record saying that they are no clear ally of the Saudi Led Coalition. @NuclearWizard: Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll try to keep it snappy so you can respond quick.
1. Yeah this should really go on the article talk page, but I thought this was just a misunderstanding about the infobox bar separators.
2. I'm pretty sure there's no actual RfC on the STC given the revisions you've reverted are literally the ones adding it to the article, so pretty much anything goes. Furthermore, regardless of the SCW being an endless special case, yes, when there's new disputes, precedent is a thing across articles. For instance, there was a RfC where I participated regarding the DPR and LPR infoboxes where the Syrian opposition was cited as a precedent, although it wasn't of the same nature as this.
3. You failed to respond to the fact that, despite being in conflict with Hadi, the STC has recognized Hadi's authority.
4. The STC doesn't really warrant a fourth column, doesn't fit with AQAP or ISIS, and has an actual link to the Hadi government -- much like the other example you linked, the Iraqi Civil War, where Iraqi Kurdistan--currently at war with Iraq--is merely bar-separated. Furthermore, if you believe there is no reason to separate the Hadi government and STC, I'll be happy to compromise. However, you were originally reverting the STC edit because the STC is opposed to the Saudi-led coalition (GCC), so it kinda feels bizarre thinking about compromising you like that. Can you please clarify your stance?
5. Al-Jazeera is clearly painting UAE and the STC in a negative light. I agree. However, Wikipedia accepts biased sources, and I see no reason to see it as such a bad source in regards to the STC. However, I would have more reason to doubt pro-Saudi or sometimes pro-UAE sources. Qatar is opposed to the Saudi coalition, but al-Jazeera seems to me to have a much more hostile, harsh tone towards UAE/STC than the Hadi/Saudi coalition.
6. Nah, I was actually thinking you were confused in regards to what the bar-divider meant, and felt the need to explain why the US was separated by one in light of the very fact that it is not similar to the STC.
7. Your reversion of my edits was too broad. You didn't provide reasons to undo my format adjustments, such as using "Mohammad bin Salman" rather than his full name "Mohammad bin Salman al Saud," and you readded a huge number of redlinked and not-even-linked Houthi, Saudi, and AQAP C&L names. Plus, you undid all of my collapsible lists and so on, and your revision once again not only completely removes the STC, but leaves the style guidelines violating bar without anything underneath it!
8. Why is it necessary to remove the entire STC if only the Southern Movement (Hirak) portions of my edits are objectionable?
9. I actually don't read al-Jazeera, so no, I'm not up to date on all their biases. As far as I care, it's pro-Qatari. It's like CNN or NBC here in the US. They're both widely regarded as liberal, but I don't really keep up with specifics, even if I know a few.
10. You pointed out that my edits restoring the STC are inconsistent. You are correct. That's because I try to minimize the possible range of objections you could have to the inclusion of STC every time. You said that the Hadi govt / GCC / Saudi-led coalition is opposed to STC, and that's okay, Hadi called them illegitimate and all. So if I notice that, hey, a guy actually reverted an edit in the past because I didn't include info for historical purposes (Hirak's former alliance with Hadi until 2017), so why not include that Hirak was pro-Hadi until 2017?
11. While there is little news available regarding Yemen, even if my edits have changed in substance several times over different revisions, without a doubt the STC itself exists. As of the latest revision you have undone, I have made special care to make sure that everything is cited precisely because the STC's existence is not just "my idea" or anyone else's idea. It's an actual belligerent. @Chilicheese22: Nuke (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nuke, we should update the infobox. The article is outdated.
Alright, so let me start off by saying I am quite confused by points 3,4 and 10 you seem to have contradicted yourself when you said that the “STC” recognized Hadi’s authority, but you say that we should show that the Southern Movement (The Hirak) was Pro-Hadi until 2017. Are you insinuating that the “STC” and Southern Movement are two separate entities? If so why were you placing them as one in the infobox since you’ve acknowledged to a certain degree that there is support within the “STC” to the Hadi Government.
Furthermore, you go on to say that “STC” was not “your idea” and is an “actual belligerent”, so I would like to clarify I never once implied that it was, my stance is the current way that you structured the infobox made it seem like the “STC” is a whole new separate independent militia/army that is self-sufficient and completely independent from all other belligerents yet is supported by the Saudi-Led Coalition and Hadi. When in reality the only real weapons it has received, were when the Houthis were in Aden and it received its weapons as Government sanctioned militia (known as the Southern Movement) to fight the Houthis and kick them out of Aden and any other Southern Governorates.
Also if we were to look at the definition of the word “belligerent” in accordance to international law we see that the “STC” isn’t an actual representation of the definition, (“a nation or person engaged in war or conflict”) but that’s not my point, my point is do you consider the “STC” as the successor, partner, or a whole separate entity to the Southern Movement. As your stance to this matter has been vague, and has been susceptible to change over the course of this disagreement.
Lastly, the usage of biased sources, you agree that Aljazeera is at times a biased new media source, but your only argument to that is, biased sources are acceptable in Wikipedia and that Pro-UAE and Saudi Arabia sources are probably more biased. My only rebuttal, or argument in this case to that reasoning, is where can we draw the fine line between questionable sources and biased ones when a person brings the same news media outlet with a different topic at hand with questionable material in that article. Especially when you have a news media outlet (like Aljazeera) that reports based on pure emotion at times and not facts, how can we allow one and not the other? @NuclearWizard: Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologize for taking so long to reply to this.
1. Can you be more specific about what said updates would entail, given currently verifiable content.
2. I cited that earlier. They de jure recognize Hadi's authority, although I can't really cite any de facto consequences of this. Didn't you read the first post I made in this section?
3. You didn't imply it. You directly stated that "the “STC” until now we see that your edits have lacked consistency, therefore discrediting your idea that this is some organized army or militia unit that actually has some real presence in the areas you have mentioned." despite the fact that there are valid citations not only for the areas I have cited claiming that the STC has actual territorial control, but other areas as well. Furthermore, your claim that, based on the edits of a user on Wikipedia changing, the STC is not an "organized army or militia unit that actually has some real presence in the areas you have mentioned" -- I don't know how to respond.
4. I do not disagree with your assertion that the STC and Hadi govt are linked. They are both affiliated with the same region of Yemen, more or less, although Hadi's government does currently control some areas of historical North Yemen. However, without any definitive content statements from you, I don't even know if I should ask for citations.
5. I'd say that the Southern Movement was a pro-Hadi group for awhile, and I'm pretty sure this was formalized to some extent, then became part of the STC later. The STC, as far as I can cite (Middle East Monitor), is a council consistent of tribal leaders and the Southern Movement, and I have not found any sources regarding the Popular Committees or the Popular Resistance, sans one Popular Committees source I found that had a very iffy date (11 May 2017, the day the STC was formed) stating it was still a pro-Hadi militia at that time, and therefore cannot actually move those to the STC part of the infobox, and as such I assume they are still affiliated to the Hadi govt until I find a source that states otherwise.
6. Al Jazeera in this case cited the leader of the STC and the UAE government. Given the current diplomatic dispute and the fact these are STC gains (and based on the tone of the article, the UAE is against the STC), If your issue is with AJ itself republishing his statements, then:
6a. I see no reason to continue your reversion, as the article as you have edited it maintains al Jazeera as a source.
6b. Wikipedia's current recognition and consensus that al Jazeera is a reliable source overrides your objections in this case.
6c. I can provide more sources, such as the Critical Threats Project, in relation to the statement that the UAE is backing the STC.
6d. The United Arab Emirates itself confirmed its military activity on Socotra.
6e. Al Jazeera was used to cite content which is fairly neutral, merely stating that the war has now spread to Socotra and that the UAE is backing the STC.
7. Your positions simply are not clear, and your reversions far from exclusively remove content to which you have voiced objections -- far from it. I would like to come to a compromise if you could just make clear what your issues are with the reversions you continue reverting, and perhaps maybe not revert every little fix I try to make to just make the infobox look nicer along with the changes with which you have actual problems.
8. I see no reason to object to the change of "Archived copy" as a link title to the actual source title, among other things. You indiscriminately reverted several contributions without providing objections to all of them, purely because you objected to some of them. You could just edit the article outright to resolve issues that you see in it. Your reversion even reverted the addition of a leading zero to an ISO date which should be marked "02" representing the year 2002.
9. Can you please clarify your issues with the edits you have reverted?
10. Why did you remove the per-column casualties, citations and additions of more strength statistics, and removals of uncited content?
11. Why did you undo the removals of redlinks in the infobox, additions of collapsible lists to save screen space, and alterations to name formatting? Nuke (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no argument to remove STC. I will restaure it. The article could'nt be outdated. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough. I have made an ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with NuclearWizard I rejerct that revert. We should not remove STC. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, can you please for future references ping me when you are issuing your response as I had only found out about it yesterday. Now, I don’t really understand what your talking points for 7 to 11 are, because if you checked my latest revision on the YCW you would see that I actually made it really specific to what I disagree with you and only removed the “STC “and relocated the Southern Movement back to its original place.
Furthermore, I am really confused on points 1-3 because you say “Can you be more specific about what said updates would entail, given currently verifiable content” so if you don’t mind making yourself more clear on what you want me to further elaborate on because I really don’t understand to what section your implying at. As for your second point, I did read that, but it seems that you have not read or understood my response when I said and I quote “you seem to have contradicted yourself when you said that the “STC” recognized Hadi’s authority, but you say that we should show that the Southern Movement (The Hirak) was Pro-Hadi until 2017. Are you insinuating that the “STC” and Southern Movement are two separate entities? If so why were you placing them as one in the infobox since you’ve acknowledged to a certain degree that there is support within the “STC” to the Hadi Government.” As for your third point you seem to use this straw man argument, where you take some of my points out of context, so I will indirectly answer this point with point 5, sense there are essentially one and the same.
Last, but not least, are points 4-6 where you actually seem to have an argument, so I will start off with the 4th point, you just agreed that there is an actual link between the “STC” and the Hadi-Government, but your only logic to that is, Hadi controls areas in “historical North Yemen” my response to that reasoning is… SO?? Isn’t he considered the “legitimate president of Yemen as a whole”? I would certainly hope that he controls some area’s in Northern Yemen. As for your 5th point you say that the Southern Movement was Pro-Hadi but later became part of the “STC” my response to that is, where is your source to prove that is true, and if so and the Southern Movement became apart of the “STC” why mention them as two separate entities if the “STC” is the successor of the Southern Movement. Also allow me to use your own source against you, the person that they interviewed stated the he/she was an “official representative of the Southern Transitional Council” and on the question “What is the official position of Al-Hirak Movement on President Hadi and former President Ali Abdullah Saleh?” he/she stated and I quote “The Southern Movement’s official stance is with Hadi as the legitimate president” so I don’t really understand where you’re getting this notion that the southern movement is no longer Pro-Hadi. [8] As for your 6th and last point, to assume Aljazeera as a whole, would obviously make it unbiased especially when it has multiple stations, (i.e. AJ+ which operates here in the US) but to look at it only from the Middle East then obviously it serves Qatar’s agenda and is what caused the Qatar crisis and is why most arab countries are calling for its complete shutdown. Now you seem to fail to get the point, unless you have an official statement from the UAE government stating that, it supports the “STC” then you are purely speculating. As for your two last subtopic’s (D&E) you seem to have contradicted yourself you can have a military presence, but that doesn’t mean that there is a war going on (i.e. China has a military presence in Djibouti, but they don’t have a civil war going, using your logic there must be something going on). @NuclearWizard: Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Right. I should ping you from now on, @Chilicheese22:. I have learned my lesson, and I apologize. And I suppose I should also apologize in advance for being way too wordy with my reply.
2. In regards to points 7 to 11, there's a load of content which is no longer related to the dispute because you changed what your revisions were removing. You were pretty clearly just pulling up old revisions and hitting "Save changes" on the editor, without actually looking at what you were doing, and I expected you wouldn't actually know much of the contents of your revisions that I mentioned in there. None of this is relevant anymore; however, I am still uncertain of why you are removing the STC from the infobox, though I believe it's much clearer now. Do you believe that the STC does not, for the purposes of this infobox, exist? In any case, I will not respond to any content unrelated to the three lines of content containing the UAE backing, Southern Movement status, and STC existence issues from here on.
3. Yes, you agreed that updating the article is necessary. If so, then what sort of updates does that imply? Panam and I want to keep the article up-to-date by including who all the factions are, as the STC declared its "leadership" (vague as can be for political reasons) months ago. It's quite simple. What is out of date in the article, excluding content that cannot be reliably cited?
4. Yes, the STC and Hadi govt are closely linked. Hadi draws most of his "support" (including opposition to his opponents and whatnot) from historical South Yemen. It's only natural that STC and Hadi govt would be allied, just as both Syrian opposition groups are allied to each other, despite their disagreements. That does not mean that they are fully merged, or even partially merged, and even if it did, that'd complicate this a lot, but it's actually common for separate belligerents' to recognize the authority of other belligerents --
4a. Iraqi Kurdistan up until recently was a great example of this, and in terms of even more similar examples, Ezidkhan is another in Iraq, as the Iraqi government, like Hadi's government, has refused to grant it recognition, despite the fact it only claims to be autonomous.
4b. More examples include Rojava -- which claims to be autonomous within Syria, and has many public services, such as schools, financially provided by the Assad-led central government, which does not recognize Rojava as legitimate. As Rojava provides services paid for by the Syrian government, that is a degree of connection between rival factions in Syria, is it not?
4c. Even without consideration to modern wars, the Thirteen Colonies went to war with the Kingdom of Great Britain over a year before they actually ceased to recognize the authority of the Crown.
4d. In fact, if I recall correctly, the Thirty Years' War going way back was actually fought between vassals which recognized their overlords' domains while waging war against their overlords, who at least de jure acknowledged that the revolting vassals at least had some authority themselves -- at least on paper, that's at least a bit more buddy-buddy than the relationship Hadi and STC share on paper.
4e. None of this still seems to be within its original context, as I used the "recognition of Hadi's authority" argument to justify keeping them on the same column with a bar separating them--which is not the current discussion's focus, if we're discussing whether the STC exists or not.
4f. The STC has not dissolved or anything because of their recognition of the authority of a President that does not recognize them, as many reliable sources show that the STC has expanded its territorial control--including at Hadi's expense--since both of those events occurred. It's possible that the STC only recognizes Hadi's authority over North Yemen. It's too vague to really know--in fact, the STC controls some territory in North Yemen as well. But they've done joint offensives and such, too. They probably belong on the same column, although I'd be open to compromise on that, but if you believe the STC is nonexistent, it's pretty difficult to figure out how we'd compromise. It simply can't half-exist, you know.
5. The Southern Movement is a political party and paramilitary organization, per WP:CONSISTENCY, and the Southern Transitional Council is more or less an unrecognized secessionist government for which the Southern Movement fights, as I would interpret the phrase "secessionist body" -- a parliament which has appointed a cabinet, basically. The Southern Movement is the only military-type organization that is confirmed by reliable sources to be affiliated to the STC. For a parallel, simply look to the fact Hadi has his government's security forces listed as a bullet-point belligerent, or the Houthis being listed as a bullet-point belligerent of the SPC. The Houthis are pretty similar to the Southern Movement in this way--they're a military organization and political movement that is extremely closely affiliated with, synonymous with, and a force within the SPC. Very similar to Hirak, wouldn't you say? Of course, the SPC has other organizations affiliated to it, as well--the STC does, too, if you count tribes--and the fact that reliable sources have separated Hirak from the tribes in previously-cited material means that non-tribal political-and-military groups like Hirak are also allowed to join. This is a rewording of what I previously stated which might be a little inconsistent since I've informed myself more--but yes, the STC and Hirak are not the same organization. Even if Hirak were something like a "political and military ministry," it would still not be the same as the STC, as Hirak would still be a ministry of the STC's government. Hirak is still "part of the STC," however, in that I do not believe they are still a "Hadi government" political party or involuntarily subjected to a Saudi or Hadi led chain of command, even though they may collaborate.
6. By "pro-Hadi," I meant "belonging in the Hadi bullet-point belligerent list," not "recognizing Hadi as the legitimate President," as the latter is still true. I even said that they "recognize Hadi's authority" and cited that as well. While you quote "The Southern Movement’s official stance is with Hadi as the legitimate president." you fail to follow up with the next sentence, "Even though southerners view him as a person who was part of Saleh’s government that killed southerners, they forged an alliance of convenience with President Hadi mainly to protect the south from the Houthis and their ally Saleh." It sounds like they want to get rid of him the moment they can get of the military threat of North Yemen. Furthermore, the Aden Declaration, as apparently poorly translated as it seems, is quite clear on one thing--it's vague. It's too vague to take much seriously, other than the fact that it formalizes their alliance with the KSA and UAE, and it doesn't address any sort of autonomy or independence arrangement. It's quite clear that only actual military and governmental actions by the STC and Hadi governmetn can determine the true nature of their relationship with the Hadi government. That said, despite the fact they state in the Aden Declaration that they receive support from both the KSA and the UAE, I haven't actually seen any real proof for the latter. If anything, I've heard that the STC is a pro-UAE group opposed by the KSA. But I've gotten derailed. Essentially, I didn't mean they were now categorically opposed to Hadi; I meant they were no longer fighting for the Hadi government except when doing so to advance the STC's interests.
7. I was saying I do not disagree with you because they're both associated to historical South Yemen, despite the fact they both have territory in North Yemen.
8. In regards to your request for citation in response to the fifth point of my previous reply, the Aden Declaration that I linked previously, titled "Aden Historical Declaration".
9. In response to your repetition of the "still pro-Hadi" claim, this source should work. The STC has battled against the Hadi government. There are other sources indicating that the STC has taken control of various places as well. In addition, Lemonde is not affiliated to the government of Qatar. I don't think it's "alleged" either, considering the STC openly states this as well, despite the fact I can't find an actual statement from the UAE stating that they support the UAE. The STC itself, anti-STC sources, and independent sources which do not seem biased have all indicated that the UAE is backed by the STC. I don't think the UAE itself needs to explicitly announce its support, given the extent of the sources. Even the Houthis haven't explicitly stated that they're backed by Iran, as far as I know, and the Iranian government denies it as well, does it not? In addition, there are more precedents on the matter of not requiring an explicit government statement of support in regards to Ukraine and so on. I don't see why the al-Jazeera/UAE backing issue should be dragged on. Nuke (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. In addition, I'd like to ask how being denounced by the GCC means that the STC should not be in the infobox, given you posted a comment in the edit break subsection stating once again that the GCC denunciation was an issue for you, @Chilicheese22:. Nuke (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I do apologize for taking a little bit longer than usual to respond, but it’s as you said because of your in-depth response that’s required me to take some more time to issue my response. Now let me start off by saying that I will first address your concerns then I will pose my questions and concerns onto you. Alright on your 3rd point you stated that you and Panam want to include all factions as this is your definition of an up to date article, but last, I checked on the YCW page there wasn’t a template that stated the infobox needed to updated, it said please update the article (as a whole). Also I would recommend that you read your own references that you were using to try to help further your argument in adding the “STC” because if you read the one that you cited from the middle east monitor [9] the spokesperson, makes the “STC” more of a political movement that really isn’t a byproduct of the YCW, but more of them feeling that this was them, addressing the concerns of the Southern people.
Furthermore, I guess you can say this is a “here we go again type of moment” for your 4th point because your connections and references to the Syrian Civil War were way off. I mean they were really off that I won’t even address the part where you said, “separate belligerents' recognize the authority of other belligerents”. I mean come on, first there is no correlation between the Syrian Civil War and the Yemeni Civil war, and second you must not be updated on the situation between Rojava and Assad because the Assad government has actually recognized Rojava’s authority and is willing to give it autonomy in exchange for their army to withdraw from Arab majority areas. Here’s a news piece from a couple months ago from Reuters before the fall of Raqqa stating that autonomy is negotiable [10] Anyways I won’t address the rest of your examples, as your all over the place, but I think I understand what you are were trying to imply is that, if one faction recognizes another it doesn’t mean that they are merged/become-one or have lost their power or authority, but even in that reasoning what power or what authority does the “STC” possess? Also, haven’t you possibly thought that you are over-thinking this matter, I mean you just said that “it's possible that the STC only recognizes Hadi's authority over North Yemen” my only response to that outrageous statement, is one why couldn’t the “STC” make themselves more clear and two you just said that the “STC” believes a southern president (as Hadi is from Abyan) authority is only in Northern Yemen a place where, one he doesn’t control much areas and two he is quite unpopular.
Here I’ll address points 5 and 6 because there are many contradicting statements you make, and I think that you’re not only confusing yourself, but your confusing me with you. You say that the STC is “an unrecognized secessionist government” while two seconds ago you literally just admitted that they recognized Hadi’s authority, sorry but when was the last time you saw a secessionist movement recognize the authority of a government they are trying to secede from. Oh. Right that hasn’t happened. While you give the perfect example to the Southern Movement, which are the Houthis, but in reality, it actually goes against your argument of moving the Southern Movement, because just like the Houthis who have members in the Supreme Political Council, they have members in the Hadi Government. Also, just like the Houthis they also fight under the commands of their respective governments. So yes, I would say they are very similar and just like the Houthis they should be a bullet point belligerent underneath its respective government (Hadi Government). Furthermore, you go on to give me the Aden declaration source as proof that the southern movement is no longer pro-hadi, but you yourself just acknowledged that not only is it vague, but it shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Last, but not least I will address the rest of your points, the Houthis have actually stated that they are politically supported by Hezbollah and Iran. An Iran has also pushed this notion that they politically support one another, the only claims the refute is that they are giving/receiving military aid. Furthermore, this situation is not the same as the “STC” where an official statement was made so the only way to disregard an official statement is with another official statement or else we are just speculating and might as well turn into conspiracy theorists. My questions are for you is this if the southern movement is no longer pro-hadi 1) How come they still take orders from him? 2)Why are there people from the southern movement in Hadi’s cabinet? and 3) why don’t they just kick Hadi out of the south since you believe they have the military capabilities of doing so? @NuclearWizard: Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, @Chilicheese22:, let's try to get a compromise soon.
1. The entire article includes the infobox. Needless to say, I actually don't want to add STC-related material to the article until this dispute is settled, either, but those would be necessary updates. Correct?
2. I don't really know or care about this "byproduct" issue; in fact, al-Hirak itself predates the Yemeni Civil War ongoing at present, and as does Southern Yemeni separatism itself. The issue here is:
2a. Whether or not the Southern Transitional Council should be listed as a belligerent;
2b. How the STC should be listed in the infobox, if at all;
2c. Whether the UAE backs the STC or not;
2d. Whether the Southern Movement (al-Hirak) should be considered a pro-Hadi or pro-STC militia.
3. So is Rojava a part of the Assad government? Yes or no? Even if the SCW is different in this case, the main difference is that there's a lot more sources for the SCW, they're a lot more reliable, and perhaps even the YCW is more complicated.
4. The point is that the STC does not actually clarify what their de jure recognition means, except for that it is an "alliance of convenience". Furthermore, it doesn't really matter where Hadi lives or where he's from -- the Queen of Canada lives in England.
5. I'd expect vagueness makes it easier to tow the "alliance of convenience" tightrope to maintain foreign support.
6. The Eighty Years' War is one notable example of a secessionist movement recognizing the authority of the government from whom it sought to secede, and to this day, the Dutch national anthem is Wilhelmus. The Thirteen Colonies recognized the authority of the King, but they named their grievances.
7. Cite please.
8. I never said any of the de jure stances of the STC shouldn't be taken seriously. I have not said that of the Aden Declaration, recognition of Hadi's legitimacy, or anything of the sort.
9. In response to your first finishing question, please cite your claim.
10. In response to your second finishing question, please cite your claim.
11. I never said that the STC has the military capacity to completely expel the entire Saudi/Hadi coalition (excluding the STC, which claims to be part of it) from historical South Yemen. Nuke (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what I took as your overall theme, or gist of your argument right now is just the need of sources, so here is some proof, that there are members of the Southern Movement in Hadi’s Cabinet. When the STC was announced, Haidar Abu Bakr Al-Attas was placed as a senior aide to Hadi’s Cabinet, some background info is, he was the Prime Minister of the unrecognized state, of Southern Yemen in 1994 and was one of the key member in establishing the Southern Movement in 2007. Here is the link as proof [11]. Also the official speaker on behalf of the Southern Movement, is also another senior aide in Hadi’s Government, his name is Anis Mansour Al Subaihi [12]. As, for your request for sources, that show the Southern Movement take orders from the Hadi Government, you yourself have already acknowledged that there is cooperation, and there are no specific websites or links that state such act, just pictures that show Hadi Cabinet meeting with Southern Commanders and information on how they are cooperating, and how the government is reaching out to make sure that these fighters have all they need.
Furthermore, you kind of did insinuate that the “STC” had the capabilities of kicking Hadi out by saying there relationship/alliance was of convenience, and they wanted to get rid of him as soon as they had the opportunity. Also, the whole idea of “byproduct” and what not, is just to show that there is no real connection between the YCW and STC like what is happening in, for example in the Libyan Civil War and the separatist movement that happened as a direct result of that in Cyrenaica region. Now, hopefully you realized that the Southern Movement is still a Pro-Hadi militia. Chilicheese22 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC) @NuclearWizard:[reply]
1. Can you prove that al-Attas is actually a member of the STC? I think your source would at least bother to bring up one of those things if it held any relevance; instead, it states that this is an anti-STC, anti-UAE, and pro-Saudi move.
2. Alright. I read that Twitter source. I used machine translation to read much of it. I saw that he is an official speaker on behalf of Hirak, but I saw no references to the Hadi government.
3. Yeah, an "alliance of convenience" logically involves a lot of collaboration. It's an alliance. There's a distinction between collaborating, holding meetings, etc. and being complete and total subordinates to the extent of non-belligerency.
4. Did the fact that the Confederate States of America seceded from the United States of America insinuate that they had the capability to win that war? Well, did it? I dunno. But Dixie lost the war. And I sure do hope its leadership believed they had the capacity to succeed.
5. If you are aware of new material to add to the Libyan Civil War page that is reliably cited, please add that.
6. Are you stating that you believe that the STC is staging an insurgency against Hadi's government, separately from the YCW?
7. I don't care if the STC is a "byproduct" or whatever. I only care if it's a belligerent for the purposes of this infobox discussion. Nuke (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearWizard: I put things straight. All STC members were resigned or fired from the government, either before or after the proclamation of the STS. So despite the fact that they intitialy recognized Hadi's authority, STC is another faction. But they didn't fight against Hadi, so they should be in the same column. In addition, the great historical leaders of the Southern Movement are not members of the STC. And Ben Braik and Zoubaidi were members of the Southern Movement, but not number 1 or 2. For the rest, we can not deny that there is fighting in Aden and in the rest of the south of the country, between the militias STC and government militias. In addition, the STC has prevented the Yemeni government to celebrate independence in Aden, otherwise combat them. Also, Aidarus called for a referendum in southern Yemen. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearWizard: I hope you don’t mind, but I will also respond to Panam’s argument with yours just for the sake of time and because this thread is kind of getting long. Panam you said that all “STC” members either “resigned” or were “fired”, but that has nothing to do with the Southern Movement, unless you are implying that the “STC” is the successor of the Southern Movement, something me and Nuclear, very well believe that is not correct. An Bin Barek and Aidroos Al-Zoubadi are the President and Vice-President, of this council/faction, so to say they are not apart of the “STC” is an absurd claim. Furthermore, I would hope that you are not putting your feelings before your judgement, because it seems that your putting your personal attachments into this argument by saying things like “the great historical leaders of the Southern Movement are not members of the STC” implying that Aidroos and Bin Barek are great, which has nothing to do with this argument. I ask that you please reword your responses for future cases.
Now Nuclear, I never stated that Al-Attas was apart of the “STC”, I said he was brought in to counter the events of what had happened (i.e. the formation of the “STC” and two influential leaders leaving the Southern Movement to the “STC”) and since he himself was an influential leader, he was brought in to deter anymore members of the Southern Movement from leaving, which worked successfully. An in the source I provided, it states just that. As for the other representative, I used google translate and on one of his tweets, he said he was on his way to meet president Hadi to discuss, “government business”, but that’s my bad since I didn’t link the tweet itself, because I can’t for some reason find it again. This is besides the point; the point was just to show you that there are members of the Southern Movement in the Hadi Cabinet. As for points 3 & 4 an alliance of convenience means and I quote “they are formally united and working together because they have similar aims”, now if you look at that definition does that match the current situation. [13] I don’t know, that’s up to you decide, but it will certainly take away from any future arguments of yours. Furthermore, did the Confederate States Of America, have the political leadership, and military capabilities to secede. Of course, it did, although I don’t really understand what you’re trying to imply by using such example. An lastly, my reference to the Libyan Civil War was just meant as an example, as far as I know the Libyan Civil War article is probably more outdated then the YCW. @NuclearWizard: @Panm2014: Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{yo|Panam2014|Chilicheese22}}, I don't mind pinging us both in one reply. Panam is a participant in this discussion, after all.
1. If the Southern Movement is a pro-STC political party and paramilitary organization as displayed by its current layout in the article, which portrays it not as a successor but as a supporter of the STC (as opposed to Had), then it needn't be a successor for Hadi to expel it from his cabinet or even for its members to resign and leave to demonstrate their opposition and de facto allegiance to a different organization.
2. Your source does not state that Hadi was successful in reducing defection to the STC. It states that the VP of the STC recognized Hadi's authority -- which fits into the preexisting "legitimate President" and "recognition of Hadi's authority" aspects of the "alliance of convenience" that have already been cited.
3. Sure, let's get even more specific -- the Hadi govt, Saudi-led coalition, and STC share common enemies. All three are opposed to and at war with al-Qaeda, ISIS-YP, and the SPC. Much like how the US/UK and Soviet Union were allies of convenience to defeat the Axis in WWII. If an "alliance of convenience" is simply a group sharing common enemies like that, why would they not share an alliance of convenience? Do you agree?
4. I named the CSA as an example because the CSA seceded from the USA, and it has been argued that the CSA never had the industrial capability to defeat the North. Does claiming that the CSA intended to leave the USA mean that I believe they had the capability to do so? Not necessarily. Yet I know that the CSA seceded, and I know that the CSA lost the American Civil War. Likewise, to claim that the STC wants to secede means not that the STC will actually succeed in doing so, but that it wants to do so.
5. Can you two both cite more extensively? I have a feeling that at least one of you knows Arabic and can cite much more extensively than I can.
6. Discussing "government business" doesn't necessarily mean they're actually part of the same faction. You could say that the Yalta Conference was, in a way, a discussion of government business. However, the participants were allies, not one government. Nuke (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @NuclearWizard: if you want to get more specific the clear definition states that they have similar aims, that means in general do they have common goals. As far as I am concerned, the only thing you could provide me with hard evidence is the “STC” is Anti-Houthi/SPC, the rest that you mentioned, it will take some reliable sources to prove that they’re Anti-Alqaeda/ISIS, especially since ISIS, Alqaeda, and the “STC” have the same areas of operations, and have shown defectors joining from one faction to another. While, I almost know for a fact that, you couldn’t possibly give me a source showing the “STC” and the Hadi Government have a similar outlook on what a future Yemen would look like. As for my source, it states that he was hired as a senior aide to the Hadi government to counter recent events.
Furthermore, I was able to have one of my friends help my find some sources, since in Arabic, generally speaking you should find a lot more information on the war in Yemen. While my Arabic is at best “iffy”. I had him send me the link showing that there are indeed Southern Commanders under the Hadi leadership, the one he sent me was a colonel in the Yemeni army and had just passed away recently. [14] Anyways, this should clear up, anymore of you concerns that would make you believe that the Southern Movement, either politically or military have stopped cooperation or have stopped working/supporting the Hadi Government. Chilicheese22 (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. I suppose you're right--perhaps their goal, then, is specifically to expel the Houthis from South Yemen.
2. I won't even bother trying to cite STC's opposition to al-Qaeda; I've seen some sources like this about the Hadi govt / Saudi coalition supporting AQAP as well.
3. Yep, precisely. I can't imagine Churchill wanting world Communism in 1945, for historical reference.
4. As for what you just linked, as usual, I don't really know what it's saying very well, even in English, because Google Translate didn't do too good a job. But it seems he resigned, and didn't die, correct? Nuke (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, @NuclearWizard: it states that he died, and was given a "hero's burial". Furthermore, it has been as I have been precisely saying, most Southern Factions have this reoccurring theme of the South first, but I guess that's where the common ground between the Southern Movement and the "STC" end, just like how Hadi and "STC's" similarities are very slim. Now, if you agree that the Southern Movement is apart of the Hadi-Government, we can continue to make progress on this debate, but if you or panam have anymore objections/concerns, I will try to address them. Also, coincidentally I was reading, an article on the fall of communism, and found out that communism was the leading ideological cause of death in the 20th century, causing a total of 94 million people to die. Although, if you asked anybody on the west side of the "Iron Curtain" what his thoughts on communism are, I can almost guarantee you that their response wouldn't be positive at all. An would be extremely paranoid on any steps taken by the soviet union that may seem that they are beginning to spread there ideology around the globe. Chilicheese22 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chilicheese22: 1. Are you sure you got the right link? I just opened it again and Ctrl+F'd it. There was no "hero's burial" in there.
2. I still believe they are in an "alliance of convenience" and do not see any reason to doubt this.
3. I think that last part is entering WP:NOTFORUM territory so I won't respond to it. Nuke (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearWizard: CC @Chilicheese22: have removed STC without consensus !! Enough is enough. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't do anything about that. There is zero information in the article describing the STC or its position in the conflict, and until there is, it's not appropriate for it to be listed in the infobox at all. Please see WP:NOR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWizard: Actually that is the right link you could go back to my revision history, I never once touched the link or made any changes, I think that the article had just gotten deleted or something happened. Besides, you've already acknowledge what was said so that is besides the point. I don't think it is an "alliance of convenience" because the facts don't reflect what has happened. You could be right in the future, but when there is no real evidence to signify this matter we would be purely speculating.
  • @Ivanvector: Thank you for seeing it from my position. Although I don't understand why Panam, is so emotional he hardly contributed in this debate. Also I realize for some reason the verified user protection on the Yemeni Civil War was removed, I was wondering if you could put it back? Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chilicheese22: protection is normally only used to stop disruption that is already occurring, not just to prevent disruption that might occur in the future. As long as everyone here is discussing changes and not revert warring as before, I'm comfortable with the page remaining unprotected. If the situation deteriorates you should make a new request at WP:RFPP for an uninvolved administrator to review (see WP:INVOLVED).
I do think it would be worthwhile to write something in this article about the evolution of the STC and its position (if it has one) in the civil war. If everyone can agree on how that should look, then it would be a rational next step to talk about where it should go (if at all) in the infobox. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was trying to refrain from making any STC-related edits to the article but I'll make them when I think to do them now. Nuke (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearWizard: What is the solution now? This contributor does not want to find a compromise for the STC and he allows himself to delete it discreetly on his own initiative, taking advantage of the fact that he was no longer being answered. For the rest, I, too, do not want to be sanctioned by reverting even if it is legitimate. But what is the solution? We will not accept these passages in force and this obstruction because of him. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chilicheese22: Come on, for starters, thank you for stopping talking nonsense and telling me anything about me. I have said many times that I agree with NuclearWizard. For the rest, I also gave sources. And finally, just because you post many kilobytes of cobblestones and you often go off topic does not mean that your opinion is more important than mine. And there was no reason to delete the STC even though there was no consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, NuclearWizard, and Panam2014: I don't mind continuing this topic on whether or not the "STC" has a place in the Yemeni Civil War article, but Nuclear must conclude and accept the Southern Movement is apart of the Hadi Government, as it would be unorthodox to continue to move from discussion to discussion if, Nuclear can't accept something that has evidence, and his only objections to the matter is based on purely speculation. I also ask of Panam, to please stop this rhetoric of asking for sanctions to be placed against me, for every action he disagrees with. As this, will impede the ability of everyone, in trying to come up with an agreement if you continue too open AN/I's. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, NuclearWizard, and Chilicheese22:It's not a question of not agreeing. You have clearly put oil on the fire by modifying the article without consensus while it was stable for weeks, and there is no consensus for these changes. Your attitude is not collaborative and I'm getting tired of it. So I reserve the right to create an "ANI" at the right time. For the rest, sources have been given about the existence of the STC, there is no reason to suppress him and his commanders. STC troops are also fighting against AQPA and the Houthis. And anyone have broken the 1RR because it took place in Commons not here. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we turned this all into a mess again. To be honest I can't follow the conversation above, there are too many long, rambling comments, ordered lists that don't refer to each other, and abstract examples that don't really have anything to do with this discussion - what do the Canadian Monarchy or the Dutch War of Independence have to do with any of this? Please keep your comments on-topic. Let's start by getting some info on STC into the article, I suggest in the 2017 section which is currently kind of bare.
I don't think it really matters who makes up the STC, we should be going by how the coalition is viewed in reliable sources. Middle East Monitor in July reported that STC "recognize[d] Hadi's authority" but was prepared to take over government of the south if the legitimate government (Hadi) was unable to do so. By November, Le Monde takes the view that STC is actively working to replace Hadi and establish a newly independent South Yemen, and describes STC as a separatist group supported by the UAE, in contrast with pro-Hadi groups supported by Saudi Arabia. Al Jazeera said basically the same in October. As for an "alliance of convenience", Cairo Review described way back in February 2016 how the Saudis were working to ally with any group willing to oppose the Houthis, disregarding the preexisting political situations between those groups. But everything changed on Dec. 4 with Saleh's death: in The National the STC describes fighting alongside Hadi as "the only choice left", and Middle East Monitor reports on Dec. 11 that STC and Hadi forces are fighting alongside each other outside Sanaa.
If we can agree that this represents an accurate picture of the situation, then let's add something to the article. And just to note I was writing this while the back and forth above was ongoing; I've read it but there is nothing there for me to respond to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: To return to the subject, we do not know anything about the post-Saleh period. Moreover, he is not sure that the transition between his death and the beginning of a new phase has ended. So far, we have the sources on the STC and the fact that it is a faction. For the rest, I would like to write a paragraph but I hesitate, seeing what CC22 has already done. And finally, that the STC recognize Hadi does not prevent to display it and separate it from Hadi. For example, for Iraqi Kurdistan, although its officials are paid by the government, and they recognize the Iraqi government, they are separated from it. Finally, we have many sources on the fighting between STC and AQAP. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit break

Failed attempt at mediation Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm bouncing in here from ANI to see if I can help you guys work this out. I'm not familiar with the dispute here and up to yesterday I didn't know there was a civil war happening in Yemen, but I'll do my best. You're already discussing and that's great. I don't have any special authority to decide anything with respect to article content, my goal here is only to help you work through it yourselves, either to a solution that works for everyone, or to a point where I can hand off to more formal dispute resolution, but I need you to work with me to get to that point. But my larger goal is to prevent disruption and edit warring, and so I remind you again that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions (see the notice at the top of this page).

To start I'm going to ask three things:

  1. Please don't revert each other while we work through this.
  2. Please focus your comments on article content, not on things the other editor did.
  3. Please only add new comments to the bottom of the thread.

For starters, I did read the thread above, and it seems to me that the focus of the dispute is over the Southern Movement and Southern Transitional Council, whether or not they should be listed in the article and how they should be described, whether or not the UAE has entered Socotra, and that because these issues aren't resolved the article is out of date. Could each of you please, briefly if you can and without talking about what another editor did, describe what is correct or not correct in the article with respect to these things? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, to clarify the dispute at the beginning originated due to the addition of the “STC”, and the relocation of the Southern Movement (government sanctioned militia) from being a subordinate to the Hadi-government to being a subordinate to the “STC”. NuclearWizard also thought that the infobox needed to be updated to specify which countries had more than 1000 troops in Yemen, which I happily compromised with him. In short, the current dispute is why is the “STC” being added in the infobox when it has been denounced by the Gulf Cooperation Council as not a ally and why are you adding the Southern Movement as a subordinate to the “STC”. @Ivanvector: Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping me on the ANI if you need me, @Ivanvector:. I think these terms are fine. Nuke (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, good start. @NuclearWizard: I've closed the ANI thread prior to starting this subsection, just so that everything stays together. Unless there is something else open there? I don't often read that whole page, in fact it doesn't usually even load properly for me.
According to our guidelines, the infobox should be supported by information in the article, but I don't see anything in the "2017" section which describes these positions. I have from Southern Movement: "Since the 2015 Houthi coup d'état, the Southern Movement has chiefly allied itself with forces of Hadi" and from Southern Transitional Council the STC is described as a group considered illegitimate by Hadi because of loyalty to the Southern Movement. These statements seem to conflict, but either way it seems to me that STC is subordinate to the Southern Movement, not the other way around. Are these statements out of date? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reasoning for why Hadi on either of those articles. However, I think XinhuaNet's article on Hadi govt rejection of the STC implies that they're opposed to it on the basis of secession-seeking. Nuke (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "they're opposed to it", do you mean that the STC is opposed to the Southern Movement? I'm not sure I read it the same way. Hadi favours unity (restoration of his government) while the STC is secessionist; those two positions seem clear. However it seems to me that the Southern Movement is also secessionist, but still allied with Hadi; the Xinhua report doesn't seem to address that. Gulf Cooperation Council indicates GCC doesn't recognize the STC as legitimate, but I don't think that's new information. Is it something more like the STC represents a secessionist faction/offshoot of the Southern Movement? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well @Ivanvector: I wouldn’t say that the Southern Movement is pro-succession, but more of this idea of the South first, and southern ideals, because you have to remember the Southern Movement to this day takes military orders from Hadi, it has cabinet members in Hadi’s government, and it was one of the first militia groups to take up arms against the Houthis to restore Hadi’s government back in Yemen. Whereas, the “STC” isn’t really a byproduct of this war, nor has it really participated in this war, and in reality it has said that they believe that they are giving their people what they have wanted from 1994 and this matter has nothing to do with the current Yemeni Civil War. @Ivanvector: Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chilicheese22: Can you cite your claims that al-Hirak "takes military orders from Hadi" (even though it's obvious they do militarily collaborate and infight), has active (post-May 11) cabinet members in the Hadi government, and is not participating in the Yemeni Civil War? Also, am I correct when I interpret your statement that the STC is not a participant in the Yemeni Civil War to mean that it is simply staging a separate insurgency from the core Yemeni conflict? Nuke (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I was referring to the Hadi government's opposition to the STC. The STC's vague Aden declaration seems to be simply designed to include all factions of the broadly secessionist Southern Movement -- in Middle East Monitor, their official representative claims that "The different factions of Al-Hirak all had the same goal of independence but disagreed on how it would be accomplished." He also explicitly states that "they forged an alliance of convenience with President Hadi". Nuke (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I forgot to address the "STC offshoot of the Southern Movement" question -- this seems not to be the case. Their official representative states that the STC brought together al-Hirak and tribal leaders. Notably, the source is questionable, as he could just be ignoring what other components of al-Hirak may exist outside of the STC, however as far as I can cite, no others exist; making things even more weird, the al-Hirak website does not explicitly state anything about STC--even when it claims Zoubaidi is the Governor of Aden. I assumed at first that this could be a designation conferred by Hirak independently of the STC, which recognizes him as their leader, but no -- the page is just out of date. He's been listed as the Governor of Aden since before the STC ever existed, and during the intermediate period where after his dismissal, he stayed governor, as well. However, their news shows that Hirak seems to support the STC, so I'm inclined to just say they're still associated. Nuke (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWizard: STC/Hirak members of Yemeni government resigned or has been fired. So despite the fact that they intitialy recognized Hadi's authority, STC is another faction. But they didn't fight against Hadi, so they should be in the same column. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct, @NuclearWizard: the “STC” isn’t really a participant of YCW, but that doesn’t mean, that it doesn’t have its own agenda, whether that could be launching a Coup just like the Houthis done, because you have to remember insurgencies, take time, both politically and militarily. In the Houthis perspective it took them nearly 10 years, and 6 wars against the Yemeni Government to finally control large swathes of land in Yemen. As for sources, I’ve provided proof that there is Southern Movement members currently in the Yemeni Government please see, my other response, which really should satisfy your concerns. Chilicheese22 (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm getting from this is that there should be a layout change within the infobox, at best. See the other reply for more info. Nuke (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, forgot to ping you. @Chilicheese22: Nuke (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what the Middle East Monitor interview's source said in July and what this discussion is suggesting, it sounds to me like the Southern Movement/Hirak is a loose grouping of pro-South Yemen factions wanting to achieve various levels of southern autonomy (from stronger representation in the republic to outright independence), but as of May the STC is claiming authority to speak for all of al-Hirak or that they claim to have organized the various al-Hirak factions under one banner. Yes, that source should probably be considered biased since they're a representative of the STC, but it's not necessarily completely unusable. This essay on Middle East Policy Council (paywalled) seems to support this view, but I can only read the introduction and the essay is not dated - it's at least written since May because it discusses the Aden Declaration. It does seem clear that STC is not aligned with Hadi, anyway, and it's also clear they're not aligned with the Houthis.
What I think you've got is a situation where the main conflict is between the recognized government of Hadi supported by Saudi Arabia and its allies, fighting against the SPC/Houthis, with various unaligned groups also involved. Forces loyal to Saleh are now fighting against the Houthis since Dec 4 while also still fighting against Hadi, ISIL/AQAP have attacked both main groups, and STC/Hirak doesn't seem to be fighting at all unless there is more up-to-date information. Does that seem accurate? If so, then yes I'd say reorganizing the infobox is in order. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: You propose to show how the STC? In the same box as Hadi without separation? Otherwise, for pro-Saleh, since the death of Ali Abdallah, they are fighting with pro-Hadi. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't proposed anything, I'm still not sure the situation is described properly in the article. As for Saleh's forces, this source seems to indicate otherwise, judging from Google Translate and a discussion at the module talk page for the conflict map in the article. I can see that the pro-Saleh side are now fighting the Houthis (or they surrendered in Sana'a, I'm not sure of the timeline) but I don't see any sources that they're now fighting alongside Hadi's forces. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I think we should keep STC and Hadi in the same column but we should separate them. Also, Hadi government-aligned forces, reportedly backed by pro-Saleh and Saudi-led coalition ground forces, advanced farther into al Hudaydah governorate, western Yemen on December 7 than at any other point in the conflict.. And also, STC helped Hadi in the North. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: The Southern Movement and the “STC” are two separate entities, to imply anything other than such would be nonsense. We can not judge the actions of the “STC” for both sets of factions. The “STC” has not engaged in any military activities, while the Southern Movement you could say continues to battle the Houthis, in places the Houthis still have a presence (i.e. Kirsh or Beihan). Also just to further clarify the situation forces loyal to Saleh, have now joined Hadi forces after the death of Saleh, because at that time Saleh, in their eyes still provided a 3rd option in fighting the Houthis, while not having to recognized Hadi’s legitimacy. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I ask for a sanction against CC. He have removed STC without consensus !! Enough is enough. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

@Ivanvector and NuclearWizard: But his behavior is unacceptable. CC22 has started again to edit the article while he is the only one to defend this point of view. There is no consensus for the chnages even though the article has been in a stable state for two weeks. For the rest, it is he who violated the truce for which we agreed not to change anything until a consensus was found. He put us in front of the fait accompli without warning anyone, he took advantage of the fact that there was no more discussion and that it turned out off topic. NuclearWizard himself said he would no longer discuss his off-topic. And finally, what would be the solution: openning a new ANI? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, NuclearWizard, and Chilicheese22: CC22 have removed consensus map without consensus. What is the solution now ? I am strongly oppose to the change. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Actually Panam2014 has been lying this whole time, there was no consensus reached on the module, because if you look at the Module's talk page Panam never went to discuss the subject of the Southern Transitional Council before adding it as a belligerent. (see here [15] He simply added it and then a full on edit-war broke out between him and another IP user. [16] Therefore, he this debunks his notion that the previous map was a consensus one. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: We'll have to stop this circus. When I added the progress of the STC, no one challenged. The rules of WP are clear: to change something, you need a consensus but in cases where no one reverts a first time, there is no reason to ask the question for anything and everything. And when a change has occurred for months, if someone disputes it, he has to start a discussion to change it. The addition of the STC dates from October. There is more than enough lies of this CC22. And NuclearWizard and Ukrpatriot98 have the both added STC's positions. Also, see here : there are no consensus for iP's edits and he have been blocked for that. I have not broken the 1RR and the iP commited disruptive editing. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just end this dispute already? There may be more disputes over the STC in the future but I see the issue of "The STC cannot be in the infobox without content in the article." as essentially done, though disputes about future additions of STC content to this article may be waiting in the near future. Nuke (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, and certainly believe you guys as well, are not looking for a TBAN to be placed on you, so any proposal, to fix this dispute should resolve all problems that range from this article to the Yemeni module, because not addressing everything, will certainly just delay another inevitable argument. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearWizard and Chilicheese22: I think we have all been victims of injustice but we can not rewrite what happened. On the other hand, the future is in our hands and we can still write it. I propose to made a RfC or ask a mediator to settle the dispute. I think the topic ban is useless because not only did I not enter the game of CC22 and I did not revert his contributions but in addition to leaving in place his edits on en.wiki, I saved him and prevented him from participating in an edit warring. But apparently the changes on Commons are considered violations of the "1RR", which no one knew. And again, it remains to be confirmed as each admin has his own interpretation. But in doubt, I think we should stop there too, especially since we risk sanctions. And if I had been told that the editing occured in Commons were violations of 1RR, I would not have made them, and CC22 either. So I think that topic ban is not in our interest as we will be able to contribute more on a subject that is important to us, and then the article itself will remain outdated. I just think that in order to promote the sincerity of the debate, we must commit to making the slightest change until a consensus is reached. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I think we just need to move to a new section since this one is a colossal eyesore, and add some STC-relevant content to the article based on the guideline that the infobox should be about information covered elsewhere in the article. Nuke (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearWizard: I hope you don't mind, but I made some minor changes to the "STC". Furthermore, I do think Panam has a point we should reach some sort of agreement, and not make any changes to the articles until we do so. As we are now under heavy admin supervision, so we could easily have sanctions placed on us. Chilicheese22 (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chilicheese22: Yep, and I just partially reverted your edit. And yes, that's why I didn't make the revision I made earlier today during the first half of December even though Ivanvector said that the infobox should be based on article content. It's pretty much escalating an edit war, as has now occurred. That said, I've now posted on the ANI page that I believe that this should be resolved via RfC. Can you please post your opinion on this question? Nuke (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWizard and Chilicheese22: For my part, I engage myself. But as in the past, contributors participated in the writing of the article, and we posted in the talk page, I think it is interesting to notify them. However, I think it would be, as Ansh says, to rehearse the arguments for and against the addition of the STC, but I think that if there are new sources, it is important to mention them. Nuke, could you open the RfC and make it easier for others to read the RfC, sort out the sources that talk about the STC? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWizard and Panam2014: I think it is a great idea, so will you guys open the rfc, or would you like me to do it? Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News sources about STC's agenda

@Chilicheese22 and NuclearWizard: Hi guys. Please see the three sources : [17], [18], [19]. What is the next step ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please update timeline to reflect recent clashes in Sanaa

See here for the source https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/03/568142767/bloody-battles-waged-on-the-streets-of-yemens-capital-as-alliances-appear-to-shi?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202903. The page protection prevents me from adding the info.

"As of December 3rd, there have been clashes in Saana between Houthis forces and those loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. This follows a statement by Saleh offering to initiate talks with the Saudi-led coalition in exchange for a lifting of the blockade."

Feel free to adjust the wording of that. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection expires on December 4th. Feel free to add it yourself, haha. Nuke (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it hasn't yet....plus the former dictator for who's benefit this whole horrible mess is being waged, has just been assassinated. This is major and should be added.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears he was killed in combat rather than assassinated.XavierGreen (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 4 December 2017

Ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh was killed in action on December 4, 2017 by the Houthis for "treason". Perhaps we should switch his alliance.Thenabster126 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Please change this.Thenabster126 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Thenabster126 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terra (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox update

@XavierGreen and NuclearWizard: After the murder of Saleh and the breaking of the alliance, we have two choices. We could add a new belligerant case for the GPC or we could also add (until 2017) mark in the botten. What do you think ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have enough reliably sourced information about this yet, but certainly Saleh needs to be marked "(until 2017)" as a Houthi commander, and the pro-Saleh forces should be divided in the infobox between those who stay with the Houthis (pro-Houthi security forces etc.) and those who stayed with Saleh. Notably, it only contains pro-Saleh security forces -- as if none ever supported the Houthis, bizarrely, now that I think about it. Nuke (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh death in infobox under Houth alliance

I don't understand why some editors are showing Saleh as a casualty or KIA in the infobox as part of the Houthi-led alliance. He died in fighting the Houthis as part of a collaboration with Saudi-led coalition. Therefore he shouldn't be shown as "KIA" or casualty under the Commander section of Houthi-led alliance section. He should be shown as a commander till Nov. 2017, when fighting between Pro-Saleh forces and Houthis broke out. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the Southern Transitional Council talk page

There is an ongoing RfC titled "Existence and nature of the Southern Transitional Council" at Talk:Southern Transitional Council#RfC: Existence and Nature of the Southern Transitional Council. Please comment. Nuke (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant to the YCW article because it involves the role of the Southern Transitional Council in the Yemeni Civil War and if the STC is within the scope of it, by the way. Nuke (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

An anonymous editor or group of editors has added NATO as a combatant to the infobox twice, and it has been removed twice. Despite the involvement of individual NATO member states, there is no evidence for NATO's participation in the war as an organisation. As such, no source is ever given for these edits, although they may be good faith edits resulting from confusion. Is it worth blocking the IP and/or protecting the page to prevent this from happening a third time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabut.sidney (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The Southern Movement broke with the Hadi government, see Battle of Aden (2018). Update the infobox! --201.68.190.42 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map also desperately needs to be updated. Charles Essie (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering what the yellow and orange areas represent, since they are not mentioned in the legend. --Lasunncty (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for the note. Map hasn't been updated since 20 December of last year, so yes, update needed. ansh666 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will fix the info-box once I have time, unless someone else has had it done. BTW here's just a POV for discussion: the so called Yemeni Civil War has now effectively ended, with de facto a northern fraction led by Houthi and a southern one led by STC both fighting against Saudi-led intervention forces.--霎起林野间 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My edition of the info-box has been reverted by another user who does not seem to be a moderator. He/she expresses his/her personal requirement on an explanation for widening the box 'than it has to be'. So far the English wiki is a place for those POVs and I will not update it any longer. Sorry about this.--霎起林野间 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yemeni_civil_war_(2014–present)&oldid=831595277"