Talk:Operation Victory from God

Nomination of 2019 Najran attack for deletion

I nominate this article for deletion. The whole article is not factual and quite biased since the Saudi-led coalition and Yemen's Information Minister Moammar el-Eryani both denied the Houthi claim, and stated that the video is a fabrication of reality, an attempt to mislead the international media and to "promote fake victories". I had to add the Saudi-led coalition and Yemen's Information Minister Moammar el-Eryani statements since there is no mention of them at all. But I believe there is no reason for this article to remain. Do we create independent articles on Wikipedia based on fabrications, especially that major news outlets like the BBC and the Guardian have stated that this incident cannot be confirmed. --Cosmopolitan268 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You're certainly right in that independent confirmation of this incident does not really exist. But there is also no independent confirmation that it didn't happen. The Houthi claim is certainly biased, but so are the denials from the Saudi-led coalition and the Yemeni government. I believe the article deserves to remain for the sole fact that the incident, if true, is too important to ignore. I'll be in favor of deletion when someone without a stake in the conflict confirms or denies it. Besides, the release of videos provided by the Houthis as "evidence" and the fact that many details of the event seem vague enough suggests that the Houthis may leak more information in the coming days in an attempt to confirm it. Maybe there'll be a whistle blower from the Saudi/Yemeni armies or from Western intelligence agencies observing the conflict that'll talk about it too. I'd say wait a month or two. -Leonnatus Chouan (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The Houthis doesn't claim to have attacked Najran. They attacked the area to the south of Najran. The area matches what is in the video and is what is mentioned by the minister. https://www.google.com/maps/@17.1848687,44.1936374,19680a,35y,37.37t/data=!3m1!1e3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.220.32 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they didn't say to south of Najran, they said South of Najran. You are probably talking about Kitaf. No, the attack mostly happened in al-Suh area which is in Najran. The Kitaf video is an old video which is now being posted in twitter by some accounts saying that it is the video of the attack. No, that's not the video of the attack. That's an old video.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Najran attack → Operation Victory from God – The current name is a misnomer, as the offensive did not take place in Najran, but south of it, inside Yemen. The requested name would be the code name for the operation. As for those who still doubt that this operation took place, the head of the pro-Saudi Fatah Brigade is stepping down due to it, admitting a catastrophic defeat. Applodion (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per the nominator. I will also add other details about the operation to this article. It's a bit misleading now.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the proposed name is not universally used by the sources, and sounds like rather a WP:POVTITLE to me - we should not be using the name given to it by those carrying out the attack unless it is supported by a significant majority of sources. The current title, which is a neutral description of the attack, is preferable.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: The current name is false, however, as the offensive did not take place in Najran. In addition, it was not a single "attack", but an entire offensive. Applodion (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The major ref used for the article, #2, [1] tells us that the offensive was in Najran, Saudi Arabia, and not "inside Yemen" as you say above. Please could you clarify?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Weiss repeats the Houthis' claim ("On Saturday, the Houthi military spokesman, Yahya Saree, announced that a major operation inside Najran dubbed “Victory from God” had been launched."), strangely without questioning whether this claim is true. Further down the article, he says that combat footage from "Kitaf in Yemen's Saadah Province [...] is most certainly from the Houthi offensive." Several other news pieces (such as reuters, aljazeera Washington Post, Independent, Bloomberg, Middle East Eye) were much more cautious in this regard, and instead stated that the operation took place "near" the border with the Najran.
In addition, most of the fighting before the alleged destruction of the three Saudi brigades, most importantly the Battle of the Jabara Valley, was confirmed to have taken place inside Yemen by witnesses (see this example). This article outright confirms that "the Houthi operation, dubbed Victory from God which took place over the past couple of months between Najran and Yemen's Jabarra Valley in the Houthi controlled province of Saada". Applodion (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion they Houthis didn't claim that the attack took place in Najran. They said that it was in the borders. As a matter of fact Yahya Saree showed maps of where that attack was (see Video on YouTube at 0:50) Yahya Saree said that they attacked Najran, Jizan and Asir with rockets. They also said they have stopped US-made aircrafts that were attacking women and children.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Oh. I was simply quoting the English translation of his statement; so these translations might be partially misleading - this would nt be the first time something like this has happened. Thank you for providing the video link. This pretty much confirms that the ground operation only took place in Yemen; at least nominally, considering that troops might have crossed the border without knowing it. Applodion (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Which is why the name "Operation Victory from God" is gonna give me much ability to add some context to the events.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, let me explain it to you because American newspapers are not covering this because they are paid by the Saudis especially CNN, so they are basically state-owned media despite claiming that they are "independent". Anyway, Operation Victory from God is not just an attack in a single place, so changing the name of the article means changing and adding a lot of content. It was an operation that started in 28/8 and ended in October. In the first phase the the Houthis attacked Najran, Jizan and Asir with rockets [2] so technically they didn't just attack Najran. Then, they launched attacks on the Hadi-led army which was fighting in the borders of Najran against the Houthis. They captured a lot of soldiers from Yemen, Saudi and Suddan and they showed them in their videos. And they still showing more and more videos as we speak. Yet no American media is reporting this.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Could you comment on the information provided by me and SharabSalam? Applodion (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

@Sceptre: Why was this closed? Two people were in favor, one against, and that person did not even respond to the arguments which were presented. Applodion (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Applodion, Please wait a little bit for the closer to respond. I am going to follow up on this. Yesterday I posted in his talk page. Seems that this editor has a history of things related to his RM closings. I will request a review after he respond to the talk page.. the article name should be operation victory from God. The Saudi denies that there was any offensive so it would be a POV to say that there was an offensive.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, alright, thanks for your efforts. Applodion (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor is not responding in his talk page. I will try to request a review today when I have time. I wanted him to respond because in the guidelines it says that I should discuss the matter with the closer first. I have waited for long time now and the editor has been absent for a day. He had made no edit since Thursday or Friday.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey SharabSalam! Thanks again for your efforts! Has anyone already responded to your inquries? Applodion (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Applodion No, although the editor is still making edits. Take a look at his talk page, everybody is complaining about his moves. I didn't open a review. I had some issues and stuff to do in real life so I totally forgot about it. However, when you renamed the article to that name I didn't agree with your move because although it is accurate, it is not used in the media. I only agree with "Operation victory from God". Also I have opened a review right now--SharabSalam (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Thank you! Applodion (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate Quotation

In this article, it is written "it is evident from the video and subsequent photos that hundreds of Saudi troops and allied tribal fighters have indeed been killed or captured in recent weeks.", while ref #2, [3] is saying "Indeed, the pro-Saudi militia Al Fateh Brigade, whose logo was clearly featured in some of the clips, released a video on its Facebook account on Sept. 1 from Kitaf in Yemen’s Saadah Province near the borders with Saudi Arabia. This combat footage is most certainly from the Houthi offensive." without mentioning that any Saudi soldiers were killed or captured. I think this could be a kind of trickery and dodge. عمر خالد 8888 (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You should read the rest of the Long War Journal article: "While FDD’s Long War Journal cannot independently verify claims made by the Houthi movement, it is evident from the video and subsequent photos that hundreds of Saudi troops and allied tribal fighters have indeed been killed or captured in recent weeks." Applodion (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias Sources

In the aftermath saction, it is written "According to Al-Alam TV, al Fatah Brigade commander Major General Radad al-Hashemi resigned from his position after the attack." using the ref #21, [4]. This source is Pro-Iranian lebaness news agency. And it is clearly bias. عمر خالد 8888 (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Directly afterwards, it is stated that al-Hashemi denounced the report. Applodion (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The battle DID NOT HAPPEN IN NAJRAN

I absolutely love how the battle absolutely cannot be called it's name because that's the "Houthi name" or something, so you need the 'neutral' state department approved name, even though it not only is geographically wrong and not used anywhere, you can't even admit the Saudis lost the battle. This is pathetic. You can't even argue on the merits of the case either you have to bring in Wiki mods and rules from 4 years ago related to Syria. Ingoman (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ingoman: You might want to participate in the the new requested move. If we get enough support we might be able to finally push the name-change through. Koopinator (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

---

2019 Najran attack → Operation Victory from God – During the move review of the last requested move, it was suggested that editors wait a few months for a new requested move. A few months have passed, and hopefully we can now gain a larger consensus for a move. There are already many Wikipedia articles focused on specific military operations, i don't see a problem with making another. I don't see articles focused on specific military operations as being non-neutral, because military operations with specific names have actually happened, and we have a precedent for such articles (see List of World War II military operations). I also concur with other editors that "2019 Najran Attack" is not used in sources anywhere and geographically inaccurate. Koopinator (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. Yes, absolutely. As I explained in the previous move request alongside SharabSalam, the current name is factually false, as the entire operation took place inside Yemen, and did not target Najran (besides air attacks). It was also no single "attack" but an entire campaign; even pro-Saudi sources confirm this. Applodion (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Support Current name is bad, the operation has a name let's use it. Ingoman (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Slow edit war

@Applodion and M7MD22111, you two have been essentially edit-warring over the inclusion of flags on the infobox for almost a month now. I'd encourage discussion instead of EWing, since this could escalate quite easily.

While MOS:FLAGINFOBOX states that the inclusion of flags in infoboxes should generally be avoided, it does state that flags may be used in infoboxes to summarize military conflicts, which this is. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

alright, thank you M7MD22111 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@OzzyOlly: Just a note: The edit conflict was not over the flags, but regarding the constant re-addition of a KIA note. The latter is utterly false (as I pointed out in edit summaries); within this article it is outright mentioned that the commander in question survived the battle. M7MD22111 has also added false/unsourced KIA notes to other articles. They have also removed the warnings over unsourced editing on their talk page which were expressed by several editors. Applodion (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A few of your edit summaries mentioned WP:FLAGCRUFT which is why I thought this was about. OzzyOlly (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@OzzyOlly: I mainly reverted due to the KIA additions; the WP:FLAGCRUFT issue was just an extra problem. Overall, the repeated addition of flags was merely annoying; the KIA note was the seemingly deliberate introduction of false information (considering that it was repeatedly pointed out that Radad al-Hashemi is mentioned as a survivor of the battle in this article with 2 references). Applodion (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The addition of KIA is obviously incorrect, and I hope that MD7MD stops doing that. But removing warning messages seems to imply that they don't believe what they're doing is incorrect.

I disagree that this is WP:FLAGCRUFT. As I've mentioned previously, MOS:FLAGINFOBOX allows it. It's standard practice even on FAs like Battle of Midway. OzzyOlly (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@OzzyOlly: As far as I understood the rules, MOS:FLAGINFOBOX and WP:FLAGCRUFT clarify that flags can be added when they serve a purpose. For instance, when several countries fight in a battle, flags are useful to show which commander fought for which country. However, there were only two sides in this battle - adding more flags serves no real purpose. Yet this is a matter which one can discuss - as I said, the KIA thing is my main concern, and the flag stuff got just swept up alongside it. Applodion (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)