Talk:Houthi takeover in Yemen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Yemen (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconHouthi takeover in Yemen is supported by WikiProject Yemen, which collaborates on Yemen-related topics on Wikipedia. Please participate by improving this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Not just protests, there was a battle in Sanaa and ongoing offensives. The title should be changed-- (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, how about moving it to 2014 Yemeni unrest? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
it's better, but still we can merge it into Shia insurgency in Yemen-- (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think there's enough information for this be its own article. We can expand it using the information from ar:احتجاجات اليمن 2014. Does that sound ok? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how it's not a continuation of the same events that make up the Shia insurgency in Yemen. There's enough information on it, but we can put that information in a new section on the prior page. The disassociation is rather confusing. Futur3g4ry (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wanted: explanation of influence over Sunni-majority regions[edit]

The Houthis are characterized as a Shia group, not so much here but especially in that article. But the map we have shows that Houthis control everything to the west coast of Yemen, whereas what I find on the web seems to suggest that mostly Sunnis might live in those areas. This brings up a timely question: has this movement 'secularized' sufficiently that it is a government acceptable to the Sunni populace? With of course the implied crystal ball gazing (which I don't expect anyone to address without a bold source to cite) of whether they potentially are capable of winning control of regions currently held by al-Qaida. (I definitely do not know this topic - that's why I'm asking you - apology for any false assumption) Wnt (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Zaidi shiites have been the dominant group in the north-west part of Yemen for 1000 years, I don't know where you would get the idea that "mostly Sunnis might live there".Lathamibird (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I admit what I cited above was a blog - though I suspect the image comes from somewhere more distinguished - but stories like [1] agree with it. According to that latter reference, Al-Hudaydah is 95% Sunni but was in the process of being seized by Houthis in October, leading Al-Jazeera to question whether they could maintain control over the city. PressTV at least says that they hold Hudaydah until now [2] though I don't know I'd trust that. :) Still, I don't think it's dumb to ask. Wnt (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Is it right for us to categorize this as a "coup" in the title? I don't think it's that simple, and the Houthis haven't defined it that way. I think their position is that they have been pressuring the government to make changes, not trying to topple the government or take control of the state outright. Everyking (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources are calling it a coup, and I think it fits the definition: an armed group used force and the threat of force to gain control over the government, pushing out the president (who is reportedly under house arrest) and his ministers in doing so. It's a de facto coup, even if it's less clean-cut than some historical coups. I'd also note the Houthis are now talking about forming a ruling council to "govern" the country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I just don't think it's clear enough to justify that title, especially if the Houthis themselves deny it. They apparently didn't want Hadi to resign, perhaps preferring that he remain as a figurehead. They have not in fact taken over the government, which is fundamental to a coup. We would be on firmer ground to call it a political crisis. Everyking (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"Crisis" is far too vague. This is a clear case of an armed group using force as political leverage, first to demand (successfully) a weak "unity government" (going so far as to veto the original PM choice, who they kidnapped at gunpoint last week), and then to force Hadi to either agree to put them in charge of key ministries and governorates or to step down. It's safe to call it a coup. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with you. It would be good if we could get some other voices in here and develop a consensus one way or the other. Everyking (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the part that could be called a coup began at the earliest with the chief of staff's kidnapping. A more accurate starting event would probably be the capture of the presidential palace. The event before the coup would probably best be described as a rebellion or uprising. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to that, but my feeling is that when an armed group is dictating the formulation of a government at gunpoint, as the Houthis did in fall 2014, it's a coup. Since then, the Houthis have continued to use force and threats to consolidate (and, to some extent, formalize) their control over what is left of the Yemeni government. Definitely the recent events with the seizure of the presidential palace, Hadi's confinement, and the mass resignations have been the most dramatic chapter of it, but it seems this coup has been steadily unfolding since the Houthis took the capital in September. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what reliable sources are calling this a coup? I can't recall seeing any. Everyking (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Among others: MSNBC Washington Times The Guardian International Business-Times Middle East Monitor The Jerusalem Post Usage isn't uniform, but it's widespread. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, user Kudzu1. Those links you gave can be hardly considered as evidence that the whole setting is a 'coup' since the term is only attributed to the Houthi opponents. Take for instance, the Middle East monitor link with the title GCC slams Houthi coup in Yemen does not actually narrates the whole event itself as a coup, rather it was the GCC calls it coup since they are against Houthis. This is the same when you read the IBT article with its headline Thousands in Yemen March to Protest Houthi Coup. Again, the "Houthi coup" was made up by Yemeni anti-Houthi protesters. Both supporters of Houthis seizure of the government and Houthi themselves denied it was a coup, but it was a constitutional declaration. If you read those articles you will notice they never mention the word coup except the title itself.

Secondly, what happened in Yemen can be hardly considered as a coup because (1) President Hadi and premier Bahah weren't got forced out by the Houthis, rather they resigned themselves because they don't want to continue their job under Houthi orders; (2) Although both resigned, the Houthis did urge them to rescind their resignation but both decision was final; (3) Till now, Houthis have not officially form any official government body like parliament, prime minister, or presidency.

Opponents of Houthi rule can say its a coup, but supporters called it a revolution. I am sure you don't want to change this article page into the latter term either. I suggest something like 2015 Houthi Constitutional Declaration or any similar title so that to make the events more neutral. It's still vague if the whole events is a coup or not (even though they "seized" power). Myronbeg (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And I would cite the Egypt precedent from 2013. The best description of this event is a coup. Multiple reliable sources call the event a coup. It fits the dictionary definition of a coup. "Constitutional declaration" would only cover a single day (6 February 2015), and at least part of that declaration has already been walked back. "Revolution" is a clear and obvious non-starter. Even if some outlets and analysts have tiptoed around the word "coup", it has still been commonly used (both after the resignations under duress of Hadi and Bahah and the so-called "constitutional declaration" of 6 February), and we are not beholden to those same kind of political considerations. An armed group seized power; reliable sources call it what it is; it looks, walks, and quacks like a coup. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kudzu1 and Everyking: we are not here to judge and choose a name based on our own judgment. If we're going to rely on the reliable sources, Coup is not suitable title. At least one may say that "revolution" is in contest with "coup" when it come to google results, even "revolution" better excels. However, more precise discussion is required. Mhhossein (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the title of (UPRISING) instead of other words is suitable as applied by some agencies.--m,sharaf (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
We should use the WP:COMMON name if there is one, and I have seen "coup" used a lot more than "revolution", which seems to be limited to non-RS blogs and Iranian media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that "revolution" is not limited to non-RS blogs and Iranian media.[3] [4] [5] Mhhossein (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The Atlantic piece is a meditation on the Yemeni Revolution of 2011; in fact, another Atlantic piece which that story links to refers to the Houthi takeover (like many other sources do) as a coup: [6] The International Policy Digest piece actually suggests there is a "youth revolution" brewing against the Houthis, although there's no evidence since then it has actually materialized (the article is from the end of January). The Al-Monitor piece also uses the terms "revolution" and "revolutionary" in relation to the 2011 revolution, again arguing that the Houthi/Saleh takeover has actually eroded the revolution. None of your sources make the argument you want them to, but ironically, they all make sound points against it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, The Atlantic piece is NOT a meditation on the Yemeni Revolution of 2011 and is explaining how the Houthi movement developed. The youth revolution in International Policy Digest is as you said against the houthi movement but consider that they denounced both the Houthis and also AQAP. but how can these demonstrations from a university be called revolution?As the Al-monitor writes "Most importantly, the popular revolution believes the ongoing conflict is against the traditional powers, i.e., the old regime powers." Finally I did not aim to say that "revolution" is a common name rather wanted to say that "Coup" is not suitable and we have to find a better title. Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you're dramatically misconstruing your sources, and I'm not sure if you're doing so deliberately or inadvertently. "Coup" is a suitable title for now, it's in common usage, and most importantly, I haven't seen any sort of viable alternative. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Something else I notice: most of the other-language Wikipedias also refer to the event as a coup in their titles and/or ledes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As the OP raised, 'coup' is a gross mischaracterization of the incident. But true! Our so called "reliable" sources have described it that way, but they are also the media open to the charges of political bias for they belong to countries that recently formed the military alliance against the Houthis launching attacks on the "to protect" the non-existing Hadi government who is ironically residing in Saudi Arabia advising Saudi generals on the attacks!! I think by uncritically picking up the "reliable sources'" description, we are allowing in their clear political bias in our articles. These sources are clearly not reliable and unbiased at least for this particular subject. Just switch to the rival sources (Iranian/Shia) and you get the incident characterized as a "revolution" or other sort of things. So we really need to find an alternative to Western/Saudi propaganda talking points. Strivingsoul (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Strivingsoul: I think you are trying to explain that reliable sources may be non-neutral or "not being neutral" does not affects the "reliability". But. we have to gather all of the major viewpoints to have a neutral article and avoid the bias of the sources. As for naming, we should also consider that we can't act based on the statements of sources because the event happening in Yemen may be described from different viewpoints. So, for example, if "the Gulf Arab foreign ministers meeting in Saudi Arabia considered the violence in Sanaa on Jan. 20 a “coup d'etat,”"this is just an opinion from the opposition party. This is while "The take-over of Sana’a is the beginning of what al-Houthi has called a new phase of the national revolution, originating in the protests of 2011.". So, I think we should start a neutral proposal which is not POV of a certain party. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kudzu1 and Strivingsoul: Could you please consider my last (the above) comment? Mhhossein (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I propose "2015 Disputed Constitutional Declaration by Ansar Allah (or Houthis)". It is both factual and impartial. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's also way too long, doesn't consider all of the events leading up to the "constitutional declaration", and is basically a euphemism. We should avoid euphemism per Wikipedia policy. We should also use common descriptors and naming. The event is commonly described as a coup, and attempts to "soften" the language out of sympathy to the Houthis are misguided and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. (See, for another recent example, the extensive back-and-forth over the naming of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How is it euphemism to call a spade a spade? It is a matter of fact that Houthis did not aim to take over the government. They had declared that time and again that they want reforms to be implemented by Hadi (the same old list of reforms that all post revolutionary governments had failed to address one after another), and since Hadi resisted they put pressure on him to implement the reforms. But in a cunning maneuver, Hadi along with the other government official decided to suddenly resign with the exact purpose of making things look like a coup for they knew that the resulting power vacuum would be inevitably filled by the Ansar Allah Popular Committees. The definition of coup does not begin to account for any of these distinct features of the incident, and in fact, that doesn't consider these events leading to the incident! The argument from "length" I think is also weak, for one does not compromise accuracy for brevity. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they "declared" that, and then they forced the prime minister to step down at gunpoint, dictated the formation of a new government, then abducted the president's chief of staff when they didn't like something it did, then shelled the president's compound and placed him under house arrest for a month, then took over parliament, then dissolved it when it didn't do what they wanted and installed a revolutionary committee led by their leader's cousin to run the country. And a bunch of reliable sources called it a coup. They're cited in the article, and some of them further up on this Talk page, if you'll have a look. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well you made a good attempt at being a spokesman for Hadi government and regurgitating the official narrative! Yes, Hadi was stepped down at gun point but after the government along with al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen engaged in attacks against Ansar Allah supporters and citizens. He therefore lacked legitimacy with the Yemeni public and was viewed as a Western puppet installed to further impede the 2011 Revolution from reaching its goals and expanding Al-Qaeda presence in Yemen, and his resignation and escape reaffirmed that public sentiment. This is while Ansar Allah has been an increasingly popular force in Yemen for years. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nadia al-Sakkaf[edit]

Is the Nadia al-Sakkaf who is listed here as the Information Minister of the outgoing government the same person as the editor of the Yemen Times, or is the similarity in names just a remarkable coincidence? -- The Anome (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears she's the same person (& may no longer edit the Yemen Times). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2015[edit]

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: Moved to Houthi takeover in Yemen according to the discussion occured. Mhhossein (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état2014-15 houthis takeover – As I said above "the Gulf Arab foreign ministers meeting in Saudi Arabia considered the violence in Sanaa on Jan. 20 a “coup d'etat”." So, coup d'état is certainly pushing POV of the opposing parties. Moreover, some other sources like this clearly demonstrate how opposing countries who sent troops to Yemen chose such a name for houthis takeover. By the same reasoning, we can't use "revolution", a title used by houthis party. I'm proposing to use something neutral as "takeover" which is used by different reliable sources. --Relisted. George Ho away from home (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Mhhossein (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMON and WP:EUPHEMISM. Current name both conveys the events accurately and represents common naming. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried to emphasis that "coup d'état" is simply a POV so we are not wrapped up in rules to apply WP:COMMON here. By the way, "takeover" is used by different sources and certainly is not WP:EUPHEMISM. To let the participants know how frequently this word is used by sources I'd like to list some of them here:
We are not here to push the viewpoints of the parties involved while we have to express how they feel in this regard. I mean, we should provide a neutral title while we have a text containing different viewpoints based on their proper weights. Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: You assert that "coup d'état" is POV, but I do not see an expression of the basis for that. A "coup d'état" is just a change of government by force. Are you reading more into the term than that? --Bejnar (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bejnar: This is simply how the enemies call the event. Mhhossein (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein:Just because a person is an enemy does not mean that every word they use is POV! What else is driving you to think that the word "coup" in this context has an ulterior meaning? And what do you think that ulterior meaning is?--Bejnar (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bejnar: Sorry but I should explain that POV, as you know, stands for "Point Of View" which is not a negative matter in whole. But if a title reflects the "View Point" of a certain group or party, we have to balance it so that no special viewpoint is pushed. To me, "Coup" is the beginning of an spectrum at the end of which "revolution" is located. The both ends are POV of the parties involved and we have to choose some thing in between. "Takeover" seems to fit this middle point while being frequently used by various reliable sources (as I mentioned above). Mhhossein (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: "Coup" is an NPOV word when accurately applied (regardless of the speaker). If the term is inaccurate, find a source that says that. Revolutions often begin, or sometimes end, with a coup, I don't see a spectrum there. Different concepts. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bejnar: Of course "Coup" is an NPOV word when accurately used and I already verified that. But the fact is that one should be careful not to reflect just one party's view point (or point of view or POV). There's a spectrum of different concepts. Mhhossein (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No spectrum here, just different concepts. --Bejnar (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Houthi insurgency in Yemen as most recent events. Agree that "Coup" is clearly POV as this word is now used as a synonym of success and otherwise Support move. Takeover it is agreed would be far more neutral word and using it, I think, will definitely better enable readers to develop their own interpretations of the situation. WP:NPOV is a WP:PILLAR of Wikipedia and, in an otherwise uncertain situation, certainly takes precedence. The take over is a recent development within a context of the ongoing insurgency. The idea that there is a euphemism is preposterous. Takeover is simply a more neutral synonym of coup. GregKaye 11:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: As I understood, you are supporting the move while suggesting to merge the article. The latter has to be discussed through a separate discussion. You can do it right below this discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I only wish I had developed as lucid views as displayed below. GregKaye 14:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. In my opinion, when a rebel group wins an insurgency/civil war and takes over government, we don’t normally talk of “coup”, because coups are carried out by political insiders (somebody who’s already part of the state apparatus, like the military), not by rebel groups (even if some scholars do talk of “rebel coups”), and are sudden, not the outcome of a prolonged insurgency: e.g., we don’t normally call a coup the NTC’s takeover of government in Libya in September 2011, and we wouldn’t call it a coup if a rebel group in Syria captured Damascus and took over government; we don’t call a coup Libya Dawn’s takeover of Tripoli in August 2014 (a case very similar to the Houthi takeover of Sanaa, with the internationally recognized government fleeing the capital and still controlling only a small part of the country), or the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul in 1996. Countless other examples of rebel groups winning a war and taking over government are normally called neither coups nor revolutions, but simply successful rebellions. Therefore, if a separate article has to focus on the moment when the Houthi insurgency succeded (instead of being merged to Houthi insurgency in Yemen), I think it should be titled something like 2014-15 Houthi takeover in Yemen or 2014-15 Houthi takeover of Yemeni government, as proposed above. It’s true that this case is leass clear-cut than others, and that some sources have used the term “coup”, but many others have used “takeover”, as shown above. Nykterinos (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nykterinos: Thanks for your comprehensive explanations. Do you think we should include "Yemen" in the title? Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think 2014-15 Houthi takeover in Yemen, or just Houthi takeover in Yemen, similar to Houthi insurgency in Yemen (of which it is the conclusion), would be more precise and recognizable. Nykterinos (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nykterinos: Your second suggestion is more recognizable. There's no need to mention the year. Mhhossein (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
BarrelProof: You're right. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per Nykterinos and explanations I made on an earlier talk. While "takeover" seems like a more neutral description, I may suggest a more concrete substitute: 2015 Houthi [or Ansar Allah] Constitutional Declaration (disputed). First, this addresses a concrete fact on the ground for Houthis have formed a provisional revolutionary government made up of the Popular Committees that is the de facto ruler of the country now, and, second it is a far better explanatory of the revolutionary nature and background of the movement that led to the incident. Note that these incidents followed the 2011 Yemeni Revolution that failed to bring about the reforms expected by revolutionary groups, and thus the still ongoing conflicts against Western/Saudi-backed post-, anti-revolutionary governments and forces in Yemen. Coup is a gross mischaracterization and doesn't account for these important facts, and has been from the beginning a propaganda talkingpoint promoted by Saudi-allied parties inside Yemen and states taking part in the anti-revolutionary military coalition now bombing the poor country. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While the Houthis describe their uprising with positive attributes such as revolution and Mansur Hadi and his allies recognize it as coup which has negative approach, I think takeover looks more neutral. Some reliable sources have used it as well which have been mentioned by Mhhossein.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move to Houthi takeover in Yemen - first of all, I should point out that arguments regarding whether it's neutral to call it a coup are not relevant here, per WP:POVTITLE. If reliable sources call it a coup, then that should be what we call it as well, even if the term appears to convey a non-neutral point of view. Thus we have 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, because reliable sources call it that even though many observers, and the current Egyptian government itself, deny that it was a coup. However, in this instance, it appears that the reliable sources do not call it a coup with any consistency. The term "takeover" is quite widely used,[7] so the nomination is valid for that reason. Regarding the exact title, as Nykterinos points out above, the year qualifier is redundant, but we should mention Yemen in the title for context and recognisability. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Houthi takeover in Yemen, as I said above. Mhhossein (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
ditto, GregKaye 16:13, 3 May 2015 (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.

Background section[edit]

...Focusses on economic issues. Should the Houthis' dissatisfaction with the process and results of the post-2011 National Dialogue, notably the federalism issue, not also be included? Tal grey (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

19 million are malnourished, children for years starve to death massively The United States and Britain support politics. Where is the sanction or conviction or food given out?[edit]

1) In March 2015 the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began with airstrikes and a naval blockade. The United States and Britain support politics.[1] 2017 UNICEF, nearly half a million underage children in Yemen are on the verge of starvation, about seven million people are facing acute food shortages.[2][3] 2016 UN, in Yemen, almost 7.5 million children need medical care, and 370,000 children are on the verge of starvation. UNICEF About 10 thousand children died in less than five years because of poor medical care[4]. BBC - massively children die of hunger.[5] 2015 UN - 13 million people are malnourished[6].

2) What specifically can you object? (NOT - specifically what you may say?) 19 million are malnourished, children for years starve to death massively The United States and Britain support politics.

Where is the sanction or conviction or food given out?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Houthi takeover in Yemen. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

a public protest movement with arms or a "military operation"[edit]

@Panam2014: Excuse me! I also copied my message to your talkpage here for future reference:

Hi, are you at all familiar with the background of this whole episode? The takeover was not really a "military operation". It started out as a protest movement against fuel subsidies removal and overall dissatisfaction with Hadi government, as well as Houthis' attempt to pressure Hadi into implementing other desired reforms. And Hadi had already lost legitimacy to the point that even the Yemeni army didn't defended him. I think my version of the lead was an accurate description of these facts.--Expectant of Light (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: Hi, no problem. In the fact, Houthi and Saleh organized a military operation, it is clear. The protests are not contradictory with the military operations. For reliables sources, armed Houthis took the control of buildings, presidential palace, and attempted to attack PM Khaled Bahah. I ask others contributors @NuclearWizard and XavierGreen:. Also, we should move the article for including that Saleh participated to the events. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! But "the military operation" completely clouds the fact that it followed a massive protest movement against government policies and corruption. It paints a protest movement as some sort of a devious conspiracy of a power elite which it was not. Coups are also carried out by armies not by social movements that nonetheless have armed wings. Hence the reason most reliable sources use "takeover" instead of coup, and even when coup is mentioned they make it clear that it is what some people (primarily the Houthi opponents) characterize the move. Having said this, if coup is to be mentioned, it has to specified as a POV by opponents not as a fact and it has to be given less prominence over other descriptions. A more detailed of account of the developments (as in my linked version) is also necessary for allowing for readers' own discernment.--Expectant of Light (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind mentioning mass protests as long as the military takeover is also mentioned. Nuke (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Expectant of Light:No, I'm sorry, the army remained loyal to Saleh and the Houthis are not a social movement. They used the social movement to seize power, but it was not the protesters who took power. In the same way in Syria, the first protesters did not call for a civil war, but other groups took advantage of the situation to provoke the war. All this does not negate the fact that it is a military operation. A military operation can be organized by rebels, not a coup d'etat. So the term is neutral. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: what is your proposal for rephrasing ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I just tried to resolve the dispute with a compromise edit. Nuke (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The point is there was no "military" involved, but rather an armed takeover by militias of a social movement. And the process also pretty well resembles revolutions in which anti-government protests eventually evolve into armed takeover of the government facilities and the toppling of the government (there was a reason it's been called revolution by the Houthis). And there's even still one more reservation: the Houthis didn't actually want to force Hadi out of power but to only pressure him and once Hadi resigned they themselves were kinda surprised! So there are lot of important nuance involved here so I'd propose this phrase: "... was an armed progressive takeover of the Yemeni government that led to resignation of President Hadi." --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard and Expectant of Light: militas are military. For the restn calling it as a revolutuion is Houthis-Saleh point of view. Also, we couldn't remove "military" word. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I would say any violent protest movement is not something warrants reference to the violence. I don't think that this was a peaceful takeover, given the subsequent civil war. Nuke (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014 and NuclearWizard: First of all, the Houthis have a sizable popular base of support see this LA Times article which puts it roughly at one-third of the country population. Also read this and this feature reports which explore substantial social and cultural bases of Houthi movement. And Al-Jazeera makes it clear that it was the Houthis who organized the "peaceful protests" and that the military and police stood by and did nothing! So again, there was no military involved and conflating military with militia only makes for a clear inaccuracy. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That at the beginning, there were peaceful demonstrations does not change the fact that a military operation took place. For the rest, the Houthis were well and truly armed, it is indisputable. And their demographic weight does not change anything. Also military/milita = armed/military. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
They are not really identical! Military primarily refers to an armed division of a state whereas militia is composed of unprofessional armed citizens. Why would you prefer an inaccurate term over what clearly represents what Houthis armed nature is? All sources are unanimous that Houthis, beyond their social works, are a "militia"! --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

In Syria, Kurdish are considered as a military. Military is also used for militas. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, in some other country they may call an apple an orange! But would that be a warrant to get rid of all the academic and journalist conventions? I don't understand why you want to subtly twist the facts mentioned by reliable sources! Sorry that verges into POV pushing! --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What's next, are we going to start calling them civilian combatants? The popularity of the takeover (revolution, coup, whatever) is not in question here. The question is whether it was violent and to what extent. And it was fairly violent but involved some peaceful protests too. Nuke (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It is clearly a military.But we have to change the title. The Houthis are not the only actors in this operation. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
"It is clearly a military." You're being just WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT! --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Expectant of Light:Per @NuclearWizard: What's next, are we going to start calling them civilian combatants? The popularity of the takeover (revolution, coup, whatever) is not in question here., Stop now and please read WP:NPOV. I reject all version who removes the word armed/military because it is sourced and the Houthis were armed. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014 and NuclearWizard: My proposed version is "armed takeover" instead of "military takeover". That's what we've been debating about! And I was not the one who removed "armed" it was NuclearWizard. And I didn't see any point in NuclearWizar's last relply. No we're not going to call them civilian combatants but rather Houthi militias and that in case we want to talk about Houthis but here we're talking about the nature of the takeover not Houthis. That's why I found NuclearWizard's point irrelevant so didn't even reply back but it is interesting that you take his reply as confirming your position! And I have already talked enough about why "armed" is more accurate. So I don't repeat over. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
And btw, I think even "armed takeover" comes at a partial compromise of facts. There's a reason this page is titled "Houthi takeover" not "Houthi armed takeover". Because not all the phases of the takeover was armed. It started out with protests and civilian occupation of Sanaa. Likewise, when NuclearWizard removed "armed" it must have been in recognition of this fact. And this also shows how "military takeover" is so off track! --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is badly named and moreover it is not necessary that it is precise. If you want to replace the term "military" with "armed" to deny the military aspect of these militias, knowing that part of the army helped them, I do not accept it. We will have to stop relaying a national novel about the Houthis. "military" must be written in one way or another. Nuke sought a compromise without defending it. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought precision and accuracy are what we aim at in an encyclopedia! And do you have a reliable source saying that part of the military actively helped them in the armed takeover? The lead says: On 21 September, as the Houthis took control of Sana'a, the Yemeni Army did not formally intervene, other than troops affiliated with General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Al-Islah Party.[13][14] The troops named here were in fact enemies of Houthis and on the side of the government. Houthis did it on their own, and the only help they got from one part of the military was that they stood by and did nothing! So again, "armed takeover" is accurate. I will just restore that. This has been too much talk over the obvious! --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence. For starters, Al-Ahmar is a founding member of the People's General Congress, and sources in Arabic say Zaydite as Saleh. Unless Saleh and Ahmar occur in a Zaydi family and have changed their religion after the end of the Imamate. For the rest, Saleh's troops let the armed Houthis take control of the institutions and are posted with them. And the Houthis are an armed military force and not an ethnic group or tribe. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

But during the takeover Ahmar's forces clashed with the Houthis. Houthis are both a tribe and an armed group and still much more than than that! Read Houthis#Motives and Objective/Activism and tactics/Governance. They are a politico-cultural-religious-militia movement. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
So if Ahmar fought them, they too were armed. Afterwards, the article describes them as an armed group. We are in the same situation as the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order in Iraq, but that does not prevent that in Sanaa they were armed. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@NuclearWizard: what do you think about this ? I think military is better but I wait your point of view. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You're just going into circles! No one is denying that they were armed but that they are not a military but rather a militia! Is that so difficult to understand?! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you do not master the vocabulary of war. A militia is very military in view of its operations and its arsenal. For pro-Saleh troops who have posted themselves with them, this is proof too. You only have to read the analyzes on the role of Saleh from 2014. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
He is correct. "Militia takeover" just doesn't sound right. Nuke (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: And military takeover ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It sounds better, but I think just "takeover" will work fine. The article should discuss both military and activist components of the takeover regardless. Nuke (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: But you are against against "armed takeover" which is a compromise accepted by EOL? But for you, what is better between "armed" and "military"? For my part, I think that the word "takeover" alone does not mean anything. In "other conflicts I often see" "military takeover". Otherwise I think we should also add in the title a link to Saleh. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if it'll resolve the dispute, just call it an armed takeover, despite its peaceful components. I'm neutral on this. Nuke (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@NuclearWizard: and for the title ? @Expectant of Light: I accept the compromise. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it should be left it as is. Calling it a revolution or a coup would be a POV concern. Nuke (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard:In fact, the title suggests that only the Houthis participated in the operation, while there are also Saleh's supporters. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The title is fine. The protests and the takeover were actively organized by the Houthis. Saleh forces didn't have a central role. The reliable sources also attribute it to the Houthis. And just like Nuclear, I think "takeover" alone was fine. "Armed takeover" masks the peaceful phases of the development. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Expectant of Light: Nuke is neutral about the word "armed". And he accepted it if it permit to end the conflict. I accept it too. And you have accepted it. For the Saleh's implication, see here : "Saleh's recent defection from the rebel camp and now his death shattered the alliance that had helped the Iranian-backed rebels, known as Houthis, rise to power in 2014 ". In political science, the term "takeover" alone is not precise and does not mean great choice. After, say that a group that enters armed with rifles and tanks in Sanaa as peaceful is a POV. We will not say that the Americans were peaceful during the battle of Baghdad (2003) on the pretext that the Iraqis surrendered and defected against Saddam Hussein. @NuclearWizard: I suggests a title styled as "2014–15 takeover in Yemen". --Panam2014 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You're just pushing your own POV against the reliable sources and the long-standing consensus. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Just go for it, the source I gave is a reliable source, and your denial will not change anything. But given your comments elsewhere on the pages where you tried to promote a theory relayed by the Houthis, I'm not surprised. And you allow yourself to reject a compromise that you accepted yesterday. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm still committed to the compromise I accepted. But the source you provided doesn't suggest anything beyond their general alliance during the takeover. It it not specific on the nature of Saleh's contribution to the takeover. And the sources that I have read, don't suggest any active armed contribution by Saleh forces but rather they say it was Houthis who led the charge and called for protests in which GPC members also took part. And it was the Houthis who took over government buildings to force concessions on Hadi. Read the Background and Events sections. --14:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expectant of Light (talkcontribs)
@Expectant of Light: But when we are allies during a "takeover", it means that they participated. Then Saleh confirmed the alliance but without saying more. You are not going to say that Saleh's troops have not actively helped the Houthis for 3 years. Finally, I refer you to the infobox which is "Infobox military conflict" not "Infobox civil conflict". I wait Nuke's opinion. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You can't decide the content of the page based on conjecture or speculation. You have to have reliable sources saying what you say and in this case reliable sources as well as the long-standing consensus confirm what I say because I have developed my own understanding of the developments from the sources not my personal speculations. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light:The source I gave summarizes everything. We have different interpretations, we should ask the others. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Past/present tense in the Background section[edit]

A few claims are made in the background section in the present tense, such as "Yemen has among the highest levels of energy subsidies in the region" and "fuel subsidies are among the few widely available social goods in Yemen". However, since the section also talks about the removal of these subsidies in 2014 (not to mention the ongoing civil war), I'm pretty sure these statements are no longer valid and ought to be in past tense. However, I'm not an expert in the topic at all, so I'm posting here to see whether this is an oversight that should be fixed or whether there is a reason to keep these statements in present tense.

Thank you. --CMV512 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I now made the changes I saw as necessary. --CMV512 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)