Talk:Houthi movement/Archive 3

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

RFC:Should we add Category: Antisemitism?

The consensus is to add Category:Antisemitism to the article.

Cunard (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Should we add Category:Antisemitism to the article?--SharabSalam (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • No the Houthis have been accused of Antisemitism, yet they have denied that per the category description, the category should not be used in people/organisations/groups who are allegedly anti-Semitic. The Houthis have rescued Jews from the Saudi war against Yemen. The slogan is a religious thing that is mentioned in the Quran, it is not selective. God has never cursed Pagans, only liars and Jews. The Houthis have said that they only have problem with Zionists

    Fadl Abu Taleb, a member of the Houthi Political Office in Sana’a, denied the Houthis had anything to do with the attack, and asserted under Houthi control Jews in Yemen would be able to live and operate freely as any other Yemeni citizen. “Our problems are with Zionism and the occupation of Palestine,” he said. “But Jews here have nothing to fear.”

Some Jews have also been reported fighting with the Houthis or at least with Ali Saleh at the time when he was allied with the Houthis see Video on YouTube shows Yemeni Jews rallying with Ali Saleh at the time he was an ally with Houthis. American, British sources are biased because they are part of the war.according to UN report. The Houthis have rescued Jews from American/British-backed coalition indiscriminate airstrikes.[1]--SharabSalam (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per reliables sources. Houthis opinion is not a reliable source but a communication or a primary source. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes categories are not restricted for the sake of political whitewashing. If a group that includes in its banner "Curse on the Jews" is not antisemitic, then I don't know what antisemitism is. Many reliable sources have reported harrasment of Yemenite Jews by the Houthis and call their banner or ideology clearely antisemitic.--Silveter (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes although I am not sure what benefit adding such category in this article will do, I am inclined to say that the slogan is in fact anti-Semitic. Cursing someone is not a normal thing to say and it is not acceptable specially if it targets a minority of people (Jews). The fact that the Jews are specifically targeted makes this a discriminatory statement imo. If it was something like (curse the transgressors) then yeah definitely there's no targeted group of people here. Also, I think the fact that multiple sources state that the Houthis are anti-Semitic is a good enough reason. I could be wrong tho!! Best wishes. Graull (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per sources I posted above. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes what part of "curse on the Jews" is unclear? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW No per the disclaimer at the top of [[Category:Antisemitism]] which says that the category must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic. Yes votes are inadvertently arguing against an 8 year old consensus about what this category is even for, and this isn't the forum to overturn that consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No Even though there are some antisemitic incidents of some of its members, the movement officially is only opposed to Zionism. Sefarat90 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefarat90 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sefarat90: please provides sources. Reliables sources said that Houthis are antisemitic. Any source said that there are not antisemitic. The Houthis opinion is not a reliable source. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No. There are a lot of strong feelings connected with the Zionist movement that has taken over Palestine and turned it into Israel. I suggest that those who are very critical of the Houthi movement may have taken sides on this issue, which is central to what's going on here. Jzsj (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jzsj: please read the sources. A movement could be both antizionist and antisemtic. And any source have rejected that Houthis are antisemitics. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. It is without question that the "Houthi movement" should be labelled an "anti-Semitic" - "anti-Jewish" movement, since their Arabic slogan calls out explicitly for the "death of Israel" and a "curse to Jews" - may God forbid. Nothing can be more explicit than this. Having spoken to Yemenite Jews in Israel who have recently come from Yemen, they strongly dislike what the Houthi movement stands for. In fact, anyone knowing a little bit about their history knows that the Jews who lived in villages near Sa'adah in the north of Yemen were forced to leave their homes and towns because of threats given to them by members of the Houthi movement. The remaining few Jews in that region of Yemen then moved to Sana'a where the late President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, gave to them a protected area in the city where they could live without fear of physical harm. Thanks, User:‪Panam2014‬, for calling my attention to this discussion. I was unaware of it until now. Best wishes.Davidbena (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

*No As far as i can see, only few sources charge the Houthis with antisemitism. The said sources are mainly Israeli medias. While Israel is a democracy and enjoys freedom of speech when it comes to medias, i would have appreciated to find independent third party sources for that antisemitism claim too. Thank you Panam2014 for drawing my attention here and sorry if i have to disagree with you about this matter. Wish you all a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations.

See also the discussion for deleting category Antisemitic organizations and Antisemitic people->Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#Category:Antisemitic organizations--SharabSalam (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The rationale in the RfCs is about BLP and libel. The Nazi party does no longer exist.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Not an arguement. It is the proof the category antisemitism or antisemtism in Yemen could be used for groups. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes As per numerous sources --Shrike (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per Cerebellum's sources. Ypatch (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Per multiple RS. The only source I can see that says otherwise is the one that says they deny it themselves, but that source does not say in its own voice that they are not. In fact I see no RS that use their own voice to say they are not antisemitic, and many RS that state in their own voice that they are. That seems sufficient to me. As to the quoted "most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations" I do not see any concrete language prohibiting it (and it is like 9 years old), I see "most", "general trend" and "incline" which all seem to suggest to me that exceptions certainly can be made with consensus and extensive RS. Also, the argument "it is a religious thing" doesn't really make sense to me. That seems like a plausible explanation as to why they are antisemitic, not proof that they aren't. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Also note that exceptions seem to have been made of other categories included in the quoted discussion (i.e. Jewish Defense League is included on the Anti-Arabism page, Lashkar-e-Taiba is included on the Anti-Hinduism page, etc. and numerous individuals appear on many of the pages). It would seem to me that that discussion is somewhat out of date, and perhaps not reflective of current consensus. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, per multiple RS, "curse the Jews", and a focus on US–Israel conspiracy theorizing.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 05:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
If their slogan is something, it's Anti-Judaism not Antisemitism.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Nope "curse the Jews" is clearly antisemitism, not Anti-Judaism. Note the focus on the people, vs the religion. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the Washington Post and New York Times are both stating this as a fact in their normal reporting, then it's a fact for our purposes unless and until a significant body of scholars dispute it. Martinthewriter (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. As has been amply demonstrated, we have solid WP:RS attesting to the mainstream nature of such categorisation. Denial by the party can be included briefly (per WP:WEIGHT) however, as with Azov Battalion as an example, this is not a pretext for editors failing to acknowledge documented mainstream facts/opinions as to whether the Houthis are anti a spectrum of ideologies/ethnicities/etc. It is our job to represent what sources tell us, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:PPOV perspectives. Incidentally, did someone submit this to the WP:ANRFC? Legobot has only just removed the RfC template as expired a couple of days ago here. I'm not going to close it per WP:SNOW myself, but I think it it's shrieking for just such a close. As for the WP:BLPVIO attempt at a defence... how much more desperate and lame do tactics have to become? Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I have a feeling that uninvolved editors would not support addition of such category. Until now all the editors who have voted were selectively pinged by the convassing.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That is categorically untrue. There are 13 "yes" votes, of which only 3 were from any of the 7 editors who were pinged (and that includes me, even though I did not realize I was pinged as it was directed at my Alt account which I no longer have access to, so really only 2 editors were potentially brought here by the ping). Even if you removed those votes, that would still leave 10 editors voting "yes" against only 3 who voted "no", not to mention the fact that none of the "no" votes rely on reliable sources for their position. 3 (or 2) out of 13 is not "all" by any stretch of the imagination. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
There are no reason to remove one of the 13 votes. And there are no canvassing despite canvassing is not a pertinent reason to ignore votes. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should, just pointing out that even if we did there would still be an overwhelming majority voting "yes" to refute the idea that "uninvolved editors would not support addition of such a category". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thread discussion

  • Before anyone starts splitting hairs over my vote that the Houthi's antisemitism is not "alleged" because we have RS, the result of the discussion linked in the disclaimer is pretty clear that the intent is to not include any groups or individuals in this category (alongside a dozen other bigotry-related categories), and that "alleged" is meant to cast a wider net for the prohibition, not to permit the inclusion groups who are confirmed to be antisemitic. In light of this, I find it rather silly that this has somehow been escalated to an RfC without anyone actually checking the category at issue. signed, Rosguill talk 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: please read the sources. Antisemtism is not alleged. It is clear per sources. The fact is Houthis reject the accusation is not enough to claim that it is only alleged. To say it, we should have some sources (not Houthi POV) that the movement is not antisemit. It is not the case here. For the "vote", the users have arguments, it is logical to count the opinions. You could not use WP:SNOW here. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Panam2014, please read my argument. It's clear that there is a consensus to not include groups in Category:Antisemitism, full stop. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: you have not the right to impose a full stop or a WP:SNOW. You have not a veto right. I have read your argument and there are enough sources to use the category. There are any consensus to not use this category for groups. It is used for lots of groups. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not imposing a veto, that's for an admin or for the closing editor. However, I do think that there is a clear prior consensus to not include groups, and am voting accordingly. As for "it is used for lots of groups": I see exactly one group in Category:Antisemitism, Fundamental Rights Agency, which is not even an antisemitic group, but rather a group that monitors antisemitism (although I question the validity of adding it to the category regardless). signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Panam2014, You are missing the point Panama as usual. It's clear that there is a consensus to not include groups in Category:Antisemitism, full stop.-SharabSalam (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: there are no consensus to not include groups in Category:Antisemitism. And a "full stop" is not an argument. Rosguill, you could only express your own opinion not using SNOW as argument. Also, Antisemtism is not used for others groups because more precise categories are used. "Antisemitism in Germany" for Nazi Party--Panam2014 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Panam. It's clearly anti-semitic per reliable sources. Nazis denied anti-Semitism too and they're included in that group. anti-Semitism in Yemen may be a better category, but it's clearly anti-semitic, not allegedly anti-Semitic. Graull (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Graull, We have reliable sources that says that the government of Saudi Arabia teaches Antisemitism. [2]. In Yemen Jews lived much better than in the Persian gulf nations. Yet we don't put Antisemitism in Education of Saudi Arabia that would be a vio of BLP and the consensus made in the category.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If there's a book that teaches anti-Semitism in Saudi them by all means include it in that category too. You're comparing apples to oranges. Education in Saudi Arabia =/= a political armed movement that says "curse to the Jews". Graull (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Graull please don't pretend that you can't indent. All religions curse each others. It's a curse nothing more nothing less and as the Houthi said: Jews has nothing to fear, only Zionists in Israel. Saudi books says that Jews want to take control of the world and that they control the world. Houthis are not that stupid; hence they don't say that. Let's put category Antisemitism in Ministry of Education (Saudi Arabia) if consensus in the category was to include organisations that would be funny.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what type of religion(s) you follow that allows cursing people, but certainly that's not a normal thing to say. Go ahead and include Saudi ministry as anti-Semitic, however I'm sure there will be inflicting information regarding including that information as it's not clear as saying "curse on the Jews" on a big flying banner.. in fact, if the Houthis took that from the Quran (I don't know where they got it from) that would make Islam an anti-Semitic religion. If funny is what you're going for, then go ahead and include that category in Islam page as well. That will be more funny. Graull (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Graull, I am a Sunni Muslim. The curse in Islam is not like what the word curse in English means. This is called Bara' (wikipedia doesnt have a prefect article about this but you can see this Tabarra). It means that we deny these people are following God. Judaism has something similar in Imprecatory Psalms. Christians debated in Najran with prophet Muhammad and then they both cursed those who lied. It is not towards Jews as a race, it is about those who follow false religion e.g Judaism. God told us to say "La'ant"(curse) against those who claim to follow God but they aren't. Its all about religion. No conspiracy theories as in the Saudi Arabian books, nothing of that. No, in Yemen people dont believe in nonsense. As I said Houthis themselves have rescued Jews and sent them to Israel and made a deal with israel to rescue them from the Saudi-UAE bombs that were targeting them.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Panam2014 please read: The result of the discussion was: Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations
This RfC is not going to overthrow the consensus made in the category.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: the RfC is going to overthrown the consensus only for this page. Also, because local categories contains antisemtic groups, so the disclaimer is not respected. And it should not be respected here. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"the disclaimer is not respected" and "it should not be respected here." – Well... I dont know about that but that doesnt change the fact that there is a consensus against the inclusion of the category. What you are saying is against the rules.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Also just in case you started to remove a category please read WP:Pointy first.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Starting over here, as the thread I originally started has veered to very different arguments I maintain that this RfC is out of process with respect to prior consensuses about the role of bigotry-related categories, as established here, building on a prior consensus specifically pertaining to antisemitism-related categories here, and I will continue to hold this position unless someone provides a link to a discussion overturning this consensus. I respectfully decline to remove SNOW from my vote as it reflects my opinion that this RfC is out of process; a closing editor is welcome to ignore it if they think I am wrong. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't aware of that prior discussion. But I don't accord it much weight, since apparently nobody is following it. Take a look at Category:Antisemitism in the United States - populated mostly by individual and organizations, and the category description says It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Semitic, only those that are provably so. That discussion is not reflected in any policy or guideline as far as I can tell, and it happened eight years ago, so I am content to ignore it. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hm, noted. I think I still agree with the prior consensus, in that I think categories like Category:Antisemitism should be primarily about articles that discuss the category topic, and not laundry lists of organizations and people (perhaps such categorizations should be moved to a recreated Category:Antisemitic organizations, etc.). That having been said, this RfC is not the place for me to make that argument, so I'll strike my vote above. signed, Rosguill talk 23:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This is basically other stuff exists argument. If we need to add Antisemitism category we need to get consensus in that category discussion. I agree with Rosguill that you cant lebal a group of people anti-Semites just because they are allegedly anti-Semites. We don't easily overthrow a consensus, otherwise, why would we even have to get consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
it's not really other stuff exists because the argument here is that there exists consensus in subcategories of the antisemitism category to allow the inclusion of groups, and that this consensus is roughly as strong as the one that I originally found to prohibit them. Moreover, Cerebellum is right that if there isn't an unambiguously clear consensus, and it's not codified into an actual guideline, it's fair game to ignore it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I will ask previous participants to the article. @UnequivocalAmbivalence, Iryna Harpy, Icewhiz, Calthinus, Ktrimi991, Wikaviani, and Jerome Charles Potts: do you have opinion about the RfC? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Openly canvassing, selective pings.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: stop now. I have clearly pinged the previous participants of the talk page. It is not forbidden. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
You have selected those who are usually anti-Houthi like Icewhiz, when was he here? I dont remember, its just because he is known of having pro-Israel opinions.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam:All people who I have pinged are from Talk:Houthi movement/Archive 2 (only socks and banned users haven't been pinged). Your opinion is complotist. Stop now. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, i've been pinged, however i have not contributed to the article, i merely posted a sarcastic comment now in Archive 2 about "reliable sources", namely AFP and Yahoo News, both of which i have a pretty good disdain for (and i'm French).
This looks like an interesting conversation, and after a quick glance, the answer that comes to me is: "it depends" ; here's a question : what is the intent of the "Antisemitism" category ? To enumerate all clear cases of antisemitism, or to bag all articles with any link to antisemitism, confirmed or simply suspected ? If the former, then, as SharabSalam wrote, WP is not a court, so, until the Houthis' antisemitism has been widely accepted, then, no ; if the latter, then that's OK, i suppose. (However, i can easily envision it the former.) WP:BLP comes to my mind too.
As for the content of the article, hopefully all of you know that a WP article should not pretend to hold the truth, but merely cite the influant currents of thought and opinions, by citing all sides of the discussion, so that the reader make their own mind. So if the Houthis have been accused of antisemitism by any group that matters, then go ahead and put it in, but if that has been objected or denied by another group, then that must be present in the presentation of facts in the article. In this case, the Houthis are "a group that matters".
Don't be dishonest, don't be sloppy, do a good job. If you are biased, then just ensure that your leaning is not missing from the article (but sourced), and accept that the others want their opinion in there too. Best of luck, and thanks. HTH —Jerome Potts (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: In your vote you asked for independent third-party sources for the antisemitism claim, here are a few sources that helped me make up my mind:

1) New York Times: "...Houthi militants, whose leaders have made anti-Semitism a central plank in their political platform."
2) Washington Post: "...the Yemeni group have used anti-Semitism as a rallying cry for over a decade."
3) Foreign Affairs: "The Houthis are anti-American, anti-Semitic, and increasingly anti-Sunni."
4) Tribes and Politics in Yemen: "Husayn [al-Houthi] used the expression 'brothers of monkeys and pigs' to in reference to Jews and, according to Dorlian, went as far as denying democracy in principle, if such democracy would guarantee citizenship to both Muslims and Jews on an equal basis."

Hope that helps! --Cerebellum (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Yeah, that helped a lot, thank you very much for your insight. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Silveter's comment was struck after the RfC was closed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia

I think it is clear that the strikes started after the Saudi invasion and the destruction caused by this mad war naturally provokes retaliation. Saudis had also took part in their repression back in 2004-onward, as per page. So it must be specified that these strikes are retaliatory. The sources often mention this see [3] and [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.125.41.217 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent disruptive moves

@Ingoman: Why are you moving the article without discussing on the talk page first? As you can see, we just discussed this in January and the consensus was to not move. If you think the consensus has changed since then you need to start a new movement discussion. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No I don't, the consensus was clear to me, we'll move the page to the correct name and stop paying attention to bot votes. You're probably paid to fight me on this but too bad. Ingoman (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2020

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

The result of the move request was: not moved; no support and opened by sock account of blocked editor. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Houthi movement → Ansar Allah (Yemen) – The page should be changed to match the Houthis' official name. Added correct symbols based on the IRGC ones. Boulevard of broken dreams (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose: Per WP:Common names. The movement is generally best known as "Houthis", "Houthi movement", etc. Furthermore, the flags / logos which were added are NOT confirmed to belong to the Houthi movement / Ansar Allah per the sources which were given. I have found various flags that are used by the Houthis, including the famous one with their logo, the Yemeni national flag, a white flag with red text, a red flag with white text, some green and black flags, and various Yemeni military flags / logos. I have never seen any photos / videos which show the alleged IRGC-like flags being used in Yemen. Perhgaps Iranian sources allege that the Houthis use these IRGC-like flags - despite them not being used in reality? Boulevard of broken dreams, could you provide a source that directly states that the IRGC-like flags belong to Ansar Allah (and I mean "directly states". If the article just shows the flag somewhere without saying to whom it belongs, that does not count). Applodion (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Opppose per Applodion. Houthi has about 9 million google results, Ansar Allah around 3 million. Al Jazeera and the BBC both use Houthi in their reporting. What sources say that Ansar Allah is the common name? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh great let's use the fucking BBC as the arbiter of what's factual. Why don't we just post a State Department press release as the article instead? Ingoman (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2020 (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.

Move page back to "Houthi movement"?

Let's start discussion on whether the page name should be "Houthi movement". I vote no. "Houthi" is semi pejorative and used only by their opponents. Neutrality of tone demands the official, non pejorative name of the organization be used over pejorative forms. Ingoman (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support move back. No consensus to move the page or 2019 Najran attack. These are clearly disruptive edits and POV-pushing, and since when terrorists have rights? © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 05:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Revert to Houthi movement per Tbhotch, though the comment about terrorists is unwarranted. This is primarily a question of WP:Common, and "Houthi movement" is the most common name by far. As comparison, the Viet Cong also had a different, official name, but the common name is simply better known and more often used. I will also move back the page, as the previous move discussion made clear where the consensus was. Applodion (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Terrorists? Now I know you're a spook, good thing the corrupt Wiki has your back on this, otherwise factual information might sneak through. Also yes it's ridiculous that the article is titled "Viet Cong", that is an excellent example of why this is bias towards State Department preferred nomenclature. Tbhotch has demonstrated his bias and ignorance and should be blocked from further edits. Ingoman (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The same person weaponizing the admin staff to accuse me of POV pushing just called this organization terrorists, who is POV pushing? Wouldn't want to upset those Saudi donors. Ingoman (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Source for Houthi leader and ideology

This is a good one https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/a-new-hezbollah-in-yemen/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.14.146.14 (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuba is incorrectly listed as an ally of the Houthis

The infobox lists Cuba as a state ally of the Houthis. This is incorrect; in fact, the opposite is true: Cuban officials have expressed support for President Hadi. (See: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170215-cuba-announces-support-for-yemens-president-hadi/.) The article cited in the infobox describes a joint press-conference between Cuban officials and Mansour Baggash. Mansour Baggash is not a Houthi official, but rather the deputy foreign minister for the Hadi administration (see: https://www.mofa-ye.org/Pages/994/). MenyaKazhetsa (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed Cuba. Applodion (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

US has not yet declared Houthi movement a terrorist organization

The United States has not yet designated the Houthi movement a terrorist organization. President Donald Trump has said he will do so and that it will take effect Jan. 19. It's premature to list this as having already happened, especially considering the uncertainty of Trump's final days as president. The Trump Administration faces objections to this planned designation, primarily because it could disrupt humanitarian aid to Yemen.

[1]

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriellen (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/936627548/trump-administration-moves-to-brand-houthis-in-yemen-a-terrorist-group?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

On US Designation of Houthis as Terrorists, the position of the Yemeni government was to welcome that designation, and calling for the International Community to hold the Houthis accountable for their crimes.

Source: https://www.arabnews.com/node/1790776/middle-east Dudisayshi (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. For instance, specify the exact phrase you want added and where in the article would this text be placed. Gaioa (T C L) 13:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Shadowwarrior8: Can you please stop removing the sourced content about Sunni support, Sunni allies and Sunni members of the Houthis? There are many reliable sources confirming them: "Disillusioned with the transition, many ordinary Yemenis - including Sunnis - supported the Houthis, and in late 2014 and early 2015 the rebels gradually took over the capital Sanaa." (BBC), "[a]lthough the Huthis have widespread support among the Zaydi community, the movement also contains Sunni Muslims, [which is why] some Zaydis have denounced the Huthi movement" (Canadian gov), "The Houthis also invoked the political vision and writings of Hussein al-Houthi, which reflected themes that appealed to Sunni followers of the Shafi’i school of Islamic law, such as Muslim unity, prophetic lineages, and opposition to corruption. This allowed the Houthis to mobilize not only northern Zaidis, but also inhabitants of predominantly Shafi’i areas." Carnegie MEC), "Houthis continue to focus on protecting the Zaydi region of north Yemen from state control. However, they have also forged coalitions with other groups – some of them Sunni – unhappy with Yemen’s persistent high unemployment and corruption" (PBS). This is pretty clear-cut. If you want, I can add even more sources. Btw, Hezbollah also has Sunni members and supporters despite being a Shia Islamist group (see the Lebanese Resistance Brigades, multifaith units under Hezbollah command). Applodion (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That BBC article only shows that Some Sunnis supported Houthis back in 2014-2015. As for that Canadian source, the text you quoted was in 2015. Look at the more recent source coming in 2017. "2.1 Treatment of Sunni Muslims In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a Research Fellow specializing in Arab and Islamic Affairs at the New America Foundation, a Washington, DC based think tank, provided the following:

Since the Huthis have effectively taken over the country, they have been suspicious of Sunnis. The group believes that those who do not swear allegiance to it are working with the Saudi-led coalition. As a result, Sunnis have been discriminated against. Though this has impacted their economic well-being, it has not resulted in a significant downturn in the services they have received vis-à-vis other groups in the country.

Sunnis face discrimination that those of the Zaydi persuasion to which the Huthis belong do not experience. This includes women. (Research Fellow 21 Sept. 2017)" Source:https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a09aa064.html

Look at what the PBS source quotes (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/who-are-yemens-houthis) "Some analysts blame their inability to access basic foodstuff on escalating conflict between two religious factions: the country’s Sunni Muslims and its Houthis." You use the quote "they have also forged coalitions with other groups – some of them Sunni – unhappy with Yemen’s persistent high unemployment and corruption" to make your own interpretation of it. Fact is the source that they quoted (https://www.mei.edu/publications/huthi-ascent-power) was dated to September 2014, prior to the sectarian strife and when all Yemenis had a broad non-sectarian protests against the government. And even if you check that source, it doesn't mention any "coalition forming" "Pretty clear-cut?" Its obvious that you have some bias in this issue. As for hezbollah, Idk why you mention Hezbollah's policies here. All I said is that it is Shiite Islamist like Houthis, and their policies (as you describe) is irrelevant here.

None of the sources you quoted describe any "Sunni membership" , just some coalition building before the civil war 6 years ago, and the ground reality is not what you describe. Second, Al Qaeda and Iran have strategic cooperation despite their sectarian differences. It doesn't make Al Qaeda a "non-sectarian" Pan-Islamist group. It is a sectarian Sunni Islamist group and almost all religio-political movements fall into sectarianism. Same goes for Houthis. You may have your political tastes or preferences, but Wikipedia is not that place to justify it. This is about facts & ground reality. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: The sources I quoted literally say that there are Sunni members (did you read the quotes? The carnegioe source say they have Sunni supporters in 2019)! In addition, a group can discriminate against a people and still recruit them. Nazi Germany recruited Russians as combat troops in WW2, while planning to murder most Russians. The "Treatment of Sunni Muslims" section in the refworld article makes it clear that this kind of contradictory situation exists in Yemen; it indeed tells us that "the Huthis have effectively taken over the country, they have been suspicious of Sunnis" but follows with "the Huthis are recruiting Yemenis of all faiths to fight for them". Fact is, reliable sources say that Sunnis were recruited, allied with, and have supported the Houthis. In fact, recent sources confirm that the Houthis still have non-Zayidi members: The source from 2020 says that the Houthi movement "is a predominantly Zaydi Shia revivalist political and insurgent movemen" - importantly "predominantly" not exclusively. Therefore, this has to included in the article, regardless of how you feel about it.
I propose the following: We include the fact that Sunnis have worked with the Houthis as members, allies, and supporters. However, we also make clear that the Sunni support for the Houthis greatly dimished after Saleh's death (which is mentioned, for example, by these articles: [5], [6]). We also include that the Houthis have discriminated against Sunnis. This would evenly present the situation, reflecting that both cooperation as well as enemity exist. Applodion (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Shadowwarrior8: I have made the changes. If you consider them insufficient, please let me know here on the talk page. Applodion (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Update on Houthi and the Jews of Yemen

On 28 March 2021, the Iranian-backed Houthi government deported all remaining Jews in Yemen except for 4 elderly community members who were too old or infirmed to be relocated [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/almost-all-remaining-jews-in-yemen-deported-saudi-media-663486

Suggesting some editing among "State allies"

Hello everybody,

I would like to suggest and discuss two possible edits in the "State allies" section. I would not label Iran as "alleged", because it's widely known that they are supporting the movement, and it has been confirmed by plenty of sources and not only those opposed to Iran and the Houthi movement. Also, Iran is the only country recognizing the Houthi as the legitimate governors of Yemen, and they have reciprocal ambassadors.

Then, I would suggest to remove Russia as confirmed ally. There isn't enough material to confirm a deep involvment of the Russians with the Houthi. On the contrary, Russia seems to have relations with all the main parties involved in the conflict, Houthi, Government and STC.

22Chev22 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Attacks on United Arab Emirates

At the very least I was hoping to find something in this article, but the attacks seem to warrant their own article or at least part of another article. I need something to link to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this looks serious. I can't believe no one has added it to Wikipedia. Or maybe it was done where i didn't see it. I added some basic information but have my doubts it is in the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Sunnism, really?!

I don't see how the sources provided in the infobox indicate that Houthis are ideologically anti-Sunni. Promoting Shia (Zaydi festivals) in a country where they have faced marginalization and were being taken over by Saudi-funded Salafi madrasas who hate Shias and Zaydis, looks more like a remedial policy not a defiance of Sunnis. Plus, they have been holding mawalid al-nabi which is cross-sectarian. Suspicion of some Sunnis due to political (not sectarian) reasons also doesn't correlate to "ideologically anti-Sunni". Don't forget Houthis were violently repressed since 2004 by the Saudi-funded, Saleh-allied Sunni al-Islah party, so grievances against Sunnis aligned with al-Islah or Saudi sound legit. And then you have all the testimonies that they are not ideologically anti-Sunni or sectarian. So to the very least anti-Sunnism is too controversial a feeble a charge to be in the infobox even when citing "alleged, denied" as a disclaimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.14.154.22 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Houthi movement → Ansar Allah (Yemen) – Most media outlets use the name Ansar Allah 142.112.227.192 (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Support, It's misleading. The movement even rejects the unofficial Houthi name. Prodrummer619 (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
We go by secondary English sources. What the movement calls itself is a primary source and would only be relevant if we didn't have reliable secondary English sources. And there are lots. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Whether you like it or not, "Houthi movement" or just "Houthis" is a million times more commonly used by scholars and newspapers than "Ansar Allah". The claim that "Most media outlets use the name Ansar Allah" is simply false - though not the best indicator, Google shows over 4 million hits for "Houthi" and just about 140,000 for "Ansar Allah"+"Yemen". Even the full phrase "Houthi movement" is more common with 165.000 hits. Using a better indicator gives the same results: "Houthi" and "Houthi movement" produce far more results than "Ansar Allah"+"Yemen" on Google Scholar, meaning that even the most reliable sources prefer Houthi. Applodion (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They absolutely do not. Houthi is the very clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Nom's rationale doesn't seem to be true... or perhaps they mean non-English sources, which are irrelevant here. No case to answer. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

State allies of the Houthis

I would like to suggest a correction to the state allies section where it is stated that, Eritrea is a state ally of the Houthis. This is untrue and actually the opposite of the truth. Eritrea is actually one of the states that contributed troops to the coalition (led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE) fighting against the Houthis/Ansar Allah. 197.156.86.203 (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Please show us your reliable source stating this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, Russia is stated as an ally of Houthi that is not true. The cited source itself names Russia as a mediator and also mentions that Russia has criticized Houthi bounteous times. This article as a whole is just another propaganda piece by Wikipedia, and that’s why it is locked. Tundakov (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, Russia is stated as an ally of Houthi that is not true. The cited source itself names Russia as a mediator and not ally of Houthi, and also mentions that Russia has accused Houthis of crimes numerous times. This article as a whole is just another pro-American propaganda piece by Wikipedia, and that’s why it is locked. By spreading outright lies in such articles and then locking them is proof that Wikipedia is a political disinformation tool, and not a reliable source. Tundakov (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

i dont know 2001:1C00:70F:7E00:CC9B:E25B:5890:C2F7 (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Picture demonstration

What do they have in the mouths? Or tooth decay? 217.110.112.214 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

They are chewing khat, a popular drug in Yemen. Applodion (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Houthis launched attack "on" Israel

I am confused. I thought that they launched rockets and missiles "towards" Israel as a show of aggression and not "on" Israel which implies the rockets actually landed on Israeli territory or atleast somehwere near it. Can we please be accurate in the language because it totally changes the implications I dont agree with this (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

including the overarching U.S.–Israeli conspiracy theory and Arab "collusion".[72][73]

The actual text is just U.S.–Israeli conspiracy, and as a US jew, well… 76.188.42.71 (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I also take issue with the overreaching term of "conspiracy theory" being used to describe politics based on, well, actual things that happen. Israeli lobby "donating" to American politicians is a real thing, not a figment of Jack Sparrow's imagination I dont agree with this (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

Please change "Cursed be the Jews" in the caption of the primary photo to "Curse the Jews" or, alternatively, "Damn the Jews".

The line from the Houthi slogan "Al-la'na 'ala al-yahud" is not properly translated in the caption to the primary photo. The English text currently reads "Cursed be the Jews" but this does not accurately capture the meaning. "Cursed be the Jews" implies that "Al-la'na 'ala al-yahud" is some kind of empirical observation about Jews, but "Al-la'na 'ala" is actually active, expressing/wishing a curse upon the Jewish people. The English translation should reflect this, as it already does in the article text itself in the second paragraph, where it is translated as "curse the Jews". Constitutionofmedina (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done "Cursed be the Jews" is not a statement of fact. Its meaning is "curse the Jews". The verb is a hortatory, or jussive, subjunctive. Maproom (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houthi_movement/Archive_3&oldid=1197396868"