Talk:Red Sea crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2023

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) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Houthi movement and the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – "Involvement" implies a strong implication by the Houthis in the war, however all that's happened is that they've attacked Israel with drones and missiles. Which is quite minor. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It is, however, politically significant. They are a member of the Axis of Resistance, and have explicitly declared themselves a belligerent. The Houthi intervention also led to the first instance of space warfare [1] - again significant. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - There's either peace or an involvement. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Because they shoot missiles and attack Israel with drones and Houthi leaders gave statement about that, it is already "involvement", although it seems to be minor. 180.80.23.65 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

Add to Events sections

On 24, November, An Israeli-owned ship was targeted in suspected Houthi/Iranian attack in Indian Ocean.

Reference:

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-ship-drone-attack-symi-39929cae42a191b2f242896a053123a7 Sam6897 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The attack has been added. Thanks David O. Johnson (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Houthi movement or Yemen (SPC) in infobox?

Should the "infobox" section Refer to the Houthis as: Yemen (SPC) as seen in the Yemeni civil war (2014–present) article? Abo Yemen✉ 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war
Part of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait
Date 19 October 2023 – present Location Israel, Red Sea, airspace of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt Status Ongoing
Belligerents
Yemen (SPC) Republic of Yemen Armed Forces (pro-Houthi faction) Houthi Fighters	Israel United States France United Kingdom Saudi Arabia
Commanders and leaders
Mahdi al-Mashat Abdul-Malik al-Houthi Abdel-Aziz bin Habtour Mohamed al-Atifi	Benjamin Netanyahu Benny Gantz Yoav Gallant Herzi Halevi Joe Biden Lloyd Austin Emmanuel Macron Rishi Sunak Salman bin Abdulaziz
Units involved
Yemeni Navy Yemen Air Force and Air Defence	Israeli Air Force Royal Saudi Air Force
Strength
Unclear (see Houthi armed strength)	1 Sa'ar 6-class corvette 3 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 1 FREMM multipurpose frigate 1 Type 45 destroyer
Casualties and losses
Unclear	1 MQ-9 Reaper drone shot down
Six Egyptian civilians wounded
One cargo ship seized by the Houthis and 25 crewmembers remain captured; another ship was captured, released the same day and 22 crewmembers were freed

The Houthis have been doing these attacks under the name of the Yemeni Armed Forces and news outlets like Aljazeera referred to the attacks being made by Yemen [2]

My proposal is seen on the right

Tagging some users who might be interested in participating: @David O. Johnson @L.Willms @Eladkarmel @Mr.User200 Abo Yemen✉ 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Houthi movement. I think Yemen (SPC) would be confusing to the reader. Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think so as it appears in the Yemeni civil war article and as far as i'm aware no one got confused Abo Yemen✉ 10:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree: The Yemen civil war is complicated and from what I understand the Houthi is against Yemen. I think it should only say Houthi. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. Needs to be made consistent with the other article, but perhaps we should change both to something like "Yemen (Houthi movement)", since a lot of media refers to them as one and the same and some argue they are already de facto won the war and/or governing Yemen. They certainly control the region bordering the Red Sea. [3] [4] FelipeFritschF (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen

I don't know what "(SPC)" should mean.

Any way, there should not be a confusion of "Houthis" as a political movement (with an ethnic base) on the one hand and the government ot the state Yemen, with its seat in Yemen's capital Sana'a, oe even the state called Yemen as such. L.Willms (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The houthis operate under SPC. The houthi movement is no longer a bunch of fighters trying to control yemen but have evolved over the 9 years of war in yemen. The houthis have a complete army at this point and we should recognise that in the article Abo Yemen✉ 10:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot), requires prior knowledge, otherwise readers will have to lookup the meaning of "Yemen (SPC)". Can have it in the body, however it's not necessary to jam everything on this green earth into an infobox. TarnishedPath^talk 14:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Is this just the Houthis and their armed wing, or are the armed forces of the SPC involved? Statements on behalf of the government (not just the Houthis) would be helpful. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Mikrobølgeovn the SPC is basically the houthi government in Sana'a and their military wing is the armed forces (forces loyal to the houthi movement) Abo Yemen✉ 18:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The armed wing of the Houthis predates the SPC. Have the Houthis specifically relabeled their armed wing as the Republic of Yemen Armed Forces? Alternatively, has it been integrated into said military, or vice versa? (I am not too knowledgeable about this, so excuse my uneducated questions.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn when the houthis captured Sana'a they made major changes there like making their armed wings be the armed forces of Yemen it self and creating a political council (the SPC) which joins the major political party in yemen and governing the northern part of yemen under it, they basically are trying to make themselves seem like the legitimate government of yemen and not the presidential leadership council (PLC). Abo Yemen✉ 18:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If this is accurate, I'm not opposed to a revised version of your proposed infobox. Given that the Houthis control most of former North Yemen and its government, it is indeed problematic to portray them simply as another armed group. There are effectively two Yemeni governments, and we should be able to depict that without getting political about it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn exactly. The houthi movement is no longer just a small armed group but rather a complete government with an army Abo Yemen✉ 08:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think on the for the Houthi side it should say something like (Yemen.flag) Supreme Political Council. The article on Yemen talks about the Presidential Leadership Council is the main Yemen government. If we do have a belligerent say (Yemen.flag) Yemen, we should put Yemen with the US. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Houthis widely referred separately than Yemen. International Media usually specifically points houthi rather than yemen. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Manufacturing explosion sentence

"In a speech at a manufacturing exposition following the incident of 27 October, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi urged all parties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas War to respect Egypt's sovereignty, and emphasized that the Egyptian Army was able to protect the country in case of any more attacks."

Unclear that this is directly related to the subject, especially since retrieved 10/28. Drsruli (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I replaced the ref; hopefully the linkage is more clear. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it’s better now, thanks. Drsruli (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not the Houthi political party, but the Yemenite government, its state

It is ridiculous to blame a single party for actions done by the state of Yemen thru its government. L.Willms (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Houthi rule on Yemen is not internationally recognized plus they don't control all of yemen for example Southern Transitional Council control many areas in the south and the internationally reognized government didn't attack israel.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The houthi government acts in the name of the "Yemeni Government" or as in this case:"Yemeni Armed Forces". Comparing it to the STC doesn't make any sense as they did not establish their "state" and as of april 2022 have been a part of the allimi internationally recognised government Abo Yemen✉ 16:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents in the infobox

I believe it is misleading to simply list Saudi Arabia and Israel together, as all the Saudis really did was shoot down a missile that crossed its territory. Switzerland shot down 11 German fighter planes during the Battle of France; it is still not considered a belligerent, and rightly so. How about we make a separate column for Saudi Arabia (and any other country that happens to end up in the crossfire)? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. The KSA is not a cobelligrent of Israel. The fact they shot down a missile doesn't mean they are fighting Houthis in behalf of Isarel. Also there is a Ceasefire on Yemen as now. Mr.User200 (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

And please dont revert my edit unless a concenssus is reached. I have seen one editor reverting the good faith edits made by two fellow users, with me and the OP we have a four to one difference.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Now that the US is building a multinational task force, I think we should remove Saudi as a belligerent unless it actually joins this coalition. It is really absurd to list Saudi Arabia as a belligerent for simply having casually defended its airspace. (Picture this: The Taliban sends a missile in support of Hamas. It crosses Iranian airspace, where it is shot down. Iran is now listed as an ally of Israel.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the intro describe the Houthis as an "Iranian proxy militia"?:

The wording is used in this New York Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/world/middleeast/iran-israel-houthis.html David O. Johnson (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

but it has been denied by the houthis and iran themselves Abo Yemen✉ 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

CMA CGM Symi

This article is about the Houthi/Yemen involvement, and the table is of attacks in the Red Sea. So it is not clear why it includes the attack on CMA CGM Symi, in the India Ocean (on track between Jebel Ali, UAE and Malaysia, nowhere at all near the Red Sea). The only suspect named in the refs has been the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Has any serious source claimed that there was any Houthi involvement? Davidships (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Add December 16 engagement to timeline

According to US Central Command, USS CARNEY took down 14 drones on December 16 2023. This should be added to the "Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea" section.

Source: https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/1736035863849824595 128.244.11.5 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

...and added to the "Casualties & Losses" tally, along with all the other cited shoot-downs of Yemeni missiles and drones. Davidships (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Mv saibaba

mv saibaba is a Gabon flagged oil tanker not an indian flagged so the flag should change to that of the country of gabon 2409:40F3:1000:4E5C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2023

2409:40F3:1000:4E5C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2023 (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. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

23 December attack

This one was 200nm of india:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war

©Geni (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Anything to do with Yemen/Houthis? Perhaps time to change the article title? Davidships (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)?

Probably better to just not include here it now the speculation at least is pointing towards iran directly its a separate topic.©Geni (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2023 attack on the Chem Pluto into Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war

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.

---

Looks like another in the long list of attacks on merchant shipping with little long term significance that would distinguish this from the numerous similar incidents. Probably fails WP:EVENT and does not warrant a standalone article. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Attack was not caused by Houthi, but by Iran. Merging to the Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war makes 0 sense since Houthi had no involvement in the event. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:01, 25 December 2023 (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.

"Israeli-linked" Chem Pluto, etc.

I've been tracking down the nature of the various Israeli links (or lack thereof). Some of the ships deserve their own articles, whereas others only subsections in their respective shipping company articles. I'll add the one-way drone attack on the Chem Pluto (the U.S. directly accused Iran, viz. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-67811929 approximately 200 NM (370 km) south-west of the city of Veraval, Indian, in the eastern Indian Ocean. Check the map if you don't know how Indian Ocean geography works... I'll add these deets later so as to not lose the forest for the trees. kencf0618 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the Houthis, and therefore this article. - Davidships (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Space warfare category

I re-added the space warfare category, per this Telegraph ref mentioned in the article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/04/how-israel-shot-down-ballistic-missile-in-space-houthis/ David O. Johnson (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem - sorry I missed that in the article. - Davidships (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge from Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks

That article, which began exclusively about the attacks on the 27th, has expanded to cover essentially the same scope as this newer article. They should be merged; I've included here all of the material from that article, and left a note on the talk page there. If there are no concerns I'll merge histories into this title. – SJ + 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No concerns here. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks should be merged with this article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

agreed RamHez (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support I incite users to carry out the merge already per WP:BOLD. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. Longhornsg (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• 'Merge. It's directly related and size wise it's not going to be too large. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Abstain. On one hand, merging would be a good idea since the drone attacks are part of this article's topic. But on the other hand, the drone attacks are a separate attack from this article's main focus, which makes me want to oppose the merge. So I'm abstaining until enough points are made.Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The Houthi attacks on Egyptian sites are probably motivated by an aim to hit Israel, but are essentially a spillover of the Houthi-Israeli conflict and not a separate incident (two incidents). Do pass notability guideline. In case those would be the only two events in this war, we may reconsider this, but otherwise WP:CRYSTALBALL not to merge them.GreyShark (dibra) 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Agree with points made. Ultimograph5 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment - This article's content has already been merged in the Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article and there is no point for this article to exist Abo Yemen✉ 18:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Support As per the reasons above. Rager7 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Converted to a redirect, the content seems to have been merged. David O. Johnson you made the last edit on the other page, anything missing? – SJ + 17:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks to be in place. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

Deployed forces for the United Kingdom should be:

HMS Diamond HMS Lancaster HMS Richmond 2A02:C7C:DAE5:6900:2DF1:54F4:F135:E02D (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2024 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Should Iran be added in the info box, as a supporter of the Houthis?

Seeing as Iran is arming and supplying the Houthi movement, as well as politically (and potentially even militarily) supporting their attacks on commercial ships, there is the possibility that adding Iran as a supporter of the Houthis in this conflict, is warranted. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - It has been denied by both the Houthis and Iran Abo Yemen✉ 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Maersk Hangzhou; Table(s);

I have attempted several times to update Maersk Hangzhou, but my edits don't show up in the review - behavior which is new to me. This engagment generated the first known casualities in this theater, so it's not a minor matter. Nonetheless I am going to start a 2024 table. I am inclined to WP:Bold and get rid of the wall-o'-text except for the necessary background and context so we can get back to our timeline roots. kencf0618 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Upon reflection, and given the most recent Houthi swarm attack, I have decided to split off the timeline. kencf0618 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect information

I am unable to edit the article, but there is a mistake that needs to be corrected please.

Currently, in reference to the Norwegian ship called the Strinda, the article states that:

The Houthi attack on the Strinda was an expansion of its series of attacks against maritime shipping in the strait; the Houthis began to attack commercial vessels without any discernible tie to Israel

However, according to The Guardian, their owners:

acknowledged a tentative Israeli port call scheduled for January, details it had not offered in the immediate hours after the attack in the Red Sea. “Upon the recommendation of our security advisers, it was decided to withhold this information until the vessel and her crew were in safe waters,” the company said in a statement.

So it is untrue that this was an expansion of the Houthis' targets.

Article: [5] 81.129.201.199 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Massive bombing have started, edit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4983:7940:8973:74F6:E499:FB77 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

International legality of Houthi attacks

Can it be mentioned somewhere in the article why the Houthis say it's legal for them to attack ships in the Red Sea, and on the other hand, what laws and arrangements are in the Red Sea that would make it illegal? Do Houthis have some kind of jurisdiction in that location that they think gives them the right to do it? It's being discussed in the UN - what are the legal aspects?Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Circular internal reference removal

Under the heading "January 2024", there's the following internal reference: "Main article: 2024 Yemen airstrikes". It became circular: it refers to an article that now circles back to that same page. It should be removed. P4p5 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I adjusted the link to avoid a redirect. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Navy seal disappearance.

@David O. Johnson I found a source which states this did happen not just off the coast of somalia, but in the Gulf of Aden: https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-navy-seals-missing-off-somalia-coast-nighttime/story?id=106352086

"The officials said that the SEALs had fallen into the water one after the other during the boarding of a vessel by boat in the Gulf of Aden."

This indicates that, despite the wording of being off the coast of somalia, that there is a relation to Yemen. May it be added now? Genabab (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in that skeleton report to suggest it was to do with the Houthi's, or Somali piracy, or something else. - Davidships (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Davidships It being a mission in the Gulf of Aden would suggest that, no? Genabab (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My assumption would be as valueless as yours. This is WP and we only include what can be reliably referenced. So kindly wait. - Davidships (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Not against Houthies but because of Iran. Two US Navy Seals missing off Somalia in mission to intercept Iranian weapons. Mr.User200 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

According to this article [6], the weapons were headed to the Houthis. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Good. That's what was needed. - Davidships (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean

There are two problems with this section. Firstly, there is considerable random duplication between the tabular section and the prose content, which isn't helpful to the reader. Secondly, there are some entries which do not belong in this article at all, since they didn't have Houthi involvement, but do not have an obvious alternative destination. I am not sure what is the best solution - perhaps to spin off the detailed ship attacks into a separate article, with a slightly broader compass like "Attacks on shipping in the Israel–Hamas war", with an better structure for presenting the content, and leaving a summary section in this Houthi-related article. Any thoughts? - Davidships (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't need the table and prose; it should be one or the other. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: add charts showing amount of shipping traffic etc. Sourced properly of course. Some are shown here (not source), also relevant for Covid and the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction (Ever Given). TGCP (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

1RR

There have been many violations of WP:1RR in the past day. This is a reminder that as an article covered by WP:ARBPIA it is under a 1RR restriction. Please be mindful of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that ARBPIA is not intended to cover the Iranian or Yemeni topics. Arab-Israeli conflict is not technically applying to the Iranian-Israeli proxy conflict, as no Arab state have so far declared war on Israel (Hamas is not recognized internationally as Palestinian state representative and neither is Houthi movement in Yemen). Actually, several Arab states are in the Red Sea coalition together with Israel's allies against Iran and its non-state proxies. ARBPIA needs to be radically modified to apply or a different sanctions tool to be utilized (like Iranian politics sanctions).GreyShark (dibra) 13:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is specifically about involvement in the Israel/Hamas war and is plainly covered by the sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ansar Allah are factually not involved in the Gaza War, except some statements and attempted missile/drone strikes on areas well outside of Israel-Hamas conflict area (Egypt, South Jordan, South Israel).GreyShark (dibra) 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that the title of this article includes "involvement in the Israel-Hamas war" it would be very bizzare for it to not be covered by ARBPIA. JM (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish there are quite a few ARBPIA EC violations below but I don't know if I can strike more than one without violating ARBPIA myself. Do you know if I can strike all the IPs etc myself, and if not, could you strike them instead? JM (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverting to enforce WP:ECR is exempt from edit warring restrictions. You can just remove the violations if they haven't been responded to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Info box

I was reading the Spanish wikipida and I think we should do the same think with the info box and have it say:

{Yemen_flag} Supreme Political Council

*Houthis movement

I think this would work the best as the we have two links for government of Yemen in the info box, the article for Yemen talks about the internal government, while there is another link for the SPC. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, the infobox cannot have a proliferation of duplicate, conflicting flags for the Yemeni side. Otherwise it strays into clear flag overuse, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This would dismiss the fact that the houthis have a central government and make them seem like a terrorist organisation which is against WP:NPOV Abo Yemen✉ 11:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that why we say “ Supreme Political Council” it would be the same as saying “Yemen government” but it would clarify what goverment. The page for Yemen is about the internationally recognized goverment. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The page for Yemen mentions both of them Abo Yemen✉ 18:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that the Houthis are recognized as a terrorist organization by many, many countries, it seems odd to claim that it's not a terrorist organization. JM (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The taliban is recognised as a terrorist organisation by everyone but it is the official government of afghanistan Abo Yemen✉ 07:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Iranian military presence in Yemen

According to U.S. and Middle Eastern officials, Iranian paramilitary force IRGC has deployed several of its personnel inside Yemen, who are actively involved in the attacks on commercial shipping and transfer of missiles to the country. (External link) Ecrusized (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Iran as a Beligerent in the infobox without the supported by section mean that they are fighting israel alongside with the houthi, which is not true Abo Yemen✉ 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this information deserves an "alleged" title. U.S. officials are as reliable as you can get on this since Iran always leaves plausible deniability to its foreign interventions. Ecrusized (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Alleged is not to be put in infobox per WP:ALLEGED. Iran's involvement is not alleged, but obvious per multiple sources: [7] and even prior to the current conflict [8].GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki Thoughts and Assistance Request

Hey y’all. So myself along with a couple of others, have been working on the Simple English Wikipedia counterpart to this article (Red Sea Crisis article) and I wanted to bring some inter-wiki thoughts here.

On Simple, there was a brief discussion that believes a more or less detailed background may be useful, including at least a mention of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and something about how Houthi came to power in Yemen.

Ok, I also wanted to see if any of y’all would take a look at the Simple English Wikipedia and see if you have any thoughts about ways it could be improved. Obviously, the two writing styles are different, but since Simple English Wikipedia is just basically a simplified version of this article, I wanted to extent and mention it as a way if any of y’all wanted to help out with a sister project; a very-closely related sister project.

Anyway, just some thoughts and comments to help improve this article as well as asking if y’all have thoughts for the sister-article. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Saudi Arabia to the list of commanders?

Why are numerous countries including India and Pakistan listed in the list of commanders but not Saudi Arabia? CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Pakistan Wrongly listed in Belligerents (on US side)

Please Remove Pakistan from the list of Belligerents (against Houthis).

As Pakistan Navy clearly states that deployment of ships in Arabian Sea region not aimed at helping any country against Houthis and this deployment is just for the protection of Pakistani merchant ships in Red Sea.

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/world/pak-navy-says-deployment-of-ships-in-arabian-sea-region-not-aimed-at-helping-any-country-against-houthis-2841096

اقبال کا شاہین (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan is de-facto in conflict with Iran now, and hence also with its proxies like to Ansar Allah.GreyShark (dibra) 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

But it is not in conflict with the Houthis. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2024

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: Consensus to move. I count 16 support !votes vs 7 opposed, and supporters cite valid arguments according to the article titles rules, such as WP:CONCISE, and common usage. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war → Red Sea crisis – Per [WP:COMMONNAME] according to these sources: Abo Yemen✉ 04:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• support --L.Willms (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• oppose - there were many other Red Sea crisis in history before, and this also is not the common name since other already uses "Houthi attacks":Wendylove (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could you show me one of the "many other Red Sea crisis in history before". "Houthi attacks" is not a conflict name; There have been hundreds of "Houthi attacks" since 2014 Abo Yemen✉ 05:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  But still many media cover this article as "Houthi attacks" according to Google search. I know this search cannot be sufficient, but I think this can be against for WP:COMMONNAME policy. Wendylove (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  For example, like this

  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]

  As this article follows, there is no common name for this conflict. And still, many media still call this conflict in various way. So, i think choosing Red Sea Crisis as title is quite anticipative. Wendylove (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom - with the airstrikes, this has expanded in scale past simply being a sub-theatre of the Israel-Hamas war, instead becoming its own crisis. The Kip 07:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  then how should we deal with Houthi's main purpose for this attack? Isn't this attack was to "Help the Palestines who fight against the Zionist regime" according to Houthi? I think airstrikes of Anglo-American airstrike is rather retaliation for attacking their allied countries ship. Wendylove (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  The declared Houthi purpose is an Iranian propaganda, unbound in reality of disrupting a major maritime route in violation of international maritime law.GreyShark (dibra) 13:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  The stated objective is one thing, but neither Israel nor Hamas is really involved on the ground (or the sea) in the Red Sea. Juxlos (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Not described as a crisis by any of the listed references. Ecrusized (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, My bad, was reading the references posted by user Wendylove. Ecrusized (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  The Guardian in the sources literally list is as “the Red Sea Crisis”. Juxlos (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Mind reading the article names? Abo Yemen✉ 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom and per RS. Curiously, a cursory lookup of "Red Sea crisis" for prior events give nothing – so congratulations to the Houthis for being the first. Juxlos (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, considering numerous reliable sources use the name. Applodion (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Terrorism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Yemen has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Red Sea crisis per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE (though this is certainly a spillover, Houthis are not directly involved in the Israel-Hamas War arena in Gaza).GreyShark (dibra) 13:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, Article name changed unilaterally without discussion, and was reverted back by another user. The current article title is correct. "Red Sea crisis" is vague. It could refer to any number of crises over the years, beginning with Moses parting the Red Sea. Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Show me a Red Sea crisis before this one Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.newspapers.com/article/calgary-herald-1984-red-sea-crisis/138574433/ Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.newspapers.com/article/formby-times-1904-red-sea-crisis/138574686/ Coretheapple (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's on the basis of a Newspapers.com word search, with quotes, and I just looked at the top results. However I think it's safe to assume that various contretemps have taken place in the Red Sea over the years. "Crisis" is a rather vague term, and of course in this instance we have a shooting war in what the Houthis themselves have described as a reaction to Gaza. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thats wayyy too old and way less notable than this one Abo Yemen✉ 15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Consider Timeline of the Red Sea Theater of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War cum Timeline of the Red Sea crisis. kencf0618 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that article was also changed after this article was changed wtihout discussion. The title of that article needs to be consistent with this one, not vice versa. I've asked the editor who changed that name to revert pending the outcome of this discussion Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support per reliable sources. In addition, the current title is excessively long and descriptive, we should opt for a title WP:CONCISE with a WP:COMMONNAME.--Fontaine347 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. – Hilst [talk] 13:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article has a much larger scope than the events in the Red Sea. If it were only Houthi attacks against shipping boats in the Red Sea, it could work. But this article discusses the totality of Houthi actions since the October 7 attacks, which have occurred not only in the Red Sea, but in the Sea of Aqaba, and over the land territories of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  An alternate idea: rename to Houthi invasion of Red Sea, just like what Russian did in Ukraine? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Houthi didn't invade the Red Sea, they just attack the ships on sea. Wendylove (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Weak support - My gut reaction was "this can't really be the definitive Red Sea crisis of all time, that's vague and a bit overblown" but I agree a lot of media has gone with that title. Something like Red Sea clashes (2023–present) would be my compromise proposal in the absence of consensus. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• support They've attacked non-Israeli ships, it is bigger then their involvement in Israeli Hamas conflict, their attempt to sabotaging world trade stream is due to Islamic tegime in Iran's conflict with USA. So these houthi attacks is way bigger then Israel's war. 3000MAX (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. – Hilst [talk] 13:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Longhornsg as a substantial part of the article is not about what is now more commonly described as the Red Sea Crisis, but the attempts to directly attack Israael. Since the tabular ship detail has been spun off, there is at present no need at all to split this article between those two aspects. - Davidships (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Longhornsg and Davidships. This article's scope extends beyond the interdiction and attacks on shipping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per nominator. That and it just sounds better. GWA88 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Regardless of what Houthi organs declare, by now the attacks on shipping have very little directly to do with Israel or Hamas. The proposed title avoids OR and potential POV and leaves room open for future developments (per WP:CRYSTAL, without predicting them — quite the contrary).

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Opinion If you see the map of the article now, the ship attack not only occurs in Red Sea but also in the Socotra Sea, which is part of Indian Ocean, not of Red Sea. Does this mean "Red Sea Crisis" cannot cover the whole attack of Houthi on the ship? Wendylove (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the socotra sea?? Abo Yemen✉ 12:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

[[13]] - Gulf of Aden, sorry for mistake. Wendylove (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support: per overwhelming WP:CONCISE case and the readily available naturally disambiguating title option to hand. The proposed is arguably a common name, but one way or another has infinitely greater currency than the current, user-generated descriptive one – one which is utterly lacking in pithiness. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

•Support

Honestly, for the sole reason that is sounds better. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. – Hilst [talk] 13:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. I can imagine readers searching for "Red Sea crisis". It's hard for me to imagine someone searching for "Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war". Related attacks in other areas could be covered as background or included in a relevant article about the Israel-Hamas war. The argument that there are other Red Sea Crises doesn't hold much weight unless they also have articles needing disambiguation. Ironic (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. – Hilst [talk] 13:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong support per WP:CONCISE. Altorespite 🌿 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. – Hilst [talk] 13:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong support this is not actually related to the Israel-Hamas war as it's primarily about shipping to unrelated to location (Houthis are firing on ships indiscriminately).Ergzay (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support I've always been skeptical of this title and with the recent airstrikes it's clear that it's gone beyond 'involvement in another war'. I am concerned with no year being included however, but haven't seen enough discussion one way or the other so that could be the basis of a second move discussion if deemed necessary. Yeoutie (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Admin note I have move-protected this article as it's currently on the main page. Only admins should move the page as the main page link should be updated simultaneously as per WP:MPNOREDIRECT. Schwede66 22:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Support because it makes it easier to cite as a hyperlink in other articles, and is the widely used name for the events in international media. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: current title unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article per WP:PRECISE. The proposed title would make the subject of the article more ambiguous, the change serves no positive purpose, and could be seen as a change in the actual topic.  // Timothy :: talk  13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I think one of the problems with how this conflict is being documented is the lack of understanding of the wider geopolitics of the Greater Middle East. The Red Sea crisis is almost completely interwinned with the Gaza - Israel war and the Iran - US war, and the normal situation in recent years has been the Houthi conflict to represent the Saudi - Persian war (i.e. they are not a new aspect to this conflict).

CollationoftheWilling (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISE; Houthis have been attacking a lot of ships not related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Semi-protected edit request

Under commanders and leaders, please add Ali Khamenei 2600:100C:A218:92ED:A8DD:B2DD:368B:41EF (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

'United States-Iran proxy war' should be changed to 'Iranian-American Proxy war,' it rolls better off the toung, and everyone knows what country the word 'American' with no prefaces is referring to. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to say "not done", but I also don't want to do it. The NYT source says "U.S." and "Iran". Also another source ([14]) for it doesn't say "American" but "U.S." Honestly, I think it should stay "United States-Iran proxy war" since sources seem to say "U.S." rather than "American" when mentioning the proxy war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hm...@Shadow311, the problem is that this user likely cannot establish such a consensus on this talk page, as they aren't extended-confirmed. Feature or bug, do you think? Valereee (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I replaced this with "proxy war between the United States and Iran". This conflict has been described as being many different proxy wars, depending on which nation's media is writing about it, I'm not sure US-Iran is appropriate for singular mention in the lead, but it doesn't need to be a Capitalized Phrase. – SJ + 20:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

About the title

As a participant of above debate, I think the title was going to maintain as Houthi involvement~. But suddenly, title was changed into current title, without any new discussion. Can anyone please explain what happened? Wendylove (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@웬디러비/Wendylove There was a discussion. See Talk:Red_Sea_crisis#Requested_move_12_January_2024. – robertsky (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You participated in it Abo Yemen✉ 12:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

there was no consensus to move those article, and there was quite opposite to those articles, and those who supported it for changing the name was struck. Where was consensus for this? And, there was no mention for "This article was agreed to move to "Red Crisis", so this is violating Wikipedia:Moving a page. Wendylove (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"supporters cite valid arguments according to the article titles rules, such as WP:CONCISE, and common usage" you did not Abo Yemen✉ 10:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Error Under "United States Air Force" In "Specific Units" on sidebar

The sidebar lists specific units used in the attack, but it lists F/A-18 Super Hornets under the United States Air Force, despite the F/A-18 being operated by the United States Navy, not the Air Force. [15][16] AirplaneEnjoyer (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No consensus?

Pinging @Abo Yemen. You've taken issue with consensus, and I'm assuming (since this is the only major thing to dispute) that it's related to the proxy conflicts that I mentioned in the infobox "part of" parameter. If anyone else wants to weigh in on this, it'd be much appreciated; I'm cool with whatever final verdict comes through. There's a discussion above concerning how this is indeed part of a proxy conflict with Iran, for reference. TheDoodbly (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about the addition of Yahya Saree in the infobox when he is just a spokesperson and not a military commander and why did you remove the Yemeni Navy (SPC faction) from the infobox? Also as i have mentioned, The addition of the Supreme Revolutionary Committee is irrelevant even if it is in a note Abo Yemen✉ 07:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Those specifically are fair points. I was actually going to activate the Units section and move some of the stuff inside there, but it looks like you took care of that already. TheDoodbly (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What about Yahya Saree? Abo Yemen✉ 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Just removed him a little while ago. TheDoodbly (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There are two separate Wikipedia articles about this topic titled “Red Sea Crisis

Hey guys there’s two competing articles for this topic called “Red Sea Crisis”. Maybe two articles should be merged? Here’s the link to the other

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea_crisis Jab1998 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually Jab1998, that is on Simple English Wikipedia, a sister-project to English Wikipedia. It is written in a way that anyone can understand, i.e. in Basic English. The main "target audience" of Simple English Wikipedia is kids, people learning English (not their first language) and adults with learning difficulties. Basically, imagine it as a "different language". No complex sentences or complex words. Hopefully that explains the difference and why there is two English Wikipedia articles on the Red Sea crisis. Also, just noting that I wrote a large portion of the Simple English Wikipedia article. If you have other questions about it, feel free to message me about it or check out the Simple English Wikipedia "About", which explains the sister-project in more detail. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Sorry I didn’t know there was a simple English version of Wikipedia Jab1998 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"North Korean Involvement"

I've had a (google translated) read of the single Korean source used to describe potential North Korean involvement in the Houthi attacks and it is pretty much entirely just a description of a Voice of America press release. Voice of America is widely regarded as a US-Government propaganada outlet (and thus not reliable as an only source); not only that, but I cannot find the original VoA report anywhere that the Korean source relies upon.

Is anyone able to find a more appropriate source, or at least track down the VoA report? If not I'm going to remove the segment and the mention in the infobox. CoconutOctopus talk 04:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done some more research into this and the only stuff I can find is a UN report from 2018 suggesting North Korea may be breaching sanctions by selling guns to various Islamist groups such as the Houthis. I can find some Israeli news reports in the Jersualem Post about supposed North Korean weapons found in Gaza by the IDF; which is of course not relevant to this article. As such I've been bold and removed any mention of North Korea from this article as it does not seem to have any reliable backing. If there is later consensus against this, or new sources emerge, it can be re-added if need be. CoconutOctopus talk 12:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

pinging @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, I really do not think a single Voice of America article is a reliable enough source to include this content in such a contentious article, especially in the infobox. The source itself doesn't even suggest North Korean involvement in the crisis to me, rather that the North Korean government has sold weapons to Iran which have passed to the Houthis. Is anyone else able to weigh in so we can get a consensus one way or another? CoconutOctopus talk 17:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition to this, I'm not sure that selling weapons to a group (which, I note, I cannot find any confirmation of; UN reports dating back years state that North Korea may be arming various groups such as the Houthis and Hamas but that could not confirm it, and the only "confirmation" is claims by the US and Israeli govs who obviously would have a vested interest in claiming such) would be sufficient to include as "supporting" in an infobox like this. There are no claims that North Korea are directly supporting the Houthis in their attacks on Red Sea shipping; in my view it would require more than this to be included. CoconutOctopus talk 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I had typed the name wrong; pinging @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd for courtesy. CoconutOctopus talk 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

VOA is sourced in many articles. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

VOA is also widely regarded as a propaganda outlet, and is described as a potentially unreliable source when dealing with facts. I don't believe it is reliable enough in this instance to cite in the infobox on such an article; I also don't really see the source itself as suggesting North Korea is "supporting" the Houthis in their attacks on shipping, rather that North Korea have sold weapons to the Houthis (amongst various groups). CoconutOctopus talk 21:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Pakistan's Navy involvement

replace at "On 7 January the Pakistan Navy deployed two Tughril-class frigates, PNS Tughril and Taimur in the Arabian Sea following "recent incidents of maritime security."" with and . Thank you. Tornadoboy7 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: Tornadoboy7, could you please quote which part of the article that supports the Tughril and the Taimur being deployed? The image in the article is about a naval exercise, not the Red Sea Crisis. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Backed by the USA and Iran

• Small Actors: Yemen and Israel

• Huge Actors: USA and Iran

Should be Reworded as:

• American backed Israel

vs

• Iranian backed Yemen

With Out the backing of the Super Nationd of USA and Iran, this long-distance conflict becomes quickly unsustainable. Both Israel and Yemen have no water or resources to start any conflict, they require external nourishmint.

ConnTroll (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"…also known as the US–Iran Proxy War…"

The lead sentence currently opens with, "The Red Sea crisis, also known as the United States–Iran proxy war […]"

There are sufficient citations to show that this is a US–Iran proxy war, but those citations do not show that this conflict is referred to as the US–Iran proxy war. This would be equivalent to the Vietnam War article opening with the sentence, "The Vietnam War, also known as the United States–Soviet Union proxy war…"

Unless this conflict is singularly a proxy war to the exclusion of any other conflict between the US (or its proxies) and Iran (or its proxies), this portion of the lead sentence does not make sense. The opening paragraph can and should talk about this being a proxy conflict, but it should. not say that "the US-Iran proxy war" is a common name for the conflict. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 02:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support: Yes, there are too many obscure title which seems to be uploading their own opinion, and which seems to be damaging the context of the title. Wendylove (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support: This article is about Houthi attacks on Israeli targets and ships in the Red Sea. In turn, the United States–Iran proxy war is a much broader event and precedes the Red Sea crisis. There are also attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria that are included in the United States–Iran proxy war.--Fontaine347 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the language, removing the "also known as" portion and instead placing this at the end of the introduction: "Action by the United States against Houthi targets is part of a proxy conflict between the United States and Iran." I preserved all of the citations for that as well. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

WeatherWriter, it looks as though you reverted the contribution that some myself and some other editors discussed. Did you look at this portion of the talk page? Do you have any additions or insights that you wanted to share? Your edit summary stated that one of the sources did call this crisis "the US-Iran proxy war", but that still is likely insufficient for establishing this as a common event name and does not really address what was discussed above. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoops. I had not seen this conversation. That said, the 2nd reference in that reference bundle is titled “US-Iran proxy war”, the NYT reference (1st in bundle) is titled “US and Iran wage proxy war”. Third reference in the bundle says “Iran's proxy war against the United States”. This CNN article (not in bundle) says “At the heart of today’s proxy conflict between Iran and the US are Yemen’s Houthi rebels”. One point to make is that the exact phrase (i.e. including a hyphen) is not needed at all on Wikipedia. For instance, the entire Chadian–Libyan War article does not have a single reference that uses “Chadian–Libyan War” for a title. In this instance, we do have a reference cited which actually uses that reference, plus a plethora of references saying Iran and US proxy war. The overall phrase should stay since RS uses it. I am ok if it is moved out of the first sentence, but I am opposed to a re-wording of it, since RS so say this is a proxy war between the US and Iran, meaning more or less an alt-name of the crisis. Basically, I am not opposed if it is moved, but it should stay “United States–Iran proxy war”, not being reworded. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you sharing your reasoning! Unfortunately, I am not able to check the NYT reference as it is paywalled, but the CFR source, Atlantic Council source, and linked CNN article say the following (emphasis mine):

CFR: "This proxy war between Iran, and the U.S., and its allies has been going on for years as you know, Bob. And Iran, of course, is a main backer of Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also backs the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Iranian-linked groups, which have been targeting U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria. But the fighting has gotten a lot more intense since the start of the Gaza War. At the same time, all sides look like they're trying to avoid a direct confrontation. It's also not clear that that's possible to avoid, especially in a multi-front war. And this really is a multi-front war, and a time when passions are so intense."

Atlantic Council: "Moreover, in undertaking such a strategy, Washington will also send a meaningful message to other Iranian proxies about US willingness to use force in the region to protect not only itself but its allies and partners, as well. For Iran, the Houthis are probably their least important and least controllable proxy. As a result, they are also probably a good test case for Tehran of how the United States and allied countries would react to escalating attacks by other Iranian proxies in the region."

CNN: "At the heart of today’s proxy conflict between Iran and the US are Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who have been stepping up their strikes on ships in the Red Sea, saying they are revenge against Israel for its war in Gaza. The group is currently in control of northern Yemen, and was engaged in nearly eight years of fighting with a US-backed and Saudi-led coalition before a halt in fighting last year."

Those bolded phrases suggest that the linked sources are not using the phrase US–Iran proxy war as a substitute for the current crisis. Rather, they are saying—and this is what a number of other editors have said as well—that the US–Iran proxy war is not limited to the Red Sea crisis. That is to say, the Red Sea crisis is only one part of a larger proxy conflict, which 1) has been occurring since well before the October 7 attacks, 2) involves more proxies than the Houthis, and 3) takes place over a wider geographic area than the area around the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. This was my reasoning behind rephrasing the sentence to read, "Action by the United States against Houthi targets is part of a proxy conflict between the United States and Iran." --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 00:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there is still no resolution on whether this is an alternative name for the crisis, I've added Template:Lead rewrite to the page in hopes of generating further discussion. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Support: I agree that it does not make sense. This is an aspect of the broader proxy conflict between Iran and the United States (since the Iranian Revolution, for that matter), and not the proxy conflict itself. I believe it does deserve a mention in the lede and the infobox (i.e., "part of [insert conflict here]), but I've not seen this crisis itself being referred to as *the* proxy war. TheDoodbly (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that this discussion has been open for an extended period and the consensus of editors appears to have coalesced around this phrasing not being an alternate name for the conflict, I think that it's safe to remove the reference to this being called "the US-Iran proxy war" and instead use those citations as evidence that this crisis is part of a broader US-Iran proxy war. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Yahya Saree to left column of "Commanders and leaders" or not?

While de jure be a speakingman, there are some X posts indicated that this "speakingman" is also controlling drones and launch silos? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If all you have found are a few X posts (without even saying who wrote them) - and nothing in more reliable sources - I would think not. - Davidships (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

X is not a reliable source Abo Yemen✉ 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

@Mr.User200: I don't understand your revert here.[17] Are you suggesting that US-Houthi conflict is not a part of this article? If so, then the current 15 killed should also be removed as they were caused by US attacks. Ecrusized (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I think you misread the article, those 75+ killed are since 12 January, 2024 missile strikes in Yemen, not 7 October. Ecrusized (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed that. Left you a message at your talk.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

Hello Ecrusized, regarding some of your contributions I have doubts regarding the realibility of Sky News Arabia reporting of Houthi losses during the Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war. That Newschannel belongs to the Mansour bin Zaied Al-Nahyan, member of the UAE government, with clear antagonists views on the Houthis of Yemen, because of the current conflict. There are no other sources backing that number of losses mostly report from 15 aprox 12 but not as high as 64. Also there is no other source claiming 3 Iranians killed during the attacks. Could we consider that claim in the body of the article but not on the infoblox since mosrt media only report <20 killed?. Mr.User200 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I consider Sky News Arabia to be reliable when reporting on the number of Houthis killed. It is among the largest news agencies in the middle east. I would also like to ask @Chomik1129: opinion on this who thanked me for the reverted edit. Ecrusized (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you consider them reliable as a whole or reliable regarding the report of Houthi losses?. Did you know that one of the owners of the channel have been a staunch supporter of Israel, as noted by Reuters on 2012Mr.User200 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I consider it reliable when reporting Houthi casualties. " Did you know that one of the owners of the channel have been a staunch supporter of Israel, as noted by Reuters on 2012" I don't see how this discredits it as a news source. Ecrusized (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just wanted to chip in here after seeing this. I am inclined to agree with Mr.User200 for three reasons, all regarding the reliability of the information. First, if it is correct that the owner of the channel is a member of the UAE government, which is currently at war with the Houthis (ceasefire ongoing), then it makes it unreliable regarding any information on Houthi casualties. Second, similarily to the first, if another owner is also an Israel supporter, with whom the Houthis are also at war with at the moment, that makes the source doubly unreliable regarding Houthi casualties. Finally, if the information is reliable and/or notable enough, other more reliable sources would report on it (which I haven't seen at the moment). For now, it may be best to just mention the claim in the main body of the text and leave only information cited by RS in the infobox. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sky News Arabic is classified as a reliable source per WP:RSP. I originally came up with a solution due to this talk page discussion, which was a double casualty count (Houthis and Sky News Arabic). That version can be seen here. However, a few minutes ago, Abo Yemen removed that citing this discussion. Since we are debating whether a current RSP reliable source is actually, well, reliable enough to even mention (not use entirely, but as a pure mention), I feel we need to open an RfC on RSP about the status of Sky News Arabic's reliability. To be fair, I should note, the current consensus seems to be Houthi is more reliable than Sky News Arabic. So, to RSP we go! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Sky News Arabia should be reliable. Ecrusized (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Still no concensus. 2 vs 2.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: I don't understand your opposition to this. As other users have pointed out, Sky News Arabia is considered a RS. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that only 15 Houthis have been killed in the span of 300+ US airstrikes targeting critical infrastructure and missile launch points. I would assume the real figure to be in several hundreds. Ecrusized (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, your argument for not including 2 vs 2. This discussion is not a WP:VOTE. Ecrusized (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Would you support adding both estimates like "32–125 killed" with an inline note stating the lower estimate is per Houthis and the upper per Sky News Arabia? Ecrusized (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

An RfC should be opened Abo Yemen✉ 12:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to open one if you think its necessary. Ecrusized (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really experienced with that kind of stuff. Could you tell me where and how please? Abo Yemen✉ 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RFC. Ecrusized (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Specific Units

The USAF does not operate F/A-18s 73.225.67.247 (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Danish frigate january 2024

Probably just a typo "Denmark's frigate HDMS Iver Huitfeldt departed from the Kosor naval base" Danish frigate HDMS Iver Huitfeldt departed from the Korsør naval base Faunidhol (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it Chomik1129 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

War on Hamas vs War on Gaza vs War in Gaza

(New to this Wiki stuff, so forgive me if I'm not following procedure) I was reading up on this page and noticed the sentence "Houthis said they will not stop until Israel ceases its war on Hamas." But then the linked sources do not mention the Houthis saying anything about Hamas at all. They are quoted talking about Gaza. So I don't think the current text is accurate. I see it was previously phrased "war on Gaza" before this revision. I would recommend reverting this change, or accepting the revision author's suggested "War in Gaza", or something else more descriptive of what the Houthis demands actually are. Wavdl (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support: Sources state this is response to Gaza, not Hamas. It should be reworded. Ubiquitouslonging (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Add leaders of india in the commader section.

India is already a major belligerent. it has deployed 7-14 ships and has done around 250 checks recently and therefore i believe we need to add leaders of india in the commanders section.

One of those sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/india-deploys-unprecedented-naval-might-near-red-sea-rein-piracy-2024-01-31/ General Phoenix (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Add casualties from the strikes into Houthi-controlled Yemeni territory into this article's infobox

Add the deaths from the missile strikes into Houthi territory into this infobox, I have no idea why that is not already the case, considering those bombings are part of the Red Sea crisis. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It already is. If you are referring to the lack of a very large number (like 75+), then refer to the ongoing request for comment discussion related to Sky News Arabia as a source for the 75+ Houthis killed in airstrikes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 14:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing British assets, need to be added to 'Strength' box

Royal Navy:

Missing 2x Type 23 Frigates, in addition to the Type 45 deployed (HMS DIAMOND).

HMS RICHMOND - deployed Jan 2024 [1]. First known engagement 08/03/2024. [2]

HMS LANCASTER - is deployed both between Red Sea and Operation KIPION in the Persian and Indian Oceans. [3]

Royal Air Force:

2x Voyager KC2 [4]

---

[1] - https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2024/january/09/240109-richmond-heads-for-the-red-sea

[2] - https://www.forces.net/middle-east/hms-richmond-shoots-down-two-houthi-drones-sea-ceptor-missiles

[3] - https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2024/january/09/240109-richmond-heads-for-the-red-sea

[4] - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-on-air-strikes-against-houthi-military-targets-in-yemen--2 90.241.83.57 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chomik1129 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

Hezbollah is listed twice in the belligerents section (Underneath its flag), remove the second time. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chomik1129 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead 1st paragraph

The first paragraph of the lead does not indicate why the attacks by Houthis are conducted. Only in 4th paragraph, it is making reference to Israel related ships being targets. It would be much more encyclopedic to let the reader know why those attacks. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the lead. Your thoughts please. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

Move Pakistan (and ideally, other independents, if applicable) the "Combatant 3" infobox parameter. The cited source, Arab News, does not state the Pakistan Navy was deployed to fight the Houthis. Solblaze (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

do you mean delete india, pakistan, saudi arabia and egypt from the belligerents article? you may consider keeping india as has deployed 7-14 ships in the region yet i havent seen a single article about the others notably pakistan. General Phoenix (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan has deployed 5-7 warships to protect its ships against Houthi attacks as a Pakistani -bound ship MSC United VIII was attacked by Houthis so here's that

Egyptian Air Defense Forces have shot down multiple drones aimed at Israel

Saudi Air Defense Forces also shot down multiple Houthi drones

India has deployed 7-14 ships against Houthi attacks on commercial vessels

China has deployed 3 warships and 2 aerial assets to protect its shipping against Houthi attacks Waleed Ukranian (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

USAF F/A 18s

To my knowledge, the United States Air Force does not operate F/A-18s as stated in the infobox specific units section. 27.125.131.191 (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes hornets are operated by Navy as far as I know Waleed Ukranian (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In the same section, the USAF does not operate any E2C aircraft, and the number if aircraft is wrong. USS Eisenhower is is listed as deployed there, which has CVW-3 Embarked, which operates with 4 VFA squadrons with 10-12 F18 E/F aircraft, 1 VAQ squadron 4 F18 G aircraft, and a VAW squadron, with 4 to 5 aircraft, and in this case it's 4 aircraft based on being CVW-3 using an E2C squadron. CobaltRacer (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2024

In units Israeli Sa'ar 6 corvette is mentioned but not it's name in specific units, Following sources state that it's INS Magen which was deployed into red sea:

• https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1702393383-israeli-navy-successfully-deploys-saar-6-missile-ship-in-red-sea
• https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-hamas-latest-middle-east-live-updates-sky-news-blog-12978800?postid=6910786#liveblog-body
• https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/israeli-navys-saar-6-missile-ship-successfully-deployed-in-red-sea/
• https://themedialine.org/headlines/houthis-continue-attack-on-red-sea-ships-norwegian-tanker-hit-and-israel-deploys-new-saar-6-class-warship-to-the-region/#:~:text=As%20of%20Tuesday%2C%20the%20Israel,Navy%20in%20countering%20Houthi%20hostilities.
• https://www.jns.org/idf-announces-retrieval-of-bodies-of-an-abducted-civilian-and-one-soldier/

Following sources state that Sa'ar 5 class warship INS Hanit and INS Eilat has also been deployed to red sea

• https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2023/november/13732-israel-navy-deploys-sa-ar-5-class-corvette-ins-hanit-in-red-sea-against-yemeni-houthis.html
• https://essanews.com/israel-deploys-missile-corvettes-in-the-red-sea-amid-houthi-threat,6958457314379905a
• https://www.jewishpress.com/special-features/israel-at-war-iron-swords/idf-deploys-missile-boats-in-red-sea-following-houthi-attacks/2023/11/01/

Waleed Ukranian (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added INS Magen and INS Hanit to the infobox, but I didn't see anything mentioning INS Eilat in the sources you provided. Chomik1129 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems right I rechecked and you're right, moreover add F 35s and Arrow 3 for Israel in specific units

Source for F 35i Adir

• https://defence-blog.com/israel-shoots-down-houthi-drones-using-f-35i-adir-fighter-jets/

Source for Arrow 3

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-arrow-system-used-to-down-missile-from-red-sea-houthis-claim-uav-attack/
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/04/how-israel-shot-down-ballistic-missile-in-space-houthis/

Waleed Ukranian (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chomik1129 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Also a thing is In naval assets Add German Danish Belgian and Greek warships as they are given in specific units but not in naval assets and for Pakistan add 2 Zulfiquar class frigates, one oil replenishment vessel, one coastal tanker, and one Maritime Patrol vessel as they are present in specific units but not in Naval assets Waleed Ukranian (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I'm not sure if non-combat units go in that section, so I'll let someone else decide that. I did add the other frigates though.

Chomik1129 (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You removed the Tughril-class frigates but they are also deployed but not listed in specific units their names are PNS Taimur and PNS Tughril

• https://www.arabnews.pk/node/2437451/pakistan
• https://www.radio.gov.pk/01-12-2023/pakistan-navy-deploys-pns-tughril-to-ensure-safety-security-of-merchant-ships

China has also deployed warships in the red sea which are the guided-missile destroyer Jiaozuo, the missile frigate Xuchang and the comprehensive replenishment vessel Honghu and 2 helicopters, Sources :

• https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4874051-chinese-fleet-heads-red-sea-amid-rising-tensions
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/international/china-dispatches-46th-fleet-amid-red-sea-tensions-us-military-targets-houthi-threats/amp_videoshow/108019949.cms

Waleed Ukranian (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added the Chinese vessels and the PNS Tughril, but the sources you provided do not say that PNS Taimur entered the Red Sea. The Arab News source only shows her in an image dated back to February 2023, before the Red Sea crisis started, and does not mention her in the article itself. The other source you gave does not mention her at all. If you can find another reliable source that says she was deployed to the Red Sea, then I will add her to the infobox.

Chomik1129 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

See the timeline section of this article it's listed plus I live in Pakistan and I remember many news channels were reporting this

And Sri Lanka also deployed warship SLNS Gajabhau , it was proposed according to this article

• https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/why-is-sri-lanka-joining-us-led-patrols-in-the-red-sea/

And this interview also states it's been deployed, interview is on YouTube but it's cited in SNLS Gajabhau article, I can't send link here for some reason Waleed Ukranian (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim that PNS Taimur was deployed is unsourced. The source you provided says that SLNS Gajabahu is planned to be sent to the Red Sea, but does not say that she is actually there yet. YouTube is not a reliable source. (see WP:RSPYT) Please cite a reliable source that says either of these ships were sent to the Red Sea. Chomik1129 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's interview of a naval officer of Sri Lanka navy, anyways Iran has also deployed 2 ships MV Beshad which is intelligence gathering and directs Houthi attacks and Albortz which is a frigate.

Source:

• https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-december-22-2023
• https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2024/01/01/Iranian-warship-Alborz-enters-Red-Sea-amid-tensions-State-media

I also found a source indicating PNS Taimur is deployed

• https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/the-new-saviour-of-the-seas-indian-navy-makes-its-presence-felt-in-red-sea-amid-houthi-threats-13683322.html

Waleed Ukranian (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Talk page was archived. If you still want the requested edit to be made, make a new request on the articles current talk page. Shadow311 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

On the belligerents section of the infobox, put a colon next to Aspides for consistency's sake.

There are also 2 notes that aren't part of the notelist, resulting in 2 [a]s and 2 [b]s. Sticks out like a sore thumb, at least to me. Would be better off fixed. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chomik1129 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on RS

Should we count Sky News Arabia as a reliable source for articles related to the Yemeni crisis and the Israel-Hamas war? Abo Yemen✉ 09:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose based on some past reporting, but able to be convinced. Could you make an example of what article you would like to use? Additional considerations/generally not reliable some of their reporting and staff (linked below) have issues that indicate a lack of reliability, but a use in the case at hand is probably acceptable if consensus can be established (with attribution). As a rule of thumb, not to be used in any case where the owners or the reporters have potentially problematic views, usable with attribution otherwise (equivalent to a 3/2 vote on an RfC on the noticeboard).FortunateSons (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Support — Sky News, a UK-based, community consensus reliable source has partial ownership of Sky News Arabia (per info at WP:RSP). Their reporting seems to be reliable. As FortunateSons requested above for an example of an article to use on: actually this one (Red Sea crisis) or 2024 missile strikes in Yemen. For example, here, Sky News Arabia reported directly (“Our sources”) that 75 Houthis had been killed in US/UK airstrikes as of January 20, 2024. There has been a previous discussion {Talk:Red Sea crisis#Casualties}, about their death tolls/usage in Wikipedia (which it is currently not in usage), which I believe prompted this RFC. Nonetheless, due to community-consensus about partial ownership from Sky News, a reliable source, I support their reliability for usage on Red Sea crisis articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I’ll have to amend my vote, I think.

They had pretty problematic reporting and are technically independent on their editing, so I would not use them for anything directly related to Israel.

That being said, I believe it to be probably usable for the Red Sea crisis in this case (if you description is accurate, which I would assume it is). FortunateSons (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter and Hogo-2020 I'm afraid that we should really re-judge Skynews reliability, due to their so-called refuting that "Rubymar is not sank", which it really sanked yesterday. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Liuxinyu970226 – Just to note that one wrong report does not make a source unreliable. If it did, then every western outlet would be unreliable (including the Associated Press) over the Snake Island event during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also, the ship sank today per the U.S. military, not yesterday. Also, I am unsure where you see that Sky News Arabia reported it was not sunk. Sky News Arabia reported that the Rubymar sank today ([18] & [19]). So can you please provide a source where they reported the ship had not sunk? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter I only expressed concern about Skynews, which they really made a lie on Rubymar status. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(Replying to @Liuxinyu970226 due to ping) – The issue we have is, you have yet to link where the made a "false" report. Earlier, I linked (twice) where they made factually accurate reports about the Rubymar. If they really did make a factual report you need to link it here, otherwise your statement would be entirely baseless due to lack of evidence. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Support generally considered a reliable source, same as Sky News. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Due to Rubymar sank yesterday. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a valid point to say it is unreliable? What is your source? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter i think you are now coming in Wikipedia:BLUDGEON category! -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree. I did a single !vote and then replied to the comment I was pinged in (valid reply) and then a single question to the person who pinged me. In reality, excluding this right now, I have interacted with a single other editor, so no, I do not believe I have even come close to BLUDGEON territory. I shall keep that in mind going forward, but if I am further pinged or questioned, I shall continue to reply. If you disagree with my assessment, then feel free to take me to ANI on my next comment in this discussion. But, be ready to explain how reply to a ping would constitute BLUDGEONing, as that is why I would further reply in this discussion, with frankly, your ping is the only reason I even knew this discussion was still ongoing or was a thing, since I have done more than 50 edits since my previous comment and I am heading on a short trip prior to working on a GAN, which is in active GA. Actually, thinking about it, just don't ping me and you won't have to worry about potential BLUDEONing. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

if this guy gets blocked ill retire from editing Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

promises, promises 2603:6080:21F0:6140:C20:9EC9:8FE1:DA0D (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

you're challenging me? Abo Yemen✉ 04:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support, it isn't plausible that so many airstrikes aimed at strategic military targets killed only 32 Houthi rebels, for me the number 125+ is more than plausible Waleed Ukranian (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)