Talk:Houthi movement

Name of the Article

Shouldn't we name this article: Al-Shabab al-Muminin, considering that's the groups official name and Houthis is just how they are referred to in the media?Kermanshahi (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because Al-Shabab Al-Muminin is a different movement and in fact the creator of that movement is against Ansarollah. However, I support changing the name of article to Ansarollah instead of Houthis because Houthis is actually a name of a tribe that lots of them aren't even in politics or related to Ansarollah movement its very odd to find a wikipedia article named not by the official name but by biased and offensive name to many tribes I suggest changing the name of article immediately, thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Are they really Zaidis or are they Twelvers?

Check http://www.shia.bs/articles/ehexeoc-uncovering-the-hidden-realities-of-hizbollah-part-5.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.139.28 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Houthis in Syrian Civil War

If Im not wrong, all the proof of Houthi involvement in that conflict is a single source. Need to improve that, otherwise that claimed involvement is dubious...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I totally agree that the claim is dubious. All the web sources claiming that Houthis fight or fought in Syria seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that we should delete the claim in all the pages where it appears (including Syrian Civil Car and others) until better sources show up. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr)--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious "Houthi Logo"

What is this logo that is kept being uploaded? I have removed it since it is not an official or trustable one. One source (a Christian Website) shows a graffiti on the wall of a Mosque (can be seen here) while the other displays a salesman selling a sign, which does not mean an official logo (link cited as source). As seen in Brazilian protests, some signs and popular grafitti logos can go popular and have a widespread use alhough not referring to a single movement or an official and unique "logo" source.

Also, the message displayed has a message that can be very tendentiously used by Western sources - it has already been used in that manner -, and given the large growth of visits in the last two months due to recent events (313,7% per month), withouth a proper explanation this image can be mistaken by an official stand used by the group - that is neither homogeneous or an organisation with a pattern of membership quite like the ones movements in Western countries - as well as the message portraited in it. It is well known that the use of anti-American message can be manipuled by groups in order to create an "enemy" or "terrorist" image of a supposed Other in relation to a "peaceful" Own Self. This is commonly seen in war (or war-on-terrorism) discourse of conservative Western politicians and pressure groups - moral crusaders -.

The article would be better seen without such controversial image. At least it would be plausible given the amount of recently published news concerning the group, together with the contrasting issued messages. We must praise for this status until the flux of informations is stabilised.

The Christian Science Monitor is a mainstream news service, not a "Christian Website", and the logo has been widely reported on by many other WP:RS. For example, the BBC shows the logo in an offical Houthi ceremonial funeral for their founder [1], while a video release by the Houthi's of a military operation in northern Yemen has them flying the banner as reported by Reuters [2]. The Yemen Times gives some background [3] Many may remember the Houthis first announcing their presence in Sana’a in 2002 by chanting the sarkha (the Houthi’s slogan) at the Grand Mosque in Old Sana’a. The sarkha, written by Hussein al-Houthi says “God is Great/Death to America/Death to Israel/Curse the Jews/Victory to Islam,” and also acts as the group’s symbol, painted on city walls and emblazoned on flags. The logo is also used on the Arabic Wiki page [4] and by the Houthis on their own websites [5].

It is completely inappropriate for the image to be removed because it could be manipulated by "conservative Western politicians and pressure groups", it is a message that is directed at their popular base in Yemen and has nothing to do with westerners. If you want to add a section providing background and context on the slogan that would be a preferable option. Gazkthul (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing I want to say in connection to this is that their logo is not a proof that they have a certain ideology, as some have repeatedly reinserted in the infobox and categories, such as Anti-Americanism or antisemitism. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Official website hacked and defaced

This site is listed in the article as official. It used to be the official website of Ansarullah, but it's now defaced and full with all sort of anti-Houthi propaganda. I'll add that info. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/23/world/meast/yemen-violence/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

¿Non-state opponent?

The Islamic State recognizes itself as a sovereign country, while the rest of the world doesn't, it's listed here as a non-state opponent ¿should we continue to treat it as a terrorist organization or as a terrorist state? Just asking as I don't know the guidelines for unrecognized states. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia, somewhat arbitrarily, doesn't consider self-proclaimed countries to be "states", recognized or otherwise, if they are involved in an active conflict and have not emerged as self-governing, de facto independent polities in peacetime. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

On the page it has Qatar as a state ally, although Qatar has fought against them from 2015-2017, Qatar no longer plays a role in the civil war due to the ongoing blockade of Qatar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badawy4 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Iranian arms/ Merits of Houthis / Systematic bias of mainstream sources

There seems to be a dispute about how to address the issue of whether Iran has supplied arms to the Houthi. Please discuss. --Bejnar (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have somewhat less of an issue with that than I do User:Strivingsoul's blatant injection of WP:POV and unencyclopedic WP:TONE regarding the Houthis' methods and goals. Waxing at length about their vital causes does not befit Wikipedia. Furthermore, the use of WP:SYNTH in construing the Wikileaks cable to mean the umpteen reliably sourced reports out there about the Houthis being armed and supplied by Iran are false is unacceptable and is again POV-pushing. Noting that the Houthis officially deny getting help from Iran seems appropriate and proper, but the rest of the edits by Strivingsoul are not going to fly, as far as I'm concerned. And Strivingsoul should know that, and should know well enough to follow WP:BRD rather than continuing to make major changes without consensus. That's just how it works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring editor behavioural issues (See WP:Civility), what specific input has been too POV, aside from in the Iranian arms presentation? --Bejnar (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned the "vital causes" language above, and you note the weasel words below; additionally, the "well-being of all Yemenis", "Western imperialism", and "massive base of support" language is clearly unencyclopedic and highly subjective. With the edits, the intro read like a pro-Houthi blog, and that just is not Wikipedia's purpose, whatever you think of the Houthis themselves. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The root cause of my difference with likes of Kudzul is more fundamental than this particular issue and too extensive and general to be properly addressed here. And that is the serious problem with prevalent reliance over Western corporate sources for reporting on Mid-East/Third world developments. This is such a fundamental topic that warrants an elaborate policy proposal for WIKI:Systematic bias (I'm planning and preparing one). But since this entry is also affected by the fore mentioned problem, here's some elaboration:

As the prime example of Iraq war showed, we should not rely uncritically on western Corporate media (if at all) for Mid-Eastern/Third-world topics, for their reporting is decisively affected by their participation and partnership with Western corporate order and its historical imperialistic ambitions in the third world countries. This, which is the most virulent and pervasive instance of systematic bias, undermines accurate, objective, non-biased reporting on Mid-East/Third world developments that have historically been the scene of Western Imperialistic and Colonialist policies. As for the Houthis, my research into sources alternative to Western corporate media, proves with no shred of doubt that the Houthis have been a socioeconomically and culturally marginalized group that over the last decade have managed to foment and inspire an admirable popular mass revolution against the corrupt US/Saudi-backed puppet governments. And their very political positions and agenda (freedom from foreign influence) is enough to make them an unfavorable sociopolitical force in Yemen for Western/Saudi imperialist interests. Western/Saudi negative coverage of Yemen and characterization of Houthis and their achievements as "coup," "Iran proxy," "insurgents", "sectarian", "violent" etc are live testimonies to my argument. This is a vital insight that should guide us in editing this page. In deciding between conflicting reports about the nature of the Yemeni's crisis, and the merits of the Houthis we should be wary of the malicious political biases of sources that reflect the foreign governments' imperialist agenda for Yemen and Western Asia in general. For my part, I have been updating and continue to update this page by alternative sources that provide insights beyond the biased and inaccurate characterizations of Houthis. But I understand that we will need to discuss and reach consensus over more accurate sources/reporting until with assert alternative POVs as facts. I will also treat the controversy over my recent edits (concerning Iranian arms, Houthis real agenda and merits) in particular in a separate post. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Your research. That's the problem. We can't just set aside Wikipedia's established reliance on verifiability (using reliable secondary sources) because your original research has led you to the conclusion that the Western and Arab medias are unfair and should be ignored. I am fully in support of portraying every group (including those with whom the U.S. or Saudis or whomever have a beef, from the Houthis all the way to the Islamic State) in an objective light and with a dispassionate, encyclopedic tone. But that means we need reliable sources to make factual claims. We are not here to write opinion judgments into Wikipedia articles.

I am worried that you are simply too close to the subject matter in this case, as you seem to have a difficult time separating your belief that the Houthis are a "marginalized group" leading "an admirable popular mass revolution" against the "corrupt" Yemeni government from your work toward improving the project. I am further concerned by past comments you have made that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic, not the least of which was you recommending an essay on "Jewish Supremacism" by David Duke.

I really do try to assume good faith in working with editors, especially those who take the time to register and discuss things on the Talk page. And I do believe your views are sincerely held. But I cannot understand how you thought this edit was remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia, much less worth edit-warring over, and I am troubled by your conflation of pro-Houthi and anti-Western advocacy with making substantive improvements to this topic area. Wikipedia is not a blog, Wikipedia is not a forum, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright! As I said I will supply reliable sources for having a more objective portrayal of Houthis than what we found in most western sources that are affected by various forms of systematic bias, e.g. political and corporate as I said. Read the PressTV interview by an American analyst that follows the anti-Imperialist tag under the groups ideology in the info box. There one instance of corporate interests involved in Mid-Eastern conflict is mentioned (BP). Also have a look at Orientalism which is a cultural form of systematic bias against Eastern cultures and communities. As for my critical views against Jewish/Zionist elite power, they have nothing to do with anti-Semtitism. I have already explained my thoughts about that subject in the discussion you linked. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The "now, I'm not racist, but..." defense wears thin. When I see someone use phrases like "Jewish/Zionist elite power", I don't really care whether they identify as anti-Semitic or not. Their ideology is perfectly clear to me at that point already.

Furthermore, no, I am not going to read PressTV propaganda, which is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes and has no place on this or any other contentious article. And yes, I am in fact familiar with orientalism, and I don't need to take Sociology 101 from you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"The "now, I'm not racist, but..." defense wears thin. When I see someone use phrases like "Jewish/Zionist elite power", I don't really care whether they identify as anti-Semitic or not. Their ideology is perfectly clear to me at that point already." Then I condole you for having bought the predetermined notions of Zionist discourse, hook, line and sinker like a nice obedient kid! You deserve an A+ by ADL! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Coming from you, that means a lot to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And as for my edits and descriptions, they were exactly what the sources say about Houthis! And they are more reliable than any other sources, because one is a POV by a professor who have published two books on Houthis and the other is a Newsweek report by a reporter that has closely studied the Houthis in field, traveling with and speaking heart to heart with their members. That's why I thought those sources are more reliable than sources that just regurgitate speculations and charges by the US officials, ousted Yemenis government or Saudi Arabia who have a vested interest in demonizing Houthis. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, those are not reliable sources. They are commentaries. And saying that the Houthis are a Zaidi group operating in Yemen is hardly demonizing them. Having the lede be an ode to their "struggling for...vital causes", on the other hand, is lionizing them. I really don't think you are grasping the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not advocacy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote was exactly grounded in the source! One does not lionize lions! And how is this source with a hefty feature report is just a commentary? Strivingsoul (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote was editorializing off the source. Your edits weren't just inserting information -- it was using the story as a citation for POV-pushing and lionization of the subject. Furthermore, the Newsweek piece is a photo essay, rather than a dispassionate report; it is grounded in journalism, and its facts are generally not in dispute, but its conclusions regarding the Houthis are still the opinion and analysis of one photojournalist whose name isn't even given. It is certainly no basis for editorializing about the Houthis' "vital causes" and "massive base of support", among other WP:WEASEL and WP:POV constructions.

Where you may possibly misunderstand me is: I have no objection with including information that is favorable to the Houthis in this article, or any other relevant article. In fact, if it is factual information that is relevant to giving readers a fuller understanding of the subject, I think it should be included, whether it reflects positively, negatively, or neutrally on them. What I do have a problem with is waxing poetic about them, because it is unencyclopedic and represents a form of advocacy. Instead of saying they have "massive" support, that support should be quantified. What regions do they control? What was the response to their takeover of the government? How many have participated in their street demonstrations and sit-ins? How many fighters does the group command? (Much of this information is already included in the article, with sources.) But what it seems like you are trying to do is tell readers how great the Houthis are. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Removing systematic bias from the Wikipedia is important, but it must not undermine any of the five pillars of the Wikipedia, especially the second Wikipedia pillar which is that the Wikipedia is to be written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues in articles rather than engage in debate within them. Verifiability via reliable sources provides a mechanism for establishing as neutral a point of view as possible. Many sources even reliable ones can have a bias. If in doubt about a particular source, or if the reliability of a source has been questioned, information and views from other editors can be requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Bejnar (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Iran's support with different means including weapons has mentioned in the lead as a fact The Houthis have received significant support from Iran in the form of weapons, money and training since 2004 while this is a controversial issue among the sources and even this source narrates both views! --Seyyed(t-c) 08:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose neutral wording. --Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fact thus I added "according to Reuters". --Seyyed(t-c) 17:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words

Please avoid weasel words such as in this edit what the Western and Yemenis governments have called a coup d'état. If a specific armed take over does not meet the definition of a coup d'état, find a source that says that and present it in a positive way. --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Coup is certainly a "POV" as I have explained here and requested a page move here. Only opposing parties use the word "coup". Mhhossein (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: your edit does not indicate a reason that coup is the wrong word, it just makes that assertion. Simply saying only enemies use the word "coup" does not make it so. Look at the large number of events to which "coup" has been applied. Not all of those, or really even a majority were by enemies. If you don't like the word find a reliable source that says that the event was not a coup. --Bejnar (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Whether I like it or not is not my problem here. In fact, as you said, coup is used by majority of the enemies so we are reflecting their viewpoints here. What can it be called if it is not a "POV". This is simply how the enemies call the event! Mhhossein (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I said that the majority were not by enemies.  --Bejnar (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bejnar:Could I have your sources? As you know I have already presented some sources using the neutral word "takeover". Mhhossein (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Start with the Oxford English Dictionary here. See also the definition here. See the usage here. --Bejnar (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I could not tell what I was exactly asking you to provide. Could you please present the sources (for example news outlets) calling the event a coup? Btw, can you say that how the event is called a coup based on the meaning presented here? Mhhossein (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging more editors @Strivingsoul, Kudzu1, and Sa.vakilian:. Mhhossein (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles calling this a coup have been well represented in the discussion at Talk:2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état. No need to repeat. As to the French definition: A coup is taking power in a minority government through unconstitutional means, imposed by surprise and using force. What is the problem you have with that? Is it the surprise factor? I don't see a POV problem there, many were surprised. Is it the minority government? The Houthi are a minority in Yemen. Was force used? Yes. Was the taking of power done in accordance with the constitution? No. --Bejnar (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Nykterinos already made a comprehensive explanation on this matter and I won't repeat them. Nearly, none of the elements of "coup" definition is in accordance with the reality of Yemeni events. How can you call such a gradual process a surprise? Mhhossein (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

POV tag added

This article needs major improvement in POVs, accuracy and comprehensiveness. And since there are unresolved disputes on the content, I added the POV tag to the article until the disputes are settled. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Articulate clearly, please, the POV problems with the content. You can't just slap an orange tag on a page and say "I don't like this!" as your justification. What are the issues exactly? And what policy reasons do you have why they must be addressed? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The reasons are the recent sweeping removal of alternative POVs and information from the page which have been added for improving balance and neutrality. The information was verifiable and sources reliable. Yet they were removed based on bogus charges by MonoChrome Monitor. I'm going to discuss them separately. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Being unhappy over having your bold changes reverted is not a justification for tagging the article. That's not what tags are for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussing sweeping removals by Monochrome Monitor

Recently there was a series of removals by Monochrome Monitor on questionable grounds. I'm going to discuss the removals case by case along with explanations offered for each, to see whether they were justified.

On this edit, three sourced statements were entirely deleted and this explanation have been provided: "delete completely off-topic "praying the wrong way" anecdote, deleted description as "tolerant movement with broad cultural vision", patently absurd, deleted "flag and slogan", section solely defends while offering no dissent."

° Here's the statement deemed "off-topic"

The Houthis have told people they are "praying in the wrong way" by raising their arms, as is the custom among Sunnis in Yemen.

But I don't really see how this would be off-topic under the ideology section which is by definition to illustrate Houthi's distinct religious and political views! Note that I'm not particularly interested in keeping this statement for it doesn't seem to be a major ideological position but to claim that it is downright off-topic is clearly wrong.

° And here's the second removed statement:

Originally, according to Ahmed Addaghashi, a professor at Sanaa University, the Houthis began as a theological movement that preached tolerance and peace and held a considerably broad-minded educational and cultural vision; however, perceived social injustice led tier leaders to adopt a more proactive role.

This being a sourced expert POV was removed from the ideology section as "patently absurd" without any reasons explaining how this is not just a subjective opinion by the user, and more importantly how it can override the authority of a quoted expert!

° The third removal:

The group's flag reads as following: "God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam". This motto is modeled on the motto of revolutionary Iran. Commenting on the meaning of the slogan, Ali al Bukhayti, the former spokesperson and official media face of the Houthis said: "We do not really want death to anyone. The slogan is simply against the interference of those governments."

This was part of a subsection, "Flag and slogan" that was also linked under the infobox image of the flag. They were all removed on the ground that "the section solely defends while offering no dissent" but I'm not sure which Wiki guideline requires us to have a dissenting view against each POV! And in case there are POVs opposing the existing one, the right course of action according to WP:NPOV would be to add the opposing POV rather than deleting the existing one!

In summary all the deletions seem quite unreasonable, despite the user's adamant resistance against my reverts. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits themselves weren't objectionable, it's the fact that you added POV to an article that had no countering POV. If you are going to call it a tolerant movement, which is controversial, I wouldn't object if you used quotes. If you are going to quote "scholars", that's fine, but it should be in the appropriate section and given due weight. As for the "praying the wrong way" bit, it wasn't off-topic, I just didn't think it fit in the article very well structurally, and wasn't really significant enough to be included in my view.

Aa for the bit on the slogan, it didn't seem right with wikipedia standards of not being a chatroom. It felt like editorializing. Monochrome Monitor Monitor 11:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor and Strivingsoul: Wikipedia articles are made of POVs i.e., different view points are gathered to make a final rather neutral text. For the cases you see POVs, the onus is on the editors to add counter POVs based on their due weights to fix the problem. I think both you, as you said and wrote, know these concepts but there was a misunderstanding. As for edits, I believe that commenting on the slogan is one thing necessary and fits the the article. We'd better add different comments (POVs) on the flag and the slogan. By the way I would like to ask "Monochrome Monitor" to explain how quotes would matter and fix the problem here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They wouldn't "fix" anything, they would help to clarify respective POVs though. Monochrome Monitor Monitor 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So I reckon that you basically reaffirmed that there was nothing wrong with the removed content. And like already said, if you think there are alternative POVs, then add them to the article. Don't delete existing sourced content for personal disagreement or misgiving. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually there was plenty wrong with it, but I'm trying to be flexible. For one, a disclaimer about the logo shouldn't be necessary and isn't really in line with wiki policy. We aren't their PR team. Second, the opinion of the "scholar" pushed the limits of reality (linking to the article tolerance was cute though), it didn't even pass as an opinion, it was pure propaganda. As for the "praying the wrong way" bit, it just didn't add anything to the article. Monochrome Monitor Monitor 11:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not being flexible, you're only further trying to whitewash the flaws in your arguments that I had already pointed out. If you 'perceive' a POV to be 'propagandist' that could be because of your prejudice against the subject! Especially when that happens to be an expert POV. And the logo description does add value to the article in terms of giving info about the motives and positions of the leaders of the Houthi movement. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to be a bit more flexible. Feel free to reinstate the disclaimer about the logo, and the POV opinion if it's in quotes. Monochrome Monitor Monitor 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC) It's just a bit hard for me to accept some of your edits considering I know that behind them is a very fringe POV. Pro-tip, keep your more controversial political views to yourself, and wikipedia would be a much better place for you. Monochrome Monitor Monitor 06:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Discussing sweeping removals by Monochrome Monitor (2)

Another element removed from the page was the anti-Imperialist tag. I had corroborated this ideological position by an additional source from Russia Today, and will provide a further reference from this scholarly paper that provides a close and detailed insight into the thoughts of the founder of the Houthi movement, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, which exposes Houthi's critical thoughts against US economic and military dominance of Yemen and other muslim countries. So with these three independent sources I think the anti-imperialist tag is beyond question. Will wait two days and then restore the tag in case of no objection. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If the sources don't directly mention the "anti-imperialist" term, you can't restore it until you find suitable sources. If this is the case and there's no mnention of that term in your sources, the tag might have been removed due to the problem original research. Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The only source it is directly included in is Press Tv, which as I said earlier is problematic as a reliable source considering Iran (and Russia for that matter) is not a free Press.Monochrome Monitor Monitor 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC) I'm up for putting the disclaimer about the logo back though, with various POVs.

The so called "Freedomhouse" is basically the NGO arm of US Imperialism for effecting regime change against governments that are not aligned with US imperialist interests. So don't pretend that this government-funded organization can be considered in anyway as an objective neutral party that should be taken seriously, especially when the NGO goes blind before such repressive monarchies as KSA and Bahrain that are allied with US interests! These along with charges of ideological bias and poor methodology are already pointed out by various critiques in wiki entry for Freedom House. As for alternative POVs about the logo, again, the onus would be on you to add them (if there are any) to the article. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can mention the view point here even using Press TV as a source but it should not be stated as a fact and consequently we can't have it in infobox if press TV is the only source. Mhhossein (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think what genuinely matters more than verbatim use of the term, is whether the source characterizes the movement as being one opposed to Imperialism which Wikipedia defines as "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means". Having said that, the expert POV by PressTV does even employ the term "anti-Imperialist" verbatim to describe the Houthis. Russia Today also suggests that the struggle is part of the post-colonialist movements' struggle against imperialists and colonialists. Likewise, the author in the linked paper from Taylor & Francis identifies the same anti-imperialist themes in Hussein al-Houthi's thoughts. Furthermore beyond these sources, the very fact that Houthis' antagonists are well-known to be in alliance with the living reality of US Imperialism and the blatant reality of the ongoing war against Yemen are themselves obvious clues reaffirming the nature of the struggle by the Houthis as being anti-Imperialist in nature. Houthi leaders have also numerously stressed that they are aspiring for independence from foreign influence (namely US and Saudi) as already mentioned in the article. So I think it must be now obvious that the tag represents a definite fact, and restoration is well due. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Freedom House is also very critical of the Golf monarchies (also it's not government funded), it says that Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the UAE don't have free presses.

It's ridiculous for you to call Freedom House an "arm of US imperialism". Monochrome Monitor Monitor 23:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but the so-called NGO is government funded, and it fails to mention systematic suppression of freedom (the most pernicious form of all) by the globalized, corporate, and Zionist-owned media in US and the West. Other than the government/corporate control, the liberal ideological (among other forms of) bias of the organization are more than adequate reason not to uncritically trust their reporting especially when it comes to a unique society like Iran with a culture, tradition and ruling political philosophy and system that are completely unfamiliar to the dominant secular/liberal culture of the West. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Joining a long and ever-growing parade of extreme fringe POV statements from Strivingsoul... -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Along with his comments about the "Jewish power elite". Monochrome Monitor Monitor 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yeah! I know I am going to expect more such rumblings as I happen to be questioning more of the dominant systematic cultural/political dogmas of "the average mid-class western Wikipedian!!" Strivingsoul (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You aren't questioning anything. You are just trolling.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I can testify to Strivingsoul's holding fringe views; he also participated in the drive to promote Ali Khamenei's recent propaganda letter on Wikipedia. Any controversial statements he or others add on the basis of rubbish sources such as Press TV or RT should be removed without blinking. The statement from professor Ahmed Addaghashi seems less controversial and could be considered for restoration, but random standard English words like "tolerance" should not be wikilinked per WP:OVERLINK.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think, those "rubbish" sources are specifically crucial for reducing such biases as espoused by likes of you! Self-centered, self-satisfied Zionist/US imperialist apologists who dismiss as "rubbish" whatever POV that doesn't reaffirm their deeply entrenched prejudices! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This Khamenei/Zionism stuff has cropped up on Yemeni Civil War (2015) as well. Does anyone know if there's some sort of outside website driving partisan editors to this content? It seems like a bunch of openly pro-Iran SPAs and IPs have sprung up out of nowhere lately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is such a website, I would like to know about it; to the best of my knowledge, they are driven by old-fashioned nationalism, though.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Good luck defaming already marginalized views on Wiki due to inherent systematic bias! But "truth" will ultimately triumph! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly will.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So, where did we end up? Monochrome Monitor Monitor 01:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I was looking through a couple of sources right now, and I can't find much that isn't already covered in the "History" section. I am personally convinced the Houthis were not initially aimed at militancy, but "peace and tolerance" is difficult to substantiate in other sources; it seems to have begun as a Zaidi revivalist movement seeking "peace and tolerance" from others, specifically the growing Sunni population. I am going to remove the "POV" tag from the article; any legitimate additional information can be discussed per the regular procedures.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Peace and tolerance" are underpinned by their belief that muslims should unite against their common enemy which they believe is Western dominance of Islamic Ummah, in particular US and Israeli domination/occupation. This resonates with the call by the late founder of Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini for Islamic unity and resistance against the West, and that's also one reason the Houthis are claimed to be supported or influenced by Iran. The other ground for their tolerance is their opposition to Salafism/Al-Qaeda which is widely known as an intolerant, extremist and terrorist Islamic group which has engaged in sectarian infighting and division in the Islamic Ummah rather than staging any real, honorable resistance against Western domination. They have in fact destroyed the public image of Islam by committing all sorts of wrongs and excesses such as indiscriminate violence against non-Salafists and non-mulims and pretty much anyone who doesn't adopt their ideology. I'm elaborating on this to help better make sense of the Houthi ideology and such characterizations offered by the Yemeni professor. Also see how this is in line with the Newsweek identification of Houthi descent cause as being shared by all Yemenis. Houthis are genuinely inspired by Shia Islam but that's also exactly why they are striving for indiscriminate well-being of all muslims. You need to study about Shia Islam to understand this, especially Shia distinct appreciation for reason and universal justice. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fascinating. You are saying "peace and tolerance" in their belief system means to "unite against their common enemy which they believe is Western dominance of Islamic Ummah". "Uniting against" someone in standard English means to fight them, which in turn is the exact opposite of "peace and tolerance". Since this is the standard English Wikipedia, not the Zaidi English Wikipedia, we should not write "peace and tolerance" where the exact opposite meaning is intended.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No! You're falsifying what I said and ignoring the expert POV's context. "Peace and tolerance" is stated in the context of their theological view which means tolerance towards other religions and sects! And sure! There's nothing honorable about Western pillage and rape of the Mid-east to be indicated by any noble signifier! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not falsifying anything - you are falsifying yourself in every comment.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Lead update reversion!

Which statement of the updated lead did you identify as "POV"?! What's your reason for this new case of aggressive reversion?! @Anders Feder: --Strivingsoul (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit used unacceptable POV language for which there is no consensus. I support Anders Feder's reversion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's just a charge with no specifics. Explain your reasons! Which part of the updated lead is a POV language? Saudi invasion? Houthis resisting the invasion? Houthis fighting the Saudi invasion at all? Saudi's having attacked in the first place to restore Hadi government? Hadi being backed by the Saudis?! These are all attested to already in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen? Strivingsoul (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your victim-playing suggests you are still WP:NOTHERE and there is no need to feed the troll.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think throwing out allegations without caring to substantiate them is how Wikipedia works, then you qualify as WP:NOTHERE not me! Care to explain what segment of the updated lead you consider to be POV. I also ping @Sa.vakilian: for arbitration. 17:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No I don't.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul, Anders Feder, and Kudzu1:In such cases, we ask all of the participant to write their proposals. Then we can decide which one is better. It is a fact that Saudis are fighting with Houthis, thus it should be mentioned in the lead. Let's write the suggestions.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You can update the paragraph as you prefer. Just don't use any language that implies that one of the militant parties to the conflict is less villainous than the other or vice versa.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, ironically you're just suggesting a POV! It is not up to us to decide which part is villainous or not. We should stick to the facts! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That is complete BS. I am not suggesting any POV.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You just said that the edits should not suggest that "one party is less villainous than the other or vice versa" and that clearly implies that you have already assumed that all parties in the conflict are "villainous!" That, my friend, is POV! And considering your past performance on other Mid-Eastern/Islamic topics, you have already provided us much evidence of your general cultural prejudice against these subjects! Nobody is forcing you to edit these topics if you can't be neutral! Strivingsoul (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that in any way. Instead of disrupting Wikipedia, take a beginner's course in logic so you don't need to be blocked again.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You can keep throwing out your gross accusations, and I am keeping a record of your performance across different topics. And when the day of reckoning comes it is you who will be blocked forever for your persistent rude behavior! Strivingsoul (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For how much longer must I wait for this exciting day to arrive?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

When due, you will be inevitably notified! --Strivingsoul (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't wait.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is what I had already written in the updated lead. The burden is therefore on the opponents to specify and substantiate their allegations of POV. Here I also produce the reverted updated version as my suggestion:

Proposal 1: Ansar Allah ([[[:wikt:نصر|anṣār]] allāh] Error: {{Transliteration}}: transliteration text not Latin script (pos 9) (help) أنصار الله "Supporters of God"), known more popularly as the Houthis (Template:Lang-ar al-Ḥūthiyyūn), are a Zaidi group from Yemen currently leading a resistance against the Saudi invasion of Yemen after they succeeded in toppling the Saudi-backed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. --Strivingsoul (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I look forward for the other proposals.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul:Proposal 2: Ansar Allah ([[[:wikt:نصر|anṣār]] allāh] Error: {{Transliteration}}: transliteration text not Latin script (pos 9) (help) أنصار الله "Supporters of God"), known more popularly as the Houthis (Template:Lang-ar al-Ḥūthiyyūn), are a Zaidi group from Sa'dah, northern Yemen, which was founded by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi in ???. They started a rebellion in 2004 which led to a civil war against Yemen's former President, Ali Abdullah Saleh. The Houthis participated in the 2011 Yemeni Revolution, as well as the ensuing National Dialogue Conference (NDC). However, they rejected the provisions of the November 2011 Gulf Cooperation Council deal on the ground that "it divide[d] Yemen into poor and wealthy regions" and also in response to assassination of their representative at NDC. In 2014 Houthi tookover the government in Sana'a which led to the fall of the Saudi-backed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen in 2015.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Looting files about US spy operations"

So this now constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law? 184.160.48.249 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Houthis are Shia?

Nowhere does it specify it is a Shia group. Any Muslim is welcome to join it.

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by Strivingsoul

@Strivingsoul: Stop edit warring. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for including your material, and you have failed to do so. WikiLeaks is not a reliable source, see e.g. [6]. Use dispute resolution if you disagree, not edit warring.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to rush to accusations like you most often do. There was no edit warring but an attempt at edit description discussion to achieve consensus. The same discussion you linked says that if Wikileaks is used by other sources it can be used in the articles. And in the same section of the page, we have al-Akhbar covering the Wikileaks report. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "edit description discussion". Edit summaries are not a place for discussions to be had: "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute."[7]

If al-Akhbar covers the material you want to add, and al-Akhbar is reliable, then cite al-Akhbar, not the primary source. If no reliable secondary source covers the material, then do not add it to Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

@SunniWarrior: Do you understand what you are doing here? First off, due to your provocative username and past vandalism I had told you in the edit captions a few times to stop pushing your "Sunni war" in Wiki. But you recently just replied by saying: "I'm not a Muslim! I'm a Jew from Israel, the only democratic country in the Middle East.)"!! Wow, so if you're an Israeli Jew why you are masquerading as "SunniWarrior"! Or maybe we've just spotted a trend recently reported by Israeli media: Jewish Israeli Suspected of Trying to Join ISIS - Israel Today!

Second, you're insisting on removing multiple sourced paragraphs in an attempt to restore one removed statement. I had removed that statement since with my brief examination of the four sources I didn't find a statement directly supporting the claim. But today I checked again and I realized I had missed it in one source which does in fact support the claim that "Houthis are accused by their fellow Zaydis to be converts to Twelver Shia". (I recently also came across a scholarly source supporting the claim to some extent). But since you had removed a lot of other content, I undid your sweeping edits and immediately afterwards restored that statement that you wanted included as I had promised. But probably driven by your sectarian Jewish/Sunni(?!) attitude that I'm "pushing Iranian agenda" you not only insisted on your sweeping removals, but you even removed the very statement you wanted included yourself! So please care to understand what you are even doing when pushing your sweeping changes. Continuing this disruptive behavior is verbatim vandalism (if not already) and gets your IP blocked. I will restore the page to the state that included all sourced content including the claim that Houthi's have secretly converted to Twelver Shiism. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's about time you stopped your vandalism on Wikipedia! You are intentionally removing sourced contents, to add either unsourced/not in source commentary, or back your claim with unreliable source. And yes Israel probably is the only real democracy in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both dictatorships, and both are contributing highly to destabilization of Middle East. I should not say it, but sadly it's true that where there is Islam, there is terrorism, oppression and dictatorship. The glory days of Persia ended when Islam arrived in Iran--SunniWarrior (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate if you add sourced content from reliable sources as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, but you're pushing contentious claims from unreliable sources or claims that are not backed by your sources (like the terrorist allegation against Houthis) into the page and the lead. You are also removing multiple properly sourced content too. And yes you should not be pushing your Zionist Islamophobic anti-Iranian propaganda here which is self-defeating and only proves that you're engaged in sectarian POV/nonsense pushing. So if you have a cogent argument why the multiple paragraphs you have removed should be removed in accordance with any relevant Wiki policies such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV, then put them forward case by case. And by the time the page has to be restored to its long standing version. The charge of terrorism is also unfounded and is only backed up by on of your sources: Muslim World Journal which is a sectarian website and also unreliable. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also pinging an involved editor in this page for a WP:THIRD arbitration. @Sa.vakilian:. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul: Gain consensus here before trying to add or remove anything that has been restored. There are plenty of non-reliable Muslim website. Thank god, they also fight each other, I wish both Sunni and Shia complete victory over each other. The Muslims fund their terrorism and fight against each other with oil money. Israel has always been against terrorism and Israelis regularly win Noble prizes. Latest good news is that Israel found huge amounts of oil in its Golan Heights,[8] therefore world nolonger need to rely on Muslims for oil and therefore tolerate Muslim's terrorism.--SunniWarrior (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you pinged your Iranian friend to proxy for you, I'm pinging an editor who disagreed with you above @Anders Feder:--SunniWarrior (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on you to gain consensus for removing long-standing content or adding contentious claims/POVs from unreliable sources and worse, stating them as undisputed facts such as the allegation of terrorism! But you put forward no specific argument in accordance with Wiki policies to defend your sweeping changes but instead engage in political rants. Also stop assuming that everyone disagreeing with you is a political proxy and respond to policy-based counter arguments. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who removed long-standing sourced contents, and kept editwarring despite getting reverted. You should gian consensus before changing longstanding version because you were reverted as your edits are unreliable and biased.--SunniWarrior (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove "long-standing sourced contents," I only removed your contentious poorly sourced POVs such as the allegation of terrorism. But your another addition that both Saudis and Houthis are in conflict with ISIS may be salvageable although that's a controversial claim, for Houthis to the contrary accuse Saudi Arabia of funding al-Qaead and Sunni extremists in Yemen. And I also restored a properly sourced statement that you wanted to include after I verified it. Like the fact that Houthi leaders might be secret converts to Twelver Shia Islam but you yourself came back removing your own professed edit assuming bad faith about the nature of my edits. But in wikipedia we are encouraged to assume good faith as per WP:AGF. Having said that, the rest of your sweeping removals are unwarranted and they've mostly been long standing there. So you can't remove them until you have put forward a reasonable argument why you want almost half of the page cut off! Strivingsoul (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Long-standing version is the one which was here before you started your disruptive editing in this article recently. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran funds terrorists and commits terrorism, and terrorists attack both. BTW, these Houthis are not even Shiites, they follow Sunni way and call themselves Shiites--SunniWarrior (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your, my or anyone else's personal opinions/rants about this or that faction/sect have absolutely zero relevance in deciding content in Wikipedia. You need to explain why you removed properly sourced content in relevance to Wikipedia content policies. Your argument so far is effectively WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Strivingsoul (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the long-standing version that you mutilated with your sweeping removals and contentious additions. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• You are both committing an edit warring for which you might encounter penalties. Have different POVs beside each other. Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It was not edit warring on part. It was protecting the page against obvious sectarian vandalism that I had also warned on the user talk page. Don't pass judgement before carefully examining the case. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I had not noticed your warning for vandalism. One more thing that he is not supporting his claims using diffs which, to me, demonstrates his low interest in having the problem solved. Mhhossein (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as a crypto-Jewish "SunniWarrior" he started pushing contentious POVs since Sept. 25. I cleaned up his unwarranted changes, and then added new POVs from reliable sources for more balance (such as Houthis' support base and allegations of anti-Semitism), and also added new subsets for better organization. See the resulting diff. But he came back and altered all of my improvements by reverts, and restored contentious claims! Having said that, I still can see that one of his changes may be salvageable as a POV (the claim of both Saudi and Houthis being at war) but almost the entire rest of his additions and removals have to be reverted. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@SunniWarrior: I don't care whether your edits were wrong or right, but at the moment I have to warn you for being uncivil and making personal attacks continuing which may lead to your block. Mhhossein (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to both be at fault. SunniWarrior is a new account, and needs to learn the policies and guidelines before entering conflicts like this. Strivingsoul I won't bother commenting on. A couple of SunniWarrior's changes seem perfectly reasonable. They would have been easier to discuss if they had been made step-wise rather than all lumped together in one huge edit. Mhhossein, whose partiality I recently reported here, is obviously wrong to single SunniWarrior out for alleged incivility.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to shout the link containing other editors warning you for being uncivil every where. Mhhossein (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll be the judge of where "shouting" that link containing other editors warning you for being biased is needed.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's end these quarrels once and or all please! With more tolerance and open-mindedness towards each others' beliefs we can get along much better! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul: The problem is that you can't edit neutrally. You are here for a particular purpose, that is to promote the dictatorship of Khamenei, who faced at least five major upheaval against his dictatorship from the Iranian people during his some 25 yrs in power, each time massacring Iranians to keep hold on power. Such dictators won't last. And after they are overthrown, suddenly everything changes. One such prime example is Gaddafi, who like Khamenei, proclaimed himself leader of revolution, Imam of all Muslims and king of kings. His reign was longer than Khamenei's, and you know his ending. Khamenei would be lucky if he dies early naturally, or he will most likely end like Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. The Libyan and Iraqi media sources once glorified Gaddafi and Saddam, now they denigrate them more than others. Same thing will happen with Iranian media sources after Khamenei is removed. That's why it's not smart to use controlled media sources from countries with dictators.--SunniWarrior (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh! That's just over the top, coming from a typically paranoid Jewish settler of a genocidal state brainwashed to the core by Zionist propaganda! Please take your rants elsewhere! Wikipedia is not a forum. See: WP:FORUM! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Houthis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626201042/http://www.wargeyska.so/somalia-somalia-finally-pledges-support-to-suadi-led-coalition-in-yemen-raxanreeb-online/ to http://www.wargeyska.so/somalia-somalia-finally-pledges-support-to-suadi-led-coalition-in-yemen-raxanreeb-online/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yementimes.com/en/1759/opinion/3540/Yemen-is-more-nuanced-than-%E2%80%98Sunni%E2%80%99-amp%3B%C2%A0%E2%80%98Shia%E2%80%99.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=104778&sectionid=3510302
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=109842&sectionid=351020206
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/27/world/meast/yemen-clashes/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Houthis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728054225/http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/01/13/345317/houthis-fighting-western-imperialism/ to http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/01/13/345317/houthis-fighting-western-imperialism/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-iran-gulf/yemen/154-the-huthis-from-saada-to-sanaa.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/22/402979/US-Israel-behind-Yemen-terror-attacks
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/yemeni-bombing-led-by-saudis-is-backed-by-u-s-logistics-spying
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31907671
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1072/re8.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150104052532/http://www.zenithonline.de/politik/interview/?article=744&cHash=b6fabecb08 to http://www.zenithonline.de/politik/interview/?article=744&cHash=b6fabecb08

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

removed due to material not in the reference given ...

But the governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Australia regard the Houthis as a terrorist organization.[33][not in citation given] - yes, there is no mention of the Yemeni situation at all in the reference. If true, there must be several RS's available that can restore this line to the lead. 50.111.41.216 (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone also check this: There is a difference between the al-Houthi family, which has about 20 members[57]:102

There is no mentioning of how many members in the Houthi family/tribe in the references... SharabSalam (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not using the official name "Ansar Allah"

The Houthi tribe isn't the only tribe that is part of Ansar Allah movement in fact lots of Sunni tribes are fighting with Houthis SharabSalam (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree! I myself have been thinking about this. But the problem is most sources as far as I know, refer to the movement by its leaders who are Houthis. But this gives a wrong impression as if this is about a tribal conflict whereas it is primarily ideological and political and not even sectarian. Houthis are adamantly anti-sectarian, that's why they could build such a vast social movement. We have to wait for more comments to see whether we can change the name for greater accuracy contra the RSs' practice.--Expectant of Light (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have seen many people who have the surname "Houthi" and they don't support "Ansar Allah" movement, they have had many problems in western countries because of their surnames and the main cause of this is labelling all opponents of Saudi intervention in Yemen as Houthis, so I created a page to describe what is the Houthi tribe, the page isn't about politics but is about a tribal community. SharabSalam (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Salam, SharabSalam. Ktrimi991 informed me of this. I think the best way forward might be a split. Unfortunately, Houthi is indeed the term most often used in English literature, but we could possibly differentiate Houthi (tribe) from Houthi movement. --Calthinus (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Calthinus: for your response. SharabSalam created this article and I redirected it since a copy of it had already been redirected by another editor. Should we revert my redirect and rename that article properly? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah -- but the name should be "Houthi". Not "Huthi". Google shows in English there is no competition ("Huthi": [[9]], Houthi:[[10]]). --Calthinus (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Can you undo my redirect since I am editing on the phone and I am having some issues undoing it [11]? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Calthinus (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The name of the article must change

Hi, this article is suggesting that anyone who has the surname "Houthi" is a supporter of Ansarollah movement which is totally wrong and very biased and its a shame for Wikipedia to contain such a biased and offensive way to describe a movement that consist of many Yemeni tribes as it mention... also the article is talking about Houthis as if all Houthi tribe is with the Ansarollah movement and thats not true and I have seen many people who have suffered many times because of their surname "Houthi" I tried to create an article about "Houthi tribe" to describe who are they and it was removed. Please find a solution for this because I am also from that tribe and I have no connection with politics, my application to travel to Malaysia got delayed because of this.. SharabSalam (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding terminology paragraph

Does anyone know what does Houthi mean?:) SharabSalam (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed or relevant. We don't add a terminology section for Bin Laden family or Kennedy family. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Expectant of Light

This edit is another example of clear POV-pushing by the user. First of all, who says "These claims were unsubstantiated"? You can't write something like that without attribution. Second, it's true that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has been accused of having a pro-Israel bias, which he denies, but introducing this label into the article seems unnecessary. There's a link for those interested in knowing about the organization. Third, Houthis are a "resistance movement" according to whom? I don't see a reliable source stating that.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The text you quote cites a source. And I think citing WINEP's bias is necessary considering that Houthis are anti-Israel. As for Resistance movement category, I think Houthis clearly fit the definition. They were once resisting Saleh's government and are now resisting Hadi and Saudi invasion. By the way I was not the one adding either of these things to the page. But I thought your removals were wrong and reverted them. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I desagree @יניב הורון:'s personal attacks but I agree with his changes. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Without citing any reason? --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Labeling organizations as pro-Israel without sources or relevance is a no-no. As is saying "These claims were unsubstantiated" - when the cited source says nothing of the sort (but rather describes the Houthis not as a full-fledged proxy force, but as a force that the Iranian invested in modestly (at the time of writing - circa 2016)).Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I had tried to rewrite that section in the chronological order. As of 2009, the paper says Saleh's claims were unsubstantiated. And I explained why pointing out WINEP's bias is necessary. I don't see you addressing my point. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Houthi relevance to Israel is tangential at best - as is WINEP's alleged pro-Israel stance. We don't go around labeling in this manner. The paper cited actually clearly lays out support by Iran for the Houthis.Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The paper actually rules out quite explicitly that Houthis are Iranian proxies. The Houthis, however, are not Iranian proxies; Tehran’s influence in Yemen is marginal. The civil war in Yemen is driven first and foremost by local and political factors, and is neither an international proxy war nor a sectarian confrontation. It is primarily a domestic conflict, driven by local grievances and local competition for power and resources." Btw, Houthis have said that Israeli war planes have been involved in the war against Yemen but Israel doesn't want to publicize it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The source says After fighting started in 2004, Saleh regularly accused the Houthis of being Iranian proxies, presumably to attract American and Saudi support. At the time, however, these accusations remained unsubstantiated.. It seems however that this claim was, to a large extent, substantiated subsequently - as noted by the cited paper - which takes the position (not accepted by all) that the Houthis aren't an Iranian proxy, however it does see the Houthis as being supported by Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This paper is not lonely in stating that Houthis are not pawns of Iran. See this and this. These authors intelligently recognize the complexity of this issue, and that Houthis are primarily self-reliant why sharing common ground with Iran such as ideology and enemies. I think we need to present these nuances accurately in the section and not just bundling together cherry-picked facts to make them look to be just Iranian pawns. That's why I rewrote that section. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

One should also note the same source says - According to an April 2015 report to the UN Security Council’s Iran Sanctions Committee, Iran started shipping small amounts of weapons to the Houthis in 2009 (though the report left open the possibility that there might have been even more limited support before). - so Saleh offering or not offering definitive proof for his assertions circa 2008-9 is a rather moot point seeing that this was subsequently confirmed. As for whether the Houthis are pawns or semi-independent actors receiving significant military support (particularly in 2017-2018 - After Juneau wrote his article) - there is indeed a wide range of opinions we should reflect. Certainly the position they are proxies carries some weight.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem with that when all POVs are presented in an accurate and balanced way. It is also helpful to note that Saleh's war on Houthis started back in 2004. And ever since then he was accusing them of being Iranian paws whereas Houthis were a legitimate political party and primarily driven by local grievances and objections to Saleh's foreign relations. 2009 was already five-years through his brutal crackdown on Houthis and Sa'da residents. So seeing the ceaseless repression, Iran might have decided to help them against Saleh at some point. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The following source is rich, and yet has not, apparently, been used.

April Longley Alley with Zachary Laub Who Are Yemen’s Houthis? Council on Foreign Relations February 25, 2015Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 August 2018

Please change the hatnote from:

{{about|the religious-political-armed movement|the tribe in northern Yemen|Houthi tribe|other uses of ''Ansar Allah''|Ansar Allah}}

to:

{{about|the religious-political-armed movement|the tribe in northern Yemen|Houthi tribe|other uses of ''Ansar Allah''|Ansar Allah (disambiguation){{!}}Ansar Allah}}

to remove this article from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

State opponents - collapsible list

In order to display all the countries, I tried to put 7 at the top, which was the number shown, and to display all the others in a collapsible list again, but now it's only showing 6 at the top and still doesn't show the collapsible list. Anyone can fix this, please? Thanks. Odemirense (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Caleb Maupin and the Houthi goals

@Icewhiz: @SharabSalam: The claim made in the source is an interpretation by a New York based "political analyst and activist". Especially the (unsourced) "participated in a humanitarian mission to Yemen with the Red Crescent"-bit lends undue weight to that claim. Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides... It seems to me their goals and mission statement are written on their flag in no uncertain terms. Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In my mind, if this appears in NEO, this is UNDUE. Surely there are better sources commenting on the Houthi's goals.Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with both of you guys, we don't need ro use such a controversial source while there are probably better sources about this.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nujabaimage.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ansarallah control of Saada

@Panam2014: Ansarallah totally control Saada even if there are some fights that doesnt mean they dont control it as they control the government and all the parts of the government. SharabSalam (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: false. Not in 2018. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Panam2014: according to who? by the way that map you showed me was last edited 2 years ago!

Al-Arabiya report

The article quote the following from fars agency: The agency quoted “a prominent analyst” Seyed Sadeq al-Sharafi as saying that militias “are developing their missile power to target Riyadh and Dubai in the future, after they increased their missile and military capabilities and expanded the range of their military operations against the enemies.” Then the article says this with it's own opinion not quoting from fars ageny: The Zelzal-2 is an Iranian developed long-range unguided rocket in use by the Iranian military, Hezbollah and the Houthis. after that the article claims that the final conclusion of this is that Iran has admitted that they are arming Houthis. This is a total fallacy and I am going to remove the whole paragraph. SharabSalam (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Zelzal-2 can be made by developing 9K52 Luna-M Soviet missile. Any military group can develop 9K52 Luna-M to Zelzal-2 even some ISIS-related groups have used and made Zelzal-2 in Syria. The agacy states that it's homemade and this is not a unique thing since Ansarallah has developed other weapons that have not been used except in Yemen. SharabSalam (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Unbalance issue

The article shows biased stance by using pro-Zionist and pro-terrorists media outlets as primary source also cherry picking from some other articles here some examples In 2014–2015 Houthis took over the government in Sana'a with the help of the former president Ali Abdullah Saleh and announced the fall of the current government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.[50][51]  50, 51 sources are not reliable sources and pro-UAE sources just if you don't know both Houthis and Ali Salah deny that they were cooperating when they took Sana'a and even Ali Salah accuse Hadi of helping Houthis to take over so that he can stay longer as president of Yemen

As of 2014 it has been observed that "The Houthi group's approach is in many ways similar to that of Hizbollah in Lebanon. Similarly religiously based and Iran-backed, both groups follow the same military doctrine and glorify the Khomeini revolution in Iran".[91] Al-Arabyia source? I will work in this article until then this article has balance problem. --SharabSalam (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Is using pro-Zionist and pro-Terrorist media as a primary sources is balanced? Regardless of this. I gave two examples out of many examples in this article that seems to be so biased and sourced using biased sources!!--SharabSalam (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh please. Al-Jazeerah is "pro-Zionist" and "pro-Terrorist"? And even if so, that's two sources out of 165. Sorry, but it's not so easy. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOT HERE--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון, seriously, slow down. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון, do NOT do this again please. PRESERVE means very little here: it's a highly POV "observation", unattributed, and sourced to an opinion piece. That's unacceptable in many ways. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• You're both acting like fools. I have protected the article. Talk it out. If you have a problem with the protection, I'll be happy to unprotect and block the both of you for a week. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't think a user who calls 164 sources "pro-Zionist" and "pro-terrorist" (including Al Jaazera!) is in this encyclopedia to contribute or improve content, let alone neutrality. But I respect your decision.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTHERE is a pretty serious accusation. I've given out plenty of NOTHERE blocks, but in this case, with an editor who seems to be serious, in a serious topic area, you'll have to prove that. Maybe you should have this discussion not with the editor here, but on ANI, with the community, if you truly believe in this charge. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk) should not be editing here and his revert is an ARBPIA violation, again. It has already been made clear to him several times that the article doesn't need to have an ARBPIA notice to be subject to ARBPIA sanctions. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You can bring that up at WP:AE, or maybe ANI, not here. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

And I already explained you that article is not under ARBPIA and my edits have nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. Furthermore, if this article was part of ARBPIA, IPs like yourself should not be able to edit here in the first place per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. So maybe you should report yourself.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning" [12], but you already know this since it is in your block log. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That this falls under ARBPIA is not immediately evident to me--at all. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The only thing that I did is that I wanted to improve the article neutrality I said that UAE or Saudi media are pro-Zionist that's my opinion and I believe many people in here believe this. Aljazzeria is pro-Terrorist media that's an opinion regardless of all of that? Are any of my recent edits in this article wrong? I accepted when you said that there is no balance issue and started fixing what I thought is wrong. Obviously that guy who reverted my edits have no reason to revert any edit when I was trying to fix the article neutrality. --SharabSalam (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, well, what can I say. There's one editor, and an admin, who don't seem to agree with you. And obviously you think you're right; guess what, so does your opponent. Now that the article is under protection, you'll have to make your case here, but you'll have to do better than say "source is biased and other dude is wrong". Drmies (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:I don't think I am right? How about you see how things went on? I saw that the article rely on many sources that I think are biased and pro-Zionist (Since houthis are anti-zionists) that was also an opinion I put the unbalance issue in the talk page and I put a tag on the article and that user with the non-latin name reverted my edits without even replying to the talk page (I didn't know if that was an attempt for a provocation) so I reverted and you reverted my edit. So I accepted what you said and I instead started to fix some biased informations and you can just see that in the history page of this article that I did that in good faith and my friend with the non-latin name reverted my edits with absolutely silly reasons (in my opinion) then you came protected the page as a solution. Also what was the reason for you to mention that you are an admin here? I am new here but I pretty sure that's not how admins should speak. Facts isn't about how many people are against me and I will remove biased materials from here and I don't think anyone can stop that when I am holding a right argument Thank you--SharabSalam (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• My 2 cents - This isn't ARBPIA (It is a Saudia/Gulf vs. Iran conflict - but that's not under DS). The op-ed from The National pointing out similarities to other Iranian back groups should be included - it makes an observation that many others have made as well. However - this should be attributed properly.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • An opinion article from a writer in pro-UAE newspaper that the writer didn't put any evidence in should be included? Okay why isn't also fair to use opinion articles from pro-Ansarallah media? And no adding a similarity argument without evidence and reliable sources must not be in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Plus, when you said "many others have made as well." I went to Google and I found no relaible sources that have claimed that there is a similarity between Hizbullah and Ansarallah other than the name lol. Could you show the many others who have made this claim?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually this [13] was the first result when I searched "Houthis similarity Hezbollah" which is pretty laughable because you said many and I found the exact opposite of what you said--SharabSalam (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Icewhiz, thank you for weighing in. I'm not very invested in this particular topic (not at all, actually, except that my heart goes out to the people of Yemen, who are suffering tremendously, and few people in power seem to care). However, I do not think this content should be included if it is only one single opinion. If there are indeed more, as you suggested, that's a different matter, but as you said it should be properly attributed; and it should not be given simply as an enumeration of opinions, cause that's bad writing. We have enough of that already in American Politics, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • It is on my watchlist (not very interested in the movement, but do keep tabs on the horrible conflict. This article has seen conflict disputes in the past). It is quite easy to find other sources comparing these two alleged Iranian proxies (even the FP piece mentioned above when making the point they are not the same (and obviously there are some differences)- saw a need to counter this rather widely held assertion). Here is the Saudi ambassador to Yemen making the same point - [14]. Here is another oped - [15].Icewhiz (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't be state as a fact. Because both Saudi ambassador and other writers have no proof of it. Instead it should be mentioned who said this. Also I totally believe this is a fake allegation and I am used to find US regime allegations fake. Regardless it should be mentioned who allegedly said that. Both Ansarallah and the Islamic Republic of Iran deny cooperation.the unbalance is so obvious!! --SharabSalam (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My attempts to make this article more neutral

Both the יניב הורון and the Admin with the checkuser ability Drmies said they oppose my edits here [16] where the non-latin user said in the summary (undid revision 878972852 by شرعب السلام (talk) even if it lacks attribution, first of all we try to WP:PRESERVE) and here [17] where the non-latin user said I am not here to contribute in Wikipedia. Now the admin had made the article protected I am unable to fix the article neutrality --SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, but "Facts isn't about how many people are against me and I will remove biased materials from here and I don't think anyone can stop that when I am holding a right argument"--yes, someone can stop you, and someone will if you continue edit warring. Checkuser has nothing to do with any of this. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You totally manipulated what I meant when I said what I said. I have feelings that you aren't handling this issue as an nonbisead admin you clearly supporting the non-latin guy over me without any reason--SharabSalam (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• User:יניב הורון, SharabSalam (shoot, even copying and pasting these usernames is difficult for me), the article is protected. The way out is via this process, WP:RFC. Please read the guidelines carefully before you start that. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Drmies this edit Special:MobileDiff/878973788 shows how awfully you are as an admin handling this issue. Your friend with the non-latin name has been reverting my edits with no reason and then you claim you solved the problem when you protected the page and revert my edits? Also you are using a disrespectful way when you talk to me I feel that you are trying to a provocation--SharabSalam (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Smyth

I just removed an opinion piece by someone called Smyth who is not notable or a well-known politican. There are tons and tons of people like him we should not include non-notable / unknown people opinions in Wikipedia this is Symth there are many other information available in the media other than Symth opinion. --SharabSalam (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Since when the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is an unreliable source and "not notable" for this topic ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's from the business insider a biased source and it's given undue weight. There are only two solutions shrinking his opinion in the article or removing it from Wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but Business insider got this information from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the latter sounds reliable IMHO.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

His opinion took huge part in the article and it should be removed your opinion is irrelevant--SharabSalam (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

At the end we can have a RfC discussion and see if Symth opinion should be given this whole paragraph and also it's written in a way that makes what Symth said in wiki voice--SharabSalam (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

And BTW what you said is not true. Business insider got this information directly from Philip Symth who works in that institute that means it's not the institute that has said this but Philip Smyth who BTW is not notable and should not be given that undue weight. Also and this is not related the institute is also not unbiased see it's criticism section in the article--SharabSalam (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The movement is mostly Sunni

Dear SharabSalam

The movement does not include Sunnis. The internet is full of untrusted sources.

The use of blogging platform such as globalvoices is totally not allowed. It is not trusted. This website is like google blog Blogger_(service), WordPress, facebook, twitter, and any other social media platform. Read [[18]]

The other source which is is not related. It does not clearly indicate that the movement has Sunni members. It says some Sunnis supported this militia, which totally doesn't mean they are joining them, members, or working with them. We need a more reliable source. The movement is a purely Shiite group.

Those sources don’t support this argument. Thank you for your understanding.

Also, note that you have added this info, force it, preventing anyone trying to talk with you or fix the article. please read wiki policy. [[19]]

Thank you.

References

The Houthi movement is 70% Sunni Muslims. That is something I know because I am from Yemen and I live in Yemen not in the Gulf states.

let me review the sources for you. The BBC source says clearly Many ordinary Yemenis - including Sunnis - supported the Houthis and in late 2014 and early 2015.... You have been reverted you should take it to the talk page before reverting again.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And the source in Middle East Research and Information Project clearly support that the movement include Sunnis.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Hello SharabSalam again, I am Yemeni as well, ran out from Yemen after this militia threated my life, this adds no value to this article. Also, you said "That is something I know because I am from Yemen" still what you know is not a trusted source. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. please read [[20]]

The BBC source says Many ordinary Yemenis - including Sunnis - supported the Houthis and in late 2014 and early 2015.... This has a different meaning. supporting does not mean joining this religious-political militia. Supporting is NOT becoming a member of this group. North Korea or Russia, Iran have been reported to support this militia, does that mean "houthi" movement include North Korean? What the BBC meant is that, in 2014-2015 the movement allied with the former president of Yemen Ali_Abdullah_Saleh, and with his party General People's Congress which has majority Sunnis memebrs, during the Yemeni Civil War, in which they succeeded in capturing Yemen's capital, Sana'a, Thus, they (gained support from saleh and his Sunni followers. However. In December 2017, Saleh declared his withdrawal from his coalition with the Houthis and instead sided with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and President Hadi. Accused of treason by the Houthis, he was killed by a Houthi sniper while attempting to flee the capital city of Sana'a amidst the 2017 battle for the city on 4 December 2017. --AliSami (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

AliSami Please read WP:No original research. The source says plain and simple that the movement contain Sunni fighters. In fact I have seen that myself. You probably know that most of Hashid Bakil Sunni tribes in Sana'a are against the Saudi regime intervention with or without Saleh. There is no source that people loyal to Saleh have changed their view of the Western-backed gulf regimes. In fact that's the reason why he was killed even by people who are from the al-Mutamar party(Saleh party) which is still loyal to Ansar Allah until this day.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you said "I have seen that myself", again this is not a trusted source that can be used in Wikipedia. Hashid and Bakil are under the armed controlled and occupation of Houthi. As the majority of the tribes in north Yemen, They can NOT oppose the Houthis forces because they are not capable at the moment. The leaders of these tribes are subjected to abuse, torture, and murder. They do not have enough armament to confront Houthi. Houthis have enough Iranian weapons, and all the tribes in the Sanaʽa are under thier control. --AliSami (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't provide any source either. You removed a source without any reason except your own original research. The sources are clear and I provided another source. Sorry but you are wasting our time with original research and refusing to accept what sources said..--SharabSalam (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh sure there are millions of sources indicating that houthis are Zaidi Shia. All the sources in this article are stating they are Zaydi Shiites. some of them:

Again, you violating Wikipedia roles. You can not force your opinion. We have not reached consensus on this point so don't add it. --AliSami (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I am not saying the movement isn't Zaydi and the sources are not saying the movement isn't Zaydi. What sources and I are saying is that the movement also includes Sunni fighters. It is a tribal alliance. For example the Mufti of Taiz (Suhail Ibn 'Aqil) is a Sunni but he support Houthis. So basically the sources you gave don't contradict the fact that the movement include Sunnis. Also stop reverting per WP:BRD when you do an edit and you get reverted go to the talk page and stop reverting until you get consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And I think we can also mention that there are Jews who are fighting with Houthis. For example this source from the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Watan says that there tens of Jews fighting with Houthis in the borders and that the Jewish community said they lost a 17 years old fighter in 2016.[21] There is also this source which shows that one of the Jews who traveled to Israel in 2016 was fighting with Houthis.[22]--SharabSalam (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear SharabSalam, If you revert the page, it would be the 3ed revision within 24 hours and thus your IP will be blocked.

Here are what mentioned in the sources:

the Houthis are Zaydi Shiites, or Zaydiyyah. Shiite Muslims are the minority community in the Islamic world and Zaydis are a minority of Shiites a member of Yemen’s Zaidi Shia minority, which makes up about one-third of the population..

Since they are Zaydi Shiites, you need to prove to us that there is Sunnis within Houthi movement? Or Sunni fighters within the Houthi movements. Don’t Say there are Some Sunnis support Houthis? because this is does not mean they are apart of the movement. Some sources in the internet indicate that North Korea support Houthis? Does that mean Houthi include Korean people and fighters? Same some sources stated that Iran supported Houthis? Does that mean Houthis include Iranians fighters and members? Absolutely, the meaning of Support does not make the supporters apart of the movement. bring us very clear source that indicate the houthis are mostly sunnis or there are sunni fighter withing this movement or there are sunni within the houthis.

Sigh, there are already sources in the article. In addition I can give you this source it says

...But they also have many Sunni supporters in the areas they control south of Dhamar, particularly in Taiz. Al Baidha governorate, which they control is almost entirely populated by Shafi'i (the local Sunni group throughout Yemen). (Research Associate 19 Sept. 2017)

Just a note here: I am from Sharab As Salam which is located in Taiz and I can confirm that part about Taiz.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

AliSami please stop delaying in response.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello SharabSalam the source you brought doesnt support your points. It is against you. The sources is rsearch that consist of contervisersal ideas and then study these idea and conclude the result. Not only the research is gainst you, but also the The quote posted here indicated that there are " Sunni supporters " in the areas they control. Again, supporting does make them part of the movement..

Here is what mentioned in the source you posted:

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)

Houthis are targeting Sunni mosques in the capital and changing their imams," while noting that the call to prayer was changed from the Sunni to the Zaydi version

there were reports of continued Houthi efforts to impose their religious customs on non-Zaydi residents, including by banning music and requiring women to wear full veils.

The same source further indicated that in issues such as education, the curriculum has been changed by the Houthis to be "more sectarian and [intolerant]" and that

schools are not functioning well and a large number of teachers were expelled from their schools are replaced with Houthi teachers who are loyal to the group. The Houthis also converted many schools into camps and army training centers, and other schools were converted into prisons and detention centers. (ibid.)

Also, the sources mentioned that the houthis force those from other faiths to fight for them. Sunnis who refuse to do so are tortured, kidnapped, and killed. So, basically, the source is vert clear, support us, fight for us or we will kill you.

I am sorry, you failed to bring us one clear and credible source. Even if did, it is not enough since we need very strong sources because they are many source stated the opposite. It is controversial point that should not be added to the article.

--AliSami (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

hello AliSami, well... what can I say and where should I begin. First of all what you said (not the source) is ultra nonsense. You said this Also, the sources mentioned that the houthis force those from other faiths to fight for them. Sunnis who refuse to do so are tortured, kidnapped, and killed. thats not in the source. You also said this I am sorry, you failed to bring us one clear and credible source. Even if did, it is not enough since we need very strong sources because they are many source stated the opposite. where do we have many sources that state the opposite?? you are the one who is basing his comments on original research. The sources explicitly say that the Houthis have Yemeni Sunni supports and you must differentiate between the tribe of Houthi and the Houthi movement which is a political movement. You also gave this ludicrous claim that Yemeni Sunni supporters of Ansarallah party are not part of Ansarallah; and listen to the reason you gave: "North Korea support the Houthi movement, are North Koreans Houthis". No, they are not but there is huge differences. The Houthi movement is a Yemeni movement if you support it that means you are part of Ansarallah movement because that means they joined the movement. Here what the source explicity states.

...But they also have many Sunni supporters in the areas they control south of Dhamar, particularly in Taiz. Al Baidha governorate, which they control is almost entirely populated by Shafi'i (the local Sunni group throughout Yemen). (Research Associate 19 Sept. 2017)

You also misquoted the sources. The source says The BBC reports that "[t]here are rumours that the Houthis are targeting Sunni mosques in the..." you removed the word rumors -which we know that the sources of them is the Persian gulf regimes- because it doesnt fit your point of view.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving on

I think you should both take a break from this article and see what other editors have to say. Clearly, it hits too close to home, for both of you. I've reverted to the status quo ante (the version just before the dispute), which should do, for now. We don't really want the Saudi-Iranian dispute to spillover to onto Wikipedia. Best let other, more uninvolved editors have a go at it for a while. El_C 10:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Although your comment has inaccurate implications, I agree with your solution.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So 16 days have passed since my latest comment with AliSami. I will just make a slight edit by adding more sources to that paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

edit notice requested

A request to add an edit notice for this page is open, if you have any comments about it please leave them at the request. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources ?

Hi there,

we have the Islamic State militant group has attacked all of the conflict's major parties including Houthis, Saleh forces, the Yemeni government, and the Saudi Arabian-led coalition forces. Well, if AFP and Yahoo New say so, then it must be true. —Jerome Potts (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

Please change the Ababil-T mention in the "Allegations of Iranian and North Korean support" section into [[HESA Ababil#Twin-tail variant|Ababil-T]] to make it a link to the relevant article. 192.198.151.36 (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

social justice is part of houthi ideology. add to the rightbox after zaydi revival and in page [23][24][25][26][27] 2.180.123.249 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done except mintpress source, unfortunately this source is not considered reliable in Wikipedia anymore.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

I request edits to 2 instances of the term "gulf states", 1 instance of "gulf Arab states", and 1 instance of "gulf coalition airstrikes". In all cases, the name of the body of water in question should be changed to "Persian Gulf", which is the internationally recognized name for the body of water. (example of usage in UN documents: https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf). The term "Gulf" is used by some of the Arab countries in the region and is not an official nor an internationally recognized title.

Needless to say other instances of reference to Persian Gulf in the article, such as "gulf cooperation council" are names of organizations/groups and should not be edited. Shurzar (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Eliding the word "Persian" from "Persian Gulf" is, AFAIK, accepted practice when talking about the region, and I don't see a pressing need to "un-elide". Sceptre (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism "Officially Denied" in info box

I do not see anywhere in the source that antisemitism is "Officially Denied" (and no source is given for the denial), on the contrary the source states that Houthi leaders "have made anti-Semitism a central plank in their political platform." And that they have "embedded that attitude in their slogan, 'Death to America, Death to Israel, damnation to the Jews.'" None of this speaks to any sort of official denial. I would remove it myself but this account does not yet have 30/500 (my previous account does but I don't think it carries over to alternates) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Note, however, that I've tagged this as needing a reliably sourced citation. Just quickly googling this purported official denial, I'm unable to find any supporting sources, but I haven't actually done a comprehensive search. If a supporting source isn't found pronto (i.e., within 24 hours), please ping me and I'll remove it immediately. I'd also accept another uninvolved editor removing it now, but would prefer to let it stand as being a good faith addition (where the contributor forgot to add their source), and having been the consensus infobox description for some time. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added the reference. It was in the body.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

AmbivalentUnequivocality you can ask for "EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS" status in WP:AN if your previous account had more than 500 edits.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"Antisemitism in Yemen" category

It's pretty clear that an organization whose banner is "Curse on the Jews" is antisemitic according to all standards. In addition, several sources reported harrasment of Yemenite Jews by the Houthis.--Silveter (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

They have denied the allegations. The source tells you that. For their slogan, it's a religious slogan that means Tabarra. It is translated literally in English.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The slogan is similar to when the Shia in Iraq and in Iran say "Curse on Omar" or "Curse on Aisha" Muhammad's wife. similar to the Event of Mubahala when Muslims and the Christians of Najran debated about their religion and so Muslims and Christians said "may God curse the liars". As the article here states that the Houthis are referring to those Zionists not those who are in Yemen. The Houthis say "Curse on Jews" it similarly means that Omar, Aisha or as for the Houthis Jews are cursed due to not following the true religion. The incidents allegedly commited by Houthis are not confirmed and even if one or two did that it wouldn't be based on religious reason. Video on YouTube This Yemeni poet explains the Houthi slogan as I said above.-SharabSalam (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The slogan literal translation is "Curse is upon the Jews" not "Curse the Jews". To confirm that they meant it religiously, they say "Victory for Islam" just after they say "Curse is upon the Jews".--SharabSalam (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a quote from the article you posted

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.”

--SharabSalam (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Most sources I have found describe the Houthis as anti-semitic.

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."

I understand that the Houthis themselves say they are not anti-Semitic, but enough sources characterize them as anti-Semitic that I feel the category is appropriate. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Same. Secondary sources said that they are antisemitic. Houthis disclaimer is a primary source. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are not relevant here. The Houthis have denied the allegations. Also, anti-Semitism is a term that no one actually know in the Arab world because the Nazis were in Europe and the term was coined in Europe. The Houthis have said that their problem are with the Zionists. These are allegations. The Houthis have been allied with with Jews in fact Houthis have made a deal to save Jews from getting bombed by the European-backed war against Yemen [28]--SharabSalam (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand something. If they only have a problem with "Zionists" (whatever that means), then why they don't say "Curse on the Zionists" instead of "Curse on the Jews" as their banner? As for the term antisemitism, it's true that it was coined in Germany during the 19th century, but today it's applied to all instances of Jew-hatred and persecution, regardless of time, including both Europe and the Muslims world.--Silveter (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said the word "curse" is about religious thing. It doesn't say that they hate Jews, it says that they believe God have cursed the Jews. I am pretty sure the Bible also says other religion people are cursed. The part where they say death to America and death to Israel is what they mean when they say they have problem with Zionists.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm almost sure the Quran also curses pagans for example, but the Houthis didn't include "Curse on the pagans" in their banner, nor all the other people who are cursed according to their holy book (maybe also Christians?). Which means they have an interest in highlighting the "Curse on the Jews" part. I don't think anybody seriously believes it's a coincidence. The fact that they also say "Curse on Israel" (despite this country is far away from Yemen and not involved in their war) shows that they curse Jews in addition to cursing Israel and America. Besides, many reliable sources identify this group as antisemitic both in their slogan and actions, so I don't see a point in trying to whiteash the organization to deny this fact. So far you are the only one objecting the category. I ask any other editor to please restore it since I'm not allowed to do it per 1RR. If the category of antisemitism is not included for this obvious case, it shouldn't exist at all.--Silveter (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

consensus is made through RfCs.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not an argument when a party denies an allegation. It is only their own opinion. Only secondary sources are accepted here. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yementimes reported that they deny the allegations, that's a secondary source. Primary sources is not the argument here.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No, those sources say the Houthis deny the accusation, which is not a valid argument. Do you know how many criminals in jail proclaim they are innocent? Probably close to 100%.--Silveter (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Silveter, do you know that Wikipedia is not a court? We have policies here. We add neutral point of view content, we don't compare Houthis with criminals here. We present all allegations and denying per WP:BALANCE--SharabSalam (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Only secondary reliable sources could permit to reject the qualification, not Houthis opinion about themself. Secondary sources said that they are antisemtics so we must add it. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC:Should we add Category: Antisemitism?

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.[29]--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)