Talk:Houthi insurgency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Press TV ?

Press TV is a channel owned by the Iranian government to serve its agenda and was known since the start of the war of fabricating news reports daily and completely siding with the Houthis. relying on it for information makes this page about the war much less credible. --87.109.195.121 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't blacklist sites, and there are many gov-funded media groups around the world (BBC, VOA, France 24, Russia Today, etc). Certainly, Press TV is likely to be more biased than others, so you're absolutely right that reports should be taken with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean they should be completely ignored. If you have problems with specific info, I'd encourage you to edit where you see fit and perhaps add qualifiers specifying the source. I'll try to check later. Joshdboz (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

Options:

Insurgency in Sa'dah
?

While there is little question that this conflict can be accurately classified as an "insurgency" (as the sources in the article demonstrate), I do not believe that

Insurgency in Sa'dah
is the optimal title for this article, for the reason that it does not clearly specify the scope of the article.

"Insurgency in Sa'dah" defines the article's scope as being inclusive of any insurgency, by any group, carried out in Sa'dah at any time in history. In other words, "Insurgency in Sa'dah" suggests that the article examines the topic of insurgency in the

Sa'dah Governorate
in general.

"Sa'dah conflict" and "Sa'dah insurgency", on the other hand, define the article's scope as being applicable to a single, specific case of conflict or insurgency. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may agree on Saadah insurgency after this explanation --
Ч) 12:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I've moved the article to Sa'dah insurgency. I have no real preference for either "Sa'dah" or "Saadah", but I renamed to the former so that it matches
Sa'dah Governorate. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Why is this page primarily titled "Shia insurgency" instead of "Houthi Rebellion"? It seems to me that the Houthi tribe is the main focus of the conflict. They only happen to be of the Shia Islam faith. Farolif (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, this title is POV.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classification as jihad

Did

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani really describe the Yemeni government's operations as a "jihad"? This would be a compliment, which is unlikely given that the Iranian government are accused of supporting the insurgents. I have checked the reference on globalpolitician.com and its there... but does Jane Novak know what she is talking about? She uses the word "labelled" like the Ayatollah is dissing the Yemeni gorvernment but it makes no sense for a muslim to use the word jihad as a term of disrespect. - Yaris678 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello there! I put myself exactly the same question when reading this text, I checked the source, as you did, and I arrived at the same conclusion.... makes no sense. Except if Ms Novak has shortened her sentence too much and wanted to say instead: "Ayatollah Sistani has labeled [the fight against] Mohsen's assault against Yemen's Shiites a jihad" (in brackets what I suppose missing words). In other words: Sistani would support the Al-Huthi insurgency as righteous and condemn Yemen's government. Much more plausible, even if Sistani normally abstains from polemic political opinions and has not even supported armed uprising against US-forces in Iraq. I think, if no other source is found, we should just delete this sentence.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any reference to this on his website www.sistani.org (I checked both the Arabic and English versions). It does sound very strange and the source cited provides no reference of its own to where this information came from. I suggest we remove this statement unless someone can provide a statement from Sistani himself (i.e. from one of his offices or websites) which would corroborate this. TheSophy (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the jihad reference from the article. This page is currently linked from the main page and having such a nonfact is getting embarrassing. Yaris678 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I called and asked his London office, and they said no ruling has ever been given out. You must realized that Ayatollah Sistani is a spiritual leader of the Shi'a and only very, very rarely does he do anything in connection with politics, and that is always restricted to Iraq i.e. the obligatory nature of voting in the elections. Please double-check all future references, since including his name incorrectly is not only a poor display of scholarship but also serves to further strain Sunni-Shi'a interactions when an average Sunni comes to such a page and sees something absurd like the spiritual leader of the Shi'a making a regional issue an obligatory struggle against members of the same religion. You should also know, for your general information, that no Shi'ite scholar, ruler or leader has ever issued a decree of "jihad" against Sunnis because it doesn't make sense: Shi'a don't think Sunnis are heretics. Umar99 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni-led?

The header of the article presents both belligerents and labels the 'Military of Yemen', as "Sunni-led" (as pitted against the Shabab al Muomineen, which are Shia-led) I object to that: the President of Yemen is himself a Zaidi (that's for sure: New York Times and if it's true what Novak says, that "Yemeni President Saleh’s nephews, relatives and tribesmen make up the leadership of Yemen ’s military and security forces", then they must be mostly Zaydi (i.e. Shii) also. Zaydis are a minority (30-40%) in Yemen, but that does not mean that the country is 'Sunni-led'. So we put Shia-led in both sides or else we drop the religious affiliation altogether. Opinions? --Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a definite Shia link to the insurgents but the only Sunni factor of the government is a Sunni group who is among the fighters on the side of the government. Since Saudi Arabia is involved, would anyone object to the inclusion of King Abdullah as a commander for the pro-Yemeni side on the left of the infobox?
talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd say wait on including Abdullah until its clear that the Saudis are really going to get seriously involved in this thing.jackbrown (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and Hezbollah

It's sort of absurd to have Iran and Hezbollah included among the (alleged) belligerents in this conflict. No one is suggesting there are Iranian troops on the ground in North Yemen, or Hezbollah helicopters flying missions against Saudi outposts. Basically, the allegation that Iran and Hezbollah are involved boils down to Saudi propaganda, and at best suggests some level of material backing for the insurgents.

I vote for removal from the "belligerents" box, and minimizing of any discussion of this topic in the article as well, since it's widely believed (by more disinterested outsiders) to be Saudi and Yemen govt FUD...jackbrown (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago I read a BBC report stating that the Sa'dah faction has captured a small area within Saudi Arabia adjacent to the Yemeni border. The oil-rich state is most certainly involved in this, now definitely if not when I posted my first suggestion.
talk) 13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
seems Hezbollah members are actually on the ground in Yemen, engaging in combat[1]. (may be training for a third Lebanon war...?)--
Ч) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe, but it is the "Yemen Post"! Is that a good source?--189.33.14.179 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently some Gulf papers have mentioned both Iran and Hezbollah (see here form Asia Times). It's still pretty thin, so if we're leaving it in the box I'd recommend it stating Alleged support: as clearly neither party is fully engaged in the fight like the Saudis now are. Joshdboz (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. Is anyone opposed to it?--189.33.14.179 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Yemeni paper will say that: the Yemeni position is entirely this point that it's a Shi'ite led war with Iranian interference. But if that's alleged and Iranian military personnel are listed under commanders, then why not list Barack Obama under the other alleged commanders? There's an entire section talking about how the US supported the Yemeni government. I'll change it, and if you chose to change it back then take away all the other absurd alleged commanders. This article reeks of NPOV issues. Umar99 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point by Umar, in reference to listing Barack Obama (and also George W. Bush) as commanders if we're going to list Iran and Hizbullah, as the Houthis have been alleging direct U.S. involvement (read: bombing) since at least 2005. I vote to remove Iran and Hizbullah, and all associated commanders from the "belligerents" list. As has been mentioned in brief by other commenters, the Saudis (who are doing much, if not most of the bombing of Sa'adah) have much to gain by linking Hizbullah and Iran to the Houthi rebels, as Saudi Arabia and Iran are rivals in the Middle Eastern political arena. Yemen benefits from this link as well, as such a link delegitimizes the Houthis' grievances. Any source alleging Iranian or Hizbullah involvement from a Saudi source such as Al Watan or Al Arabiyah should be discredited. The Asia Times article used to reference the Hizbullah link (Sayyed Nasrallah as a belligerent) sources Al Watan and Al Arabiyah. The latter is owned by the brother-in-law of former King Fahd, and Al Watan is owned by Prince Khalid al Faysal.
talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

AlMenpar as a reliable source?

"AlMenpar" seems to be a self-published source made by Houthis themselves, but it is cited through PressTV. I think it should be removed, as it is in violation of

WP:SPS
.

E.g.: "According to the statement, the US fighter jets have launched overnight attacks on the Yemeni fighters, Arabic Almenpar website reported." --Kray0n (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources which report this [2][3][4][5][6] If Iran and Hezbollah are listed as combatants due to Yemeni claims, than US can be listed aswell.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all report what Houthi fighters themselves say. In no way those reports are confirming that the U.S. and Jordan are indeed belligerents in the war. --Kray0n (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and Hezbollah also deny involvement, still they are listed here due to Yemeni claims. The US, Jordan, Iran and Hezbollah are now listed by alleged, I think this will do.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for this reason I added Barack Obama under commanders. I personally think it's absurd that Iranian and Hzb commanders are listed here when their entire involvement is alleged. Maybe someone who realizes the absurdity of including Barack Obama will also take away the Iranian and Hzb commanders. Umar99 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ah ah. stupid wikipedia, stupid infobox--
Ч) 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

POV tag

I couldn't find any discussion about the POV tag, thus I replaced it with POV check.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do The United States and Al-Qaeda fall in?

I've heard reports that the Yemeni government was calling on Al-Qaeda to fight the Shiite rebels, and now reports that the Yemeni government is allowing the US and UK to fight Al-Qaeda terrorists[1][2]. Should we make the conflict between the United States, Yemen, and Al-Qaeda a separate conflict from the Sa'dah rebellion? The US and UK have yet to announce any open hostility towards the Houthis.173.64.72.240 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that those links are refusing to reference, I have no idea why. I'll just provide the direct links.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/03/crack-sas-team-to-hunt-the-terrorists-115875-21937848/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/02/eveningnews/main6048291.shtml 173.64.72.240 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since a user added Al-Shabaab under alleged belligerents against the Yemeni government, I have listed them as pro-governmental belligerents since there is much more evidence for that, and it makes much more ideological and geopoliticostrategic sense. Umar99 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged belligerents

I'm seeing a lot of POV issues with belligerents here, and I have tried to fix it over my past few edits, adding in the US commanders-in-chief since Iranian and Hzb commanders were also listed under alleged. Apparently someone thought they would remove the American ones without removing the others, which I did. Either they all stay, or they all go. Now we seem to have an issue with Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabaab support in Yemen. There are ample allegations of Al-Qaeda being used as mercenaries against the Houthis by the Yemeni government, some of which I have listed. In fact, this would ideologically make sense, as opposed to the idea of Al-Qaeda or it's related, inspired branch Al-Shabaab helping the Zaydi Houthis, who they view as heretics and executable according to their interpretation of religion. Now, I won't remove Al-Shabaab from the anti-Yemeni government list since it has alleged sources, but please don't remove Al-Qaeda (or any other country or organization including the United States) from the pro-Yemeni government list without explaining why here. Thanks in advance. Umar99 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

The PRESS TV source provides that the Pakistani daily Jang said Pakistan had deployed a unit of 300 Special Forces. This should be confirmed using that Jang daily as a direct source.--

Ч) 13:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Al-Qaeda

"Weasel Zippers" only seam to copy text from other sources (without providing copyright information) and comment, It also currently seams difficult to find item (I failed) as no direct link, no proper archive, you have to load a lot of unrelated content.

I removed it for now. Please comment if I made any mistakes or you disagree, if you do a new link would be helpful and if one is not readily available some information on which organisation wrote the story and who claimed al-Qaeda involvement.--Alcea setosa (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found an other source, that at least mention specific clashes http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/29/c_13711741.htm. But it does not state that the Yemeni government or the U.S. are using al-Qaeda, so I will put it in a separate category.--Alcea setosa (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/03/crack-sas-team-to-hunt-the-terrorists-115875-21937848/
  2. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/02/eveningnews/main6048291.shtml

War over?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8511705.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.173.2 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, at least for now.--
Ч) 13:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There are five outbreaks listed on this page, so I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed. Joshdboz (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi victory?

The Saudi victory claim doesn't corroborate with one of its sources and the claim doesn't reflect the actual reality of how the conflict was ended, which was through bilateral truces. First, the guardian article does not mention a Saudi Victory so it ought to be double-checked and removed by another editor. Second, the status of the insurgency should be changed to bilateral ceasefire(s), as the conflict has officially ended as a truce according to the terms agreed upon by the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/11/yemen.cease.fire/index.html) and (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world/middleeast/12yemen.html). A Saudi "victory" was not part of any settlement and was declared only by Saudi Arabia once Houthi troops withdrew from the country. That part of the conflict was also ended by bilateral truce, so this section definitely needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgfreshbeatsnap (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As fighting has started again in mid-July (as it has so often before) we really should refer to this conflict as over until there is a lasting peace agreement - not another shaky truce which only lasts for a couple of weeks or months. Consequently we shouldn't declare any "victors" until the war is finally over. I adjusted the article accordingly. Travelbird (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreaks or continuous action?

Intuitively, I'm uncertain about the use of the word "outbreak" for what seem like little more than continuations of an on-going struggle. Were things really that quiet in between the "ends" of each outbreak and the beginning of the next one? If so, fine; if not, is there a more appropriate term? Or is there another criterion for periodizing the conflict?? I don't have any further information, I'm just suspicious of the idea that the conflict could "stop" and "start" so many times.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/13/yemen.truce/index.html and other sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Article title (name change)

Since the insurgency has increasingly been taking place outside of Sa'dah province I think the name of this article shoulde be changed. Also note how none of the two sources used for the name of the article ("The Sa'dah insurgency[29][30] is a civil war in Yemen."), uses the name "Sa'dah insurgency". One of them talks merely about an insurgency in Yemen, the other about a Shi'a insurgency. I propose we change the article's name to North Yemen Insurgency, just like we have an article South Yemen insurgency.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be renamed, but more correctly used the name Shi'ite insurgency in Yemen (as stated in the sources).Sentinel R (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that would be seen as POV by some here.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From whom? This name is used in the sources on which the article is written.Sentinel R (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Shi'a insurgency, however people more sympathetic towards the regime would argue that the Houthis are supposedly terrorists who do not represent Yemen's Shi'as and that the regime is (supposedly) not a secterian one. So it's best to choose a title as neutral as possible.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself agree that the Shiite uprising? There are sources that confirm this.Sentinel R (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a Shi'a uprising, but despite that there are sources which confirm this, we can't name the article like this out of neutrality policy. There are probably also sources which would deny this. Similary, we for instance can't call the article for the 2008-2009 war in Gaza, the "Gaza Massacre" although many Arab sources refer to it like that and it was more or less a massacre, and we can't call the article for the 1978-present "Turkey PKK conflict" as a "Kurdish Uprising," although it is. But you can go ahead and remane the article, we'll see if anyone complains.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we need to wait comments from other users. If no objection from others wikipedians, is then renamed to the proposed variant (Shi'ite insurgency in Yemen).Sentinel R (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reaction. Looks like no one is against.Sentinel R (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Given that Ali Abdullah Saleh is Zaidi, is the line “Although it has received little international coverage, the conflict essentially pits Yemen's Sunni-majority government against Shia fighters...” factually accurate?76.246.49.58 (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdullah Saleh is Shi'a, however the regime is mainly Sunni dominated and in this conflict it has drawn support mainly from Sunni tribes.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of links to al Shabaab (Somali militia)

I've removed al Shabaab from the belligerents list, as well as the reference to the "200 Somali fighters", both which were sourced to this. This allegation is not corroborated by any other source that I've found, let alone by a reputable and well-known one. The author of the article linking the Houthis to al Shabaab is David Bedein, who is frankly something of a pro-Israel zealot, and the benefits of linking the Houthis, who many pro-Israel folk (incorrectly) perceive to be a client of Iran, to a proscribed "foreign terrorist organization" according to many Western countries, are apparent if one believes that the Houthis are in fact an Iranian client or proxy and that Iran and its "proxies" are a threat to Israel. Though the claims in the article are in fact attributed to unnamed "sources" in Saleh's government rather than simply asserted without any quotes or attributions, that doesn't strengthen their veracity, and to be a part of this article, these links at least need to be coming from a better source. Beyond this, the idea of al Shabaab, a Salafi paramilitary organization operating in Somalia to take over that country, and one which receives training and other forms of aid from al Qa'ida, working together with a Shi'a rebel group which is fighting against both Saleh's government and al Qa'ida, is completely counterintuitive and absurd. I completely doubt this tenuous link between al Shabaab and the Houthis, and any references to it should stay off this article until such a link can be corroborated by a reputable and reliable source.

talk) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Links

>> Houthi delegate to Yemen unity talks killed>> Rebels swarm tribal strongholds in Yemen ?>?> v Sectarian unrest draws close to Yemen capital>> Yemen army clashes with Houthis turn deadly(Lihaas (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Amran City

Houthis have taken Amran city and now control government and military institutions in the area [7], [8] and [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archinovista (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Houthis take port city Hodeida

New advance: [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.15.93.201 (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move to Huthi insurgency in Yemen

I propose this page to be moved to Huthi insurgency in Yemen, first, for common people the word Shia is linked to the sect of people who make the majority of Shia; the

talk) 05:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

"Houthi insurgency" was surely a better title. But please let me know your opinion about my new proposal, below. Thanks! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be called "Houthi movement in Yemen" instead of "–insurgency"?

I think this page is biased and has some issues with balance, NPOV and comprehensiveness. The bias I think starts from the title of the page. The previous title read "Shia insurgency in Yemen." This gave the misleading impression that Houthis are some sort of "a sectarian armed group fighting for usurpation of political power in Yemen via armed fight". But the even current improved title "Houthi insurgency" I think is misleading. "Insurgency" according to Longman Dictionary is define as "an attempt by a group of people to take control of their government using force and violence". This is true that Houthis were caught in many violent conflicts ever since 2004, but these conflicts were mostly only defensive reactions to the use of violence against them by either the government military forces or AQAP. I understand this needs verification (I will hopefully cites some sources to back up this claim) but by still looking at

1)

their campaign methods
(mentions of which can also be seen in the narrative of the event in this page), and

2) the fact that they always try to negotiate and work with other parties,

3) their demands which usually includes things like fair power-sharing, independence from foreign influence and even peace (See for example see this report),

it can very well be argued that Houthis are a popular reform movement that are pushing for political, social and economic reforms in Yemen. A new section that I'm going to add (crucial for this page balance and comprehensiveness) will also shed light on the real objectives of the movement. With these considerations I think the title of the page has to change to something more explanatory and objective such as "Houthi movement in Yemen."

Please let me know about your opinions. Thanks! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that you're coming at this from a perspective that is at least sympathetic to the Houthis, but I actually think this suggestion is worth considering for another reason: namely, the Houthi insurgents have become, at least de facto, the Yemeni government, and any further developments in the sectarian/tribal conflicts of which they have been a part would be inaccurately characterized if we described the Houthis of today as "insurgents". -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Houthis is the article about the movement. This article is about the insurgency/rebellion/conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 05:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Section "Motives and objectives" added

I just added a new section covering the POVs about Houthi's aims. This was crucial for making the page comprehensive as to the identity and goals of the Houthi movement. I will continue to improve this page. Let me know in case there is any issue. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing "insurgency"?

Is it accurate to say the "insurgency" is ongoing, considering the Houthis have, at this point, taken control of nearly all northern Yemen, taken over/formed government, and appear to be the dominant faction in the country? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. As I also pointed out a few weeks ago, this has to be either called a movement or a revolution. There's no better term that would be explanatory of the nature of the process that have been going on for years and that culminated in a massive popular revolt against the status quo and have now succeeded in replacing the government in the South. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should split this article in two per talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts#Yemeni Crisis. Obviously the Sada insurgency is long over and is not happening around Sada, thus we are in another phase of the conflict. I propose to split to pre-2011 part as "Sada insurgency (2004-11)" and post-2011 events as "Houthi rebellion (2011-present)" or similar name.GreyShark (dibra) 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For us who have been following this conflict for several years, it is quite frustrating that some people insist on creating new articles and declare the insurgency as over. This is one continuous conflict, and any timeline would clearly demonstrate there was no major break in the fighting. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there was no large-scale clashes between the government and Houthis from 2010 until 2014, and then only briefly in September. Conflicts between the Houthis and Sunni tribes were pretty much continuous during the interim, but that's straining the definition of "insurgency" even before the Houthis took over (and then formed) government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kudzu1. The Houthis are no longer running an insurgency. They have established their own government, taken the capital of the country, as well as virtually the entire north of Yemen. And like LightandDark2000 said, all of the concurrent conflicts in Yemen have merged into one full-blown civil war. On one side are the Houthis and Saleh-Army forces, while on the other are Hadi-Army forces, the Southern Movement (previously fought against both Hadi and Saleh) and even possibly AQ. EkoGraf (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was never a lasting ceasefire of some sort, and this conflict has pretty much been on and off on a regular basis since the beginning. Stating the "insurgency" ended is counterfactual - it didn't end, but escalated into a full-scale civil war. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, where do you propose to draw the line? I think it's reasonable to cut things off at the point the Houthis assumed control and declared they were forming a national government, but if you see things differently, what is your endgame?
Let's say Aden is cleared of the last remaining Hadi loyalists, separatist gunmen, and neighborhood militias sometime in the next month or so, and the Houthis take full control of the city, appoint a new governor, etc. The remnants of Hadi's government are left to hold out in the hinterlands, hanging onto just a few population centers in the eastern part of the country, with armed Sunni tribesmen and ex-soldiers who refuse to accept the Houthis' authority or fall in line with Saleh essentially acting as insurgents themselves. Is the Houthi insurgency still "ongoing" at that point?
What if Aden falls, but the Hadi loyalists regroup in, say, Al Mukalla? It's Yemen's fifth-largest city, so it's still a respectably sized population center to control. They clear the city of al Qaeda, with or without coalition help, and set up a new provisional government there, and the Houthis start marching east. Is the Houthi insurgency still "ongoing" at that point?
What if Aden falls, Hadi's loyalists scatter, the Houthis take nearly full control of the country, but then Saudi Arabia invades? The Houthis rally ordinary Yemenis, the sort who have been protesting in the streets against the airstrikes, to pick up their Kalashnikovs and fight the foreign invaders. Is the Houthi insurgency still "ongoing" at that point?
What if Aden falls, Saudi Arabia gives up on its military intervention, and the Houthis have their ambassador accredited at the United Nations, but Hadi still claims to be the president and his loyalists continue to hold swaths of territory in Yemen, maybe even including population centers like Al Mukalla? Is the Houthi insurgency still "ongoing" at that point?
All four of these scenarios are at least somewhat plausible. Do any of them really, truly make more sense as a cutoff point for the "Houthi insurgency in Yemen" than the point at which the Houthis took control of the national government? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where to draw the line? This is an ongoing war, so no line should be drawn as of today. We can keep the articles as they are, but I'd refrain from declaring the insurgency over just because the conflict escalated. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no more insurgency and its not the same conflict anymore. Now, you have four different conflicts merging into one. EkoGraf (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name 'Houthi'

I hear on NPR that the Houthis (also) took their name from a village. MaynardClark (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged foreign involvement – Saudi Arabia?

There is a section of the article entitled "Alleged foreign involvement". It has subsections discussing alleged foreign involvement by Iran and Hezbollah, the United States, Jordan, Morocco, and Pakistan. It does not have a subsection to discuss any alleged foreign involvement by Saudi Arabia. But other statements in the article seem to say there has been some foreign involvement by Saudi Arabia. Should a subsection of the "Alleged foreign involvement" section be added to mention Saudi Arabia? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being alleged, I think it's universally acknowledged, and in fact covered in detail elsewhere in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But not in the section that discusses alleged foreign involvement, which seems rather strange. Surely that is alleged foreign involvement, isn't it? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 12:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on

Houthi insurgency in Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on

Houthi insurgency in Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on

Houthi insurgency in Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on

Houthi insurgency in Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons/Equipment

Can You Please Add A List Of Weapons That Are Used In This War ? 188.136.9.17 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houthi_insurgency&oldid=1212407123"