Talk:North Yemen civil war

message: Should be something on Nasser heavily backing the anti-royalist side... AnonMoos 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the source says. He could be wrong, though. -- Nudve (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we could remove the English names. -- Nudve (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: There's one named Asfar as well. -- Nudve (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. Maybe these are not the same mountains, but other ones with the same names. Unfortunately, the author is dead, so I can't really find out. -- Nudve (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, this is sourced information. If you have a reliable secondary source, that says otherwise, you may introduce it. -- Nudve (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis, point for expansion 

message: There was a link in this article to Al-Rawda Airfield. However, this must have been a redlink since Al-Rawda is now an article on an archaeological site in Syria. I changed the link to Al-Rawda Airfield instead. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-rawda 

message: Jordan?Regaina (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandler, Stanley. Ground Warfare: The International Encyclopedia. Vol.1 (2002): p.977. "Egypt immediately began sending military supplies and troops to assist the Republicans... On the royalist side Jordan and Saudi Arabia were furnishing military aid, and Britain lent diplomatic support. In addition to the Egyptian aid, the Soviet Union allegedly supplied 24 Mig-19s to the republicans."Greyshark09 (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan in the war 

message: There is a pretty much heavy reliance on his statements in the article, but the source is pretty weak, because the author is not an historian, but a journalist. Journalist claims on past events are seldom considered a good quality source in wikipedia, preferring historian perspective. I guess there is no problem to keep him as long as his claims are described as "according to Daff-Davis" and until no better source is brought. Still Daff-Davis' claims should be used with proper doubt.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is very careful with its sources and appears to have been thoroughly researched. The H-D account largely agrees with Haaretz and fits in with the Sunday Times account also, so we have 3 independent sources of some degree of reliability: not bad for a secret involvement. The publication of the captured letters by Al-Ahram is also independently verifiable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Duff Hart-Davis

message: I am a bit puzzled as to why [an IP editor is] adding a template to label this article as "Cold War". It's happened twice, so we'd better talk about it. Is there any connection between this small hot war and the tensions between the USA and USSR? It is true that Britain and Israel opposed Egypt - but this seems to have been a) local and b) without the knowledge or approval of the USA. We can't just label anything that happened in the 1960s as "cold war", it makes no sense - unless everyone knows something I don't?  Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold War?

message: I have noticed that "Yemeni Civil War" redirects here, and I don't think that should be the case. There have been many civil wars in Yemen and it should redirect to the disambiguation page. Charles Essie (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Greyshark09 (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: So i read the talk page discussion and found that the arguments are very much redundant in this case. The discussion claims that israel shouldn't be included because there is a lack of reliable sources to support the claim. Well the source i have given is clearly reliable and scholarly. Furthermore, the source very explicitly states that israel was supporting the zaydi imamate. Persia is also mentioned in the source as supporting the imamate; just in case you would like to include it also. The article also clearly mentions a number of examples of israeli involvement, so to say its involvement is all speculation is just unfounded. It is also not far-fetched that israel would want to help a regime which was in conflict with egypt—a prime enemy of the israelis at the time. Please stop removing reliable information, but rather prove to me that the source doesn't mention what i have just shown.117.120.18.136 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the aggressive editing and abide the consensus above. This is a good article and if you wish to make changes against previous consensus - please discuss them first. I will ask to protect this article if you continue the edit-warring.GreyShark (dibra) 16:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

text: This issue has been discussed before. No one denies that Israel supported the royalists with material aid, but the dispute is whether this is noteworthy in the infobox or not. Please refrain from further reverts before altering the previous consensus. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, i wouldn't agree even with that - it seems that Israel provided logistics to the British, who might have used it in their effort to support the royalists. There is no evidence for Israeli direct support to the royalists, except some journalists' conspiracy opinion piece (Duff Hart-Davis), which is not really qualified as a good WP:RS. Anyways, we agree it is not worth mentioning in the infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: btw: to call my edits vandalism is rather insulting. This is not rubbish that has been added, but well cited, accurate info. Just because we differ on its notability does not make it vandalism. Also the article already makes mention of quite detailed israeli involvement. So its actions in yemen are not some myth, as is being claimed. And what of the mossad agent who was exchanged with egyptian prisoners held by israel? Perhaps he just wandered and was acting in yemen without his governments knowledge. Israel was involved, at least in a supporting role, and to simply expunge this from the info-box is not suitable.117.120.18.135 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a long-standing consensus that Israeli role in that conflict in too small and has low support by quality sources to include in the infobox. Please stop edit-warring, and try to achieve a consensus on the talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 06:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

text: True, and I can't see this debate offering anything new so far. Israel played less than a minor role, if any role at all, and placing it in the infobox (while ignoring countries like the Soviet Union) is at best misleading. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: israel undoubtedly had a role and you can't whitewash history. If you would like to add the ussr then please be my guest—no one is holding you back. I didn't add that because that was not what interested me. But that doesn't negate the merit of my edit. If you look at other articles then you will find groups in the support section that have offered far less than israel did. The source says explicitly in no uncertain terms that israel supported and the article info backs that up further. So we have reliability and notability.120.23.250.163 (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear objection to your opinion. The page is now protected, and if you wish to change the status quo - refer to this discussion to gain a majority consensus or you are welcome to go to dispute resolution boards.GreyShark (dibra) 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: More precisely, the article was semi-protected against editing by IPs.  Semi-protection has just expired.  This appears to be a content dispute, not vandalism.  The IP should be aware that if he or she has been editing long enough to know what vandalism is, he or she has been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism, and that using the word "vandalism" idly in a content dispute is a severe personal attack.  If the IP really wants moderated dispute resolution, they should follow my advice and change the title of the request for moderated dispute resolution.  If they really think that the edits are vandalism (rather than a matter of due weight), they may file at the vandalism noticeboard after reading the boomerang essay to prepare for the block for the personal attack if they falsely claim vandalism.  Very shortly, if the dispute resolution request is not corrected, it will be closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  North yemen civil car 

message: you are being warned for the last time before i report your repeated vandalism. You cannot remove reliably cited content because of your own prejudice (whatever that is), which you seek to cloth with baseless claims. Your insolent removal of my previous comment on your talk page only solidifies the view that you have no real arguments to counter the inclusion of israel—as the reliable source explicitly states. I don't know whether you were biding your time before your latest repeat content removal (hoping i had moved on and you could get away with your edit), however, this is the last time i will put up with your vandalism. Either you prove that my reliable source does not explicitly mention israel as a military support, or cease your vandalism.120.18.84.48 (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed before. No one denies that Israel supported the royalists with material aid, but the dispute is whether this is noteworthy in the infobox or not. Please refrain from further reverts before altering the previous consensus. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, i wouldn't agree even with that - it seems that Israel provided logistics to the British, who might have used it in their effort to support the royalists. There is no evidence for Israeli direct support to the royalists, except some journalists' conspiracy opinion piece (Duff Hart-Davis), which is not really qualified as a good WP:RS. Anyways, we agree it is not worth mentioning in the infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: btw: to call my edits vandalism is rather insulting. This is not rubbish that has been added, but well cited, accurate info. Just because we differ on its notability does not make it vandalism. Also the article already makes mention of quite detailed israeli involvement. So its actions in yemen are not some myth, as is being claimed. And what of the mossad agent who was exchanged with egyptian prisoners held by israel? Perhaps he just wandered and was acting in yemen without his governments knowledge. Israel was involved, at least in a supporting role, and to simply expunge this from the info-box is not suitable.117.120.18.135 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a long-standing consensus that Israeli role in that conflict in too small and has low support by quality sources to include in the infobox. Please stop edit-warring, and try to achieve a consensus on the talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 06:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

text: True, and I can't see this debate offering anything new so far. Israel played less than a minor role, if any role at all, and placing it in the infobox (while ignoring countries like the Soviet Union) is at best misleading. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: israel undoubtedly had a role and you can't whitewash history. If you would like to add the ussr then please be my guest—no one is holding you back. I didn't add that because that was not what interested me. But that doesn't negate the merit of my edit. If you look at other articles then you will find groups in the support section that have offered far less than israel did. The source says explicitly in no uncertain terms that israel supported and the article info backs that up further. So we have reliability and notability.120.23.250.163 (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear objection to your opinion. The page is now protected, and if you wish to change the status quo - refer to this discussion to gain a majority consensus or you are welcome to go to dispute resolution boards.GreyShark (dibra) 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: More precisely, the article was semi-protected against editing by IPs.  Semi-protection has just expired.  This appears to be a content dispute, not vandalism.  The IP should be aware that if he or she has been editing long enough to know what vandalism is, he or she has been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism, and that using the word "vandalism" idly in a content dispute is a severe personal attack.  If the IP really wants moderated dispute resolution, they should follow my advice and change the title of the request for moderated dispute resolution.  If they really think that the edits are vandalism (rather than a matter of due weight), they may file at the vandalism noticeboard after reading the boomerang essay to prepare for the block for the personal attack if they falsely claim vandalism.  Very shortly, if the dispute resolution request is not corrected, it will be closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: North Yemen vandalism

message: THE EXISTING PASSAGE:
On the royalist side Jordan and Saudi Arabia supplied military aid, and Britain gave covert support,
SHOULD BE IMPROVED ON BASIS OF NEWLY AVIAVLABE INFORMATIONS TO:
On the royalist side Jordan and Saudi Arabia supplied military aid, and Britain and Israel gave covert support,
SOURCES TO BE ADDED:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4671127,00.html
Ulib2015 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you decided to sign up for wikipedia, but please do not try to bypass the RFC above before it is closed.GreyShark (dibra) 06:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Wait until the RFC is finished.GreyShark (dibra) 19:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015 

message: Should Israeli involvement in the war be included as shown here? 179.153.22.144 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you Ulib2015? If so, this is (again) an improper utilization of multiple accounts.GreyShark (dibra) 14:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep your comments relevant to the rfc. Your Red herring has been answered here from before. 179.153.22.144 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we go to an investigation?GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol! Be my guest...I'm quaking in my boots! I repeat: this section is about the rfc - not whether i'm a sock. If you want to talk about sock then start a new section or comment in the relevant places. Stop trying to divert attention away from the real issue that threatens your agenda. 179.153.22.144 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do not understand. Why is it a question? Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because Greyshark09 keeps removing my edits — with little reasoning — no matter what references are added. Therefore, i am seeking the support of other editors to, hopefully, override his seemingly agenda-driven objections. 179.153.22.144 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the sources have so far been problematic - no academic source has ever included Israel or Iran and only rarely mentioned United Kingdom's mercenaries (which allegedly was supported with logistics by Israeli Mossad) - see above discussion on Israel and Iran. The point is though also of weight - in addition to large scale troop involvement of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, several countries have provided various logistic, financial and other support the sides. We have so far had the consensus that Israeli and Iranian role (if such even existed) were extremely sidelined by more active actors such as Britain, Jordan and Soviet Union, which is the general view in the academic works on this topic.GreyShark (dibra) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

text: We have plenty of reliable sources, as the edit link above shows—with quotes included for good measure. Among these sources are an I.B. Tauris book and a Yale University Press source, not to mention The Economist, Politico and Ynetnews. 179.192.126.222 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Israeli involvement 

message: Recently, FoSA was added into infobox without discussion and without providing sources by user:MartinKassemJ120 . The Globalsecurity source provided is stating that the British feared for the collapse of South Arabian Federation and thus intervened, but it implies the Federation itself didn't have any role in the war. Unless there is better justification for FoSA inclusion - it should be removed per WP:BRD and WP:RS.GreyShark (dibra) 09:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Federation of South Arabia

message: At the bottom of the North Yemen Civil War#Ramadan offensive section is a link to Hazm, which - from context - should be a place, but was a link to disambiguation page of personal names. Because the place name is mentioned with Jawf I suppose the correct link is to Al Hazm, Yemen, in Jawf governorate. I also found some of the other places (e.g. Barat, Sadah) mentioned in the same paragraph on the map in vicinity, and discription IMO fits. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Hazm change 

message: Can You Please Add A List Of Weapons That Are Used In This War ? 188.136.9.17 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons/Equipment 

message: I don't understand how the Federation of South Arabia, a state under British protection, is supporting the opposing side on the war and not on Britain's side. Additionally there are no sources for the FSA being on Yemen Arab Republic's side Abo Yemen✉ 13:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSA 

message: I do not know what source you relied on to say civil war. Yemeni Arab sources say revolution. I don't care if an English source said it was a "civil war." It is necessary to rely on Yemeni sources. The Yemeni consensus says it is a "revolution." It is also a democratic, republican revolution that came to boil down racial class division. It is compatible with Western values. Yet you describe it as a "civil war." What is also strange is that you recognize the Cuban Revolution. Even the French Revolution. But perhaps there is some kind of bias. Please review the matter. Not only is it a revolution of an Arab country, then it is just a civil war. it sounds like thinking of the Yemenis are just savages that they don't do revolution but rather wars. One of the principles of the revolution is the establishment of a democratic state, the abolition of discrimination and class, and equality among people. I find it strange and biased to call it a "civil war." Shadigaafar (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: what do reliable sources call it? Abo Yemen✉ 09:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolution and not civil war