Talk:Red Sea crisis

Merge from Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean

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

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

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

Maersk Hangzhou; Table(s);

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

Deployed forces for the United Kingdom should be:

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Incorrect information

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

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

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

However, according to The Guardian, their owners:

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

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

Article: [1] 81.129.201.199 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Requested move 12 January 2024

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

  For example, like this

  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

1RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Info box

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

{Yemen_flag} Supreme Political Council

*Houthis movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circular internal reference removal

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

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

International legality of Houthi attacks

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

Navy seal disappearance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to this article [7], the weapons were headed to the Houthis. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian military presence in Yemen

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

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

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

Alleged is not to be put in infobox per WP:ALLEGED. Iran's involvement is not alleged, but obvious per multiple sources: [8] and even prior to the current conflict [9].GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki Thoughts and Assistance Request

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

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

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

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

Add Saudi Arabia to the list of commanders?

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

Casualties

@Mr.User200: I don't understand your revert here.[10] Are you suggesting that US-Houthi conflict is not a part of this article? If so, then the current 15 killed should also be removed as they were caused by US attacks. Ecrusized (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Moved from talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

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

I'm not going to say "not done", but I also don't want to do it. The NYT source says "U.S." and "Iran". Also another source ([11]) for it doesn't say "American" but "U.S." Honestly, I think it should stay "United States-Iran proxy war" since sources seem to say "U.S." rather than "American" when mentioning the proxy war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

About the title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sidebar lists specific units used in the attack, but it lists F/A-18 Super Hornets under the United States Air Force, despite the F/A-18 being operated by the United States Navy, not the Air Force. [12][13] AirplaneEnjoyer (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)