Talk:North Yemen civil war

Emphasis, point for expansion

Should be something on Nasser heavily backing the anti-royalist side... AnonMoos 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Black mountains (Asfar) ??? Asfar means Yellow Egyptian lion (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what the source says. He could be wrong, though. -- Nudve (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1+1=3.But we have to believe the one source article,though Egyptian lion (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could remove the English names. -- Nudve (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is really a mountain in Yemen Called Black mountain so It can't be Asfar Egyptian lion (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's one named Asfar as well[1]. -- Nudve (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There we are in southern Yemen. Where did actually the article say we are? Here It is Jabal Ahmar [2] and Wadi Humaidat is in Al Jawf Governorate Egyptian lion (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Yemen Civil War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Sources

This important source is no longer available. Please find a replacement. (2)Aboul-Enein, Youssef. "The Egyptian-Yemen War (1962-67): Egyptian Perspectives on Guerrilla Warfare". The U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection. Retrieved on November 27, 2007.

You are refering to two sources cited in another one. Please use the original ones. I put citation needed tags on them since they are cited via the problematic source above.

I don't know why this article went offline. I have found this mirror of it. If the original doesn't come back, I'll replace the link.

Update: I have replaced the link and removed the tags accordingly. -- Nudve (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

You have by far more images of the royalists than the republicans. Can you shift this balance or are there any reasons to it I'm not aware of.

A map of the war would do nicely with the thrusts of the Egyptians and the places were major fighting occured, however, it's not a GA requirement.

I scanned the images from a book. These were the only relevant pictures. Yemen's lenient copyright laws put photos from that period in public domain, but I don't know where good ones can be obtained. I'm not an expert in graphics, but I'll see what can be done.

Troop numbers

You mention only Egyptian troops on the republican side. I doubt that there were zero republican forces and tribesmen. Please try to find at least an estimate for their numbers because that's a major hindrance to GA.

It's somewhat tricky, because tribesmen kept being bribed back and forth, but I'll try to find some figures.

Wandalstouring (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, -- Nudve (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Israeli involvement

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) did some operations to aid the royalists, but Israel as a nation were never in war against The Arab Republic of North Yemen. The operations were also very limited, and can not be compared with the egyptian involvement. Saying that Israel fought the egyptians in Yemen is the same as saying that Iran fought Israel in the Gaza War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article about the Israeli involvement on the Hebrew wikipedia. I found out that the only thing Israel did, was to aid the royalists with weapons. They never participated in the fighting. Therefore, Israel was not a belligerent. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, suppliers of weapons and logistics are not considered sides in the conflict. In case of Israeli supposed involvement in Yemen even the claim of logistic support is doubted and sourced only upon newspaper reports. If you like to add text, please provide it with appopriate reference.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The credibility of the source can be debuted, that does not mean the info should be removed. 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim 

It is stated very clear in the infobox "material support" there is not misleading here. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First, "material support" is very different from "belligerents". Secondly, anyway, Israeli support wasn't official and highly possible never actually happened, thus mentioning it is a synthesis and an exaggeration. If you think i'm wrong - pls bring an academic source to backup you claim, as i've seen no sufficient sources mentioning "Israeli participation" in North Yemen Civil War, besides some column in a newspaper.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

By stating that Israeli support was not official you mean that the Israeli air force planes, carrying out the operations were temporarily relieved from service with he IAF, or they were repainted to remove the official insignia of the IAF, and the Official flag of Israel, that officially identifies them to be belonging to the Official Israeli Air Force ?

I don't see that there ever WERE any planes. Haaretz says Israel rented a plane to British, which is doubtful (not mentioned in any academic sources cited). Anyway the alleged missions were by British intellegence, so you need to actually put British flag if you claim those missions indeed took place. Otherwise this is a SYNTH.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As i mentioned before, the source credibility can be debuted, but the info stays. Template:Unreliable sources is designed for such cases, however, using the template means having a discussion about the reliability of the source to finally decide it is unreliable.

Putting a "belligerent" is an exceptional claim for such a large scale war as North Yemen, the same way you can exaggerate and say that US and Britain were involved in war against Taliban and Britain in Afghanistan, because one or two British Muslim citizens enlisted to Taliban and fought there. But surely you understand how illogical is such claim. Greyshark09 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Last thing, it is not my claim. AND, the use of "it is not polite to" in revert summaries, and "your claim" in a discussion in wikipedia is not very constructive, and violates Wikipedia's guidelines, i think. Please bear in mind, that this is not an internet forum, or a personal confrontation between two opponents. Wikipedia is meant to be the collaborative work of fellow editors. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  01:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

By the time the war took place, Israel and Egypt were in a state of declared hostility. In 1956, Israel participated in a war againest Egypt initially planned for by the British, In 1967 Israel would be able to inflict a crushing defeat on a weakened Egyptian army by the involvement in the Yemen War. Delivering material support to Egypt's enemies in the Yemen War is very logically, an Israeli involvement against Egyptian forces in Yemen. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  01:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an original research by yourself, nothing more. Pls cite reliable sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that's why i added it in a discussion page, not the article's main page? ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Put your attention that you had modified an article version, which existed for 1 year long, without any objection by other editors. Claiming that "your initial edit is the one under discussion here, so let's wait for the outcome." is against wikipedia policies on article ownership.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Greyshark you really need to work on your tone here. I am sure no one here wants to turn this into a WP:revert war. my explanation of my latest undo or your revert was very clear, and does not have anything to do with modifying a one-year old version. The description i gave to my edit or restoring that specific version of the infobox was "restored the latest accepted infobox before multiple blanking prior to the move." because after multiple acts of vandalism that preceded the move, the latest accepted infobox by editor was lost. I have to warn you again of violating Wikipedia's guidlines, so please be careful next time. Finally, when i explained my undo of your revert, i suggested we should wait for the out come of this discussion. You preferred to go through edit warring, and thankfully, seems like i am not going through that with you, and the reason is stated below. I can point out to you several violations you have made of Wikipedia's guidlines, but i would just advice having few moment reading them again if you have not already. Have a good day. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Material support does not qualify to be placed in an infobox. If that was so, Israel would also be a participant in the Angolan Liberation War, the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the Nicaraguan Civil War, the Kargil War among others. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Mikrobolgeovn. I have checked on other articles with similar issues and the infobox template, and found out that material support does not has a place in the current template. Regarding using the information at all, i have already cleared that out in a previous comment. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  21:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

True, I don't think we can consider Israel as beligerent in this war. By the same token I think the quote from Michael Oren should be deleted, unless it is accompanied by quotes from other historians or experts who don't have such an obvious bias. If Israel was not involved, why should the only opinion quoted be from an Israeli? It makes the whole article look like it's been written from an Israeli point of view -which could well be the case, as it is true for many WP articles on the Middle East-. This was an inter-Arab war. Shouldn't we use quotes from Arab historians? This is like writing about JFK and allowing only Kruschev to evaluate his performance as president... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.180.248 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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.120.18.18.186 (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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.120.18.18.186 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My grandfather was part of this operation. A bit confused how it remains a matter of debate on Wikipedia a decade after the IAF has publicly acknowledged it. --ארינמל (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Iranian involvement

One last pharaoh - regarding Iran, this is also a case of no soldiers dispatched to Yemen. The article says that Iran sent monetary support (let's suppose its true) - that is very different that being a belligerent. Jordan indeed sent officers and Egypt and Saudia were sending troops, but can you bring a source that Iran declared war and sent any soldiers/officers/units?Greyshark09 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask: Does the article provide any sources on Jordan's involvement? If Jordan did actually participate, I will have to add it to the Norwegian article, but only if this can be sourced. Anyone? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article says something about Jordan sending officers. If it was indeed so, and the support was notable - then let's keep it, but some sources are needed. I'm neutral on keeping it (putting citation needed), or rm it.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In Iran's case, it's obvious: No troops, no participation. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue on that, Greyshark. As i said i only restored the last accepted infobox before multiple blanking prior to the move. We have solved one issue, and now can work on others. As the case with Israeli involvement, Iran should be removed from the Belligerents section in the infobox. Regarding Jordan's case, maybe we can use a citation needed template, before deleting the info. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed Iran from the belligerents section in the infobox. Added supporting countries to header paragraph. Removed Soviet union's mentioning, as i failed to find any information about Soviet involvement in the opposing forces section in the article.( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  00:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your last edits, because you apparently changed LEAD section, which was written according to sources, into your own version - which resulted in synthesis (i'm sure you didn't do that on purpose - because the reference for the citation was not inserted). This is why we usually first discuss how to change the LEAD on talk page, especially considering this is a featured article. Anyway i found three sourced versions we can use:

"Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Jordan supported the royalists, whereas Egypt and the Soviet Union and other communist-bloc states supported the republicans. Britain and the United States, as well as the United Nations, also eventually became major players, even if only at the diplomatic level."[3]

"Egypt assisted the YAR with troops and supplies to combat forces loyal to the Imamate. Saudi Arabia and Jordan supported Badr's royalist forces to oppose the newly formed republic."[4]

"Egypt immidiately 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." from Ground Warfare: The International Encyclopedia by Stanley Sandler.

The last version in my opinion is the best one (best source), but we can decide which one to use or maybe even other better source if you find.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Greyshark, buddy , you are missing a very important rule here which is that Wikipedia is not here to copy from sources, editors can edit Wikipedia based on sources, not copy from them. Second thing i would like to say is; do not revert then talk, do it the other way round. So, we can use all of these sources along with the one about Israeli involvement you apparently failed to mention, and write a nice cited lead section. Oh, BTW that paragraph had absolutely no source whatsoever before my changes, so i did not change a sourced information.

Here is the lead section before my edits: "the royalist side received support from Saudi Arabia, while the republicans were supported by Egypt and the Soviet Union.". Here is the corrected version: "the royalist side received support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and The United Kingdom, while the republicans were supported by Egypt.". The reason i called it "corrected version" is that after the sources you have provided, along with the sources in the article, we can now add citation for the same info i added. Thanks. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not missing the "very important rule", i just wanted to bring the sources - to decide which is the best. Israeli involvement is not mentioned by any of those sources, and we should stick to the sources, which overview the entire war (not just some operation by British or Israelis, giving it extra weight).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight; are you suggesting we should stick to the three sources you have provided, and not cite any information to any other source? cuz that's not the way Wikipedia works. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What you did is synthesis, and i give you an example:

In Lebanese Civil War, Syria invaded Lebanon in 1976, to support the Christian Maronite militians, however later switched sides and became supportive of the PLO. If you don't get the exact meaning into the lead section - you can get "Kataib, Syria and Israel fought against PLO, Syria and Hizbullah."

Can Syria fight against Syria? Nope, but this is exactly how you put it here with the involved parties. When mentioned together, you put Britain, Iran, Israel and Jordan as if their weight of involvement is identical to Saudia and Egypt, which were seriously involved in the fighting - no source says it this way. Since we have an understanding rather than edit-warring - as i disagree to your edit, you should either self revert or we should reach a consensus on proper description in the lead section, per WP:RS. Keep in mind we use the most reliable sources in the lead - secondary, tertiary with first preference, and only if we don't have those, we use newspapers and primary sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Did not catch my self putting out that Egypt fought Egypt, did you?

I think we are having a little misunderstanding here because i believe i have edited the article the way it should be. Talking about rules can take article, and they have their articles explaining them. If i have mistakenly broke any of them, please point out the exact rule that have been broken, and how that was done. That's about the rules; about that all supporters had identical contribution to the conflict, the lead section did not mention that in any way. The reader can have a quick overview of the supporters in the lead section, and find the details about each contribution in the article. Also, the lead section mentions support by the soviet union which by that time was a far greater force than any other supporter, but, again the lead section did not specify the contribution of each supporter excepting for Egypt. So, the article's lead section did not imply that supporters had equal or identical contributions.( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me put is out this way; Wikipedia definition of synthesis is "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In our case here, we are putting (A) + (B) to have (A+B), not (C). Not all data are cited to the same sources in Wikipedia, editors gather sources, put together the data, cite each to their respectful source to get the full picture. A synthesis is also not what you have given example of, you seem to misunderstand that part. Your example actually qualifies for WP:Contradiction :D ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we point out which supporters sent their own soldiers to battle, that would make things very clear. What do you think ?( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  04:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the lead section should provide basic info on the involvement nature of related and alleged supporters. Backed up with appropriate sources, better secondary (academic) or tertiary (encyclopedic).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, we could use that last source you provided, just need extra info about it (publisher, author, date, etc.). Also, the united states was mentioned as a major player by the first source here, and has it's material support for the Saudis is cited to another in the article. So it gets mentioned too. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  04:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandler, Stanley. Ground Warfare: The International Encyclopedia. Vol.1 (2002): p.977. "Egypt immidiately 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) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Great!

With info of the last source, we can write a different version, that i guess both of us are going to agree to perfectly. We can rewrite that part of the lead section as to show major contributors such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Britain, and brief that there were other countries involved. Some thing like: "The royalists were supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Britain along with other countries, while the Republicans were Supported by Egypt with the Soviet Union allegedly sending 24 planes" citing the whole statement to the last source. The older version could then be moved to the Opposing forces section as the introduction before detailed information in the section. I have made an Edit to the sandbox to express what i mean. Planning to make a full preview later. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  14:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Pharaoh, since it has been some time after you promised to make a sandbox rewrite, i will exchange your unagreed lead sentence version with Sandler's, per good faith. If you would like to input another source, you are welcome to discuss it here. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

End of the war

Hello there, great work this article, although very long for my taste. How about shortening a little and making it easier to read? Two points:

1. The last chapter is actually too short, after so much war, the end of it is told in a few sentences, when we should expect the royalists to be on the winning side, after the withdrawal of Nasser's aid. OK, Saudi Arabia also withdrew its help, but in the whole article, the royalists are pictured as more or less yemenite, and the republican military force as almos exclusively Egyptian; so when Nasser withdrew, the republican side should have imploded in ten minutes. But they won the war. How's that? Or didn't the Egyptian troops withdraq, did they stay? There is nothing in the article to explain that. Could you elaborate a little?
2. Where the article said: "On November 5, the royalists, supported by republican tribesmen called down to San'a, moved four tanks into the city's dusty squares..." I've changed the word 'royalists' for 'yemeni dissidents', because the coup cannot have been staged by royalists if these later lost the war! I've checked the source (the article is greatly sourced, by the way!) and it says "dissidents". Somebody must have assumed that dissidents meant royalists there, but it most surely did not, but referred to dissidents to Sallal's regime inside the republican government. You agree? Thanks --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree about your first point. First of all, it seems the Soviets continued to support them. In addition, since the Saudis drastically cut down their support for the royalists, it seems they began to run low on arms and supplies, and could not really tilt the balance. It really does not say. The best source I have, Schmidt's book, was published in 1968, before it was all actually over. It's surprisingly hard to find sources detailing the last phase of the war. Thanks for your comments :) -- Nudve (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that great piece of work! Just one remark to add:

In the chapter “Diplomacy” of the article “North Yemen Civil War" it is stated that “Ambassadors from Bonn, London, Washington D.C. and Amman supported the Imam”. This is not correct. My father at that time was chargeé d’affaires of the Federal Republic of Germany in Taizz. Immediately after the revolution on 26th September, 1962, he broke of his home leave in Bonn and after intensive political discussions in the Foreign Office in Bonn, among others with Assistant Secretary Dr. Karl Carstens, persuaded the Government, to formally recognize the Yemen Arab Republic under international law (the USA followed on 19 Dec. 1962).

Thus, the evening newspaper “Hamburger Abendblatt”, on 24 Oct. 1962 announced that “The Federal Government has recognized the revolutionary government of Yemen. The German representative in Yemen has been asked by the Foreign Office to inform the Government there of this decision. The Federal Republic is the first western state which has decided for doing so.“ Manfred M. Steffen, c/o German Industry & Commerce Office, Dubai, UAE

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)

al-rawda

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)

Jordan in the war

Jordan?Regaina (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

So yous had the audacity to add jordan not long after rejecting israels inclusion, even though the source used to back jordans inclusion is no better than the initial source used to reject israels inclusion? Truly incredible!--120.18.220.147 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Duff Hart-Davis

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)

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)

Cold War?

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)

Redirect

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)

Good point,  DoneGreyshark09 (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

North yemen civil car

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)

117.120.18.136 (talk · contribs) 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)

North Yemen vandalism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request comment

Should this edit be removed from the article?--120.18.157.238 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think it should be included because:

1. There are ample reliable sources that cite Israel's inclusion.
2. The sources include quotes which leave no doubt as to Israel's support.
3. The references mention Israel in the same sentence along with other supporting countries eg. Britain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. So who are we to knock Israel off this list? And based upon what reasoning?
4. The article itself mentions Israeli support.
5. We as editors are not here to define what level of support merits a countries inclusion in the infobox: if we have reliable sources that say a country supported then we shouldn't be playing around using obscure reasoning to block its inclusion. Otherwise, wouldn't we be opening the door to improper agenda-driven editing?--120.18.45.53 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - first of all i'm glad that semi-protection results in good outcome, which is a fruitful discussion. Still, the topic has already been extensively discussed, without a consensus to add neither Soviet Union, nor Iran, nor Israel to the infobox as belligerents. The infobox has long been stable to include the Kingdom of Yemen, Republicans, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. This is also the position of historians on this conflict:

Michael Brecher‏ and Jonathan Wilkenfel. A Study of Crisis: p324-5. University of Michigan Press. 1997. "The four actors in the first phase of the long Yemen War were Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen"

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."

I have recently also added United Kingdom, as a supporting party, but i admit that its addition may be somewhat disputed, as their support to the royalists was covert (via a private mercenary group), even though some editors tried to put too much emphasis on this issue in the article; i must remind that the major supporters of royalists were Saudis and at first also Jordanians. The attempt to add Israel, which allegedly assisted logistically to the UK mercenary group, based on mostly non-academic sources, is mostly a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NOTABLE, trying to present as Israel an important direct player in North Yemen Civil War (which is clearly untrue). Similarly, Soviet Union and Iranian support was likely not significant if at all.GreyShark (dibra) 09:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

All your arguments are easily debunked. You claim i use mostly non-academic sources: both books are published by academic publishers and the websites are reliable news sources. Add to that the cites within the article body and i think you are not in a position to determine how many reliable sources are required to meet your subjective requirements.
Regarding your claim that semi-protection was good for seeking discussion. I think it is quite obvious you applied for protection simply to prevent me (an IP) from being able to edit my addition. It looked like more of an attempt at stifling debate and opposition to your rejection of my addition. If you were so worried about discussion then why did you trivially remark to my comments on your talk page (before you sought the page protection)?
You mention that you added jordan and saudi because it is backed by reliable sources: well you have selectively quoted sources that support your view. Just because your sources might exclude israel that doesn't mean that israel can be excluded outright. There are sources which mention it and there are sources which don't—just as there are sources which mention and don't mention jordan and britain (as my sources show). So if i wanted to be selective or have an ulterior motive i could argue against their inclusion also. However, what wiki should be doing is reporting what reliable sources say; plentiful sources say explicitly that israel supported the royalists. That is the facts—without any spin.
Also, the discussions about israel's inclusion were done before more sources were added in supporting its inclusion.--120.18.215.97 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is only one good source concerning the links of the British Mercenary Organization with Israeli officials on logistical grounds - this is by Prof. Clive Jones; Ha'aretz is basically citing the book of Cline Jones; Hurt-Davis is a journalist and his book is no way a high-quality source. Stick to sources - the main players were as listed, so say Michael Brecher‏, Jonathan Wilkenfel, Sandler Stanley and similarly Clive Jones (who concentrates on the British role, naming his book "Britain and the Yemen Civil War, 1962–1965").GreyShark (dibra) 11:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Do yourself a favour; look up Politico, The Economist, Yale University Press and I.B. Tauris. Tell me, are these reliable sources or not? Whether israel should or should not be added is based upon these sources. If they are reliable and they explicitly say that israel supported then tell me how you can then ignore and discount them? This is the issue. Please do not try and divert away from the issue at hand by focusing upon sources that are not the sources used in the infobox concerning the edit i have issue with.
Essentially, what we have are 3 scenarios: 1) They are reliable and so israel should be added. 2) They aren't reliable; hence israel shouldn't be included. 3) They are reliable, but israel shouldn't be included because you know of a special wiki policy that says that if a reliable source explicitly says something then that info has no right to be included based upon the whim of a random editor. So i wander which option we have before us?--120.18.81.210 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - somebody should have made a proper RFC to bring more editors for this discussion. I doubt however that some new consensus to be reached. In the meanwhile, the IP is continuing edit-warring despite his attempt to earn a Wikipedian username. It might become an issue of sockpuppeting, if this continues.GreyShark (dibra) 14:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015

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)

@Ulib2015: 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)

@GreyShark Sorry, didn't understand. Can you tell me what do I have to do in order to proceed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulib2015 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait until the RFC is finished.GreyShark (dibra) 19:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on Israeli involvement

Should Israeli involvement in the war be included as shown here? 179.153.22.144 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you Ulib2015? If so, this is (again) an improper utilization of multiple accounts.GreyShark (dibra) 14:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Shall we go to an investigation?GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, I do not understand. Why is it a question? Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Borsoka: 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)

Maybe Israeli involvement - if any - should be included, but only if you've got the reliable sources you'll need to prove this. I'm actually focused on the topic of this section, not whether or not you're a sockpuppet of Ulib2015. Zakawer (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

@Zakawer: 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)

• Comment - since we finally got more users in this thread, i would for a moment ignore the suspicion that IP user is a sock puppet and would like to call on User:Ruslik0, User:CAPTAIN_RAJU, user:Mikrobølgeovn, user:Reenem and user:Averysoda - previously involved in editing this exact topic on this page.GreyShark (dibra) 16:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Federation of South Arabia

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)

Link to Hazm change

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)

Weapons/Equipment

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)

FSA

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)