Talk:Houthis

Potentially misleading characterization of Asharq Al-Awsat

The sentence in question currently states:

"Aside from the Panel of Experts, London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat alleges that the Houthis have revived slavery in Yemen."

The description of the publication as "London-based" seems to obfuscate that (quoting from its Wikipedia article) "the paper was founded with the approval of the Saudi royal family and government ministers, and is noted for its support of the Saudi government. The newspaper is owned by Faisal bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family."

Additionally, its publisher, the Saudi Research and Media Group is described as having "close ties to the Mohammed bin Salman government in Saudi Arabia. King Salman's sons have chaired the company. Its closeness to the government of Saudi Arabia has led it to be considered an outlet for the government in the west, particularly in the United Kingdom."

Obviously none of this precludes their reporting from being accurate, yet it seems irresponsible to not include some reference to their background when citing them in this context. Specifically, the Saudi government has engaged in a multiyear military campaign against the Houthis, and in 2019 (the year of the article's publication) Saudi Arabia ranked 172 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index. For these reasons government-backed publications should be regarded with additionally scrutiny when reporting on matters connected to Saudi geopolitical interests. Jj1984o (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jj1984o "British-Saudi Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat" works? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

References

kipnapper

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/h1n9pnwkje In recent months, the Houthis have kidnapped dozens of UN and humanitarian aid workers, claiming they are part of an "Israeli-American spy network." Now the UN has announced the suspension of humanitarian activity in Saada province - the Houthi stronghold in Yemen: "An unprecedented step" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:707:E800:AC0F:5826:7E5C:8E80 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 26 March 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

However, it has been also been reported that Houthis harass women and restrict their freedoms of movement and expression.

+

However, it has also been reported that Houthis harass women and restrict their freedoms of movement and expression.

Thefunk187 (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2025

Positive opinion of Houthi in Yemen:

8% in Houthi controlled areas 3% in Government controlled areas 3% Divided Control

https://sanaacenter.org/the-yemen-review/july-sept-2024/23516 Unlitearth (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Skitash (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 7 May 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

Houthis fighters in Yemen, August 2009

+

Houthi fighters in Yemen, August 2009

66.207.78.10 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done - thanks! Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Unit 3800

This edit introduces a claim solely attributed to the Alma Research and Education Center, an Israeli organisation whose leadership and board, according to their website, are mostly composed of IDF personnel. Alma focuses on border issues and the security concerns of the IDF, and their analysis is shaped by an Israeli defense perspective, so when it comes to Hezbollah, there is perhaps a conflict of interest. To make a comparison, it is a bit like relying only on Ukrainian sources to make claims about Russia, or on Indian sources to make claims about Pakistan, and vice versa. In my opinion, it would be better if the statement were also supported by additional sources. I have looked around to see if this is reported by independent outlets as well, but so far I haven't found anything. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I've added a bsn tag 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your comment. i updated sources regarding Unit 3800. BasselHarfouch (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The website https://hezbollah.org/ doesn't actually belong to Hezbollah. The first thing that I see when visiting the page is "A Project of United Against Nuclear Iran". If you take a look at their board you can probably draw your own conclusions. Regarding the Stimson Center, it's a think tank based in Washington. I'm not saying that Israeli or American organisations cannot be neutral when it comes to Hezbollah, but to be honest, I wouldn't expect complete neutrality from groups that speak about "the Iran threat" and are filled with former or current military and government officials from countries that officially designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your comment, most governments in the west see Hezbollah as a terrorist group and Iran as a threat. WIkipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources say so it is only logical that many, or even most sources, will frame the issues through this lens. BasselHarfouch (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't reflect western propaganda 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't, it reflects information based on sources, very simple. BasselHarfouch (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem, in my view, is that the sources you are providing are quite partisan. While Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organisation in several Western countries like the US, this is not a universally accepted position, and I don’t think Wikipedia should reflect only what is commonly stated in the West, as if that were somehow the more legitimate view. In this particular case, we should be careful not to rely solely or too heavily on sources closely tied to governments that actively oppose Hezbollah, since they tend to reflect a specific perspective. This is particularly important when making serious claims like this one. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I can see why you are trying to make this a "west" issue. But as it stands, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, the Gulf Cooperation Council, have all listed Hezbollah as a terroist group. That is, the entire organization Hezbollah. So your claim does not stand, as the facts are against you. Even Middle Eastern countries, do not share your point of view. BasselHarfouch (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not trying to frame this as a "West" issue. My point isn't about whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation or not. That is not relevant for this particular article. My concern is that relying solely on partisan sources to support a claim about Hezbollah, especially when the claim is not clearly attributed to those sources, does not seem appropriate. If we are going to present something as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, then ideally we should be able to find the same information in more independent sources. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Even though you say you are not trying to frame this as a "west" issue, i will quote your own words saying:

"While Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organisation in several Western countries like the US, this is not a universally accepted position, and I don’t think Wikipedia should reflect only what is commonly stated in the West, as if that were somehow the more legitimate view."

So it is very clear your issue is a "west" issue, you do not except legit sources, simply because they do not supprot you point of view, even though the sources are factual. Except for repeating YOUR point of view, you haven't brought a single source to support your point of view, or contradict any of the writen facts. BasselHarfouch (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain, I think the main issue here is the strong reliance on clearly partisan sources. That tends to push a particular POV, and as far as I understand, we're supposed to aim for something more balanced. I've tried to find independent sources to support this, but so far I haven't come across any. This isn't really a "West" problem: there are strong ideological biases in many places. Just as an example, should we rely only on Russian sources to make claims about the Ukrainian military? Or only Pakistani ones when writing about the Indian military? The same goes for using only Palestinian sources for the Israeli military, or Iranian ones for the American military, and vice versa, and so on. I think in all these cases, most of us would look for something a bit more independent. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

As i explained in my previous response and proved with facts as i quoted your own words, it is a "west" issue for you. I have added sources like - Al Arabiya,which isn't a "west" sources, i proved you wrong on your claim that only western countries regard Hezbollah as a terrorist group (facts is, as i wrote United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, the Gulf Cooperation Council have listed Hezbollah as a terroist group). Fact is you simply ignore the fact, you are mostly mistaken most of the time and just keep pushing you own opinion, if not to say, agenda. BasselHarfouch (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any agenda to push here, and I'd appreciate it if my genuine efforts to improve the article weren't mischaracterized in that way. I didn't notice your addition of the Al Arabiya source earlier, as I don't check my watchlist very regularly. My criticism was only about the first three sources you used, and I still feel they're not ideal, for the reasons I provided earlier. But the Al Arabiya one seems solid. According to WP:RSPSOURCES, it's considered usable for topics not directly related to the Saudi government, and in this case the article does seem to support the sentence quite well.

I'm glad we now have a more suitable source. That was my aim from the beginning. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I am glad you to read your last messege. May i suggest that in the future, maybe instead of critisinsing someones work, you could contribute to it, by helping and finding suitable sources. That is the true spirit of Wikipedia, people collaborating and helping each other. BasselHarfouch (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to introduce a claim, the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@BasselHarfouch Respectfully, I've really been trying to keep things polite, but it does feel as though you're determined to interpret my comments as deliberately hostile. I've said several times that I tried to find sources and wasn't able to, and my criticism was only about the sources you originally used. Those are still in the article, although I still don't think they're suitable, for the reasons I've already explained. Neither of us is above criticism, and we shouldn't be. Being open to feedback is part of what makes this project work as well as it does. I hope that next time I or someone else offers you input the response will be a bit more constructive, instead of resorting to personal attacks. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)