Talk:March–May 2025 United States attacks in Yemen

"Took office"

This part of the first line could be confusing given this is Trump's second time in office(even though it is what the given source says); suggest "his second term began". 331dot (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@331dot check it now 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

That's better, I think. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article feels very slanted towards presenting the American / Saudi side as the victims of unwarranted attacks defending themselves against "bad guys". This from the outside looks like military might of the world's richest country and its allies attacking one of the poorest, that has tried in various ways to find help in this situation. The term "Axis of Resistance" feels particularly weaponized, with the word "Axis" in a military situation particularly harking back to the use of "Axis" to describe undesirable and "evil" alliances - specifically the Axis in WW2 between the Nazis and their allies, and the "Axis of Evil" used to describe regimes such as in Myanmar and North Korea. Even the term "Resistance" is loaded suggesting there is a direction in which others desire them to take but they do not want, whereas it seems often in this long-running series of attacks, the innocent people of Yemen seem to be subject to lethal attacks that they knew and could do little about.

I have written before repeatedly about the overall use of Wikipedia to present ongoing news in both its articles and on its front page. I object to it and I also object to the locking of articles, which I expect will happen with this article. Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, and I hope it is also NOT a mouthpiece for various political powers, though I suspect it is.

If Wikipedia truly seeks to avoid such matters, it should avoid all articles about current ongoing news and be far more transparent in the way bias can creep into articles. I read Wikipedia in many different languages, and feel that the English Wikipedia is particularly liable to such use and abuse and many of the other language Wikis do not present news on their front pages nor do they quickly open and lock articles on ongoing events that are often politically charged and use weaponized language and ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobbo69 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. At the very least it should say the Houthis say they’re doing this until the Gaza war is over. The article’s probably going to have a slight US slant since most WP:Reliable sources on this are American media, but atm it probably goes a bit too far. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Just made a fix to the lede to attempt to address some of these issues. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Well said. Polkol777 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No offense, but this reads a lot more like Houthi apologism than an objective issue with the page. The term "Axis of Resistance" is used because that is literally exactly what they call themselves a part of. The reason it comes across as people defending themselves from "bad guys" is because officially designated terrorists launching missiles indiscriminately at civilian ships passing through trade routes is kind of an indefensible situation, regardless of who has more wealth. Also, "that has tried in various ways to find help in this situation." - Yes, they have sought help to attack more vessels in the situation they created. Beyond that, I have no idea what this could possibly be referring to. Tooli Mars (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

"Axis of Resistance" is a term that is co-opted by the parties involved. Therefor, the NPOV claim that the term is used to "weaponize language" requires RS and a discussion on its page IMO. Brushnit (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Axis of evil is the POV one. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying for anyone unfamiliar. Axis of evil is the (POV) term coined by a former POTUS, whereas Axis of Resistance is the (NPOV) term co-opted and used by one of the subjects of the article. Brushnit (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an AMERICAN website. The Houthis are our enemy. If you want to rewrite the article to make the Houthis look like the good guys and the Americans to look like the bad guys, you can do that on Al-Jazeera. 129.130.19.197 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I have seen biases in Wikipedia ofc, but there seems to be little here. Most of the language is straightforward and truthful, without other implications. Even the title described the western military operations as “attacks” which if anything has a negative connotation compared if the title were named after the operation (Rough Rider). Definitely blatant attacks on civilians by houthis and also poor management on US part which has killed civilians, so there will definitely be language which could irritate a reader. GNorman1987 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

edit protection

Not sure if this is the right place, but I'd like to propose that this article be preemptively placed under auto-confirmed protection. It hasn't seen much vandalism or edit wars yet, but given that it involves a Middle Eastern military conflict and the most controversial American president in recent history, it seems likely that that may change. Althistwikibox (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've requested article protection 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

this should not be locked. All it will do is make it easier for political bias to slip in; we don't want this article being a propaganda piece. Polkol777 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not preemptively protected. If this does attract a lot of vandalism, protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Funcrunch (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

current events tag

Can the current events edit warning be added to the beginning of the article? Hvehireihghwit (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Improper image in infobox

In my opinion, it seems inappropriate to use the image of the destroyed house as the main photo for the article. While it is true that the house was destroyed in the attack, it's pretty clear -- based on all the sources provided -- that the attack nearly exclusively destroyed military infrastructure and ammunition depots.

Perhaps there could be a subsection of the article devoted to the civilian impact of the strikes, and this photo could be placed there, but in the absence of such a section it seems more appropriate to use a photo that more clearly indicates the results of the operation.

Althistwikibox (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The Signal Leak needs its own article

This is a very significant leak. this needs it own article. Alhanuty (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I second this, this is a major scandal. 2A02:8071:52F1:33E0:3C6A:D739:51B2:9703 (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@AlAboud83: You are free to move the draft at Draft:2025 United States military plan leak if you feel that it is ready. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

100%. The director of the CIA just confirmed he was part of the group chat.

Youtube link Bob drobbs (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually nevermind.

Live article is already here: United_States_government_group_chat_leak Bob drobbs (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

For the record, this new article was just created today, independent of the earlier draft article. (I was not involved with the creation of either of these articles, just making a note of this.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

IRIS Zagros

@Abo Yemen, I need your opinion on Is the ship really struck because there's been multiple sources reporting the ship to have been struck but strangely no major sources are reporting and there are also no sources stating that the strike is a hoax Waleed (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4] Waleed (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

first source cites Al-Hadath but when i tried finding the reporting itself, I found nothing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Should this ship info be added cuz I'm really conflicted Waleed (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

you could add it and request a better citation using {{bsn}} 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Did just that Waleed (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

GAN

@Abo Yemen, should I nominate this article or there's something that needs to be touched up on before nomination Waleed (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@M Waleed It's still an ongoing event. It will get quickfailed. You can nominate the sanaa airport strikes again once you address the issues from the last gan 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

UK involvement

This article states that the UK conducted a joint operation with the US against the Houthis today. Does that mean that the British military should be listed in the infobox as a participant in the campaign, or is this just part of the wider campaign which began in 2024? Hsnkn (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Direct collaboration with the Trump administration's operation - they should be listed. Angusgtw (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Following today's strikes...

Due to the US-Israeli joint striking campaign, i do think that its fair to add Israel on the list of belligerants alongsides the UK. Also the article should change its name given these campaign extended to May. VitoxxMass (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)