Talk:Battle of Marib

Events from Marib Governorate campaing.

I have moved a part of the events covered on Ma'rib Campaign here since is more suitable. If the battle ends in a Houthi defeat or victory is more likely that clashes will continue to take place at the Governorate itself. Also the type of warfare and events to be covered here are different from the Marib campaing. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, thank you for your edits Temeku (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:, please do not delete my edits just because you don't like them. OKMG-1200 (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Parts of your edits are spotty claims made by one of the warring side(Saudi). Most claims made by Saudis don't have additional way to corroborate like videos or photos. Also those claims are clear propaganda that don't change the outcome of the campaign with most sources indicating a Houthi advance on Marib. You have a Pro Saudi leaning POV style clearly visible in your edits. For that reason I will keep an eye on this type of articles to avoid a POV push. After reading your comments at this talk page with Wakari, Woozers and me, we clearly told you there is no POV in Marib article, only yours.Mr.User200 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:, Take it easy my friend. I am not here to attack you or undermine your own edits. I am just asking you that you didn't delete my edits and if you have a different opinion, you can ping me and discuss it with me before reverting or deleting my edits. remember Staying cool when the editing gets hot. regarding the Saudi sources. I only used two or three in my last edits in Battle of Ma'rib, and I made it clear for readers that these sources are Saudi unless there is another source from another country. And if you want to corroborate them, you can search the internet and you will find videos or other independent and reliable sources confirming thier news. there is no doubt that Houthis made advances on Ma'rib front, but you also have some leaning POV style clearly visible in your edits. you almost always use sources close to Houthis and Jump to conclusions. remember when we discussed AQAP involvement and Houthi appointed governor of Aden statements. you came up with that source and claimed that he represents Hadi government. For that reason, I will keep an eye on this type of articles to avoid a POV push :) OKMG-1200 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: please don't delete my edits just because you don't like them. The event of 1 April was reported by the Saudi-led coalition spokesman, Colonel Turki Al-Malki. It was reported by many news outlet including the Russian RT check this OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no way to corroborate that, the big difference between other events reported such killed commanders, terrain seized and material losses is that at least a footage could have been used to back that claim, this conduct have been used before in this type of articles regarding drones, fighters jets lost or destroyed. To simply say this type of strategic weaponry was destroyed without addind a picture or footage is propaganda and thats not the scope of the article. Your edits are too close to Propaganda push, and this have been told to you before the Marib campaing talk page.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@OKMG-1200: The problem with RT is that currenty is blacklisted as a Reliable source. Even so, for material losses at least a confirmation or footage is needed. It's easy to launch claims of scores of material destroyed that latter could be pasted to the content of a article to draw a idea of the war going on, however there is no way to corroborate.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: no, it is not propaganda. it's a statement reported by many news outlets. and by the way, there is a picture in the source showing the missile before and after being targeted. check this. you reverted my edits just because you don't like it. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thats a different source that the previosly cited. I will add the source and restore the content, lets agree keep adding links to footage for material losses, then.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: no my friend, that is not a different source. it is the same source that I used before. and here is another question. why you removed the Twitter source I used? OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad, yes I didnt noticed the debriefer article when I reverted, I have just re-instaled your edit using debriefer. Regarding Twitter is not longer needed since both articles are enought and WP:TWITTER clearly indicate that.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: it's ok. we are humans, and all of us make mistakes. But why you removed these edits ? I don't see any redundancy in it.OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing new, claims of dead as always made by combatants. Better to have AFP and Reuters news of deaths that are Neutral and give a breakdown of losses X dead from A side, Y deaths from B side. Something objective for a Encyclopedia article.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Mr.User200. This should be a historical encyclopedic article after all. EkoGraf (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Hi, My friend. I have removed the battle changes in Shabwa Governorate in the status section of the information box because it is unrelated to the battle for Marib city, but I kept it in the timeline because it's important for the readers to know how the fighting in the south of Marib started. Also, the information about the city being cut off completely is untrue. There is a highway named Al Abr (طريق العبر) that connects the city with Hadhramout Governorate and Saudi Arabia directly through the desert. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Fine with the revert of Shabwa, I did not added it. But regarding the cutting off of Marib city the best thing to place is that it have been cut off from Hadi forces previusly held Al-Jubah.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Also added Internet in case the reader dont get it. The source talk about internet communications, not logistic ones.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Very well. I think I misunderstood it also :) OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Hi, I have reverted your edit because it is important for the readers to understand how the battle moved to Harib from military and geographical perspective. I didn't include these changes in the template because as you said it is not related to the article. OKMG-1200 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We should avoid adding events taking place in other locations, maybe Shawba campign need its own article, or a extension of the 2015 article. Like you did here. "Any changes in other governorates are unrelated to this article".Mr.User200 (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: The previous time I removed it from the templet only just look above to our previous discussion and go back to October 17, 2021 in the article. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@OKMG-1200: Your addition was moved to the proper article at the Aftermath section. Thats the place it belongs. Shabwah_campaign#Aftermath.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Very well, I have added a small sentence with a link to redirect the readers so they can understand how Harib front was reopened again and read more about it in Shabwah_campaign#Aftermath. OKMG-1200 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Map

@Mr.User200: Hi, My friend. you are wrong about sources used by Rr016 in the map. Rr016 listed both IWN and Suriyak as source. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think @Rr016: could tell us their direct sources regarding the map?. I saw two, IWN and Suriyak Twitter accounts on the image description. However ISW have its own articles regarding map changes.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

AQAP

@Mr.User200: Hi, you have removed the alleged participation of AQAP from According to Houthi officials and media title. WHY? OKMG-1200 (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly because is no longer alleged. Al-Qaeda leaders have acknowledged their role during the offensive according to a non-Houthi related source. BTW the source is openly anti-Houthi.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: But this is a self claim by a terrorist group that can't be verified. The Yemeni government always denied the presence of AQAP in Marib or any cooperation with any terrorist organization. There are no reporters of AQAP presence or other terrorists in Marib by independent international media, observers, and commentators. Yes, the source seems to be openly anti-Houthi, but it also seems to be anti-Hadi government. If you look at their news report about southern Yemen and about the Hadi government, you will find that this source is at least anti-Hadi government but most likely is pro-STC. you should remember that this news outlet is based in Aden which is controlled by the STC. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If the page is Anti-Houthi or Anti-Hadi then we can conclude is a third party media, and from regional content. Since Wikipedia is not Pro-Hadi (neither Pro-Houhti) the source can be considered as a third party, enought for inclusion.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding International Media, some Independent International Media have reported the role of AQAP battling the Houthis like France 24.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: First of all, the report of AFP does not say AQAP is fighting with or on behalf of the Hadi government Marib. In fact, it is the opposite. AFP report says that "Government security officials and tribal leaders told AFP that the fierce battle for Marib, which has raged for the past month, is creating a security vacuum that is being exploited by the jihadists." and "When Saudi Arabia launched a military intervention in Yemen in March 2015, aimed at halting the Huthis' astonishing gains, its eye was also fixed on AQAP." So your use of this source here and in the article to support your claim of AQAP participation in defending Marib with government forces is wrong. Actually, AFP report indicates that the Hadi government are opposed to AQAP. Now back to the first source. My argument is that NewsYemen is biased and unreliable source. It even publishes unbelievable stories like this about Hadi-Government coordinating with Houthis so Houthis would capture Marib!!! Who can belives that!!!!! OKMG-1200 (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to read the closing part of the France 24 article, it says: " 'The fighting is helping the group reorganise. They even pushed some of their fighters to join the ranks of the resistance battling the Huthis, to benefit from the financial support they receive,' the tribal leader said, referring to salaries believed to be paid by the coalition". In other world they are also reporting the AQAP role backing the Hadi Government.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: Yes I read the article very well. it is clear that the Saudi-led coalition and Hadi government the been fighting AQAP all these years during the war. And It is clear that yemeni government security officials and tribal leaders are annoyed and displeased by the fact that AQAP is exploiting the power vacuum caused by the Houthi attack on Marib. You can't pick up the part you like from the article just to support your argument. You should read the whole article again. OKMG-1200 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No, they are talking about the AQAP role in Marib and that they are joining the Hadi Goverment Forces against the Houthis for payment.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)