Talk:Red Sea crisis

Potentially relevant talk page discussions

• User talk:WeatherWriter#Complexity
• Wikipedia:Simple talk#Complexity check and assistance on Red Sea Crisis. WeatherWriter (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Language

Complex English and largely copied content. Look, we can all read En wiki if we choose to. There's just no sense in copying it so closely. All that happens is that the readers for whom we were created are still struggling with the language, or rather, with what the language implies.

It might help some if it were mentioned that the state of Israel was created after WWII especially for the Jews as a homeland (which they did not have before). Much of the resentment is because they were plonked down by the USA on what had been Arab land! This gave the basis for (in recent years) a concerted effort by Russia to use the placing of Israel as a propaganda target against the USA. You will have noticed that some Russian propaganda groups have been in North Africa. What on earth were they doing there?

Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross — How do I solve the complex English problem? I paraphrase and did not copy. I deleted a ton of the complex words. I even cut huge sections out. The only thing here is a timeline. Is having a timeline too complex for the topic? I am actually struggling to understand how it is too complex. Also, mentioning WW2 does not seem to be relevant as that aspect doesn’t really relate too much to the Red Sea Crisis. Obviously Simple English is not English Wiki. However, the English Wiki background starts in 2018, not the late 1940s.

I really want to work to improve this article. So, do you have advice on how to make it not so complex? Do I need to “stub” each part into very short sentences, similar to the lead? WeatherWriter (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested above that the origin of Israel is the source of its problems. Remember, it was plonked down on what was previously arab land. If the English wiki starts in 2018 that (in my opinion) misses out something vital. What you do with that is up to you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Page title?

Can we move this page to a title that includes years? - Yemen has had a civil war basically since it exists as a modern state, and likely is a failed state (Somalia, at the other side of the strait is another). It is not the fist time, ships have been attacked there. So what about 'Red Sea Crisis of 2023-2024' or '2023-2024 Red Sea Crisis'? Eptalon (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say wait a little bit on that. EN Wiki is currently having a debate and discussion about the current title “Red Sea Crisis”. Plus, there is a whole lot of sources that just describe this as the “Red Sea Crisis”, to where years are not really necessary. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

EnWp currently has it as 'Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war'. As I also stated in the 2 Rfds for redirects curently running (with years), we do have the folloowing issues:

• Both Yemen and Somalia, are seen as failed states. This means there is no effective government, just warring clans/fractions/whatever.
• There have been cases of organized pirates operating off the coast of Somalia; such an event might also be seen as 'Red Sea Crisia'

The situation inside Yemen has been there since Yemen exists as a modern state (the 1990s). Eptalon (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think Somalia is an issue. Wikipedia has it sorted into the civil war articles (Somali Civil War, Somali Civil War (2009–present), and American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present)) and the Piracy off the coast of Somalia article, which Simple Wiki doesn’t have yet. EN Wiki includes both Somalia and Yemeni pirates in that article. All the Somalia things need to be updated badly. Also, all the Yemen crisis situations are divided based on the Yemen civil war. There really hasn’t been another “Red Sea Crisis” since the Suez Crisis, which wasn’t really even in the Red Sea. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Naming: United States–Houthi conflict

None of the references (14, 15, 16) for the claim that, "It is also known as the United States–Houthi conflict" use that name for the events. Most if not all search results come from Simple or copies of Simple at wikiwand etc. Unless reliable sources can be found, this appears to be OR. --Gotanda (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

“U.S.-Houthi conflict” is mentioned in an article by the United States Military Academy. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a neutral observer, are they? USMA is motivated to center the US in this complex, multi-party conflict. --Gotanda (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Naming: United States–Iran proxy war

Neither the NBC nor the Reuters sourc cited, refs 15 and 16 currently, refer to this conflict as a United States–Iran proxy war, or as a proxy war at all for that matter. New sources besides the NYT will have to be found for this. --Gotanda (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Copied over from 9 January 2024 Houthi attacks talk page

Iran backed

Ayesha46 – I don't think straight up removing "Backed by: Iran" is a good idea. Every single source currently cited in the article mention "Iranian-backed". Whether or not they deny it doesn't really matter as we have to follow what the reliable sources say. For instance, this article from the Associated Press directly states, The attack by the Iranian-backed Houthis... WeatherWriter (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If I may propose something, we add it back in the article but add a note, with a reliable source saying that this is denied by Houthi and Iran. Similar to the wind-speed note in the 2013 El Reno tornado article. That would satisfy both what the reliable sources say as well as the fact it is denied by Iran and Houthi. Thoughts on this proposal? WeatherWriter (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree to it 👍🏻 Ayesha46 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter

This article by Reuters has both denials (by Iran as well as Houthis).

The article quotes “The United States believes that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is helping to plan and carry out the Houthi missile and drone attacks.

Iran denies involvement.

The Saudi-led coalition has long accused Iran of arming, training and funding the Houthis. The Houthis deny being an Iranian proxy and say they develop their own weapons. Ayesha46 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I just added it back along with the note, which has a reference to that Reuters article. How does it look? WeatherWriter (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, appreciated👏🏻💯 Ayesha46 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Copied over from Talk:Attack on the Genco Picardy

•  Comment: As a note, this is not the same merge discussion as the one that encompassed all of the stubbed articles. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 10:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge

Suggest simplification and merge of this and several others to Red Sea Crisis. This will avoid a lot of repetition and make it easier for readers to find everything in one place. Right now each event is scattered to its own article. This reduces context. --Gotanda (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Opposed - The Red Sea Crisis mentions the attack in 1 sentence, which is need to not have UNDUE about any single event during this now 4-month conflict. Since this is recent, re-assess in the future to see if it would be undue. For now though, I believe it would be. WeatherWriter (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge. This would be better served in the Red Sea crisis article. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Needs simplifying regardless. --Gotanda (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And, let's see what others may have to say. --Gotanda (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge complete. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction @Gotanda, the merge was reversed. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely the three sentences could be simplified and merged, neither article is suitably large. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• I am in favor of getting all of the articles merged into the main Red Sea crisis article. This makes it easier to understand for readers and there is no need to have users clicking off of one page to go to another then back again. It’s way too much work. So for me it’s a merge. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 08:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)