Talk:Yemen/Archive 2

Yemeni people

I don't get it; why isn't there an article for Yemenis as an ethnic group? I searched it, but it took me to a disambiguation page, and the only similar option was the page on Yemen Demographics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.117.24 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Such ethnic group doesn't exist. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Yemen

The history (on this page and all of the history pages) is very vague about the origins of Yemen itself, the word, the modern concept. Has this area always been called Yemen? When it was incorporated into other empires in ancient times was Yemen considered a place? Or is Yemen a modern creation. Or to put it a different way, is there a mountain range or some geographic feature to the north that defines the border? I looked it up because I saw that Saudi Arabia was most of the peninsula, and I was curious how the tip ended up being different countries... the info I sought wasn't really here.

In fact, there's no border. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

racial and ethnic affiliation of slaves

Why do you think this is not important? The rationale seems one of personal choice. As a reader of African history I would like to know this info.--Inayity (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. It turns out that the Najahid slave dynasty in Tihama came from only one specific group in Ethiopia, the Jazali. Middayexpress (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who makes edits without rationale or a wiliness to use the talk page can be reverted b/c it is not how we develop and article by head strong unilateral editing. Yusuf is actively editing but I am waiting for a reply. --Inayity (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed User:Inayity. He just tried to remove the specification that the slaves were from the Jazali group. I notice his revert-warring on Najahids with you and User:AcidSnow over the same issue. Hardly neutral. Middayexpress (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I just recently went there to that page so not aware of the history of edit conflict.--Inayity (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well User:Inayity and User:AcidSnow, it would appear that "Yousef" is now avoiding discussion altogether [1]. He has also begun reverting admins as well [2], [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, lets just see how the noticeboard plays out. Also a more clearer one of him refusing to discuss [4]. AcidSnow (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If the user wants to edit without discussing his edits there is a solution for that also, so he might find his energy is being wasted making these large changes. BTW no one WP:OWNS anything-- just b/c they from YemenItalic text

Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow, thanks for the link. "Yousef" appears to have threatened you there. Middayexpress (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not threat anyone, as for the slave ethnic origin and such, i believe that any details should be under the demographics section. for example, the United States article mentions slavery but does not put much emphasis regarding their tribal origin, it simply mentions that they were African. So i do believe that the history section should not include much details regarding the slaves tribal origin either because i do think it is undue weight to the article and the section. if it must be included it should be under the demographics section or in a separate article titled Slavery in Yemen --يوسف حسين (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You did at various times threatened both myself and User:AcidSnow (e.g. "just stay away from any Yemen related article" [5]). At any rate, the U.S. page is an inappropriate analogy for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the specific ethnic groups that African American slaves came from are manifold and uncertain. By contrast, the specific Jazali identity of the Najahid dynasty rulers is known. "African slaves" is also about as descriptive as "Asian slaves" -- it could refer to any number of often completely unrelated populations. Please see below for the rest. Middayexpress (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

file a complaint! you keep circling around this in a pathetic way you know that? i did not threat you or any one here so stop bringing that up whenever you get the chance. --يوسف حسين (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind. Middayexpress (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"file a complaint!", would you also like us to file one on the racial overtones of your messages and edits? AcidSnow (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please :)--يوسف حسين (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sheba and the removal of a picture

• User:AcidSnow removed a picture in this edit and according to him, the picture has nothing to do with Sabaeans rather with ancient history of Yemen. And that was enough reason for him to remove the picture [6]. The Sabaeans are civilization that existed in ancient Yemen, so there is no conflict here and no justified reason was provided for the removal of that pic. So i will post the picture again simply because it is of a Sabaean woman and being Sabaean does not contradict with being ancient Yemeni.

• As for Sheba and its relation with Saba. Sheba is just a hebrew diversion of the same word. The word in Arabic and Amhraic is Saba. Arabic bibles do not distinguish simply because it is about the same people. The Quran as well does not distinguish there is an entire chapter about Sheba (its legendary queen actually) under the title Saba (sura). User:AcidSnow argued that Yemen is not widely known as home of the Sabaeans but i beg to differ. This source says the following [7] :

The ancient Sabaean kingdom lasted from the early second millennium to the first century BC; the queen of sheba reportedly lived during the 1000 BC time frame. Yemen was the headquarter that controlled coastal areas of Ethiopia and Eritrea, whose people are descendant of unions between ancient Arabians and natives of those countries. It is proposed that the Semitic colonization of Ethiopia was established in the tenth century BC from Sheba. Beside the horn of africa, the kingdom of Sheba's sphere of influence included and controlled the eastern and southern trade routes through ports on the red sea, south of the gulf of Aqaba

• So i do believe that the Sabaeans are the closest people to biblical Sheba. Robert D. Burrowes wrote in his Historical dictionary of Yemen [8]:

  although ethiopians dispute this, Saba is most certainly biblical Sheba

• I believe there was no justified reason to remove the following sentence from the introduction : Yemen was home of the Sabaeans (biblical Sheba), a trading state that flourished for over a thousand years.--يوسف حسين (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"User:AcidSnow argued that Yemen is not widely known as home of the Sabaeans", *sigh*, where did I say this? Since you obviously can not find it I would like to ask you to please not put words in my mouth. What I actually said was, "the image has nothing to do with Sheba (so how could my "Afrocentrism" be the reason for it?) nor the Sabeans, but rather just "Art from Ancient Yemen". The image is also not sourced since it's a "own work"". As you can see I said no such thing; so where did you get that I argued that Sabaeans are not from Yemen?

As for the quotes you used, I am unable to find either of them in the book. It also rather appears to be handed typed than a complete quote from the book. In fact, it appears that you actually edited the second one just so it could support you. As for Sheba begin Saba, the book you provided regards the only difference is spelling. Anyways, as I said before, there are other sources that go against your book so why do you continue to add this though you already know that? This is still being discussed and it does not give you the right/power to have the final word in this discussion.

"i do believe", you do realize your opinion does not hold any "weight" as your are not a historian nor a archaeologist? Also how am I Afrocentric? Since you still believe that we are I would like to know how you cam to that conclusion.

Also, since you "now what admin ed johnson meant" why did you go on to say he said we were "pan-Africanist"; which is untrue?

Not just those, but you were asked to use the talk page before you make edits so you could receive consensus. You however, put words in my mouth, lied, and went on without consensus. AcidSnow (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• well, you said it right here [9]. I do not understand your point, Own work means that the one who uploaded the picture owns it, He took the picture himself. He did not create the sculpture he just took a picture of a subject dated to the Sabeaan era (ancient Yemen)! so i still think the usage of the picture is pretty logical in the article. --يوسف حسين (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• of course i hand typed it because i can't copy and paste something from a google book. I provided two sources and there are others. I did not say that i have the final word, if you have other sources let us discuss them. I will bring mine and you bring yours, but do not remove a properly cited information until proven wrong. I added information you removed them without any further explanation. --يوسف حسين (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• Everyone has a belief and i based mine upon the sources. If you have other questions that are not related to Sheba/Saba please leave them on my talk page. I expanded the article and remember one thing that my edit was the one that got reverted before proven wrong..I did not revert user midday express last edits, but i hope we reach a common ground soon --يوسف حسين (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
• You did revert my edit again, properly cited information without providing a counter argument. According to you [10] I "have failed to receive census", how am i going o receive census if you do not discuss the edit? was it inaccurate or do you have a problem with the sources?--يوسف حسين (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"well, you said it right here", I am confused I don't see it? Since you found it and its in the diff can you show me where is it? *Sigh*, once again I did not say that. I was referring to Sheba; which was what the discussion was originally about. In fact I never mentioned the Sabeans till after you brought it up. Could please stop twisting my words? So far after asking you not to speak for me you went and put words in my mouth, and then to currently tying to twisting my words against me. I also never called you a liar (so once again you have twisted my words), which you claim and continue to do so. Inayity also never called you stupid, but rather your comment was. I have not attacked you in any way so far, but you on the other hand have attacked me. Please, if you continue doing this and similar action we will not get anywhere. Your theory appears to be very flawed as you called Til Eulenspiegel African, when he is not. If you want me to keep this discussion related to Sheba/Saba and not you than DON'T bring stuff up about your "theory" that I am "pan Africanist" and/or "Afrocentric"! Your theory also appears to be very flawed, as you called Til Eulenspiegel African when he is not.

"you do not discuss the edit" and "without providing a counter argument", are you serous? Than what is this for example, "Anyways, as I said before, there are other sources that go against your book so why do you continue to add this though you already know that?". If that's not a discussion of your edits and a counter argument than can you explain to me what it is? Since this is obvious what you said I have not provided than could you please stop lying than? Its really getting annoying.

Again, as for not being able to find the quotes in the first book, you changed both of them so they so they could support you. So these are not actual qoutes if you do that. As for the others you have provided you are just cherrypicking sources knowing fully well that there are others that disagree and go against them. Also why did you provided three sources that are Biblical historians? These book you provided don't even go in depth about this issue. It would also appear that you are just searching "sabaeans queen of sheba" instead of actually taking the time to look for more reliable material. That is founded in every link that you have shown me. This would also explain why three out of five sources only briefly discuss Sheba and/or Saba (you were also told to find better sources by EdJohnston).

"I did not say that i have the final word", I never said you did. I said you have no right/power to do so; but you know fully well that this is a controversial discussion and sources that go against you, yet went on and added it to the lead.

Since you still want to add the picture because "He did not create the sculpture he just took a picture of a subject dated to the Sabeaan era (ancient Yemen)! so i still think the usage of the picture is pretty logical in the article.", you realize that nowhere in the image summary does it say its Sabanses and that there's a "subject dated to the Sabeaan era (ancient Yemen)"? It in fact says only ""Art from Ancient Yemen"; so where did you get the rest? Are you also forgetting there were other ancient civilizations in Yemen besides the Sabeaans?

As for not receiving "census", you realize that "census" is a population survey? Anyways, about receiving "consensus", all you have done is attempt to discredit me by speak for me by speaking for me, putting words in my mouth, and tying to twisting my words against me, all which are lies so how could gain consensus from me? You have also cherrypicked sources knowing fully that there are others that disagree with you? Despite not receiving consensus and told not to by EdJohnston and me you still continued to readded it. That is not how talk page works. I have already given you a reason as to why I am late at replying to you and others, yet you readd it because I have not responded? Just because I have not responded does not mean you can "override" mine or anyone else consensus!

User;Acidsnow, I really have no time to read your crying here but your own link itself that you used to revert my edit Says this :

'The South Arabian kingdom of Saba (biblical Sheba) emerges, with its capital at Marib, a fertile oasis east of modern San'a in Yemen. In biblical accounts, the Queen of Sheba brought a rich gift of gold, spices, and precious stones to King Solomon in Jerusalem.

So what exactly is your problem? I provided a list of quotes just down here that you completely ignored and started discussing my edits with other people. your rant up there proves nothing, it just some irrelevant links to this page! If there are other books contradict my contribution, why don't you tell me what they say instead of posting a link that actually support my position? if your own link itself identify the Saba as biblical Sheba, what else can i do to receive your census? again, leave me or my previous encounter with anyone and focus on the issue please. --يوسف حسين (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Other Sources Regarding Sheba

Ok Acid Snow, the quotes can be found in the sources provided above if you can't find them than it's your own problem. Here is another quote from a book titled New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World - published in 2012  :

....This recently published inscription published by Francios Baron and I, appeared on the market of antiques early in 2008. It is unprovenanced but its content indicate that it was probably found in the ancient city of Nashq, today Al Bayda. It is broken and incomplete having only the remains of 25 lines. It was dedicated by "Sabahhumu son of 'Ammshafaq" (from the clan) of Rawshan (line 1-2), inhabiting Nashq. This man was a massenger of Yadail Bayin son of Yatha'amir KING OF SHEBA (line 17-18). This is the first mention of the "town of Judah" in a Sabaean and more generally south Arabian inscription.

Another quote from On the Reliability of the Old Testament- published in 2003  :

Where did she come from (the queen of Sheba)? Hebrew Sheba is universally admitted to be the same name as the place-name commonly transcribed "Saba" that denotes a community and kingdom in ancient Yemen in southwest Arabia

And another sources title The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9Th-5Th Centuries B.C published 1982 :

AS for the Sabaeans, recent research on South Arabia has removed all doubt about the existence there of the Kingdom of Sheba in the 8th century BC. Nevertheless, it is unreasonble to connect the Sabaeans in Tiglath-Pileser III list with the kingdom of Sheba in South Arabia, since the other groups mentioned can be found in North Arabia and North Sinai....

This source titled Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text-published 2005  :

As new evidence has come to light, it has became more and more untenable to claim that the biblical account of the Queen of Sheba is legendary. First of all, though many legends connect her with ancient Ethiopia, we know now that it is much more likely that she resided in the country of Saba in Southwest Arabia on the Eastern tip of the red sea, present day Yemen.

and he goes on explaining why he thinks that and debunking the idea of another Sheba in Northwestern Arabia. in any case, there are more modern scholarly work about this in addition to public Yemeni lore regarding the legendary queen. I was told to cite historians so i did. Acid snow i assume since you are Somali (maybe i am wrong) that you may know just enough Arabic to get by, you do realize that no distinguishing is made in Arabic bibles and the Quran between Sheba and Saba, right? You should have read or at least being told about the story of Balikis and Solomon when you were a kid. It is in the Tafsir but maybe i am assuming a lot of things. Tell me what you think of the sources provided above --يوسف حسين (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Ethiopia and its national myth about Sheba, a book titled Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History's Intriguing Questions:

The most obvious points of contention concern the question of the historicity of the Kebra Negast.The primary issue among these us the identification of Ethiopia with the biblical Sheba. Most scholars propose that the biblical Sheba was the historical Saba. The center of this kingdom is recognized as having been in southwest Arabia, in modern day Yemen. However, some discussion concerning the possibility that Saba, or Sheba, may still have been used in reference to Ethiopia exists. Some authors cite the historian Josephus, who called the queen of Sheba the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. However, in Josephus's time, the term Ethiopia would have been attributed to the kingdom of Meroe in modern Sudan, not the modern nation of Ethiopia. Clearly Josephus's writing cannot be seen as supporting the narrative of the Kebra Nagast. A further possibility of support comes from a royal inscription that refers to Saba. The inscription appears to be an attempt to lay claim to the rule of the Sabaean people in Ethiopia by a ruler named D'amat. Linguistic evidence and material remains indicate that the Ethiopian Sabaeans represented in the inscription were linked to the larger Kingdom in Yemen....

There are others but i got tired of quoting. tell me what you think and i hope that we can work something out before resulting to a third opinion.--يوسف حسين (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Najahid

• The Najahid dynasty controlled no more than the city of Zabid, They had Ethiopian origin but were fully assimilated to that city society. The Yemeni author 'Uamar said that there were no ethnic differences between the Arabs of Tihama and their slaves because Arabs intermarried with them. The Najahid dynasty was established by those slaves. regarding their ethnic link as being Jazili, it should be under the demographics section. That the Yemenis around Zabid intermarried excessively with their slaves who were brought from such and such area and race. Not a lot of people are familiar with the term "Jazili" and i believe that the term Ethiopian is common and easy to relate to since we are talking about the middle ages section. --يوسف حسين (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you are using the talk page, but you may have missed the part where you are supposed to get agreement before making major changes, NOT make major changes and then come on the TK and explain them. --Inayity (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah i am using the talk page, i did not make "major" changes i just changed "Jazili" to Ethiopian. I do not see the necessity for emphasizing the alleged difference between "Jazili" and Ethiopian since "Jazili" is just an ethnic group within Ethiopia. So Ethiopian is a more proper term to use in the middle ages history. Any distinguishing should be made under the demographic section--يوسف حسين (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

but what term does the reference use? As Ethiopia is a big place that does not match modern day Ethiopia--Inayity (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I do not know about Ethiopia being a bigger place but the refrence uses this term since you asked [11]:

  The complex and little known story of the rise and fall of the Najahid princes of Zabid (Middayexpress reveted this and made them rulers of Tihama), a city that was one of the early recipient of Abyssinian slaves.. The defeated Najahid who were of Abyssinian slave origin..

and this source [12] :::::

It is known that, like the Ziyadids before them, the Najahid. constantly brought over shiploads of Ethiopian slaves to Yemen

In AD 1001 power fell to an Ethiopian slave of the Ziyadids, and then to a second Ethiopian slave, named Najah (AD 1012), whose position was again confirmed by the caliph

since you wanted to know what term the reference use.--يوسف حسين (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WikiProject Countries, the demographics section is reserved for modern demographics of the local population. The history section is earmarked for actual historical events (and major events at that), so that's where the Najahid material belongs. That said, I've restored the specific Jazali identity of the Najahids. "Ethiopian slaves" is much too broad and vague. It could apply to any population in Ethiopia, whereas the Najahid slaves actually only came from one specific historic group. As the admin asked you on your talk page, kindly do not revert again until consensus has been established.Middayexpress (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• No it does belong to the demographic section as this source say [13]:

A tribe of Ethiopian origin called Jazali had furnished slaves to the Najahids.One of the consequences of the influx of of Ethiopian and Nubian female slaves was it impact on the racial configuration of the host...

and another source say [14]

Arab men in these coastal regions have children with black slaves

• the reason behind mentioning this was the fact that highlanders had a difficult time distinguishing Arabs from their slaves in Zabid, the Sulayhids (Hashidi tribesmen) had to put the people of Zabid through a linguistic test so they would not randomly kill the Arabs by mistaken them of being Ethiopians.[15].

to this day the population of Zabid and its surrounding are generally black due to the excessive intermarriage and mixing between people of the two coasts. So it is pretty logical to mention the Najahid and the slaves orgin in the demographic section not the history. I do not understand why you removed that they were rulers of Zabid, Tihama is a geographical term and the Najahid controlled no more than that port city. I have no problem with mentioning they were "Jazali" really if it's that important to you, you are right terms like "african slaves" are too broad but "Ethiopian slaves" is not really that broad as you may think because the term "Jazali" is just not that known to many people outside Ethiopia. but if you see that it is important to mention they were "Jazali", i have no problem with that and i should not make a big deal out of it. Just stick to the historical narrative. they did not rule Tihama and they were owned by their Ziyadid masters. You removed the sentence mentioning their role as rulers in the name of the Ziyadids at first. --يوسف حسين (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another thing, aren't your edits considered a revert too? your edits are basically a revert of mine since i was first to expand that article..--يوسف حسين (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My edit already had support. On the other hand, one of the conditions for your unblocking was to not revert and instead seek consensus for the first time. Middayexpress (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulation on that "support" but i was blocked for edit warring. My question was why your version is out there when it's actually you who reverted the "original" version?

Regarding the issue of complexion, the author is mistaken because dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen (e.g. the Mahra). It doesn't require foreign admixture to explain its presence. Other authors also interpret it differently (e.g. "The culture and pigmentation of the people of the Tihama is testimony to the closeness of Ethiopia and Yemen both geographically and historically[...] Their closeness is also expressed in national myth and lore: both claim to be home to the biblial Queen of Sheba" [16]). I think therefore either we mention both interpretations, or drop the issue of complexion altogether. For its part, the Najahid dynasty was composed of former slaves from the Jazali group of Ethiopia. It ruled on its own behalf, not in the name of the Ziyadids. The Najahids also did apparently control a good portion of the Tihama region as a whole: "Following the end of the Ziyadid dynasty in the early 11th century, two former slaves of the kingdom founded the Najahid dynasty. Control of the Tihama swayed back and forth between the Najahid rulers and the Sulayhid power of the highlands. In the mid 12th century, Ali bin Mahdi finally brought about the end of the Najahid dynasty" [17]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• you see? that is exactly my problem with you. I try to reach a common ground and close the case and you jump on and start talking about another topic, " the author is mistaken because dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen". Well, that problem is not really a concern of mine now since i am talking about a specific issue which is slavery from the east African coast facing the Yemen. I do not know what to do with a Picture of a Mahra guy with dark skin. You disregard everything just like that and say it does not require foreign admixture, so the sources i provided above are lying? is that what you are suggesting? Should i go and cherry-pick pictures to prove a point or go discussing a completely different Ethnic group now? You of all people should know how many Mahri and Hadrami trader settled in Somalia and east Africa [18]. I do not want to discuss that history in this section at least. Unless you want to open a new discussion which i will happily join, but please stick to the topic which is the Najahid and their relations to Zabid and East Africa. Sinan of Bakil << this is a picture of the chief Bakil tribal confederation. Bakil my friend is mentioned in Sabaean inscriptions so they are the natives of Yemen. If you want to discuss your preconceived notion that you are so preoccupied to prove which is "being black is a native feature in Yemen" , you should start a new discussion because i will not engage in a debate on multiple subjects at the same time.

Regarding the similarities between Yemen and Ethiopia, it's true there are many similarities in geography and ethnicity as well especially among the Amhara and tigray ethnic groups of northern Ethiopia (to a certain extent of course they are Africans in the end of the day). Ethiopia is the only country that still uses a writing system developed from Ancient South Arabian script. They have hooked noses and relatively lighter skin than let's say Somalis :). I did not deny that Ethiopians claim the legendary queen to be their own, to study and understand civilizations like the Sabaeans one must forget modern political boundaries because the Sabaeans did not really refer to themselves as Arabs,Yemeni,South Arabian, African or Ethiopian. they were a "Semitic" tribe who believed themselves to be children of an imaginary being called El-Maqah. However, modern studies support the view that the Semitic influence on Northern modern day Ethiopia came from what is today Yemen, and the fact that Marib was the Sabaeans headquarter from which they controlled the trade routes. Again, keep the discussion about the topic which is the Najahid, i posted another section regarding Sheba and user:asidsnow edits just above you. And NO i will not drop the issue of complexion ..

Lastly, Tihama is a vast geographical region in the Arabian Peninsula. There is no way that Najahid or anyone else for that matter controlled that entire coastal strip except for the Ottomans maybe but it was part of different Sanjaks, as Tihama is divided between the Yemen and Hejaz. Zabid is located in Tihama of Yemen ( Tihamat al-Yaman ) and the city of mecca for example is part of Tihama of Hejaz (Tihamat al-Hejaz ). the Najahid controlled the city of Zabid from 989 to 1022 in the name of their Ziyadid masters until receiving recognition from the Abassid in Baghdad in 1022. Again they never controlled Tihama in its entirety from Aden to Aqaba in North Arabia! they ruled Zabid and some of them built small towns around that port. the travel giuide is not wrong but it's not specific either because Tihama is a large geographical region, it is not identified as a political entity. regarding the Tihama population (low land as opposed to the Yemeni highlands) this sources say :[19][20][21] :

The Tihama has historical connection with the east african coast and its history

Large numbers of Ethiopian slaves were exported through dahlak to yemen, which explain the generally dark (not "darker") complexion of the Tihama population

Slavery and long-term migration have resulted in mixing with the peoples of East Africa, particularly in the Tihama region on the Red Sea coast

i could go on and on so please do not disregard historical facts and studies just because your honorable self think they are wrong. You have a preconceived notion that you want to prove, I will not drop the issue of complexion just to satisfy that notion [22]. Dark to "darker" and Africa to the horn of Africa.. disregarding everything in the sources to prove your own preconceived notion "dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen" .. well, i'm sorry but it's not and it's not something to drop and allow you to emphasize in the Yemen article. --يوسف حسين (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:TALK instructs to keep talk page posts short and concise. You're thus just wasting your own time and everyone else's here by posting mountains of text. Second, I never stated that "being black is a native feature in Yemen." That is a strawman. What I did actually write was that "the author is mistaken because dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen." And I supported that too with a quote noting that "the culture and pigmentation of the people of the Tihama is testimony to the closeness of Ethiopia and Yemen both geographically and historically" [23]. The author in that passage is not talking about light skin uniting Ethiopians and Yemenis, as you somehow concluded. He is obviously talking about dark skin since he specifically mentions the pigmentation of the people of Tihama. In other words, this is an alternate explanation for why many Yemenis in general and the Tihama in particular are dark i.e. it's an autochthonous feature of theirs in common with the peoples of the Ethiopian highlands. Since you have declined the proposal to drop the issue of complexion, then surely you do not object if this alternate explanation is also noted. Just so you know, Yemeni populations in the eastern part of the country were also shown to have closer genetic ties with populations in the Horn than do those in the west [24]. Lastly, that the Najahids and Sulayids at various times controlled the Tihama region is indeed often asserted. Some more examples:

• "Control of the Tihamah passed regularly between the Sulayhids and al-Ahwal for some time, the Sulayhids taxing the Tihamah in the cool winter, the Najahids in the summer." [25]
• "Tihamah swung to and fro under the control of the Najahids and Sulayhids until Sa'id's death in 481/ 1088. His brother, Jayyash, ruled over Zabid from 482 — 98/1089—1104, during which time he built the town of Hays, purposedly bringing in relatives from Abyssinia to populate the new town. After his death, Najahid power was exercised by a series of slave ministers." [26]

One other thing, kindly refer to me by my actual username, Middayexpress (not "Midwayexpress", which I've had to correct several times now). Calling other editors out of name is disrespectful and a breach of WP:CIV. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that those were typos. Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah as expected this is going nowhere, multiple topics and circling around the the main issue. Please stop referring me to wikipedia policy pages, it is just an attempt to show off, if you think "mountain of texts" are a wast of time than stop arguing about whatever that is you are arguing about. Regarding the Tihami population, read the massage i left above. Because it did not contradict Robert Burrowes quote at all. You either did not read what i wrote or deliberately trying to extend this conversation as long as you can. You did not say "being black is a native feature in Yemen", you said : "..dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen".. ok! i don't know what to do with that. it's like saying :" i did not say the light is shiny, i said it's bright"!

You referred me to WP:TALK and it states "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts", i quoted three sources regarding the Tihama population and they agree with the what Robert Burrowes wrote. In the end, the "dark complexion" (being black basically) is a foreign factor after all which was my point from the beginning. Just take some time and read my previous post again please. Robert Burrowes is talking about Tihama population yet you interpreted as "this is an alternate explanation for why many Yemenis in general and the Tihama in particular are dark" and again, you on your own concluded that it is "autochthonous feature". Where did Burrowes said that it was an "autochthonous feature"? He is clearly talking about Ethiopian (foreign body to Yemen) influence on Tihama population. Your interpretation cannot be accepted simply because it is not based upon a source. You took a sentence and interpreted on your own because Burrowes did not mention anything about being "autochthonous feautue common with the peoples of the Ethiopian highlands", he said :Ethiopia is Yemen's nearest sizable non Arab neighbor and one that had an important impact on Yemen over the ages and he went on and said how the skin color of Tihama population is a testimony to that. So it is a foreign impact just like i said before and i provided three quotes above that you completely disregarded and interpreted Burrowes's sentence in a really awkward way. Just read the three quotes i posted above about Tihama, do they really contradict Burrowes? or you just want to keep talking?

So i guess i am done here unless you have a source that says "being dark (black) is an autochthonous feature in common with Ethiopia", do not try too hard to prove your preconceived notion. Regarding the Genetics of Maharis and Hadramis, this is really off topic man and that link of yours proves nothing but i listed a link to a book above you apparently did not bother to check.

As for The Najahid and the extent of their rule, You do not understand my friend. They did not rule Tihama period! nobody did. Do you understand what i mean by Tihama? The Najahid did not rule an area from Aden to Aqaba! Zabid is/was the most important city in Tihamat al-yaman (Tihama of the Yemen meaning Hot lowland of the Yemen) so if some historians say the Najahid controlled Tihama, they do not necessarily mean that the Najahid ruled that entire coastal strip. Tihama in Arabic can be pluralized to "Taha'im" (Tihamas/lowlands), as tihama is not a name of a country or a specific land it is just geographical description to the western coastal strip of Arabia. Tihamat al Yaman (Yemeni Tihama) starts from Hali to Aden which was the Ziyadid Dynasty realm, so it is safe to call the Ziyadid rulers of "Tihamat al -Yaman". The Najahid on other hand did not control that entire area but they saved their masters capital (Zabid) from total collapse in 989. Al-Hussein bin Salama was a black eunuch who ruled in the name of his Ziyadid masters until his death in 1022. Najah, the founder of the dynasty, was a slave as well. He succeeded al-Hussain ibn Salama and received recognition from the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad. This narrative which you removed should be mentioned in the article. Your own source itself says :Jayyash, ruled over Zabid, if he ruled anything other than that they would have mentioned it. --يوسف حسين (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

U did realize you deleted my comment?--Inayity (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• i received a message about edit conflict. I did not mean to delete your comment you can post it again "Inayity" but if it's not related to the discussion, please refrain :)--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Are you a previously banned new editor telling me about keeping it relevant? What kind of stupid comment is that?--Inayity (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah i asked you to refrain because i knew it was something like that. The fact that i got blocked has nothing to do with asking you to keep it relevant. You are just here to support your friend which is fine but please keep it about the topic in question not me --يوسف حسين (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Kendite/يوسف حسين: After just coming off your second block in a week, you were given a chance here to explain your position and in the process improve your behavior. Instead, you have continuously ignored standard talk page etiquette, accused me of attempting to "show off" when reminding you to adhere to it, taken my words out of context, called me out of name, made snide remarks about what you presumed was my background (which I never divulged, nor will I), and aggressively answered comments I never even made. Besides obvious civility issues, there are other problems as well. Just as an example, your link above alludes to intermarriages between the Zanj and Hadrami in Zanj territory in East Africa, not between Ethiopians and Hadramis in Hadhramaut. You also automatically presume that the Tihama's dark complexion (which is hardly exclusive to them amongst Yemenis) is a legacy of recent admixture, when there are in fact several alternative explanations. The main one is that the Tihama were the earliest inhabitants of the region i.e. the first/original Yemenis: "It has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea" [27]. As another example, you write above that "your own source itself says : Jayyash, ruled over Zabid, if he ruled anything other than that they would have mentioned it", yet somehow overlook the rest the quote that goes "he built the town of Hays" and, more pointedly, that "Tihamah swung to and fro under the control of the Najahids and Sulayhids until Sa'id's death in 481/ 1088". This indeed isn't working out. Middayexpress (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you see that's why i said it's an attempt to "show off" maybe i should have used a different word but you and your friends keep circling around that i got blocked, "your second block in a weak" (that's not very accurate) and "you threatened me", "you did not write my user name correctly" and so on. Your friends "Inyayati" and "acidsnow" called me a liar and stupid and you are referring to me using my previous username, but you don't see me bringing that up, do you? You are just looking for anything to discredit me. Anyhow, The link does not mention any Zanj or whatever even if it did it shed light upon a certain phenomena which is the relations Hadramis had with East Africa. Your link does not say anything about Ethiopia either. regarding the Zaraniq tribe of Tihama, so what? they are indeed the largest tirbe in that region but i do not know how you concluded that they were the "first/original Yemenis", What does it mean to be the "first Yemeni"?

Your source does not say that and it does not not say that the "Zaraniq" tribe was the "first original Yemeni", and if the author does not know if they first inhabited Arabia of Africa (you did not put a time range, are you talking about humans out of Africa in general or what?) that does not really qualify them as being "the first original Yemenis". Because i do not know who are the "first original Yemenis", nobody knows for that matter. I did not say their black complexion which is almost exclusive amongst them, is of recent admixture. It is historical. at least a thousand years since the Ziyadid Dynasty, at least! But it remains a foreign factor nevertheless as witnessed by the many sources i provided before. If you would just take some time and read these sources [28][29][30], it would explain why the Zaraniq tribe which i admire and respect are generally black. They could be of Arab origin as they claim (from Azd according to Arab genealogists) or they could be Africans who settled in the region, i do not know and your source does not either. What i know and other source emphasized is that Slavery and long-term migration have resulted in mixing with the peoples of East Africa, particularly in the Tihama region on the Red Sea coast . I referred you to a book that cite a medieval Yemeni historians that said Arab men in these coastal regions (Tihama) have children with black slaves and black skin skin is shared by free and slaves alike but you disregarded that as usual and didn't even discuss it because you believe they were the "first/original Yemenis", according to you. I do not know who first inhabited the region 10,000 years ago, My own tribe came from Najd in central Arabia, so i guess we are not the "first/original" Yemenites. :)

I did not make any snide remarks about your background, i know what it is even if you didn't say. This is why i asked to stop trying too hard to prove your preconceived notion that Yemenis are like you, or even similar to you. I do not know a lot about Somalia and i do not try too hard to prove anything about its people because i don't know anything about them. You want me to stop mentioning anything regarding "blackness" or "the complexion issue" in your words, am i right? is that your issue with me? I cannot do that because it's just not fair, there are black people in Yemen and there is a reason behind their existence which is according to most sources was immigration (back and forth) and slavery. Nobody besides you ever claimed that these black Yemeni citizens were the "first/original Yemenis" whatever that means.

lastly, Hays is like 20 minutes away from Zabid! it's hardly an evidence that the Njahaid controlled Tihama in its entirety. As your own source suggests, they ruled over Zabid. Now please unless you tell me what is it that you are trying too hard to prove, i think this discussion is going nowhere. The only reason i keep responding (i shouldn't really) to you is because i was told to keep talking before making an edit so i don't get blocked, i am not really enjoying this. I could have used this time to expand the article's content instead being locked here debating absolutely nothing. I am trying to keep this as relevant as i can. Cheers --يوسف حسين (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you keep up your incivilities you will be reported. You are asked to Assume Good Faith WP:AGF, You do not tell me about relevant on a page that you think you WP:OWN. And please reduce your prolix text it is a violation of the talk page and is totally excessive. Next warning will be at the Administration notice board. If you are unfamiliar with policy go and read it. Esp how to use the talk page. And do not delete my comments AGAIN!--Inayity (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• go ahead. I don't know what to tell you. You are the one who called me stupid and kept reminding me that i was recently blocked for edit warring. i'm pretty sure that's against Wikipedia policies. Responding to your friend is not considered incivility, i did not call him names like you did to me and i never threatened him while you kept harassing me and accuse me of being a liar, stupid and uncivil, i don't think that constitute a "good faith". What did i do that would be considered a personal attack or incivility? i asked you kindly to keep the discussion about the article not me or my behavior because i did not do anything wrong. I did not delete your comment and asked you to post it again, i told you that i received an edit conflict message so i posted my text again. Continuing harassment and accusations will not play in your favor, as an editor i have every right to express my opinion about whatever i think is wrong with the article. You and your friends present an idea that contradicts my version of the truth, so i have to respond. in the end of day, my edit was reverted and no sign of good intention was ever presented. Do not threat me of reporting please as i am the one who should be reporting you. Disregarding every source i provide to prove a personal point of view. This long debate believe or not is about the usage of words like "black" and "Ethiopian slave", because apparently you believe that the Yemeni population is originally black, your friend said that the "first/original Yemenis are dark" or something like that, therefore it's not logical to use such terms! this is what i understood and i had to engage in a debate simply about sticking to the sources not personal interpretations and false unfounded notions.--يوسف حسين (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, this nonsense has gone on long enough. I've reported the matter here. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

good thinking --يوسف حسين (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in Yemen

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Yemen!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil and Tourism in Germany. :) Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6268415.stm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yemeni Ethnicity

Despite the country's location close to Africa, Yemenis are primarily of Arab origins. The Suni/Shi'a religious division is somewhat ethnically driven. The social structure of Yemeni Arabs consists of four classes of people: the Sayyid, or wealthy (who trace their decent to the grandson of Muhammad), the Qatani, (tribesmen), the Shafi'ite townsmen (merchants, artisans, and craftsmen), and the Akhdam (slaves). Despite prejudices toward Africans by Arab Yemenis, academic studies have found that Yemenite Arabs have 35% Black African genes in their mtDNA (maternal line), while some other Middle Eastern people have less. The most obvious explanation is that Yemen is very close geographically to Sub-Saharan Africa and is not separated by the Saharan barrier. Middle Eastern countries far away from the Arabian peninsula, have as little as 10 percent African blood in their mtDNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.75.132 (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@84.228.75.132 Most Middle Eastern people have less.

Can You please give a link to this study? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yemeni Ethnicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.164.12 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Infofox

Is Hadi still President, or did his resignation take effect on Jan 22, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As has been reported in the news, the legislature is prepared to consider whether to accept or reject Hadi's resignation. Rejection is an option, however remote, and until that option is removed there is no basis for declaring the office vacant on this page. There's no need to get ahead of events. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Legitimacy of the Houthi "constitutional declaration"

It isn't for us to decide. What's more, the intro is emphatically not the place for a running presentation of events as they develop in Yemen. See WP:NOTNEWS. Also, if we're going to unilaterally decide the Houthis haven't taken control of the government, contra practically every WP:RS out there, we're going to need better sources than a journal entry or two. As I see it, User:يوسف حسين, the revisions you keep trying to impose are chock-full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POV issues, and instead of edit-warring over them, you need to obtain consensus per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are not fulfilling and don't draw a complete picture, leading to a misleading presentation of events. al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya are biased sources and are not to be trusted while reporting on the Houtis. English is not my first language and i don't mean to disturb the page in anyway, but please avoid the over simplification while writing about the current crisis.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Houthis did indeed take over the government, but the government is not functioning and their declaration was not recognized neither locally or internationally. So instead of naming Mohammed Ali al-Houthi as an acting president, i think a mentioning that the government resigned would be better.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to work with you on addressing areas where you think the article is deficient, but edit warring against consensus is not the way to go. If you lay out the changes you would like to see, we can workshop them on Talk (with the participation of any other editor who is interested) and try to come to a consensus on implementing them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think an intro shedding some light on the events prior to Hadi's resignation would be a good start --يوسف حسين (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yemeni politics is all about balance between tribal and military centers of powers, just because someone declared himself a president, does not mean he really is. Your edit ignored the fact that Jamal Benomar is still meditating negotiations between warring factions, so the houthi declaration is not final. I think the article should emphasize on that.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that details like that are best covered in the "Revolution and aftermath" section, which may be due for a split. I'm not averse to adding a line at the end of the intro noting that UN talks are ongoing, but the idea that the Houthi coup has fizzled out is unsupported. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the intro section is too long. However, their declaration has fizzled out indeed. They announced that members of the "dissolved" parlimant will join their 551 member national transtional council within days, only 12 people registered. Even Ali Abdullah Saleh who has been aiding them against common adversaries such al-Ahmar tribal group and Islah, refused to back their plan. If that is not a complete failure, what is? The fact that the Houthis are willing to negotiate with political parties, demonstrate how desperate they are in their quest to legitimize their attempted coup.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I can provide a list references in Arabic and you can translate them and evaluate the situation yourself. The Houthis did not want Hadi and his government to resign, that's the exact opposite of a coup. They were and still looking for a weak president they could dictate terms to. They have no desire to rule directly and held responsible in the eyes of the Yemeni public--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for reliable sources to assess the situation and reach that conclusion on their own, rather than try to synthesise a conclusion based in part on our own original research. It doesn't hurt us to hold off before judging a nine-day-old coup to have failed, especially considering that I haven't seen any indication that the Houthis have conceded territory, control of state institutions, or anything of the sort. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

that's not an original research, Yemen's state institutions are weak and have always been a front for patronage politics.[31] Houthis removed Islah members from government buildings and replaced them with their own. The only development is Hadi's resignation. At least keep the part about their battle with Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar before taking over Sanaa in September, and the reason they used to justify their kidnapping of Hadi's chief of staff. Also mentioning that UN meditated talks are still going on wouldn't hurt. You identified what happened as coup based on your own synthesis, am i right? which is not completely wrong but i do not see a good reason for emphasizing "neighboring states" position when the international community has not identify it as such. Also, "protesters" are mostly members of certain political parties, some of them are on Saudi payroll. So i suggest changing it to something like "Houthi's declaration wasn't recognized locally" however you see fit--يوسف حسين (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I just made a small change by adding Islah as part of the conflict that erupted in the north, and the fact that the Yemeni parliament granted Saleh and his associates immunity from persecution.--يوسف حسين (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Those seem like reasonable additions -- thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU??? YOU CAN PRINT WHAT YOU WANT, AND OTHERS MUST "WORKSHOP THEM ON TALK!? GO FUCK YOURSELF! 123.255.16.94 (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

food facts

Customs[edit] The generous offering of food to guests is one of the customs in Yemeni culture, and a guest not accepting the offering is considered as an insult.[1] Meals are typically consumed while sitting on the floor or ground.[1]

§Food preparation[edit] In Yemen, many kitchens have a taboon (also called tannur), which is a round clay oven.[1]

§Fruits and vegetables[edit] Tomatoes, onions, and potatoes are some of the staple fruits and vegetables in Yemen.[2]

§Meat and dairy[edit]

Homemade mandi from Hadhramaut, Yemen Chicken, goat, and lamb are the staple meats in Yemen.[2] They are eaten more often than beef, which is expensive. Fish is also eaten, especially in the coastal areas. Cheese, butter, and other dairy products are less common in the Yemeni diet. Buttermilk, however, is enjoyed almost daily in some villages where it is most available. The most commonly used fats are vegetable oil and ghee used in savory dishes, while clarified butter, known as semn (سمن), is the choice of fat used in pastries.

§Legumes[edit] Broad beans are used in Yemeni dishes, such as bean salad. Lentils are also used in dishes, such as stews.[3]

§Yemeni dishes[edit]

A fatoot of fried bread with eggs Dishes common in Yemen include: aseed, fahsa, fattah, fatoot,[3] ful medames, hanith, hareesh, jachnun, kabsa, komroh, mandi, mutabbaq, Samak Mofa, shafut, shakshouka, thareed, and Zurbiyan.

§Saltah[edit] Although each region has their own variation, Saltah (سلتة) is considered the national dish.[3] The base is a brown meat stew called maraq (مرق), a dollop of fenugreek froth (holba), and sahawiq (سحاوق) or sahowqa (a mixture of chili peppers, tomatoes, garlic, and herbs ground into a salsa). Rice, potatoes, scrambled eggs, and vegetables are common additions to saltah. Meats used in the preparation of this dish are typically lamb or chicken.[2] It is eaten traditionally with Yemeni flat bread, which serves as a utensil to scoop up the food.

§Ogdat[edit] Ogdat (عقدة), meaning knot in Arabic, is a stew made from tying and mixing all the ingredients together. There are many types of ogdat, and it can be made with small pieces of lamb, chicken, or fish that is mixed and cooked together with vegetables, including tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, onions, zucchini, etc.

§Yemeni bread varieties[edit]

Laxoox Breads are an integral part of Yemeni cuisine, most of which are prepared from local grains.[1] Unleavened flat breads are common.[2] Tawa, Tameez, Laxoox, Malooga, Kader, Kubane, Fateer, Kudam, Rashoosh, Oshar, Khamira, and Malawah[1] are popular breads eaten in Yemen. Flat bread is usually baked at home in a tandoor called taboon (تبون). Malooga, khubz, and khamira are popular homemade breads. Store-bought pita bread and roti (bread rolls like French bread) are also common.

§Spices[edit] A spice mixture known as hawaij is employed in many Yemeni dishes. Hawaij includes aniseeds, fennel seeds, ginger, and cardamom.

Yemeni cuisine is often prepared hot and spicy with the use of chili peppers, cumin, coriander seeds, turmeric, and other spices.[3] Herbs such as fenugreek, mint, and cilantro are also used.[3] Fenugreek is used as one of the main ingredients in the preparation of a paste or sauce called holba (also spelled hulba).[3]

§Desserts and sweets[edit] Bint Al-Sahn is a sweet honey cake or bread from Yemeni cuisine.[3][1] It is prepared from a dough with white flour, eggs, and yeast, which is then served dipped in a honey and butter mixture.[1]

Other common desserts include: fresh fruit (mangoes, bananas, grapes, etc.), zalābiya, halwa, Rawani and masoob. Masoob is a banana-based dessert made from over-ripe bananas, ground flat bread, cream, cheese, dates, and honey.

§Honey[edit] In Yemen, honey is produced within the country, and is considered a delicacy.[1] Locally-produced honey has a high demand, and it is also considered as a status symbol in the country.[1]

§Beverages[edit]

Black tea Shahi Haleeb (milk tea, served after qat), black tea (with cardamom, clove, or mint), qishr (coffee husks), Qahwa (coffee), Karkadin (an infusion of dried hibiscus flowers), Naqe'e Al Zabib (cold raisin drink), and diba'a (squash nectar) are examples of popular Yemeni drinks. Mango and guava juices are also popular.

Although coffee and tea are consumed throughout Yemen,[2] coffee is the preferred drink in Sana'a, whereas black tea is the beverage of choice in Aden and Hadhramaut. Tea is consumed along with breakfast, after lunch (occasionally with sweets and pastries), and along with dinner. Popular flavorings include cloves with cardamom and mint. A drink made from coffee husks called qishr is also enjoyed.

Alcoholic beverages are considered improper due to cultural and religious reasons, but they are available in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.89.206 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Adherence to atheism?

In the religion section:

"About 1 percent of Yemenis are non-Muslim, adhering to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or atheism."

Adhere is defined as:

• "believe in and follow the practices of"
• "to be devoted in support or allegiance; be attached as a follower or upholder"

It doesn't make any sense to say that people who don't hold religious beliefs "adhere to atheism". Any suggestions on how this should be reworded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.135.19 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest removing atheism from that list and adding "or having no religious affiliation". -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"or having no religious affiliation" is not the same as "atheism". Also the OP states, but does not give any reason, why 'It doesn't make any sense to say that people who don't hold religious beliefs "adhere to atheism"'.Snarfblaat (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Panorama of Haraaz landscape has scrollbars when watching pages in zoom

I don't see many WP articles with a panorama photo and imho it's a lovely variation to pictures on the right of an article. However, there is a small issue with it. I view pages in 125% zoom by default. In that zoom, the image doesn't fit the frame and there's scroll bars to the right of and below the image. Is this a local error or a WP wide issue? In case of the latter, could anyone help me find out where to address this? We're at the dawn of an era of high res displays (higher than full hd / 1080p), both on high end laptops and pc displays. So this will become an issue to an increasing group of users. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancient history

No mention of the Aksumite conquest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarfblaat (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131203092228/http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?id=16210 to http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?id=16210

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yemen area size?!

Currently on Wikipedia the area size written is 527,970 km2, whereas other sources says the area is 555,000 km2.. and to more precise, Yemeni sources has a number of sources that says 555,000 km2, and there are also a number of sources that says 527,970 km2!!! How can we solve this? 967Bytes (Contact) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.realclearworld.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/01/08/fighting_al-qaeda_the_role_of_yemens_president_saleh_97472.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212053809/http://www.al-bab.com/bys/articles/talib95.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/bys/articles/talib95.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019224639/http://www.refugees.org/resources/refugee-warehousing/archived-world-refugee-surveys/2008-world-refugee-survey.html to http://www.refugees.org/resources/refugee-warehousing/archived-world-refugee-surveys/2008-world-refugee-survey.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327001747/http://al-bab.com/yemen/media/med.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/media/med.htm#Broadcasting

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219213256/http://presidentsaleh.gov.ye/shownews.php?lng=en&_newsctgry=2 to http://www.presidentsaleh.gov.ye/shownews.php?lng=en&_newsctgry=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ipinst.org/media/pdf/publications/ipi_e_pub_mediating_transition.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203080802/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/online_tours/middle_east/ancient_south_arabia/the_kingdoms_of_ancient_south.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/online_tours/middle_east/ancient_south_arabia/the_kingdoms_of_ancient_south.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530041122/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/05/losing_yemen?page=0,1 to https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/05/losing_yemen?page=0,1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530044140/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/29/whose_side_is_yemen_on?page=0,1 to https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/29/whose_side_is_yemen_on?page=0,1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123053739/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/09/yemen-government-crisis_n_6128974.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/09/yemen-government-crisis_n_6128974.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123052802/http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/yemen-president-abed-rabbo-mansour-hadi-s-home-shelled-by-shiite-rebels-palace-taken-over-1.9826611 to http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/yemen-president-abed-rabbo-mansour-hadi-s-home-shelled-by-shiite-rebels-palace-taken-over-1.9826611

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

GDP PPP

The GDP PPP calculations are far off . Would someone be able to edit that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.227.242 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Hi Mr.user:Kleuske can you tell me where did these percentages come from? Do you have a source? Or you just assumed it? SharabSalam (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's Mrs. Kleuske, thankyouverymuch. The onus is on you to provide sources for the change. Kleuske (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

See Demographics of Yemen. Kleuske (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yemen.html Moroccansoldier (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Watching CSPAN about Yemen. Lots of chatter - no real news. I didn't know that Yemen was mineral, gas and oil rich. Shows how dumb I am - a war in the Middle East should have tipped me off. 75.68.248.198 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Infant mortality section

We have a new essay style section added yesterday for a class assignment that's clearly undue for this overview article and is horribly sourced. It should be removed until it's fixed. This is not the place for class assignments adding so much detail as such a minor topic to this overview article. I have normally been creating new articles with these essays but in this case the sources are so bad that it's not possible. --Moxy (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cnlegaspi02: @Fioreclaudia: Moxy is correct in that this is off-topic for Yemen. It is much better suited to Health in Yemen. Please move it there & make the WP:UNDUE, WP:INTREF, & WP:COPYEDIT corrections that Moxy flagged it for. Also there are manual of style violations. Infant Mortality Rate should never have been a 2nd level heading with 3rd level headings Disease, Foreign Assistance, & Current Standing under it. Those 3rd level headings belong under the 2nd level Health heading. Please rectify all this ASAP. Peaceray (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor point: it's not off-topic (which Moxy never claimed), it's just unduly long, which is correct. Either way, it belongs in Health in Yemen, as stated. See also "Health section" below. Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Health section edit

We now also have this new edit by student editor Fioreclaudia (talk · contribs) that adds 7.5kb (well cited) to the #Health section, and adds three H3 and three H4 subsections under it. However at 223kb, the article is definitely within WP:SIZESPLIT territory, and this edit is also unduly large for one section in a summary style-article. This content seems good enough that it could be moved (or merged) to subarticle Health in Yemen, with a few sentences added to the Health section in this article summarizing the new content that was moved. Also, the section titling is in title case which is wrong, titles keep reusing "Yemen" which is wrong, and the H3/H4 section org is squirrely and should be redone. Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Yemen transcontinental?

According to one source, the Socotra islands belong "administratively" to Yemen, "but geographically the island is a part or [sic] Africa." It falls short of saying "Yemen is a country on two continents", or similar, the way one could easily find for Turkey, or Russia, or even Spain, for that matter. Is this enough to support a claim of transcontinentality for Yemen? The current source is weak and wishy-washy about this; if it's generally accepted, there will be a source that says so unequivocally. I've tagged the claim as {{failed verification}} and WP:SYNTH until we can find a source that is clear on this point. Mathglot (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it constitutes Synthesis to note that, by definition, a country located in two continents is "transcontinental," but I'm not going to dispute the tag. I share your frustration that there don't seem to be sources on the Internet (apart from the Wikipedia article on transcontinental countries and articles based on that Wikipedia articke) that come out and say that Yemen (or other countries with territory separated by water, with the exception of Spain) are transcontinental, but I will search print sources to see if anyone has written at length about transcontinental countries. In the meantime, I've added a second source stating that Socotra is geographically part of Africa (specifically, it states that the archipelago is a continuation of the Horn of Africa). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: Firstly, you have engaged in WP:3RR. secondly You have deleted sourced informations with no reason Here are some other sources that also support my claim [32]. Your source doesnt say socotra is located in the African continent in fact Socotra is considered as a Continental fragment [33] and FYI socotra was saparated since Gondwana [34](athough Daily mail isnt considered as a RS in wikipedia becuse of their lies about political issues but this isnt related to politics) and as I said it is geology accepted that socotra is more similar to Dhofar which was part of ancient Yemen and now part of Oman. Finally you have reverted me and Mathglot when we deleted a pure original reaserch which even you have said is not sourced. you also seem to not have enough knowledge about this topic and that you are trying to start an edit war I dont know why(it might be because of Talk:Ian Smith but anyway thats not cool.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam, I will repost here my response to the similar accusations that you posted in my user Talk page, as I believe that they explain the situation fairly well:

"@SharabSalam, if you check the record, you'll see that I made a constructive edit regarding the geographic location of Socotra and how it makes Yemen a transcontinental country (which is a subject of longtime interest to me, as is how small portions of Georgia and Azerbaijan are north of the Caucasus and thus are in Europe, making such countries transcontinental), and I was reverted by @User: Mathglot because he understood my statement not to be "generally accepted" and to constitute "original research." I resubmitted my change with a source for Socotra being geographically in Africa and with an explanation that Yemen has long been listed as a transcontinental country in the Wikipedia article on the subject, and Mathglot let the change stay but with a tag regarding "Synthesis," and with an entry in the Talk page, because, while Socotra can be considered geographically part of Africa, the second part (that that makes Yemen a transnational country) doesn't necessarily follow. I responded in the Talk page by noting my disagreement with his conclusion, but agreeing to keep the "Synthesis" tag while further research regarding "transcontinental countries" may be conducted.

It was at this time that you jumped in, ignoring the Talk page discussion, and reverted the portion of the edit that I had made and that Mathglot had agreed to keep (albeit with a tag) for the time being, calling my edit "unsourced." You explained your edit with the non sequitur that "being part of the African plate doesnt (sic) mean being part of the African continent," which is apropos of nothing given that (i) I never argued that Socotra was part of Africa because it's on the African plate (as someone interested in the concept of continents, I am well aware that tectonic plates are but a tiny part of the analysis of continental boundaries), (ii) the Socotra archipelago isn't on the African plate, but on the Somali Plate, and (iii) it was *you*, not I, who presented evidence of rifts from tectonic plates as "evidence" that Socotra is part of Asia. Your reading of the source that you provided (of which I only have been able to read the summary, as the article itself is not publicly available) is inconsistent with the widely held belief among scientists that Socotra separated from Gondwanaland around 20 million years ago; I suspect that the source's author's findings are more nuanced than what you presented. (I have since read more about it, and the Somali Plate--which includes the Horn of Africa, Socotra and other African areas, and which I presume was part of Gondwanaland back then--separated from the Arabian plate between 23-34 million years ago, and Socotra separated from the Horn a bit later.) For this reason, I reverted your reversion of my edit and added a second source (World Wildlife Fund, which has studied and written extensively about Socotra's geography) stating that the Socotra archipelago are part of Africa (to be precise, that it is a continuation of the Horn of Africa).

You then reverted me a second time and said that I should discuss the change in the Talk page, ignoring the fact that it was *you* who had reverted the edit (which I had made and Mathglot had modified) without bothering to check out the discussion in the article's Talk page. Given that your source spoke about tectonic plates, and not whether Socotra is in Asia or Africa, it is irrelevant to the discussion. And since you messed up the paragraph by getting rid of spaces between sentences, deleting the link to the World Wildlife Fund source (but inexplicably keeping the Socotra Z.S. Society source), and eliminating the Synthesis tag that Mathglot had placed on the conclusion that Yemen is a transcontinental country, I described your edit as "sloppy" when I reverted it.

As for your statement that "I hope you arent doing this behaviour because of Ian Smith article" (sic), I honestly can say that I've had my current views on the boundaries between continents for years and that the same were not driven in the slightest by the fact that you've made spend so much time protecting the Ian Smith article from vandalism. And I can tell you that I do not believe that the reason why you are insisting that Socotra is part of Asia is because I stopped you (with assistance from the neutral third party that you requested and obtained) from adding an improper category to the Ian Smith article; I know from your Wikipedia page that you are a native citizen of Yemen, and it would be odd if you *weren't* interested in issues involving Yemen's territory. I actually am agnostic as to matters related to Yemen (other than praying that the cycle of violence ends soon) and am editing the page solely because of my interest in geography; while the fact that you are Yemeni by no means disqualifies you from editing Yemen's article (on the contrary, it gives you insights that someone like me never could obtain), you should consider whether your patriotism or Pan-Arabism (to which you, like all people, are entitled) is allowing you to analyze issues involving the status of Socotra (even if unrelated to politics, as is the case of to what geographic continent it belongs) in an unbiased manner.

So, in conclusion, I do not believe that I am engaging in an edit war by protecting an edit that already had been modified by another editor and which is the subject of discussion in the article's Talk page. As you may know if you've read my discussion in Talk pages for other articles, I have two daughters, and I strive to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia on which they and other children (and adults, for that matter) can count to provide factual, relevant and unbiased information. My understanding regarding Socotra is that it generally is considered to be part of Africa, which is why I made the edit that is the subject of this discussion. If some geographers believe that Socotra is part of Asia (which could be the case; heck, some geographers believe that North and South America should be considered a single continent and that Afro-Eurasia is a single continent as well), then maybe the way to go is to include both positions and state that, if Socotra is deemed part of Africa, Yemen is transcontinental, but if Socotra is deemed part of Asia then Yemen is not transcontinental."

I also will take the opportunity to post, for everyone's edification, what the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) wrote about Socotra's geology in its May 2008 technical evaluation report for the nomination of the Socotra archipelago as a World Heritage site: "Geology: Socotra is an island of continental origin, a block of Precambrian Gondwanaland. It has an igneous and metamorphic basement of schist and gneiss extensively overlaid by sandstones, marls and limestone deposited in Cretaceous and later Eocene seas, though the Precambrian Haggeher granite was probably never submerged. It lies on an undersea platform block that extends from the tip of Somaliland. The block finally separated from the Arabian plate during the rifting which began to open the Gulf of Aden in the Oligocene to Miocene epochs some 34-23 million years ago."

As I wrote below, I have no problem with an alternate view of continental boundaries being presented as well if there are sources that state that Socotra is part of Asia, but it is relevant and properly sourced that Socotra is generally considered (or at the very least considered by many geographers) to be part of Africa. Politics shouldn't trump geography to the point that it silences it. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi AuH2ORepublican I cann't read this long message right now because its too late here (I will reply to you tomorrow).I did a scan reading the message and I saw the link you provided I just wanted to let you know that you should not post that link because its a local link. it only works in your computer because you have the file in your computer. I don't know if sharing that link publically safe for your privacy because it expose your user name.(BTW this like the first time you post a source in talk page while arguing with me)--SharabSalam (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the link to the PDF was not viewable by others. The IUCN technical evaluation of the Socotra archipelago may be found at this link, starting on page 13 of the PDF, with the section on Socotra's geology found in page 2 of the technical evaluation (page 14 of the PDF): https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2008/whc08-32com-inf8B2e.pdf AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican, regarding this comment of yours above:

I resubmitted my change with a source for Socotra being geographically in Africa and with an explanation that Yemen has long been listed as a transcontinental country in the Wikipedia article on the subject...

This part of your argument, at least, has no bearing one way or the other on how this is eventually resolved. See WP:WINARS. You need to cite reliable sources that support your position, not other Wikipedia articles. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I haven't been able to research print sources in libraries, and the transcontinentality of countries is not something to which many news and history articles devote space, but these are the online sources that I have found that specifically refer to Yemen as being "transcontinental," "bicontinental" or otherwise encompassing two continents.

I found these in English:

• "The UN presented on Tuesday at a donor conference its financial requirements for what it considers "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world" and that amount to almost 3,000 million dollars. It is Yemen, a small bicontinental country between the Middle East and Africa." https://tech2.org/colombia/un-calls-for-donors-for-the-worst-humanitarian-crisis-in-the-world/

• "By official count, there are eight countries that straddle two continents. More than two-thirds of Russia lies in Asia, though about 75% of population lives in the smaller European part. Most of Turkey lies in Europe, but a tiny piece (about 3%) lies in Asia across the Bosporus Strait. While most of Egypt is in Africa, the Sinai Peninsula is physically a part of Asia. Socotra Island, which lies off the Horn of Africa, is part of the West Asian republic of Yemen. Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla are physically parts of Africa. Similarly, Portugal’s Madeira Island group is physically part of Africa rather than Europe. Indonesia consists of 13,700 islands. The eastern islands (including Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya) are counted as part of Oceania rather than Asia. The US also lies on two continents – the state of Hawaii is part of Oceania." http://www.herebeanswers.com/2012/11/which-countries-are-geographically-spread-over-two-continents.html

• "Yemen - It is a bicontinental country, located between the Middle East and Africa. It shares borders with Saudi Arabia and Oman. Its capital is Sana'a and the current state was formed following the unification of the Arab Republic of Yemen (Northern Yemen) and the Democratic People's Republic of Yemen (South Yemen) in 1990. Since their union, the country has suffered civil wars." https://www.lifepersona.com/the-25-most-peripheral-countries

• "The Republic of Yemen is a bicontinental country located in the Middle East and Africa. Its Asian part is located in Mashreq, south of the Arabian Peninsula, surrounded by the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, in Asia. The island of Socotra is in Africa. It shares borders with Oman and Saudi Arabia." https://educalingo.com/en/dic-es/yemeni

In Spanish (in which I am fluent):

• "En muy pocas ocasiones se puede hablar de un país bicontinental, es decir aquel cuyo territorio se encuentra repartido en dos continentes diferentes. Y ese es el caso que me he encontrado al investigar acerca de dónde está Yemen y cuáles son sus características. . . .Yemen está situado en el Oriente Próximo y como te dijimos anteriormente, es un país bicontinental, estando su territorio asiático en el Mashreq, completamente al sur de la península de Arabia, justamente al frente del mar Arábigo, el golfo de Adén y el mar Rojo. Ahora bien, la parte Africana de Yemen, es insular, pues la isla de Socotra se ubica en la plataforma continental de este continente." https://donde-esta.org/yemen/

(Translation (using Google, with my corrections): "Very rarely can we speak of a bicontinental country, that is, one whose territory is divided into two different continents. And that is the case that I have found when investigating where Yemen is and what its characteristics are. . . . Yemen is located in the Near East and, as we said before, it is a bicontinental country, with its Asian territory being in the Mashreq, completely to the south of the Arabian peninsula, just in front of the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. Now, the African part of Yemen is insular, because the island of Socotra is located on the continental shelf of this continent.")

• "Yemen o Yemén, es un país entre dos continentes situado en el Cercano Oriente y en África. Con un territorio 3 veces el de Uruguay, es el país más pobre de la Península Arábica. Con una población cercana a los 25 millones de personas. Su parte asiática está situada en el Mashreq, al sur de la península de Arabia, rodeado por el mar Arábigo, el golfo de Adén y el mar Rojo, en Asia. La isla de Socotra está en África, y forma parte del territorio del país, y atención con esta isla yemení, porque tanto Estados Unidos en el 2010, como Arabia Saudita en el 2015, han intentado poner bases militares allí, para darle "más poder a su aliado Yemen", en realidad lo que quieren es controlar el tránsito tanto de petróleo como de productos chinos que cruzan por el golfo de Adén, hacia el Mar Rojo y luego al Mar Mediterráneo." https://www.taringa.net/+info/que-sabemos-de-yemen_t2n0l

(Translation (using Google, with my corrections): "Yemen, or Yemén, is a country between two continents located in the Near East and in Africa. With a territory 3 times that of Uruguay, it is the poorest country in the Arabian Peninsula. With a population close to 25 million people. Its Asian part is located in the Mashreq, south of the Arabian Peninsula, surrounded by the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, in Asia. The island of Socotra is in Africa, and is part of the territory of the country, and pay attention to this Yemeni island, because both the United States in 2010, and Saudi Arabia in 2015, have tried to put military bases there, to give it "more power to its ally Yemen"; in reality what they want is to control the transit of both oil and Chinese products that cross the Gulf of Aden, to the Red Sea and then to the Mediterranean Sea.")

• "Yemen es un país a caballo entre dos continentes: la mayor parte de su territorio, la ubicada en Oriente Próximo, pertenece a Asia, pero también es propietario de la isla de Socotra, en África. Sus fronteras limitan con Omán y Arabia Saudita y está igualmente rodeado por el mar Arábigo, el golfo de Adén y el mar Rojo." http://www.saberia.com/cual-es-la-capital-de-yemen/

(Translation (using Google, with my corrections): "Yemen is a country straddling two continents: most of its territory, located in the Middle East, belongs to Asia, but it also owns the island of Socotra, in Africa. It borders Oman and Saudi Arabia, and it also is surrounded by the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.")

Now, these sources aren't exactly the Encyclopedia Britannica, but, as I noted, few people seem to care about whether a country is transcontinental. If and when I can get to a library I will search print materials, but as of now this is what I found, and it isn't nothing. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Due to the urging by User:Mathglot on the Talk:List of transcontinental countries page I have come to briefly join in on the discussion. I will start by stating that Yemen is a country with a clear majority of its territory on the Asian continent, and a portion of it (the island of Socotra) clearly not on the Asian continent (an island). However, the question remains if this constitutes a "transcontinental country" or not. I will now point out that there are two kinds of transcontinental countries, as according to our List of transcontinental countries article. Those that have a "contiguous boundary", which are considered generally to not be under dispute, and those which have a "non-contiguous" status, which are essentially ALL under dispute, and for pretty much the exact same reason. This reason being; Can one consider 'islands' to be distinct from their associated 'continents'? Generally speaking, sources are not clear on this subject, and this concept is a matter that is clearly in dispute. Yemen is not unique in this regard, identical questions could be raised about Greece, Denmark, Italy, Columbia, etc. The only thing that is stated for certain is that Yemen is not a transcontinental country, like Russia, Turkey, or Egypt, all of which are clearly contiguous and have sources clearly defining them as such, but it most likely is a non-contiguous one, based on the geology of Socotra as described by sources. However, to be perfectly frank, this discussion does not really belong on this page, as such discussions do really belong on the List of transcontinental countries article, since matters on this subject concern additional states with disputed status' other than just Yemen. I will now propose that this discussion be terminated here, and be continued in the Talk:List of transcontinental countries#Is Yemen transcontinental? section instead (obverse to the proposal made by User:Mathglot), so that further discussion on the matter can be captured on the relevant article's talk page. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiz9999, thanks for your comments. Afaic, I grant pretty much everything you say about the noncontiguous circumstances, but from where I stand, it's completely irrelevant to how this particular issue about Yemen should be resolved, one way or the other. The problem I see in your discussion, is that you're trying to address the logic of the situation directly, arguing, for example, "... and a portion of it (the island of Socotra) clearly not on the Asian continent", or, "Can one consider 'islands' to be distinct from their associated 'continents'?" That's not at all the proper role for a Wikipedia editor. As editors, we do not discuss what is "clearly on the Asian continent" and we do not "consider islans distinct" (or "not distinct"); that is Original research. What we, as Wikipedia editors do, is assemble the reliable sources who have something to say on this question, and then we summarize them in the content of the article. That's it—that's our role as editors, in a nutshell. This even extends to what happens when the majority of reliable sources get it "wrong" (in some editor's opinion): we still report what the reliable sources say. (Hopefully, over time, other reliable sources that get it "right" would get published, and as they do, the Wikipedia article would change in consequence.)

The right question to ask, imho, is your next comment: "Generally speaking, sources are not clear on this subject, and this concept is a matter that is clearly in dispute." That is exactly the issue we should be addressing, here. In cases like this, WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:DUEWEIGHT should apply: if there is near univeral agreement (not the case here), we can make the statement in Wikipedia's voice. If not, the written content should reflect the majority and minority opinions on the subject, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, and may be attributed, to avoid presenting disputed statements in Wikipedia's voice. But we should be careful to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and thus to avoid statements such as "clearly on the African [or, Asian] continent" that are our own opinion based on looking at a map, or by some other means.

As far as where to hold this discussion, it started here because of edit warring on this page, and has had considerable back-and-forth already. Rather than splinter the discussion, I would be opposed to moving it now, and it should continue here, where it started. The link to this discussion from Talk:List of transcontinental countries#Is Yemen transcontinental? is sufficient to land people at the right place; it worked for you. Mathglot (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I had one other comment for AuH2ORepublican: where you said, "Now, these sources aren't exactly the Encyclopedia Britannica," I think you hit on exactly the issue that crops up when you search for the result you wish to document; you find some sources that say what you want, but maybe you don't find the EB. In this case, what you don't find, is indicative of something, which is exacty the matter in dispute that Wiz9999 alluded to above. It might be worth listing a few more "standard references" that are as good as the EB, and see what they have to say about it. I may try to do that, in the next couple of days. But I think that comment of yours was telling, in its own way. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of where WP:SYNTH comes into play. The "Lists" article (rev 881816243) says this:

content of the Asia and Africa section at the "Lists" article
Yemen: Although mainland Yemen is in the southern Arabian Peninsula and thus part of Asia, and its Hanish Islands and Perim in the Red Sea are associated with Asia, Yemen's national territory extends to the archipelago of Socotra, which lies east of the horn of Somalia and is much closer to Africa than to Asia. References

I actually have no problem with the running text in this version; on its own, it makes some assertions, all properly attributed to reliable sources. So far, so good. If this content were in an article about Geography of Yemen, I would have no problem with it; it doesn't actually say anything unsupported by the sources, afaict. But that "If", is absolutely key. The problem arises, because this is from an article entitled, "List of transcontinental countries", and by including that content in an article with that title, we are implying that Yemen is a transcontinental country, even though none of the sources listed said that. Because this content is from a section entitled, "Asia and Africa" we are implying that Yemen is a country that is partly in Asia, and partly in Africa, even though none of the sources said that. That is why I added inline tags in the next version, so it now looks like this, with the tags.

Ideally, I would like to see reliable sources added to the "Lists" article which clearly state that Yemen is bicontinental with pieces in Asia and Africa, or similar. Failing that, the "Yemen" section should be removed from the "Lists" article. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You said, "such discussions... belong on the List of transcontinental countries article, since matters on this subject concern additional states with disputed status' other than just Yemen." No; this discussion concerns only Yemen, and belongs here. We cannot force a false consistency among different countries by declaring the issue to be about "contiguous" or "noncontiguous" states, and then oblige them to all come out the same depending which category they're in; Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Whether we should say in this article that "Yemen is bicontinental" or not, should depend entirely on what reliable sources have to say about Yemen. Discussions about Greece, Denmark, or Italy might turn out completely different, and the only way to find out, would be to look up sources for those countries; those discussions should take place on their respective talk pages. This is Talk:Yemen, and it is eminently the proper place to have a discussion about how to improve the Yemen article. See WP:TALK. Mathglot (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I second what @Wiz9999 wrote. If WP:SYNTH is used to stifle the use of common-sense interpretations of sourced information, then we pretty much will have to get rid of all List articles in Wikipedia (or keep such articles but make them markedly less inclusive. Let's say that there's an article named "List of Deaf Music Composers." Maybe there are a few lesser-known composers that reliable sources have described as "deaf composers," but it certainly isn't something that encyclopedias or news articles generally do. If we interpret WP:SYNTH as prohibiting the inclusion of persons described as "composers" and separately as "deaf" then one would need to exclude Ludwig von Beethoven from the article because, while just about every work about Beethoven describes him as a composer, and thousands of sources note the fact that he went deaf while still an active composer (including the fact that he was completely deaf by the time that he wrote his Ninth Symphony), none of the most reliable sources use combine the two aspects of his life to call him a "deaf composer." I do not believe that WP:SYNTH was adopted in order to force editors to forgo common sense when the second thing logically follows from the first.

What I described in my Beethoven hypothetical could occur in any List article on Wikipedia, including the one listing transcontinental countries. Common sense tells us that if a person uses reliable sources to define "transcontinental country" and finds reliable sources that state that portions of a particular country are in different countries that there is no original research involved in noting that such country meets the definition of transcontinental. However, that a country is transcontinental is not exactly a hot topic of scholarship, much less of journalism, and it is very rare for newspapers or reference books to state explicitly tat a country is transcontinental apart from occasional mentions of how Russia and Turkey (and, more rarely, Egypt) are split between two continents.

That brings us to the case of Yemen. There are reliable sources that state that, geographically speaking, the Socotra archipelago is part of Africa. Given that mainland Yemen (and its islands just offshore) are incontrovertibly part of Asia (and that Yemen is described universally as an Asian country, with the exception of sources that mention that it is mostly in Asia but that Socotra is in Africa), there is nothing original about plugging that information into the definition of "transcontinental" and acknowledging that Yemen is a transcontinental country. There is no more "synthesis" there than if we use reliable sources for the height of each individual U.S. president and then list them in order of height in an article, or if we note in an article that Thomas Jefferson was taller than Ronald Reagan (despite the dearth of New York Times articles listing all 43 presidents by order of height). Of course, to the extent that reliable sources describe Socotra as being geographically (not politically; not culturally Asian, then it certainly should be noted that, if Socotra is deemed to be Asian, Yemen wouldn't be considered transcontinental (but WP:SYNTH should not be used to insist that we would need a reliable source that describes Yemen as not being transcontinental).

Even though we are discussing the particular case of the Wikipedia article on Yemen, the precedent set here definitely will inform the decisions made in other articles. My decision to edit the Yemen article to note the country's transcontinentality led to Yemen's entry in the List of Transcontinental Countries article to be tagged as being WP:SYNTH, and that surely will lead to other entries in that article to be tagged similarly. Frankly, unless a major magazine decides to write an exposé on transcontinental countries, the likeliest result of the road we're taking is the deletion of almost all entries from the article.

Few people in media or academia care whether Socotra is in Africa or Asia, and those that do (such as the Workd Wildlife Fund, which is fighting to save the Island's fauna and flora and notes that Socotra is geographically in Africa as part of its emphasis on its African biogeography) don't care that Socotra being in Africa makes Yemen a transcontinental country. The few sources that have made the connection (curiously, several in Spanish; there may be others in languages in which I am not fluent) tend to be nonacademic, such as travel websites and others providing general information on Yemen that decided to throw in a little trivia. I don't know whether the sources that I've found that explicitly call Yemen "transcontinental" or "bicontinental" otherwise states that it is in two continents will be deemed to be reliable sources, but, as I argued above, I don't think that we need such "magic bullet" to make the common-sense connection between Socotra being in Africa and Yemen being transcontinental, since the second logically follows from the first. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican:, thanks for your comments, but I think this argument falls flat on two points: the meaning of SYNTH, and the accuracy of your example:

• I believe you misunderstand what WP:SYNTH says. SYNTH does not prohibit "the inclusion of persons described as 'composers' and separately as 'deaf' ", when they are in one source. You can combine different parts of one source, as long as you do not reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Thus in your "deaf composer" example, there is no need to find the phrase, "Beethoven is a deaf composer" in one sentence in one source, in order to make that assertion in a Wikipedia article. If you are reading Lockwood's 2005 biography of Beethoven, for example, and you read on page 53 that he was a young composer, and about his deafness on page 111-112, you can say "Beethoven was a deaf composer" in the Wikipedia article because even though contained in different parts of one source, you are not introducing a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. You don't need to forego common sense, but committed, serious, good-faith editors often disagree on when exactly one "thing logically follows" from another; I could point you to dozens of strident Talk discussions demonstrating this, but I'm sure you've seen them by the score. Best to follow what the reliable sources conclude, and not on our own conclusions.
• Much less importantly, but since you mentioned it, the example falls flat as well. Plenty of reliable sources, it turns out, do indeed use the exact term "deaf composer". In researching that, I also learned about one or two others, but by far the overwhelming number of results for the quoted-term search were about Beethoven. I don't doubt you could find a better illustration of what you meant, i.e. some quoted phrase were no source included it exactly, but where it was supported by combingin two parts of the book, but per the first point above, there would be no point finding such an example since that's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

So, no need to check your common sense at the door, but combining information from two dfferent sources, where neither one standing alone would support the assertion made in the article would be a violation of SYNTH and not allowed per no original research. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel that you are the one mis-interpreting WP:SYNTH here. As the purpose of WP:SYNTH is not to prevent the synthesis in all is forms and in its entirety, but to prevent creation of UNSUBSTANTIATED or UNVERIFIED synthesised information, not information that is a clear logical statement of the RS's instruction. Please read this: WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you mean I should read that page which is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community? Yep, read it. Thanks for the link. In contrast, here's what the actual Wikipedia policy says: 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. One of us is misinterpreting which page constitutes Wikipedia policy, and which page is unvetted commentary about it. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have left this discussion after I did a research and realised that the argument is more complicated than what I thought so I am not going to comment on this topic from now on. I agree with Largoplazo when they said there are actually multiple agreements as to the definition of a "continent" also there is lack of reliable sources and many other issues. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Level of encyclopedic interest

Quoting Mathglot: "Now, these sources aren't exactly the Encyclopedia Britannica, but, as I noted, few people seem to care about whether a country is transcontinental." This. I've been casually following the torrent of words over this and found myself thinking exactly this. It leads me to think that while the rigors of meeting our notability guidelines certainly don't bear on whether any individual fact is mention in an article whose topic does meet them, it seems to me that if the entirety of literature has paid zero attention to a fact, then how is it of encyclopedic interest? Whether it falls afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS or not, should Wikipedia precede any reliable source in caring about whether a thing is true?

Continents are chunks of land that are internally related in such a way that people agree to call them continents. There are actually multiple agreements as to the definition of a "continent", so there are several different ways to organize the world into continents. All of them are somewhat arbitrary.

Then there are countries. Countries are often spread out, even over non-contiguous tracts of land within one body of land or spread over several (islands, for example). There isn't a single reason to expect countries to be contained within one one of those things we call "continents" to begin with, and to consider it remarkable when they aren't, any more than we make a big deal over whether a country includes one or more islands, or extends over more than one geographic plate, or contains more than one desert, or includes part or all of more than one mountain range, or contains more than one lake. The only reason, I believe, that anyone pays the question notice at all is that there happen to be only a couple of countries (Turkey, Russia) that most people really think of as occupying more than one continent. On top of it, there's no consequence of any kind from, say, Turkey spanning the divide that's deemed to exist between a continent known as Asia and a continent known as Europe. With all of that, I just wonder whether the universe needs for Wikipedia to have a stand on whether Yemen can be characterized by trivia buffs as "transcontinental", or even for Wikipedia to treat the subject as worth talking about in an article.

Feel free to flame me. Largoplazo (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: No flame, I heartily agree. Just wanted to give credit where credit is due: the quote you attributed to me, was actually me quoting AuH2ORepublican, here. I'll be back with bit more on your substantive points later (not a torrent, promise!) but just wanted to get this out there first. Mathglot (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ack, of course, sorry, AuH2ORepublican, for the misattribution! And the invitation to flame wasn't directed specifically at you, just in anticipation of anyone who wanted to rake me over the coals concerning what's appropriate for Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I interpreted your 'flame' correctly; in my response, I meant to say, 'I won't flame you'; sorry for any misunderstanding! (Okay, we're tied, now; your turn to misunderstand if you're going to win this misunderstanding competition. ). Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Largoplazo:What an incredibly short sighted way of looking at the situation. With that kind of attitude we might as well delete List of transcontinental countries! I will however object formally to that interpretation, as that article is linked to directly by over 1500 other articles in EN Wikipedia, not to mention the 31 links to similarly defined articles in other language Wikipedias. I feel your dismissive attitude towards what is clearly relevant encyclopedic information is disturbing. Your argument here has failed to take into account the fact that sources may be intentionally not describing the state with such terms/language, since it is a matter of some controversy. That does not make the information irrelevant and un-encyclopedic, just difficult to locate. In such circumstances we would normally turn to academic reliable sources on the subject, because they would tend to be far more descriptive than journalists who tend to always summarise a situation. However, there is a distinct lack of academics with regard to 'international geographical boundary law', a problem which has been noted in a handful of other wikipedia articles. This does not provide us with an excuse to flat out ignore information. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend you not use the word "clearly" to qualify an assertion when the person you're saying it to has already made it clear that they don't agree with the assertion, let alone do they agree with the clarity that you're attaching to it. You can't move a discussion forward that way. I explained what criteria I was applying in discerning what I consider to be encyclopedic relevance, and you can see I came to the opposite conclusion from you.

In the remainder of your analysis, I feel as though you're acknowledging that coverage elsewhere is a consideration—and then you're rationalizing why you think it should be in the encyclopedia anyway. While I see your point regarding the level of interest suggested by activity within Wikipedia, it's a bit circular, because it leads me to wonder why it would be of such interest here if of no interest elsewhere. It's a bit of an undue weight issue: Wikipedia giving more weight to a detail than it receives in the outside world. It's interesting because it's interesting. It's like, what's that paradox, given the set of all uninteresting positive integers, the lowest positive integer in that set becomes ipso facto interesting, but then it's no longer in that set, and so it's no longer interesting, but then it rejoins the set and becomes interesting again? Largoplazo (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, but I respectfully still disagree. You are also right about my use of the word "clearly", as this was not fair, what is clear to me is not necessarily the way you would interpret it.

I still maintain that something that is difficult to locate is not necessarily not relevant. Just because I close my eyes does not mean that my computer screen does not exist, just that the aperture between the object and the processing capacity of my brain is too narrow to acquire anything that can be interpreted. The absence of evidence is not proof that evidence does not exist. Similarly, the possible existence of the simplest explanation (that no one considers the existence of "transcontinental countries" relevant) does not mean that a more complex explanation might exist and actually be the correct explanation (that the existence of "transcontinental countries" is relevant and is hard to source due to heated emotions towards the subject). - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Still mulling over my response to your substantive points above, but I found the number you were looking for. It's 1,730 1,7311,732. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC) dammit; updated by Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC) dammit! updated by Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Largoplazo (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully one thing we can all agree on, is that the lead summarizes the article. The lead contained more information about the islands off the Arabian peninsula, than the body of the article did, which is backwards. I've moved most of it out of the lead and into the Geography section. leaving a summary in the lead about "200 islands". All previously existing content remains (except for one duplicate statement) and the claim of transcontinental status remains, for now.

Whatever one thinks about the assertion about "transcontinental status" by WP:DUEWEIGHT it clearly does not belong in the lead. With it now located in the body of the article, we can discuss whether it should remain there in Wikipedia's voice as is, or be converted to an attributed minority view, or removed as a fringe opinion, which need not be convered at all, although in that case I wouldn't oppose a link in the See also section. Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)