Talk:United States support for Saudi Arabian–led operations in Yemen

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that although Joe Biden vowed to halt the U.S. support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen, the humanitarian situation of Yemen has reportedly worsened? Source: The Intercept
  • ALT1: ... that Joe Biden has described U.S. support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen as a "blank check" by Donald Trump for "Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses at home and abroad"? Source: The Intercept
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Preparedness paradox

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 05:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - not really
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - n
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is an inherently controversial article, as nearly every paragraph talks about really large quantities of human suffering caused by other humans. So we need to be careful to get it right; especially if we link to it from the front page. Right now, it doesn't.

• First, the hooks. They're not strictly accurate, either of them. Hook 1, yes, The Intercept does say that even though Biden vowed to halt US support, Yemen's humanitarian crisis is worse. However we can't, in Wikipedia's voice, say that these two things are this closely related. The distance between the US (country 1) support for Saudi Arabia (country 2) being involved in the civil war in Yemen (country 3) causing a humanitarian crisis (event 4) is very large, and implying this strongly that the US support is what is directly causing the humanitarian crisis is a stretch of rather large proportions. We'd need quite a bit more than one source for backing that before we should say this. The Intercept doesn't need to be balanced, we do.
• Hook 2 is slightly better, but still not quite right. What Joe Biden actually stated was " That includes ending Donald Trump’s “blank check” for Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses at home and abroad and ending the war in Yemen." See the "and" in there? That means he is specifically differentiating between the Trump blank check and ending the war. He's saying they're related, but not saying they're equivalent. So we can't say he said the US support is a blank check. We can't put words into people's mouths that way. Especially not in Joe Biden's, there would be no room for his foot.
• Then there are general problems with the article. First, it rather avoids the important fact of explaining about the war! We can be pretty sure that any person reading the Wikipedia in English knows what the United States is, and it's reasonably likely they know what Saudi Arabia is, but what Yemen is and what the war in Yemen is all about are both much more obscure and rather important to understanding the article. We need to explain about the war, not as the whole article, but as a paragraph rather early in the body at least. That's called Wikipedia:Summary style: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles." Instead what we have is "During Barack Obama's presidency, the United States began providing Saudi Arabia with critical support to "sustain" its war in Yemen" - what war in Yemen? War in Yemen isn't linked, and even if it were, that goes to a list of over a dozen wars! Yemen is not a historically peaceful place! Put a link to Yemeni Civil War (2014–present), the war in question, prominently in the very first sentence. Put a section explaining the war early in the article - not in the lead, but probably as the first article subsection. In there we need to at least briefly mention about Saudi Arabia's relationship with Yemen, and with the United States, and with Iran, and possibly about the North Yemen/South Yemen split and merger since it seems to be a rather important factor in the origin of the war. We need to explain who the Houthi are, and what their objection to the government is. It is a civil war, after all, even if this article is about the US support here. We can't just leave this out, or again it implies that the United States is a major player here, when again, as in the objection to hook 1, despite all its power, the US is at least 2 steps away from the conflict.
• In fact, that seems to be an objection to the neutrality of the article, the implication that "this whole war (like everything from the extinction of the dinosaurs to the eventual heat death of the universe) is the fault of the current President of the United States, whoever that may currently be". This is supported by linking to the articles about the 3 US Presidents in the lead - at least change those links to their respective administrations, or even better their international policies if we have those, rather than those about them personally, surely this article about the US support isn't influenced by the fact that Barack Obama was a member of the Democratic Party, when exactly he was born and that he was the first African-American president. This is a civil war first; with the various sides supported by the Saudis and Iran second; and by the US only third.
• And the sentence in the lead "In 2021, Joe Biden vowed to halt U.S. support for the war, though U.S. arms sales to the coalition have continued." that second part after the "though" is a powerful tactic, and I don't see it either cited or stated anywhere in the body of the article.
• And the long quote in the body that includes "the United States provides..." - there isn't a date on that quote, it's set in the present tense! The whole point is that Biden promised to stop it, right? Did he or didn't he? The date is rather important for that. There are a number of present tense quotes without dates on them like that.
• In fact, over half the article is analysis from think tanks and talking heads, rather than heavily cited actual facts. That worries me that opinions are getting wp:undue prominence. This isn't an article about whether a book or movie is good or bad, which pretty much has to be opinions, this is an article about rather cold, rather hard, rather bloody truths, I'd think we're required to focus more on facts and less on opinions.

In short, even besides a new hook, this article needs work. I know this is only DYK, not FA or GA, but as it is, the article is neither comprehensive nor neutral, and needs to be more of each before we can link to it from the front page. If you need chapter and verse, that's WP:DYKCRIT 3a, Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines D7, the bits about " should appear to be complete and not ... fail to deal adequately with the topic ... rejected as insufficiently comprehensive." Not impossible to fix, but not a trivial tweak either, I'm afraid, noticeable work is required here. Good luck. GRuban (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: Thanks for the review. Wow it's the longest DYK review I have ever seen, thanks for your interest and time! Anyway, here I have tried to give a due response to your review:

• The fact is that there's no wikivoicing here. Hook1 explicitly says "the humanitarian situation of Yemen has reportedly worsened". This attribution should be enough to stay on the safe side. If it is not making you happy, we may add something like "according to the intercept". Also, I don't agree with you that the original hook implies US has made humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Why not assuming the Intercept meant US decision has nothing to do with the crisis in Yemen? Furthermore, as opposed to what you tried to imply, "The United States is far from an innocent bystander in the Yemen war. It has supplied tens of billions of dollars-worth of bombs, missiles, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), weapons that have been the backbone of the Saudi/UAE war effort."Forbes See the differences?
• I agree with you over Alt1 (hook2). Not because of the differentiation you explained, but because on the second look I realized the hook is not explicitly supported by the source. Striking Alt1.
• I have added a background section to the page as per your third bullet point saying that there are more info to be added. Although this is not actually following the reviewer's guide. I noticed your reference to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines D7. I think more than the minimum level is satisfied in this article.
• I have changed the links from the names of the US presidents. The body already uses "administration" in the section topics as of the presidents. Plus I don't know much about the ranking you just stated, though I think that is irrelevant to this article and the DYK review.
• In the fifth bullet point, you're actually referring to this change. You are right, that should be added to the body, but before that, it should be backed by a RS. I have now added the required materials to the body along with the backing sources.
• I have inserted some of the dates into the article. Please let me know if there's more to be done.
• In the analysis section, 'just a paragraph' is from Brookings (which is still reliable enough).

You say "noticeable work is required here". Please let me know if there is something specific to be resolved, I'd like to do them. Otherwise I'd like to remind you that DYK is not FA, as you just mentioned. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: --Mhhossein ^talk 06:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! A few minor points, but the article is mostly good enough for DYK.

• "adminstration" needs an additional "i" in three section headings. Also there's a double period in the middle of the Trump section.
• "Hadi" needs a qualifier before first introduction - President, or Yemeni President, or something like that?
• "Human rights records" should just be "Human rights record" - it's almost never plural.
• Not sure what the sentence about the Nitze is doing in that section - move to Obama administration?

I'm basically ready to approve, but I still don't like either hook, I'm afraid. For the first hook, it's writing "Although Fact A happened Fact B still happened", and that, to me, is too much like writing "Although Macron won in France, Orban won in Hungary", without a clear statement of linkage. Yes, that is the exact way The Intercept is putting it, but I would be much more confident if our sources actually said "Due to Fact A happening, Fact B is happening", and they really don't. Can we go for a hook with more straightforward backing from our sources? It doesn't even have to be weaker, it can be a stronger statement, just with explicit source backing; how about something like "... that due to (US support for SA-led ops in Yemen), both have been accused of war crimes?" with backing from the Human Rights Watch article and the Nation article? (By the way, the link to The Nation article backing that is dead, I found it at https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/war-crimes-united-states-saudi-arabia-yemen/ or even https://web.archive.org/web/20201107231028/https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/war-crimes-united-states-saudi-arabia-yemen/ ; the HRW article is still up at https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/21/yemen-embargo-arms-saudi-arabia but an archive wouldn't hurt). That's a clear "due to" statement from our sources. Or something else; the article is good now, but the proposed hooks are weak. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey GRuban: Sorry for the delay. I have done some of the changes covering your concerns. As for the hooks, I am OK with your suggestion. I checked the source and found a portion saying "US participation in specific military operations, such as providing advice on targeting decisions and aerial refueling during bombing raids, may make US forces jointly responsible for laws-of-war violations by coalition forces." How about going with the following hook:

ALT2: ... that due to U.S. support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen, both Saudi Arabia and United States may be held responsible for laws-of-war violations?

--Mhhossein ^talk 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. So looking at it, there are still balance issues. Also more minor things.

• the lead says "In 2021, Joe Biden vowed to halt U.S. support for the war, though U.S. arms sales to the coalition have continued." Where is that stated in the body? And cited?
• it also says "According to the Human Rights Watch 2016 assessment, U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war "may make U.S. forces jointly responsible for laws-of-war violations by coalition forces." - that's cited, but I don't think it should be in the lead, it's one small detail, and the key word is "may". That statement is OK for the DYK, which is supposed to be about small details, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body.
• I still think the Analysis and Human Rights sections devote too much coverage to opinions in general. That's a matter of editorial decision, of course, but exacerbates help the next point.
• I don't see a single opinion that supports the US position here, while there are plenty that criticize it. That seems unbalanced.
• Another matter of editorial decision is the large number of long direct quotes from sources. Can't we summarize the meaning? We quote when the specific wording is important, on most of these cases rephrasing seems like it would be very possible.
• Still two periods in Trump section. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

GRuban:

• The continuation of US support was inserted here. I think the sources [1] and [2] would back the mentioned phrase.
• The detailed portion was removed.
• Thanks for the insight, but I don't think the opinions are payed too much weight in the Human rights record. Actually it was tried to make proper attributions whenever needed. That is what WP:NPOV demands. Also, you don't see a single opinion that supports the actions because I could not find one. Let me know if there's any.
• The concern with the quotes are not really necessary for the sake of DYK !!! not a GA or FA.

I hope the article is now ready for the main page. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: Did you notice my last comment? best. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, haven't edited much the past few days then got caught up in other things. Basically good, except I do want at least one statement at least explaining, if not supporting, the US position, for at least some balance with the many statements opposing it. I am sure they're out there, maybe even in your own sources, let me look and I will find a few for you to choose from. --GRuban (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Here we go:

• https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-support-saudi-military-operations-yemen "U.S. stated goals for this assistance are to restore the UN-recognized government of Yemen and preserve Saudi territorial integrity from incursion by Yemen-based Houthi rebels. Deepening Iranian support for the Houthi rebels has also reinforced U.S. concern for Yemen’s trajectory... The majority of U.S. assistance has consisted of aerial targeting assistance, intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial refueling for Saudi and UAE aircraft. Despite significant criticism of its involvement in the conflict, the U.S. government repeatedly has emphasized that assistance to Saudi Arabia and the UAE is not directly combat related except when in defense of U.S. forces and in the pursuit of al Qaeda and its associates."
• https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/ending-us-military-support-saudi-arabia-yemen-would-trigger-dangerous "ending U.S. support for the multinational coalition in Yemen is not the proper solution. ... A cutoff of U.S. support would also hurt the elected and internationally recognized government of Yemen, which was ousted by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015 in a bloody coup that violated a U.N.-brokered ceasefire. Withdrawing U.S. support would also harm the interests of other U.S. allies fighting in Yemen, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The war in Yemen is complex. Those who rush to blame Saudi Arabia entirely for the suffering of the Yemeni people ignore the war crimes and heavy-handed treatment meted out by the Houthis to their opponents and the ruthless role that Iran plays in supporting the Houthi Ansar Allah (“Supporters of Allah”) movement, a Shia Islamist extremist group. ... Those who advocate withdrawing support for Saudi Arabia apparently believe that they can somehow end the current conflict in Yemen through a one-sided strategy that penalizes allies and boosts Ansar Allah, a group that chants “Death to America” and looks more like Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy group, every day."
• https://www.fcnl.org/issues/middle-east-iran/saudi-led-war-yemen-frequently-asked-questions "In 2015, with the stated goal of restoring Hadi to power, Saudi Arabia joined forces with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and formed a coalition of nine Arab countries. The coalition was backed by the United States, United Kingdom (UK), France, and Canada. Saudi Arabia framed the conflict in sectarian terms, insisting that Iran was supporting the Houthis. ... Saudi leaders backed Hadi for many reasons. They were alarmed by the rise of the Houthis at Saudi Arabia’s southern border, who they said were backed by Saudi Arabia’s main regional competitor, Iran. ... The Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen has received almost unwavering military support and weapons sales from the United States, UK, France, and other Western countries. In 2015, the Obama administration accommodated Saudi Arabia’s request for military backing of the coalition’s war on Yemen. Such backing included targeting assistance and logistical support for coalition airstrikes, midair refueling for Saudi warplanes, spare parts transfers, and billions of dollars in weapons sales. ...Why has the United States historically supported the Saudis? ... In 1945, President Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz on a naval destroyer in the Suez Canal and unofficially began the U.S.-Saudi partnership with a handshake. Under the agreement, Saudi Arabia would receive U.S. security assistance in exchange for granting the United States access to Saudi oil, tied to the U.S. dollar. Every U.S. president since has ..."

In fact, I really like that last page, it seems to be comprehensive and neutral. It's from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which is a Quaker organization, so it's by no means a US military shill organization; in case you don't know, the Quakers are an extremely pacifist group, they will go to jail rather than serve in wars. That page should be a model to follow for our article. But that's for later development of the article. For now, include an explanation of the US side in this, from these, or from any other reliable sources which you choose, and it will suffice for DYK. --GRuban (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

GRuban: Thanks for the feedback and the sources. I have added portions from two of the sources suggested by you. I hope it's enough for the DYK purpose. Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Will do; sorry for the no doubt exhausting review. Approving ALT2 (after changing "hold" to "held"). --GRuban (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban and Mhhossein: is there a reason to go with "laws-of-war violations" instead of "war crimes"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi theleekycauldron. I was just influenced by the source wording but am also OK with "war crimes". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)