Edit Request[edit]

The leader of the houthis should be Abdul malik Al houthi

Edit Request[edit]

The opening to this article is very misleading, making it sound like the purpose of US action is to unblock access to the Suez for Israel-linked ships. The US Department of Defense stated it is to unblock threats to multi-national commerce, many of the ships which have been hit have been other countries', despite Houthi claims. [1]https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3621110/statement-from-secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-on-ensuring-freedom-of-n/

SCBY (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The change that was made violates the policy on neutral point of view. It seeks to justify why other nation's vessels were attacked only using Houthi talking points. The US and UK reported suffering the largest attack on their navies in decades, and the post still makes it sound like these incidents were somehow only a misidentification of Israeli ships. To quote BBC reporting from the UK House of Commons:
[Prime Minister] Rishi Sunak has been keen to stress there is “no linkage" between US-UK strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen and the conflict in Israel-Gaza. He wants to emphasise this is because the Houthis, who support Hamas in the group's war against Israel, claim their attacks are targeting ships with links to Israel....“malign forces will look to distort what we’ve done... to conflate and link our action against the Houthis with the situation in Israel-Gaza just gives ammunition to our enemies who would seek to make things worse in the region...we shouldn't fall for their malign narrative that this is about Israel and Gaza... [UK strikes are] a direct response to the Houthis' attacks on international shipping,"
Further, the Houthis have now openly announced they are targeting western ships so the opening needs to be changed. SCBY (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CENTCOM tweet regarding strikes[edit]

After the second round of strikes on Yemen this evening the U.S. CENTCOM X/Twitter account has said that these strikes have no association to the Operation. Whilst I understand that tweets are not normally seen as proper sources there are exceptions for official accounts and as this is the official account of a military branch of the U.S. I feel it's appropriate to edit based on the information the tweet provides. Brandon Downes (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The actual tweet is
U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM)
At 3:45 a.m. (Sana’a time) on Jan 13., U.S. forces conducted a strike against a Houthi radar site in Yemen. This strike was conducted by the USS Carney (DDG 64) using Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles and was a follow-on action on a specific military target associated with strikes taken on Jan. 12 designed to degrade the Houthi’s ability to attack maritime vessels, including commercial vessels.
Since Nov. 19, 2023, Iranian-backed Houthi militants have attempted to attack and harass vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden 28 times. These illegal incidents include attacks that have employed anti-ship ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles.
These strikes have no association with and are separate from Operation Prosperity Guardian, a defensive coalition of over 20 countries operating in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and Gulf of Aden.
https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/1746010301479174562
The group of countries in the current operation is far less than that defensive coalition.
It seems like the article has some additional issues, as Operation Prosperity Guardian has been established within the framework of the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), operating from a headquarter in Bahrain. CMF has 39 member nations, and Norway as one of them, has been a member since 2013. Regjeringen.no: Norge styrker bidraget til Combined Maritime Forces i Rødehavet
It is not clear whether all 39 member nations in CMF are part of the operation Prosperity Guardian. According to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (@FCDOGovUK) the on-going operation is supported by the UK and US, with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia. https://twitter.com/FCDOGovUK/status/1745777763208855866
This article is used as a source for a lot of news outlets for the moment, and it should be corrected asap. 2001:4644:13BE:0:C6B7:923B:EF7C:D2A9 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're slightly confused between this page and 2024 missile strikes in Yemen which is covering the strikes/operation that have occured over the last couple days which are as stated seperate to Prosperity Guardian Brandon Downes (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, read the article. It messes up the actions and what happen as part of which one. 80.213.117.160 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Combined task force 153, operation prosperity guardian, and the strikes on yemen in the last 2 days are all seperate and nothing in anything that the person linked says otherwise... prosperity guardian whilst under ctf 153 is still a seperate operationBrandon Downes (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024[edit]

“HMS Diamond” The British contingent is not just HMS Diamond, but also frigates HMS Lancaster and HMS Richmond.

Sources: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2024/january/09/240109-richmond-heads-for-the-red-sea

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-deploys-hms-richmond-to-bolster-uk-naval-presence-in-the-gulf-region/

2A02:C7E:3119:F200:E014:B554:301A:4919 (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources so we can add them? Abo Yemen 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Royal Navy statement you linked doesn't support what you are saying Brandon Downes (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done Per above. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Nikolas[edit]

The seizing of St. Nikolas by Iran seems qhite unrelated to OPG. More the settling of an old score involving the vessel's seizure last April, when named Suez Rajan, for carrying embargoed Iranian oil, see here. - Davidships (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New map[edit]

@Abo Yemen: Hi, I don't really think the map you've just added is any good and it honestly just gives false or unrelated information for this article. The red dots are not related to Prosperity Guardian as the operation is purely defensive whereas the strikes carried out by the British and Americans are part of another operation. Also the black dots supposedly being "captured or sunk ships on behalf of the houthis" makes no sense given how many black dots there are, to my knowdledge there's been 1 ship captured by the houthis the Galaxy Leader and no ships have been sunk so to see a map with all those black dots accross the Bab-el-Mandeb text is just confusing as it's not true at all. Brandon Downes (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can revert my edit.
We need a better map for the operation, though Abo Yemen 18:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Houthi flag[edit]

A couple of people have added a  Houthi movement flag to the infobox. I've removed, it's been re-added. The Manual of Style has clear guidance for how to use flag icons at WP:ICON. It's largely opposed to using flags in infoboxes, as per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, so one option would be to remove all of these flags.

If we are using flags, the Manual of Style is crystal clear that In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. the United States of America or Canada): see MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG. The Houthi movement is not a sovereign state. We should not use their flag as an icon at all. I see no reason why this article should be an exception to that rule. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I see no reason why this article should be an exception to that rule" This article is not being an exception to the rule though. Red Sea crisis, United States–Houthi conflict (2023–present), Yemeni civil war (2014–present), War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Iraq War just to name a few I could keep going all have flags in the infobox including the houthi movement flag and other non sovereign states including Al-Qaeda, ISIS and some political parties.
Just to add more if you take a look at List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State.
Now this is just the section under war on terror and we have how many non sovereign flags in infoboxes but for some reason people are fixated on this article causing it to now be locked. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Brandon Downes (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bri: There has been no consensus on whether the flag should be removed or not so the article should be in the state prior to removal until a consensus is reached. Brandon Downes (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, see m:The Wrong Version. Secondly, if you feel there are other articles that do not respect the guidelines you’re free to fix them.Tvx1 21:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not gonna go try and "fix" something when I will just get reverted and if I then revert back its an edit war and the articles will end up locked and I'm the one with the warning. This one can just be an odd one out whilst the other fifty plus articles with non sovereign flags get hundreds of thousands of views a month. Brandon Downes (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is somewhat obvious that given the general discouragement from using flags wherever possible, the gratuitous use of two flags is suboptimal - and that the natural casualty should be the pseudo-flag/banner, not the national flag. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 January 2024[edit]

Clean up and citation tidy. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request 28 January 2024 (2)[edit]

Typographical, all at Operation Prosperity Guardian § Forces:

Bri (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 18:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]