This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Why are there separate demographics for Somalis in Yemen and Afro-Yemenis? I think Somalis should fall under the Afro-Yemeni group. Unknown... (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vif12vf I think Allah and Rabb have different meaning. Which one is used in Yemen's motto?
Maybe you are highly fluent in Arabic. @Vif12vf Please teach me something I haven't known about those two words. Satrio.m (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no language expert, but all sources I have ever used uses Allah as the arab word for God, regardless of which religion the source discusses. Arab christians to my knowledge also say Allah when referring to God. At no point have I come across any other terms being used except for polytheistic religions. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the Christian, Yes because God in Islam and Christianity is the same, The God's name in Islam and Christianity is "Allah". Christianity thinks that Jesus is the Son of God, and the God here is Allah. ::Okay the source, did the source and the arab Christians you mentioned tell you about the difference between the word "Ilahi" and "Allah"? Satrio.m (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if you don't understand but keep changing it by reading another source, please give us the source telling the differences between the three. Satrio.m (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Satrio.m: You are now at 3 reverts. If you have a legitimate argument to make that you believe will allow editors to reach a consensus agreeing on the content you think is correct, please make that argument clearly and succinctly (preferably identifying sources that support your position) instead of baiting other editors with sarcastic comments. General IzationTalk 00:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need for a concensus because I'm sure many non-Arabic will intervene it saying "Allah" means God and has no difference with Ilahi as well as Rabb. Satrio.m (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be aware that once challenged, in the absence of a compelling argument supporting a change and the adoption of a new consensus, the existing consensus version will be the one that remains. General IzationTalk 00:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, many non-Arabic article will tell many people who don't know Arabic that Allah means God. After that, that is, after reading the source, people will vote that Allah means God. Satrio.m (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is what Wikipedia cannot be used and unacceptable to be used as a reference in academic journal and books, because of this kind of people. Satrio.m (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please give us guidance if you have it to offer, and as I said, point to – hopefully English-language – sources that address the question. Other editors are not interested in playing games with you. Please see Assume good faith as a start. General IzationTalk 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't like the policies of Wikipedia, please don't edit and you won't find yourself having conversations like this. General IzationTalk 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why Wikipedia cannot be used and unacceptable to be used as a reference in academic journal and books, Because of this kind of people.
Thanks guys for making Wikipedia untrusted source for Academic texts. Again thanks. Satrio.m (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need more reliable person to handle vandalism. To decide who made vandalism and who really try to correct something. I mean, those who have deep knowledge about many fields. We call them Polymath. Satrio.m (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I invited you to "get to the point" and tell us what you know or believe you know about the subject, instead of playing a game of cat and mouse with other editors. If that's too much to ask of you, it's a shame, but it shows your motives to be something other than to help us build an encyclopedia. General IzationTalk 00:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hope those help! Thanks :) Satrio.m (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said to me, "...but it shows your motives to be something other than to help us build an encyclopedia."
Yes, now facts are made by concensus, means that fact is something many people agree with, not the meaning of fact itself.
One thing to know, to solve vandalism, concensus is not the answer.
You seem to know my "other" motive. Tell me what that was.
And I'm gonna tell you your solution for fixing vandalism, YES, making concensus to determine the meaning of words. And the result is what Many people HAVE TO think of as the trusted NEW fact because it was chosen by many not-knowing-something people. Satrio.m (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After all, I don't care what the concensus will result in.
As long as it one day become reliable for academic text and journal, though it consists of most-chosen facts, hope that help make the world better. Satrio.m (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to know my "other" motive. Tell me what that was. Again, we're not interested in playing rhetorical games with you. I don't claim to know your motives, I can only conclude what they are not from your actions. The invitation stands if you'd like to collaborate with other editors to improve the content. If you're not interested in collaboration, our conversation is done. General IzationTalk 01:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Facts were made by concensus? Satrio.m (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are waiting for you to state a fact, versus questioning other editors about their positions. General IzationTalk 01:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, Facts are made by concensus? Satrio.m (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is how we solve vandalism, Discussion.
So, facts are made by Concensus all this time on WIkipedia? Satrio.m (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope I'm not blocked from editing due to many replies I made here. Satrio.m (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another rhetorical game? Sorry, no time for that. See Fact for an explanation if you need it. As to consensus, as WP:CONSENSUS (which I have repeatedly linked above) explains, no, facts aren't made by consensus here, decisions are. And you are so far providing nothing that contributes to that process. General IzationTalk 02:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking @Vif12vf for source he meant and suddenly here you say Concensus is done to determine facts. Haha
I need answer only from Vif12vf about the source. Don' reply. Satrio.m (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Decision are."
YES THAT"S WHY I'M ASKING VIF12VF FOR THE SOURCE HE MENTIONED.
And why you warn only me, and not him as well? He also made repeatedly same edits? Satrio.m (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, you may not instruct other editors not to participate in discussions here. Second, @Vif12vf is under no obligation to provide a source for restoring the existing, consensus version of the article. As the editor who changed the content, it is your responsibility to provide sources that support the change. See WP:BURDEN, which makes this very clear. Now if you have a source that explains why the current version of our article is wrong and should be changed, we are ready for you to identify it. General IzationTalk 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, the existing text was something new added in the past. So mine will be the existing text in the past. Satrio.m (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article's editing history shows otherwise. The word "God", and not the word "Allah", appeared in the translation for weeks, if not months, prior to your edit. Again, if you have something to share with us to show that it is incorrect, please do. General IzationTalk 02:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the editor seems to have retired, I will close by suggesting that they look at the cited sources at our article Allah. It is clear from them that the common translation of the Arabic word "Allah" to English is "God". I was quite prepared for the editor to explain why the technically-accurate translation by an educated speaker of Arabic might be something else, but unfortunately I couldn't convince them to stop the games and veiled insults and make their argument (much less share sources to support it). If the editor would like to return and take a constructive approach to discussing the issue they raised, perhaps we can actually improve the article. General IzationTalk 03:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
At over 15k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. See WP:TOOBIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose that we summarise the sections about terrorism, civil war, etc. and link them to their full articles instead of talking about the entire subject in this article Abo Yemen✉ 05:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, what IS the reasonable amount of words that an article like this should have, just to get an idea? Maybe even compare this to other articles about other countries. Not saying that this article is not unreadable (I have never been able to read it in its entirety), but still, I want to get an idea of how much characters aRE sKIMMABLE. :P BengalEmpire767 (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are articles like Germany for example which are the same size as this Yemen article but for some reason the article is too big but germany's article is a featured article? Abo Yemen✉ 11:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good comparison, I just did the calculations, Germany's entire history is (in the Wikipedia page) 2828 words. While Yemen's history up to 1990 is, and brace yourselves, a whopping 7,679! That is excluding the entirety of Yemen's modern History, which is obviously going to be longer because of uhm... (remembers that there is a civil war there) stuff. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually these calculations include image captions and stuff but these numbers are mostly accurate. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant the introduction/lead but i've just realized that the maintenance tag was talking about the entire article and not just the lead Abo Yemen✉ 16:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no me talk about entire articl- Now that you mention it, yeah, that's true, both introductions are roughly the same size. Still though, this doesn't really answer my original question ( i literally forgot that i even asked anything lol). My theory is, shorten and divide the larger paragraphs so that... yeah I can't really think much other than "shorten it enough". But the truth is, how much is that "enough"? We're all here because of that "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." line and the fact that the article feels unbelievably long, but how much words need to be removed to make it "readable"?
Oh no, I'm getting too dramatic, I need sleep. Will be back tommorow. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the first person in this thread (or whatever it is called) said that "over 15k words of readable prose" so he might mean that there should be less than 15k words? Abo Yemen✉ 18:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Germany article is about 8300 words total (for the whole article, not just the lead); this one is nearly double that. As outlined at WP:DETAIL, a broad article like one on a country should be limited to a high-level overview, with more details explored in child articles. So for example, the History section here would be expanded on at History of Yemen, and elaborated further at more specific articles like Modern history of Yemen. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so you're saying that we should remove stuff from this article to their main article ? Abo Yemen✉ 03:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Readable prose size" is a technical term for the article body excluding the references etc; it's not a judgment of whether the prose is readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so we dont have to remove 8000 words somehow, we just have to remove 8000 words somehow. yeah that's totally different, my head's spinning now. I am literally scrolling to re-read the exact wordings of the individual comments now lol.
So basically to recap, a normal article should have between 8000 and 9000 words. The Yemen Article has over 15000 words. Congratulations!
What do you propose about this?
I, for my part, have Ctrl+C-ed the entire article into my sandbox. And am slowly going to shave off lines and words and characters in the background off the main article (not much though, i don't want to mess with citations much, or at all.) I am going to see what I can do. Drastic edits, if there are any, will be done in my sandbox. I am way too scared lol. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is going to take a long time Abo Yemen✉ 11:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only thing I can do is slowly chip away at the word count while not destroying the article. I don't really have much of a choice. Citations have officially now become the bane of my existence. I can't even think of removing or changing them cause they are just wayyyyyy above my league. I don't want to mess with them lol. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think though that at least some parts require re-writes but hey, thats just my opinion. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
they start to appear after the Unification and civil war section. they appear commonly at the end of each section after the unification one Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the long wait, I am still watching discussion from time to time, logged out, but I can't really do anything now because I have exam. In fact, I am studying right now. Will be back by 29 tho, I hope. BengalEmpire767 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh okay gl on your exams bruv Abo Yemen✉ 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My internet is slower than a limping tortoise, so much so that I couldn't even open the editor. me is back tho, but for how long? BengalEmpire767 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The gray area is unexplained in this article and the one on unification. -- Espoo (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The gray area is land gained by Yemen later after dealing with some border disputes with Saudi Arabia and Oman Abo Yemen✉ 09:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Okay Yemen's land area very important elements and its actually around 453,000 sqkm I checked this through google maps Measure distance feature which also allows to measure total area which is actually really accurate. I found that the source that claims Yemen is 100,000 sqkm bigger than it actually is is very outdated and unreliable information. I suggest you put it to around my size or you could check for yourself if you wanted in google maps
if you want the source well i guess my reddit post with the photo https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/1afny7e/yemen_why_does_its_size_mismatch/ Computment (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know my video contains a lot of original research and doesnt meet wikipedia standards for a source so I decided to start a RfC and seek consensus on this topic. Borysk5 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd recommend we use actual sources and not google map's area feature thingy because we all know about the bugs in google maps Abo Yemen✉ 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking your video it seems true that Yemen's size has been exaggerated, but this may be WP:OR. Wikipedia's purpose is limited to citing what the reliable sources, regardless of whether they are accurate or not. If an error exists, the first place to change it should be Yemeni government documents or the CIA Factbook and not Wikipedia, to avoid fiascos from before like with the Austro-Hungarian flag or Scots Wikipedia. Nonetheless an RFC on the matter is necessary. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although this also is WP:OR, i would like to see the results Abo Yemen✉ 07:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if you can measure area in OpenStreetMap? Borysk5 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yemen's government is a bit dysfunctional right now and we don't have to use the CIA world fact book. Probably worth looking at what can be dug up from other sources.
I also found these sources: [2] (published by Yemeni government in I think 2005): "The area of Yemen is 455,503 sq. km. most of which is rocky land". Interestingly also I found World Bank document which notices this discrepancy, while in some parts using 555,000 km2 figure (page 26) and in others using 455,000 figure (page 83). Borysk5 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both these sources are much more presentable by Wikipedia standards compared to the video. They clearly show the discrepancy exists. I'll support changing the number to the 455,000 figure. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]