Talk:Operation Poseidon Archer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sky News Arabia death toll[change source]

Hey Ayesha46, why was the mention of Sky News Arabia’s death toll removed from the lead? I think that sentence was fair as technically Houthi disputes the Sky News Arabia death toll number. So, saying the death toll is disputed keeps the article neutral based on the dispute in reliable sources. Thoughts? WeatherWriter (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a talk on En Wiki, it was said there that 75 is just reported in that one channel and since the channel has link to Pro-UAE it's not reliable for Houthis since they are both opponents Ayesha46 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[change source]

CLOSED:

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As this article is one of many Operations that are happening in the conflict of Israel-Gaza and following suite from En-wiki, I am proposing this article be merged into the over-arching war Red Sea conflict that has been ongoing since 2023. This makes it easier to understand for readers and there is no need to have users clicking off of one page to go to another then back again. It’s way too much work. This discussion following the policy of WP:Consensus WP:MERGE will remain open for a minimum of five days. At which point it will be evaluated. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 07:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — I am going to remain opposed to this. There is practically no duplication between this or the Red Sea crisis. In fact, it is a regional conflict split between it, with the Red Sea crisis article (parent) containing the events related to the Red Sea and this containing the retaliation events of the US/UK in Yemen, not the Red Sea. There is no copy/pasting of the same info. It is a true regional split (one being events in the Red Sea and the other being events in the country of Yemen itself). En-Wiki also has {{w:Operation Prosperity Guardian}}, while Simple does not. That is yet another operation during the conflict, and they choose not to merge it into their Red Sea crisis article. So for me, it is an oppose to a merge. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeatherWriter No where was it mentioned anything about a copy/paste. En wiki has this particular operation redirected to Red Sea Crisis [1]This is an event happening in the Red Sea and not on the land as the other hand. The war is on three fronts. Your opposition is duly noted though (from my perspective). Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 15:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: On En Wiki it was Redirected by @WeatherWriter so why Oppose here? (I'm asking in good faith) And if the Operation Poseidon Archer article is not merged on the basis that it will include "retaliation events of the US/UK in Yemen" then i think we should rename it 2024 missile strikes in Yemen as per En Wiki -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was redirected and inter-wiki linked due to how En-Wiki has Operation Prosperity Guardian. My assumption is (was) that eventually, an Operation Poseidon Archer article would also be made on En-wiki. But actually, that inter-wiki link has held up and not actually been removed or challenged as far as I am aware. The En-Wiki “2024 missile strikes in Yemen” article is “Operation Poseidon Archer”, aka the direct En-wiki correlation article. I’ve been told multiple times in the past that each Project can and has different rules, so Simple English wikipedia does not have to match English Wikipedia. This idea can even be seen amid the Israel-Hamas war, with IDF (Israel Defense Forces) being the English Wikipedia article for the Israeli military while IOF [Israel Occupation Forces] is the Arabic Wikipedia article for the Israeli military. Since this discussion is about merging it into the Red Sea crisis article, I’m opposed to the merge. Actually, a merge would be opposite of EN-Wiki, since En-Wiki has a directly correlating article. That is why I am opposed to the merge. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I actually was originally perm-blocked, unappealable from Arabic Wikipedia for attempting to change IOF to IDF. After administrator overstep was pointed out by third-party editors, I was able to appeal and am unblocked. So, I can personally attest to different rules on different projects. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm confused, let's see what other editors say and then hopefully we can get to a consensus🤞🏻 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick question: The two pages have little overlap. We can show they are about a common subject by placing them in a common category. There's no need to merge. Apples and Oranges are different, but they are both fruit... Eptalon (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eptalon The purpose being is that there are numerous articles being considered (not just by me but also by other editors) to consolidate these to make it easier for a reader to follow and better organization. We seem to be gaining consensus to merge all of the articles and I will personally assure the contents are in the main article we are looking to redirect. While it may appear just by reading it that it’s a fruit it is all part of a bigger campaign (Red Sea crisis) and should be in that article so our basic readers do not get lost in an article and click through numerous other ones to end up circling back to the main crisis. Again, this is part of a bigger effort to get all of the articles (some being stubs with just dates and what happened) but takes the reader away. Same with the categories. Granted they can go to a category, but in honesty, how many basic readers go for that avenue? They search google and go to the page, not a category. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 23:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is confusing, why is a similar article-layout is on En-wiki? Here are the direct correlating articles between Simple and English Wikis: Israel–Hamas war (Simple) = Israel–Hamas war (EN) // Red Sea crisis (Simple) = Red Sea crisis (EN) // Operation Poseidon Archer (Simple) = 2024 missile strikes in Yemen (EN). Those are the direct correlating (content-wise) articles between Simple and English Wikis. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeatherWriter That would be a good merger to move this article to a newly created 2024 Strikes in Yemen. I know it was brought up that different countries have called theirs different operations as well so that would be able to be embraced in an article like that. It is more neutral and not based on what one country calls one an apple and what one country calls an orange as @Eptalon compares. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what about the English-wiki Operation Prosperity Guardian article? Simple Wiki does not have an article for it. En-wiki uses operation titles. There actually has yet to be a rename discussion on En-wiki to rename it to the operation name, but the content correlates directly. Nonetheless, my "Oppose" !vote remains the same and will not be changed. This article should not be merged into Red Sea crisis. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeatherWriter That is a separate article from what we are discussing. We need to remain on the topic of the particular page please. This can also simply be a move if we do not have the corresponding article of the 2024 Strikes on Yemen. So we have two possible actions we can take when it comes time. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 To remain on the topic of this particular page, I am strongly opposed to any renaming of this article or merging of this article with all my reasoning explained throughout the discussion. End of my !vote. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter Noted and thank you. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @PotsdamLamb — In one of your comments, you mentioned “if we do not have the corresponding article of the 2024 Strikes on Yemen”. Could you explain if Simple English wikipedia has an article covering the 2024 strikes on Yemen? If not, why do you believe this article does not cover it? If yes, then maybe explaining why renaming is more appropriate? WeatherWriter (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter We do not have an article of that name on simple (as I believe you mentioned). It was brought up in other proposals that we are both part of about finding a way to condense these articles into one article. It is also to avoid any type of prejudice of bias based on the wide readership of Wikipedia as a whole. As I previously stated, every country has a different “operation” name that they refer to so I feel that renaming it to the 2024 strikes on Yemen is a better fitting title. On the flip side of that I’m still debating with myself if it should be merged into the Red Sea Crisis. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note I changed the rename title to match en wiki. This will allow wikidata to connect properly to populate the needed Q containers across all of Wikipedia and not require a different name not matching other English languages Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  — Do you have a source to support that only the US uses this name? For instance, the BBC stated, “Under the newly named Operation Poseidon Archer, US-led strikes…” which seems to indicate it is not just an operation by the US, but is the operational name for the coalition airstrikes (US + UK). Another instance of this is by Otakukart which states, “US and Allies Conduct Eighth Round of Precision Strikes in Yemen: Operation Poseidon Archer” & “International Coalition Launches Eighth Round of Strikes on Houthi Targets in Yemen.” My question stems because you stated that every country has a different operation name, so some examples of those different operation names (most likely the UK name) for the strikes in Yemen would help back up your statement and claim. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ayesha46 can provide them as I believe Israel has a different name and Gaza has a different name. They are related to the same operation of the missle strikes I believe, but they can provide more information as they brought it up previously. I could also be wrong on what they said and they referenced something else. Either way, even if it’s just a US/UK name with the backing of other nations it would still fall on the same premise. Some languages may not have a word for Poseidon either so they may have made a different name they use to refer to the 2024 strikes as well as the Red Sea crisis. I will also clarify my statement that many operations have different names (again based on who is stating it and/or performing actions) is in regards to the Red Sea Crisis as a whole in which you have admitted the use of different operation names for what is being done. So this is just for clarification. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb / @WeatherWriter
The israeli media calls it "Air raids against Yemeni rebels", The Houthis and Iranian media calls it "US/UK Agression against Yemen"
[2][3] also the name 'Operation Poseidon Archer' is used far less times compared to 'strikes in Yemen'. When I searched Operation Poseidon Archeon on Google Chrome and went into news section I found news as old as months but when I search 2024 missile strikes in Yemen the news were recent as recent as few hours or minutes, so if this article rem ins i would propose to move it to the same name as En Wiki(i.e. 2024 missile strikes in Yemen)

-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 Thank you for the response and clarification. So basically not called an "operation" like we call it, but given other names by said countries. Thanks for the info. FYI, you can vote at anytime in the section below. Nothing will be counted up until the 5th day and time this started at a minimum. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ur Welcome and my thought is if it's merged to Red Sea crisis then I'm not against it but im also thinking whether we should just move this page to "2024 missile strikes in Yemen", not quite sure about it so i will vote tomorrow -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No rush to vote. This discussion has only been opened for one day. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Vote[change source]

NOT MERGED:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There are two options for this article thus far plus a section for full opposition against any action. Per merge policy the discussion has to remain open for a minimum of five (5) days, however, we can start the voting process. WP:Consensus policy must also be followed. Please only vote for one action. If you change your mind please strike out your previous vote and create your new vote and, if you desire, a one-two sentence reason. Do not alter other users comments or voters. Per policy, IP voters who have not made any comments or changed the article prior to this discussion will not be counted.

Renaming article to 2024 missle strikes on Yemen[change source]
Merging the article to Red Sea Crisis[change source]
No action (oppose to any action)[change source]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Poseidon_Archer&oldid=9386315"