Jump to content

Talk:Operation Prosperity Guardian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

Scope section

"Canada is deploy three staff officers" -> "Canada is deploying three staff officers" Tosatur (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

hms diamond missing fro. strength I quick reference

Hms diamond has been allocated by the Royal navy https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2023/december/19/20231219-diamond-red-sea-task-force Cack3xcalc201 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

royal navy ships missing from quick reference "strengths section"

HMS Lancaster, a squadron of three mine hunting vessels (HMS Bangor, HMS Chiddingfold, and HMS Middleton) and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship (RFA Cardigan Bay)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hms-diamond-joins-new-international-task-force-to-protect-shipping-in-the-red-sea Cack3xcalc201 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

text errors

(The US contingent may include include the USS Carney and USS Mason). The Netherlands plans to send send two staff officers, is debating whether to deploy ships; Norway plans on dispatching up to 10 staff officers, but as of now is not sending any vessels. 2A04:EE41:3:12EA:3943:965D:3303:B206 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Houthi flag from infobox

Hi @Bri, I understand your logic given what the Houthi flag says but this removal doesn't match other very similar articles that also include the Houthi movement such as Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war or Yemeni civil war (2014–present). So I was just wondering if there could be some discussion around the re-addition of the flags given I don't think the removal matches the current status quo or the flags should be removed from those articles also right? Brandon Downes (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that use this repugnant symbol as well. I've brought up the issue at WP:VPP. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bri Right but the issue is only in discussion and isn't currently solved so I'm confused as to why it's only been removed in one article. Brandon Downes (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Palestine or the War on Gaza

In this entire article there is not one mention of WHY the Houthis are blocking shipping in the Red Sea. You would think the reason why an event was happening would make it into an article. Even if you don’t agree with their motives, there are many statements and news articles stating why they feel they must do this. 209.96.222.202 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's germane to the article. Looking at Black September Organization and Munich massacre which may be considered precedents (especially Munich, which went through one or more GA reviews), they do not mention the motivations of the actors. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The stated goals or motivations of an actor that leads to an event isn’t germane to an article about that event?
If by precedent of those two articles (those two you selected are only connected to this one because they involve the Occupation of Palestine… a better precedent for this would be US embargo of Cuba or the US seizing Iran flagged and internationally flagged vessels connected to Iran in international waters) both of those articles mention the Palestinian Resistance against Israel and in the Black September article the demands of prisoners being released - which are the motivations so I don’t know why you said they aren’t mentioned.
For another more recent example directly related to this one, in the wikipedia article on Israel-Malaysia Relations, it states:
“On 20 December 2023 during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, prime minister Anwar Ibrahim cited violations of international law and declared that all Israeli-flagged ships would be barred from docking in Malaysian ports, and ships heading to Israel would be barred from loading cargo.”
Which very clearly states an event and the reason behind the event. Why would you argue that the Houthis disrupting Israeli shipping should be presented differently?
There are many sources for this information:
“The Iran-aligned group has demanded that Israel allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, which has been reeling from more than two months of Israeli siege and bombardment. The Yemeni group has also called on Israel to end its brutal war on Gaza that has killed over 19,000 Palestinians.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/12/20/are-houthi-red-sea-attacks-hurting-israel-and-disrupting-global-trade
“In solidarity with Palestinian people in the wake of the brutal Israeli aggression on Gaza, Yemen reiterates the threat against Israeli vessels in the Red Sea.
We urge all countries to avoid shipping on vessels owned by Israeli companies or operated by them.”
-The Yemeni Armed Forces Spokesperson, Yahya Saree on their telegram channel.
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/yemen-to-target-any-ships-owned--operated-by-israeli-compani 209.96.222.202 (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I have no horse in the race for this discussion but just from a quick scan Al Mayadeen is literally just a propaganda news outlet. Brandon Downes (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The article should include the reference of the operation with UN-Charta Art. 53 - means on which UN resolutions it is based. 91.221.59.22 (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

My recent edit that removes Italy and Spain

In this ever changing situation Italy and Spain may need to be re-added as more statements are released and reported on but the current information is that Spain will not participate unilaterally and only in EU or NATO led operations which this is not and Italy have said their frigate is to protect their own interests and is not apart of Op Prosperity Guardian but of the existing Op Atalanta therefore I have removed them both. I have also removed the French warship from the list of vessels involved given that it is reported that France will only participate if they keep command of their vessels. I also removed the list of British vessels which was my own mistake including them as they are apart of the exisiting Operation Kipion and not this one.

There is a another source however wikipedia believes it is a shortened link when it isn't and given the changing nature of the operation no other news sources have reported these changes. I may be able to communicate the name of the website somehow but don't want to get in hotwater over what wikipedia is incorrectly and unofortunately seeing as a blacklisted link. Brandon Downes (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of most countries

Considering that most countries in the list are sending handfuls of staff officers (or in the case of Seychelles, just "exchanging information"), is it even worth considering them as belligerents? Juxlos (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Spain declared that they will not participate and this operation unilaterally

I think Spain should be removed of the operation 93.176.181.131 (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Source? Abo Yemen✉ 13:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm assuming they are talking about this:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-red-sea-taskforce-gets-limited-backing-some-allies-2023-12-20/ Brandon Downes (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I found another source regarding this: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/spain-denies-us-claims-it-will-help-patrol-red-sea/3087182, I think that means we should take Spain off the list Ahmed4040amr (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Operation Prosperity Guardian has practically collapsed as France, Spain, and Italy all announced their withdrawal from the U.S. Command Structure for the Operation, with the three nations stating they will only conduct further Maritime Operations under the Command of NATO and/or the European Union and not the United States.--87.170.199.189 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Seychelles

Can the Seychelles really be regarded as a belligerent?

As according to the page; "Seychelles is not deploying any vessels or personnel, and limits its participation to "providing and receiving information""

Giving/receiving information is a normal procedure. In fact the US gives and receives intelligence to Ukraine in their war, but is not considered a belligerent. Or another example could be Norway and Chile giving the UK information in regards to the Falklands war - neither are considered belligerents.

Seychelles needs better sourcing to be regarded as a belligerent it doesn't meet the typical definition. Mlutter1 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

When both the UK MoD and US DoD list the Seychelles as part of the operation I'm not quite sure what better sources you're looking for. Brandon Downes (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As per the citation Seychelles is a member of Combined Maritime Forces. kencf0618 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

Add Australia to the list of belligerents. It’s already included in the text but not in the list. Lawrencewa (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Israeli war against Gaza and Houthis target of Israeli vessels

No mention of Israeli vessels blockade by Houthis in response to Israeli war against Gaza population. Houthis spokesperson clearly mentioned that targeting of vessels going from/to Israel will stop when Israel allows food and medecin to Palestinians civilians in Gaza. 153 country voted for cease-fire in UN general Assembly and Israel refuse to abide. Without this context this article is totally biased and misleading. KHammadi (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Whom and for whom, i.e. for which body? Notably that ceasefire resolution did not pass (was it even mentioned? is there a transcript?), and even more notably jumping into a war promising to stop being a belligerant if and when a ceasefire is established is kind of weird. kencf0618 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure this refers to United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/22 – there were 23 abstentions including U.K. and much of Europe, and 10 "no" votes including Israel and United States. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, this article is biased and misleading, so please edit it so to include that the Houthis claim that their Red Sea blockade is in protest of the war on Gaza. Here is a source from CNN clearly stating that the Houthis' say that their strike on ships "are revenge against Israel for its military campaign in Gaza."https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/red-sea-crisis-explainer-houthi-yemen-israel-intl/index.html Also, Aljazeera affirms that "the Houthis have been targeting vessels in protest of Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed more than 19,000 Palestinians." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/19/can-the-new-us-led-maritime-force-stop-houthi-attacks-during-gaza-war as well as AP news "Houthis have fired toward Israel during that nation's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip." https://apnews.com/article/red-sea-houthi-yemen-ships-attack-israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-716770f0a780160e9abed98d3c48fbde and Reuters in the explicit article "Israel keeps pounding Gaza, Houthis vow more Red Sea attacks" explained as "Israeli forces pounded the shattered Gaza Strip on Tuesday while Yemen's Houthis vowed to defy a U.S.-led naval mission and keep targeting Red Sea shipping in support of the Palestinian enclave's ruling Hamas movement." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/joint-patrols-guard-ships-response-attacks-by-houthis-backing-palestinians-2023-12-18/. Aim for neutrality and include this information, or else Wikipedia will not be a reliable source anymore. Autodios (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Denmark intends to send Frigate

Denmark intends to send a frigate as a part of the operation, should be added to the forces section.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/denmark-send-frigate-us-led-task-force-red-sea-2023-12-29/ 89.160.155.94 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2023

The "background" section needs to be edited, so to include the reasons, according to the Houthi rebels, on why they are attacking ships on the Red Sea, as they claim this is as protest to the Israeli war on Gaza.

Proposed edit (in black):

Background

See also: Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war The operation aims to ensure the safety of maritime traffic in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb and Gulf of Aden.[1] Following the start of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, multiple civilian container and freight ships were attacked and hijacked in the Gulf of Aden by Houthi forces. The attacks prompted most major shipping companies to divert their routes away from the Suez Canal. As of 21 December 2023, at least twelve civilian vessels have been attacked. The Houthi forces claim that this is a protest against Israel's war on Gaza. [1] [2][3]


Also, the "Reactions" section is extremely biased. How is it possible that only the threatening statement from the Houthis is included, a statement that has no reliable source, as the one included, Iran International, is not only extremely obscure, to say the least, but it is based in London and Washington, and not in Iran, according to yourselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International and not only that, when you click on the source backing up the following claim: “We have capabilities to sink your fleet, your submarines, your warships,” a top Houthi official said, according to the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency. “The Red Sea will be your graveyard.” in https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312199443 the so called Tasnim link within the text itself leads to nowhere (and it does not even appear in The Wayback Machine). For this, it is only fair that the unjustified statement is removed, as there is no proof that the Houthis stated what is being said in Wikipedia and it is backed up by a clearly unreliable source, as shared in source [22], and also by a source that does not exist, source [23]. I ask you to be responsible with truth and replace this unproven statements with their statements from trusted sources, in which they openly state that the Houthis claim their intervention in the Red Sea is a protest against the war on Gaza. For this I recommend to edit it as follows, so to maintain reliability:

Reactions

The Houthis stated: "(US Secretary of State Antony) Blinken must realize that the circle of conflict will be widened, as long as the US continues to give Israel the time to continue the genocide in Gaza," pro-Houthi Al-Masirah channel quoted a statement by Houthi spokesman Mohamed Abdulsalam."[22] [23] In a public statement, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Hossein Salami reassured the Iranian public that there is nothing to fear from the coalition.[24][25] (The Iranian government has long had purported direct ties to the Houthi movement.) IRGC senior officer Mohammad Reza Naqdi was cited as threatening to close "the Mediterranean Sea, (the Strait of) Gibraltar and other waterways" without explaining how.[26]


All the following are trusted sources, unlike what it is irresponsibly being shared in Wikipedia. CNN clearly stating that the Houthis' say that their strike on ships "are revenge against Israel for its military campaign in Gaza."https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/red-sea-crisis-explainer-houthi-yemen-israel-intl/index.html Also, Aljazeera affirms that "the Houthis have been targeting vessels in protest of Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed more than 19,000 Palestinians." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/19/can-the-new-us-led-maritime-force-stop-houthi-attacks-during-gaza-war as well as AP news "Houthis have fired toward Israel during that nation's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip." https://apnews.com/article/red-sea-houthi-yemen-ships-attack-israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-716770f0a780160e9abed98d3c48fbde and Reuters in the explicit article "Israel keeps pounding Gaza, Houthis vow more Red Sea attacks" explained as "Israeli forces pounded the shattered Gaza Strip on Tuesday while Yemen's Houthis vowed to defy a U.S.-led naval mission and keep targeting Red Sea shipping in support of the Palestinian enclave's ruling Hamas movement." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/joint-patrols-guard-ships-response-attacks-by-houthis-backing-palestinians-2023-12-18/ as well as the aforementioned https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/yemens-houthis-warn-about-widening-conflict-if-washington-keeps-backing-israel/3044085. Aim for neutrality and include this information, or else Wikipedia will not be a reliable source of information anymore. Autodios (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/middleeast/red-sea-crisis-explainer-houthi-yemen-israel-intl/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/19/can-the-new-us-led-maritime-force-stop-houthi-attacks-during-gaza-war
  3. ^ https://apnews.com/article/red-sea-houthi-yemen-ships-attack-israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-716770f0a780160e9abed98d3c48fbde
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  23:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea table

Are we only having a table with examples of attacks on ships that have a notable outcome like the Maersk Hangzhou? As in my opinion given the header should it not be a table with all attacks post the announcement of the operation? Brandon Downes (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

David Cameron, as he is referred to in the infobox, should be edited to display Lord Cameron instead, as this is his proper title as both a member of the House of Lords and Foreign Secretary. Thank you. 2405:DA40:1118:CF00:643A:1C76:5FF0:8738 (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The current version is consistent with other names in the infobox and I don't see any good reason to change it. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Houthi Belligerent

I propose that the Houthi Belligerent should be the Supreme Political Council instead of Houthi movement. The SPC is the Yemeni state as recognized by the Houthis. Ijedi1234 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Work out which spokesmen for which organs have been speaking, then link to them. "Supreme Political Council" is too generic anyway. kencf0618 (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The Supreme Political Council are the formal name for the Houthis. All Houthi forces operate under the Supreme Political Council and are apart of its military.XavierGreen (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand participation

There's no mention of New Zealand at present, and as this is EP I cannot add it:

> On Wednesday, the governments of the U.S., Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement condemning the attacks and warning the rebel group against further escalation.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3631623/us-partners-committed-to-defensive-operations-in-red-sea/

> In effect, New Zealand has joined with 11 other allies of the United States to deliver a final warning to the Houthi Yemeni rebel group to cease its attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea or “bear the consequences”.

> What those consequences might be has since provoked considerable debate in global media where the 13 partners are now being described as a coalition. The group includes all Five-Eyes partners: US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands and Singapore.

https://archive.ph/OZrES BertieB (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's tough because although they mention the operation there is nothing explicit that this statement is under that. For instance Greece and the Seychelles whilst they've announced participation in Prosperity Guardian they were then absent from this statement. Also I just feel adding nations that were apart of this statement would be premature given that if we assume it was under the operation they've then said nothing on what they would send to aid it, be it officers or ships. Brandon Downes (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yup, that's a fair point Brandon. There's no particular need to rush it, as it should become clearer with time.
Perhaps a reasonable approach would be to change "Unnamed others" in the infobox to "others" (since they are, by now, not unnamed) with references there? And if text within the main page is warranted, it could be included with the disclaimer you you mention. Something like,
> "In addition, the following countries have pledged to join the operation but have not yet indicated what their support will involve: {list} [references]"
at the end of the Forces section? BertieB (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Timeline(s)

It's a stand-alone article. Timeline of the Red Sea crisis. Keep one or the other, and in any case keep it up to date. kencf0618 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

Add link to "Rishi Sunak" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi_Sunak) UK Prime Minister, above Grant Shapps, UK Secretary of State for Defence, in the info box section for leaders and commanders. AethelredOfMercia2000 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian has made the change. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the info box, it should be David Cameron listed, not James Cleverly. David Cameron is the Foreign Secretary of the UK. Cleverly is the Home Secretary. 2600:4040:297C:8F00:DEA:D4B8:CDCC:9375 (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
In the Commanders and Leaders tab should Charles III being the Head of State of the UK(and to a lesser extent Australia) be listed here? 152.78.0.237 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

CENTCOM tweet regarding strikes

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Edit Request

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)

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)

St. Nikolas

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)

New map

@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)

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

Houthi flag

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)

"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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

“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)

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

Protected edit request on 28 January 2024

Clean up and citation tidy. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 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)

Edit request 28 January 2024 (2)

Typographical, all at Operation Prosperity Guardian § Forces:

  • announcemtn is a typo; should be changed to "announcement"
  • add a comma after HMS Diamond, before the citation (MOS:PAIC)
  • includes before list of vessels should be "include"

☆ Bri (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

The US Navy Ships which have participated in this operation are USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, USS Philippine Sea, USS Carney, USS Laboon, USS Mason, USS Gravely, and USS Thomas Hudner.

The List of Attacks Section, the event listed on 10JAN took place on 09JAN. USS Florida was not a participant or attacked. USS Philippine Sea was a participant that is not listed. 205.56.162.41 (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

could you please provide sources? Abo Yemen✉ 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I am currently on board USS Philippine Sea, and can confirm Redchev04 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@Redchev04 this sounds cool but when people read that the source is someone who said he is on the ship they'll question Wikipedia's reliability. Also that is WP:OR Abo Yemen✉ 08:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
https://news.usni.org/2024/01/12/ikes-carrier-air-wing-3-uss-gravely-uss-philippine-sea-and-uss-mason-struck-houthi-targets Redchev04 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 14:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
USS Carney tops the list of US destroyers involved in Red Sea incidents. However I'm unable to find a definitive listing of the ship under Prosperity Guardian vessels. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Finland

Could someone remove Finland from the infobox? The current information I found says that Finnish soldiers are on staff duty within the EUNAVFOR Aspides, not Prosperity Guardian. There is also no information that the Finnish Navy participated in operations against the Houthis at all. KujKuń (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

War Powers Criticism Operation Prosperity Guardian continued beyond the 60-day limit set by the War Powers Resolution without Congressional authorization, in violation of the Act, as noted by Michigan State assistant professor Shireen Al-Adeimi. The War Powers Resolution stipulates that any armed forces engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, must cease operations within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants an extension, or is unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States.

Representative Ro Khanna, the first member of congress to succeed in passing a War Powers Resolution, published a statement critical of Operation Prosperity Guardian, writing "in the narrow case where self-defense requires immediate action. But in the absence of such a national emergency, the president must seek authorization from Congress."

US Airstrike Criticism Following the Yemen strikes Cori Bush, a Missouri congresswoman, called the strikes "illegal" and told Biden, "stop the bombing and do better by us". Oregon Representative Val Hoyle stated "These airstrikes have not been authorized by Congress." "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of part." Washington state representative Pramila Jayapal stated the strikes were an "unacceptable violation of the Constitution" and "Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress."

President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social "So, let me get this straight. We’re dropping bombs all over the Middle East, AGAIN (where I defeated ISIS!), and our Secretary of Defense, who just went missing for five days, is running the war from his laptop in a hospital room." President Biden is the fourth president to bomb Yemen. 173.79.229.156 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a separate Criticism section is necessary when the Reactions section exists; and the numerous quotations seems unnecessary. I think it would be best to just say something like "The Biden administration has received bipartisan criticism..."[1] – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have updated my request to align to this feedback, but must note that I find the suggestions went to too far and in my view would cause euphemistic concern, and I would also call attention to the reactions section including repeated quotes from unidentified protestors, a section which has limited to no public official commentary, outside from a provably false claim from USCENTCOM with no counter point. Please include this section at the start of the Reactions section, as it is the most accurate English language depiction of the topic given the given the importance, and identification, of individuals listed.

References

  1. ^ "Senators question legality of Biden's Houthi strikes in Yemen".

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe I was exceedingly clear, including writing the exact sections, intaking multiple rounds of feedback, and including well sourced content. I believe I also specifically noted where, and why the section should be added. 173.79.229.156 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

War Powers Criticism Operation Prosperity Guardian continued beyond the 60-day limit set by the War Powers Resolution without Congressional authorization, in violation of the Act, as noted by Michigan State assistant professor Shireen Al-Adeimi. The War Powers Resolution stipulates that any armed forces engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, must cease operations within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants an extension, or is unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States.

Representative Ro Khanna, the first member of congress to succeed in passing a War Powers Resolution, published a statement critical of Operation Prosperity Guardian, writing "in the narrow case where self-defense requires immediate action. But in the absence of such a national emergency, the president must seek authorization from Congress."

US Airstrike Criticism Following the Yemen strikes Cori Bush, a Missouri congresswoman, called the strikes "illegal". Oregon Representative Val Hoyle stated "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of part." Washington state representative Pramila Jayapal stated the strikes were an "unacceptable violation of the Constitution." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social comments critical of the Yemen airstrikes. President Biden is the fourth president to bomb Yemen.

173.79.229.156 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I could see the two proposed additional paragraphs under a new section or sub-section titled "alleged unconstitutionality" or some such. They seem well cited and pertinent to me. There needs to be some cleanup to eliminate the inline external links. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Should there be some mention that the War Powers Resolution does have some constitutional concerns and has been generally considered as ignored by most, if not all presidents since it was past? Interesting article here about the this operation and the War Powers Resolution. Another article with congress raising the concerns highlighted by the IP's suggestion. There's a couple of source issues with the suggestion - Daily Mail needs to go. The second para is basically a press-release, and maybe better to find a source with more than just quotes, but a more nuanced exploration of the Legislative branch vs Executive branch tug of war happening here. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Whoops, missed that Daily Mail citation. You're right of course. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bri I have completed all requested edits and resubmitted. 173.79.229.156 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ravensfire, the Daily Mail citation is a literal quote, it is not editorial. I have updated the link to the Politico article, regardless of this fact, as it contains direct links to her statements as well as the other quotes. Regarding whataboutism related to War Powers as being ignored by most Presidents, this is a reductive argument which attempts to invalidate a host of legislators formal opinions and US Federal Law. Your argument does not cite any single stance whereby the US engaged in a seven month military engagement, to say nothing of one with billions of dollars expended, thousands of munitions used, and casualties. By your logic we should not write anything related to any violations of US Law simply out it being done before. It is an concerning and lackluster viewpoint antithetical to Wikipedia in my view. Additionally, the claim is false as in 2019 congress employed War Powers to attempt to end the bombing of the very same nation we are discussing here which was led in part by Ro Khanna.

Bri, the section on Ro Khanna has now been nested properly without segmentation, the statement has been slightly shortened, and a wiki-link has been removed. The Politico article also references all quotes with direct links to the statements, and as such one external hyperlink was removed.

I have additionally altered the titling and will re-submit based on the request as a separate subsection "Alleged Unconstitutionality"

173.79.229.156 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Alleged Unconstitutionality

War Powers Criticism Operation Prosperity Guardian continued beyond the 60-day limit set by the War Powers Resolution without Congressional authorization, in violation of the Act, as noted by Michigan State assistant professor Shireen Al-Adeimi[1]. The War Powers Resolution stipulates that any armed forces engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, must cease operations within 60 days unless Congress declares war, grants an extension, or is unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States. Representative Ro Khanna, published a statement critical of Operation Prosperity Guardian[2], writing "in the narrow case where self-defense requires immediate action. But in the absence of such a national emergency, the president must seek authorization from Congress." A bi-partisan letter[3] was delivered to President Biden on January 26, 2024, signed by twenty-seven sitting members of congress.

US Airstrike Criticism Following the Yemen strikes Cori Bush, a Missouri congresswoman, referenced the strikes as "illegal."[4] Oregon Representative Val Hoyle stated "The Constitution is clear. Congress has the sole authority to authorize military involvement in overseas conflicts. Every president must first come to Congress and ask for military authorization, regardless of part." Washington state representative Pramila Jayapal stated the strikes were an "unacceptable violation of the Constitution" President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social comments critical of the Yemen airstrikes.[5] President Biden is the fourth president to bomb Yemen. 173.79.229.156 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Still problems here. There are primary sources being used when it's flatly not needed here. Same with the quotes. The Representatives quoted aren't experts in constitutional law, and the presentation is purely one-sided. It's pretty trivial to find good sources on the contitutional issues here - [https://apnews.com/article/biden-war-powers-israel-gaza-yemen-houthis-c9cfce9a874fbc520ddcc4ef182bf63a], [https://archive.is/20230916012646/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/biden-war-powers.html] and more than a few others. This could be summarized that as some members of congress have objects to Prosperity Guardian and the air strikes on Yemen, saying that the War Poers Resolution requires Congressional authorization. President Biden has rejected that view, saying it did not need additional congressional approvals for these actions. Ravensfire (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

add keir starmer to Commanders and leaders section as replaced rishi sunak as the new prime minister of britain [6] 173.72.3.91 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Goodman, Amy. ""A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty": Biden Becomes Fourth U.S. President to Bomb Yemen". Democracynow.org. Retrieved 21 July 2024.
  2. ^ Khanna, Ro. "President Biden Needs to Go to Congress for Authorization on Yemen". Retrieved 21 July 2024.
  3. ^ Khanna, Ro. "Khanna Yemen Letter" (PDF). US Congress.
  4. ^ Alafriz, Olivia. "Dems rip Biden for launching Houthi strikes without congressional approval". Politico.com. Retrieved 21 July 2024.
  5. ^ Berg, Matt. "Trump Criticizes White House for Houthi strikes". Politico.com. Retrieved 21 July 2024.
  6. ^ https://apnews.com/article/uk-election-keir-starmer-profile-labour-e98d16e0810273f6041b61747e084aae

Extended confirmed protected

Why this article has so high protection? Because of high protection, a lot of Wikipedia users cant update information here. I think if the article is Semi-protected, it would be enough. The article missing a lot recent information and it needs to be updated. Dasomm (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah i think it needs to be semi or not protected 173.72.3.91 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Keir Starmer is now the leader of the uk and John healey is defence minister

As of today 68.199.243.137 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconded, can someone with clearance make that change? SirShaunIV (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
yes i made an edit request for keir starmer 173.72.3.91 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Branches of Armed Forces

Essentially, this is not the case for other forces participating in the fight against the Houthis, but the Royal Air Force is also taking part in the operation against Houthi targets, as it is operating from its RAF bases in Cyprus. Would it be possible for the RAF to be added to the list of belligerents for greater accuracy? CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Operation Prosperity Guardian is purely a defensive operation, the strikes carried out by the U.S., UK and other allies are a seperate operation codenamed Operation Poseidon Archer which has it's own page 2024 missile strikes in Yemen so there is no need to add the RAF. Brandon Downes (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, i see. Thanks for letting me know because I wasn't previously aware of another article. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible change to state that Prosperity Guardian has failed to deter shipping attacks?

I know Prosperity Guardian is still ongoing, but many sources have reported that it has failed to prevent attacks on shipping by the Houthis.

For instance: https://unherd.com/2024/09/why-the-houthis-now-rule-the-red-sea/

https://en.barran.press/news/topic/3728

https://www.newarab.com/analysis/us-red-sea-strategy-has-failed-deter-houthis

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/02/maersk-red-sea-pause-shows-operation-prosperity-guardian-limits.html

This is just with a quick google search too. No doubt many other sources have reported on it too, which could be found with deeper study. Plus, just a day or to ago another ship was hit, set on fire and may sink. 

Genabab (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
It is ongoing conflict and maybe only bad phase of war for U.S. and allies. No reason to make any conclusions now. Dasomm (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Prosperity_Guardian/Archive_1&oldid=1251133360"