Contents

Talk:Abyan campaign

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abyan campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Yemen Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: African / Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force

User Ecograf continues to mix numbers of losses detailed in the Article Sources, he uses numbers cited in R.S from Pro-Hadi Officials as something Reliable and Official. Its the second time he do this in this tipe of articles. He takes a Biased POV claim from a RS as RS. Worst of all he dont report them he uses it outright as a Reliable Source. Even worse he sums and deduct numbers from different actors of the same source. Falling in Original Research.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you in the edit summaries and at your talk page. Your combined total was incorrect. You wrote 64 killed per pro-Hadi sources. The two sources indeed talk about 35 dead and 29 dead respectively, however, the first figure (35) is for dead on BOTH sides, not just for the Houthis. As for the second figure (29) it is claimed by officials...at no point is it stated they are pro-Hadi officials. You can not simply assume they are pro-Hadi officials because that would indeed be OR. And accusing me of having a bias POV and conducting OR is not in line with wiki policy on assuming good faith from other editors and on wiki policy on civility. Since you mixed up a combined death toll (35) and a Houthi death toll (29) and said it was only Houthi dead I could have said you yourself conducted a biased OR edit but I did not, instead I assumed you made a legitimate mistake and did not attack you. As for my personal reliability as an editor, that you attacked and I found offensive, you can ask dozens of editors that I worked with over the years just how much reliable I am. EkoGraf (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]