Talk:Red Sea crisis
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Red Sea Crisis Over
The Houthis have agreed to stop the bombing campaign Rc2barrington (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- it is only with USA no with Israel --Reza Amper (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Eilat Port bankruptcy claims
Elaborating on my edit from earlier - I commend the great care for Wikipedia's citation standards, but unfortunately Middle East Monitor is considered here marginally reliable per WP:RSP, while previously consensus was established that it is a partisan think tank (and that not of the pro-Israel camp). We should therefore be wary of using it as a single source for claims on this topic.
Per WP:RS/QUOTE:
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted.
Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD:
Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
In this case, MEMO says "a senior official has confirmed" and "explained the CEO of Eilat Port" regarding the the port's bankruptcy. This oblique way of phrasing doesn't explain where the CEO made the quote, and it doesn't appear he was interviewed by MEMO. The Bloomberg text cited in the infobox itself quotes MEMO, besides the fact that it's an opinion piece - not generally reliable!
As for the other source cited, SeatradeMaritime, the body of the article doesn't actually include the claim that bankruptcy was declared. It does cite the CEO reporting to the Knesset low levels of activity, which is supported by many reliable sources.
Having said all that, I can't find any explicit denial of bankruptcy either, except for an Israeli website citing a twitter account which supposedly interviewed the CEO. However, the Port of Eilat is a government owned company, making bankruptcy quite a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to make, begging multiple reliable sources (of which there are none).
Per the above, the bankruptcy claim aught to be removed.
P.S. Our guidelines against original research only apply to adding claims to an article, not to support removing claims & gauge the reliability of sources. Gsueso2 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Is it a disinformation campaign by Israelis? Doostdar (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Ongoing status
The Houthis declared an end to their attacks in October 2025 and none have taken place since then. Likewise, the US has adhered to the May 2025 ceasefire and Israel hasn't launched an attack since October, with their campaign being acknowledged on its dedicated article as having ended. This is all heavily dependant on the Gaza ceasefire and whether or not it breaks down but, with respect to WP:CRYSTAL, we don't know what will happen, so just looking at the crisis itself and the fact that there are no attacks being launched by any party for months, could we consider it to have ended? Tagging @Achmad Rachmani, @Whitesin21, @Chomik1129 and @Abo Yemen due to their prior engagement with the topic. Hsnkn (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I went ahead and marked the conflict as over since there have been no new developments since the ceasefire in Gaza went into effect in October of last year. Chomik! (talk?) 19:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)



