Talk:Casualties of the 2011 Bahraini uprising and its aftermath

New Deaths

There have been a number of deaths since 6 February that should probably be mentioned:

• 12 February 2012: Fatima Albasri. Don't have details right now.
• 17 February 2012: Hussain Albaqali. Died as he did not seek timely medical attention for burns sustained during the "Sky's Mourning" tire burning protest, due to fear of going to the hospital. MoI says that his parents said that he set him self on fire after a family dispute, and says that Hussain admitted that he set himself on fire, and that the confession was recorded on "audio and video tapes." This confession has not been released yet, as far as I can tell: (MoI statement).
• 18 February 2012: Mansoor Salman. Tear gas (BCHR).
• 21 February 2012: Rose Nisha Naikarottu Baby Varghese. Her family claims that she slipped into a coma during an asthma attack that may have been triggered by tear gas. (GDN report)
• 25 February 2012: Abda Hussain. Tear gas. (Nabeel Rajab tweet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmarczak (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the page and charts w/ all of the deaths except Fatima Albasri.Billmarczak (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job, nice to see you back; having you here is a great motivation for editing and creating new articles. Fatima Albasri wasn't mentioned by any notable political figures or parties. Only this Facebook page gave details about her death. This makes total deaths 76 with 25 allegedly with tear gas - will update related articles with numbers. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this tweet that seems to be from the Alliance for a Republic's official Twitter account. Also, there was a 1.5 month old baby allegedly killed from tear gas today. Also, looks like there's some copyright issues in this article that we should fix up. Billmarczak (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the copyright issue from Bahrainrights website, I have contacted them in the past and they responded in a good timely matter. Also, for those killed under torture, I'll do copy-editing from Torture during the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising since it was cleaned from copyright violations recently. For now, fix the CV from this link and I'll see if there are further CV to fix. This is a serious issue in Wikipedia!

For the new death, you can use these tweets by S.Yousif Almuhafda as references [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. This definitely won't be the last death by tear gas as long as they keep "sinking" residential areas with tear gas.

The Twitter account seems valid. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'll fix that CV later, as well as adding Fatima Albasri, the 1.5 month old baby, and Sakina Marhoon. I received a document from the BCHR listing Fatima Albasri's death, but they don't seem to list it on their website, which is odd. Billmarczak (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added those 3 deaths. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 06:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Improvements

• Section about torture. (See Human rights reports on 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising)
• More details about injuries. [6] [7]
• Section about CS gas. CS_gas#Bahrain

Copyright problem

This article was tagged for close-paraphrasing and needs to be cleaned. Among the sources improperly used in the article:

• http://bahrainrights.org/en/node/3864
• http://www.policemc.gov.bh/en/news_details.aspx?type=1&articleId=11364

--NortyNort (Holla) 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The ticket number for BCHR article is: #2012031710000511. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Veracity of reporting

Hi guys. Just back from a dissertation-enforced break from Wiki and I am a little concerned about how the reports of deaths have been construed on this page. It seems that a number of the recent casualties noted in the list rely solely on allegations made by the opposition or those without any medical knowledge, and are then counted as being a result of the unrest. For instance Yahya Yousef (I thought this was his father’s name, not his?) is on the list purely because his father *thinks* teargas may have led to his death. Is there any medical evidence for this? Apparently the baby didn’t even leave the hospital as he was ill from birth – I really don’t think that every death in Bahrain can be blamed on the unrest.

Similarly with using quotes from the BCHR in general. It is clearly in their wider political interest to state that the authorities are to blame for a majority of the deaths. In some cases relating to tear gas, they may (probably do) have a point but nonetheless are there any independent reports? Can’t the families ask for an independent autopsy? It is interesting that no international press wires/outlets (that I’ve seen anyway) have said that the government is responsible for these deaths. AKhani84 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. As long as the source is reliable, we can use it (we are exactly saying that his family is the one blaming his death for tear gas and that there is another official reason by the hospital). Amnesty International have used BCHR as source [8]. You might have also noticed that we have added some deaths that weren't mentioned by BICI report such as that of the taxi driver, the Pakistani guy who was crushed while destroying the Pearl roundabout and a youth who was run over.

It would have been much better if there was a neutral medical facility that those injured from protests or even those at their houses could go to, get treated and then leave without being arrested/interrogated. The problem started since 16 March 2011 and for a while, till August 2011 (closed since then) there was a secret clinic for Médecins Sans Frontières which has treated some 250s injures (glad I remembered it, now I can add it to the number of injured), while other injures are treated at houses (with few exceptions at hospitals when the case is severe). You can't count on autopsies as long as the government has control over the hospital; they have proved in the past that they don't tell the truth, remember those killed under torture and how the government kept denying for months? this is just one small example. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not "clearly in [the BCHR's] wider political interest to state that the authorities are to blame for a majority of the deaths." The BCHR is a human rights organization, and it's not clear that they have any political agenda. As for verifying cause of death, that's a hard problem. For forensic exams in general, I usually don't see the conclusions of such exams reported anywhere except the Ministry of Interior media center or pro-government papers. International media reporting on these deaths is basically what we do here on this Wikipedia page, kind of a he-said/she-said between witnesses and human rights organizations on the one hand, and the government on the other hand (though the international media doesn't report every single death). Why would the international media issue a finding to the effect of "the government is responsible for this death?" It's not their job to perform an investigation of each death. It's unfortunate that the medical knowledge isn't getting out there, but understandable, given that doctors are currently facing charges of "violating patient privacy" for giving media info about casualties and letting them take pictures. As for forensic exams, there's evidence that the government either forges forensic exams or is totally incompetent at conducting them (see BICI report about Ali Alsheikh). A lawyer claimed as recently as this January that his requests to be present during the autopsy, and for an independent forensic exam, were denied (see Mohammed Ibrahim Yacoup). Furthermore, the BCHR has "demanded" independent forensic exams of people who allegedly died of tear gas "due to difficulty of verifying the cause of death." Billmarczak (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in small tables

The current death number as of 7 June 2012 is 94. I've counted the deaths one by one from the detailed table. However in the first of the small table, the count is 93. I've traced the problem and it seems it started from the creation of the article (always 1 less than the total number). Thus I'll look into Bahraini uprising article history to see where the mistake was made. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the mistake, it was made in February 2012 by me. This is the diff (2 edits) [9]. Six deaths were added, but only five were put in the top small table. An extra one should have been added to "other" category. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Another mistake was done on 9 June by me again. Instead of adding the two new deaths to civilians, I added one to expatriates and the other to security forces in the top small table and in the one below it one was added to security forces and the other to civilian (correctly) as shown in this diff [10].

To fix this, in the top table "other" category: +2 civilians, -1 security forces and -1 expatriates. In the table below it "Unknown Assailants" category: security forces -1, civilians +1. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

References

The editors of this article may be unaware of the standards, but Twitter and Facebook are not considered "reliable sources". See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Please remove all Twitter, Facebook, and any other social networks from the references.Boneyard90 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to a search in Reliable sources noticeboard I got the following comments on using Twitter:

1. "it was fine as long as it came from a reliable person associated with the subject." [11]
2. "Tweets by notable individuals, if it is highly relevant and important, can be used as a self-published source with proper attribution." [12].
3. "Asking whether Twitter in general is a reliable source is a bit like asking whether the World Wide Web is a reliable source." [13].

If you still think it isn't reliable the way it is being used here, then why don't you start a discussion in WP:RSN and notify involved editors? Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You cite a general discussion, not a policy, but from the same link, I find the following:

1. There has for quite awhile been an established consensus against twitter feeds as RS or even EL. -User:Dlabtot
2. Twitter now has it where notable people can verify their accounts - User talk:MikeAllen
3. Twitter feeds are like any other self-published source. - User:Jayjg
4. Twitter feeds are reliable sources if they are official outputs from experts in their field - User:Sam Blacketer
5. Twitter personal feeds from unverified accounts cannot ever be used. - User:Wifione

I don't think a discussion at WP:RSN is necessary. The Twitter sources fail reliability, as per The Duck Test: sources are not notable or expert, and some represent clear Conflict of Interest, as does undue or strenuous participation on your part, as your username reflects your bias and therefore risks violating NPOV. Again, please remove unverified information based on social networking sites.Boneyard90 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)