Talk:Bahrain/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Copyright and summary?

Recent edits to the page (notably but not limited to here) seem to be directly copied from the BBC's own article on Bahrain's history (See here). Since BBC News' articles are copyrighted, directly copying from the article is a copyright violation. The edits should either be paraphrased or removed. Also, the history section of the article is too long and no citations have been cited for multiple sentences (Examples: "As part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force, Bahrain participated in the coalition "Operation Desert Storm" against Iraq, in January-February 1991. In October 1991 Bahrain signed a defence cooperation agreement with the United States, providing the USA with larger port facilities and an agreement to undertake joint military exercises." and "In December 1998 Bahrain provided military facilities for "Operation Desert Fox", the US and UK bombing campaign against Iraq."). References should be provided or else unreferenced sentences would be removed. Bear in mind, the history section is meant to show a brief, understandable and to-the-point description of the country's history. A summary is needed towards the later part of the history section (perhaps importing the text to History of Bahrain?). --Droodkin (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no apparent opposition to remove/modify the edits, I'll be doing it. If anyone opposes, raise concerns here. --Droodkin (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

The LAT/LONG for this page is incorrect. You have placed it right in the middle of Iran. Thank you. 109.63.62.218 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: due to lower comment --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Source on flooding Bahrain with Arab immigrants?

I'm skeptical about citing Piruz Mojtahedzadeh as a source for the claim that the Bahraini shaikhs had flooded the country they ruled with Arab immigrants from abroad. "Mojtahedzadeh heads the Urosevic research body in London and is a university lecturer in Tehran who usually spells out Iranian "national-interest" positions." http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1347597.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by QLineOrientalist (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

CORRECTION: Regarding LAT/LONG the error appears while viewing from Facebook so not sure if this is a Facebook screw-up. 109.63.62.218 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: due to comment and confirmation that is correct --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

British or American English

Both are used in the article, we should stick to one. So which one should we go by? My personal preference is to go by American. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm one for British English. Everyone knows American English is a slang ;) --Droodkin (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we should use American :P. I looked into WP:ENGVAR, and since Bahrain has no strong national ties to either, we should use the first that was used in the non-stub version. However, when I looked that up (here) it still had both used (e.g. modernization and organisation). To not waste time, let's just use the British. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I note that this talkpage has had a Use British English template since March 2011. Loose national ties, perhaps. CMD (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I see. It was not enforced strictly though; the word "salinization" was there since 2006. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2013

For "Bahrain" you should indicate the crucial fact: While 70 percent of Bahrain’s citizens are Shia, for example, districts in the new parliament were gerrymandered to create a Sunni majority.

You don't even have a subsection under "Demographics" for "Religion".

Thus, the article is a disastrous failure -- incredibly stupid in not having even addressed the most important fact regarding that nation's future.

208.65.167.74 (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia's civility policy - you would do far better to suggest specific changes to improve the article than to call it "a disastrous failure" and "incredibly stupid". --ElHef (Meep?) 23:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources used for number of islands

WP:OVERCITE has nothing to do with citing two sources. The policy essay actually encourages using two to three sources "[t]wo or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should be avoided as clutter." Bromley86, you're not making any sense when you add the BNA source which is barely readable due to the use of bolding, caps and disorganization and remove the other source which is a reliable secondary source (you replaced the first source with another without explanation and now you cite WP:overcite policy essay when I simply reinstated the source you removed?). Can we stop this nonsense now? Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Where to start? Firstly, I looked for the SLRB report, but couldn't find it. What I did find was the BNA release. I replaced the Jamri source giving the reason, using the shorthand "Substituted official cite" to mean "one is from an official source who's only focus is reclamation, the other is from a paper on Sunni:Shia relations which has no interest in the factual accuracy of this point". I thought this was fairly reasonable shorthand, especially as we're not discussing a contested point (although actually, as it happens, we're likely both wrong and the number is likely >84 now, but that's a different matter).
You added it back, I removed it. Again, this seems like common sense to me, but I pointed you to WP:OVERCITE and explained why the BNA source is "better". As you've read the policy, you've seen this: "A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient." Sure, you'll point to the next sentence which talks about ensuring against linkrot, but again this is just not such an important point that it needs two cites. And, as the data is almost certainly already out of date, linkrot is not going to be a huge issue as within a year or two someone will update the article to reflect the new number of islands/island clusters. The key point in WP:OVERCITE is this, "The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be read" and doubling up cites on unimportant points is unnecessary. So then we're back to which source to use.
  • As I said in the edit summary, one is from an official source solely related to reclamation, one is not.
  • One contains more detail and so is factually accurate, one is not. The Jamri source is factually inaccurate when it says 84 islands, as the BNA source makes clear that there are actually more than 84 islands, but there are 84 islands and island clusters.
  • One source is dated 2008, one source is dated 2010. Not a big deal, but now that mousing over a cite will pull up the cite detail, there may be some who do that but go no further. With the Jamri cite, they'll form the impression that the data is from 2010, with the BNA cite they'll correctly see that it's from 2008(ish).
  • Your point about the formatting of the BNA source is a minor one. Granted it's been written by someone who is not perfectly fluent in English, but there's no difficulty in understanding what he's written and no inaccuracies have crept in. All caps is not an issue; remember, the cite is to back up the statement in WP, it's not really there for further reading. When it's a choice between formatting and facts, facts win every time.
  • Final point. Didn't mention it in the Edit Summary, as I was being civil, but you may recall me from last year when I tried to get involved in rewriting parts to do with the BICI & other elements of Bahrain current affairs. I was having internet problem which ended with my connection going down for 2 weeks and me giving up on WP for a while, but before that I remember having to fight you line by line to try to get a NPOV article out. This is just my perception mind, and may therefore be incorrect, but it was my belief that you were editing the page to provide a very one-sided view and, more, were doing your best to use cites as a way to present your case. For example, a reasonably innocuous statement would have a cite to an article about human rights violations when there was a perfectly good alternative cite from a source like Reuters that fully supported the point made but didn't stray into politics. I see this here, where you're trying to shoehorn an article on the Shia in Bahrain into an unrelated area when there's a factually superior source. Perfectly understandable behaviour for an activist and an unavoidable problem with WP being edited by it's users (those most knowledgeable and interested in a subject are rarely uninvolved), but not something I agree with; apologies if I'm off base on this.
All that said, I was interested to see the Jamri article mentioned the subject that drew me to Bahrain in the first place, namely the Sunni:Shia proportion. I don't suppose you have a link to that analysis of the 2006 election results, as 62% would support Gengler's assertion of a lower than expected proportion of Shias. I hadn't included Gengler's in the Demographics section as it didn't seem to be verifiable enough, but it'd be interesting to see if there are other studies. Bromley86 (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, WP:OVERCITE is an essay, not a policy or guideline, thus carrying less weight. The essay however doesn't speak strongly against using two sources, like you seem to be or have understood.
The current BNA citation, while being completely disorganized (improper bolding, caps and bad paragraph formatting) and written in weak English doesn't fully supply the material mentioned (fails WP:V, a core policy). It doesn't tell us Bahrain was composed of 33 islands. As the sentence currently stands, we need to supply both sources to support the point of 33 islands (Al-Jamri's) and Island clusters (BNA's).
I'm fully aware that the number of islands will change, that's why I didn't disagree with moving it down. I also added "by the end of 2007".
Your other points are not really convincing nor do they carry any weight IMO. Being a government source doesn't give it factual superiority. Island clusters are islands, thus brevity can be assumed rather than inaccuracy. Al-Jamri is indeed not a professional in geography, but Al-Jamri is a secondary source, the primary source he attributes the info to, SLRB is professional.
I'm surprised you wrote such a long paragraph over this. I also thank you for your bad faith. If you had checked my contributions you would have noticed that I used the Al-Jamri source in Abdul Amir al-Jamri article and when I noticed the outdated info here, I came and fixed it. Before accusing other Wikipedians of being activists, I think you should watch your own edits, especially those in which you remove all negative info, despite being sourced.
What we had in Arab Spring article was not a fight, and I'm disappointed if that's how you (mis)characterize it. You asked for a line by line discussion and you got it. If you are not satisfied by the result, then you can restart the discussion there, not here.
Al-Jamri's views on demographics are his own and should be attributed, so should Gangler's (if they are published in secondary sources). I happen to agree with the analysis. Since this is a bit of detail it would be better presented in the detailed article Demographics of Bahrain.
End point, return the source please, so we don't have to escalate this further over nothing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to escalate it; I've stated my reasons for not including the Jamri source. I stand by them as, essay or policy, common sense says don't use more cites than necessary and use the cite that best. Common sense or no, one doesn't use a cite that is incorrect. As the BNA source highlights, island clusters are not islands. The author makes it clear that there is a difference, so I'm surprised you want to argue this point. As a cite for the 33 islands, perhaps Nat Geo or the MoFA? I'll add the MoFA one for the moment.
I wrote such a long paragraph because my two previous one-line summaries of why the Jamri source was not required were not enough for you. When I "accuse" you of being an activist, your WP name was, when we first met, "Bahraini Activist" or similar. Did I draw the wrong conclusion from that? Bromley86 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes you were wrong, and I changed the user name to avoid giving this conclusion. Keeping personal issues aside, the current sources appear contradictory, one says they are 33 islands, the other 84 islands and island clusters. None of them is saying the number was 33 and grew to 84 due to land reclamation. Again you insist on leaving the appropriate source. You also contradict yourself by adding two sources when the one you removed could have satisfied the matter. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Re. inconsistency, not at all. I'd much rather have one cite, but there's no point in me restating why the Jamri one doesn't work for me. Anyway, the more I look at it, the more I think the article should be reset to 33 islands. (a) The 84 islands/island groups does not appear to have much traction with reliable sources, Bahraini or otherwise (note that I'm not disputing its factual accuracy). (b) As I said, even if we were holding WP to a higher standard of accuracy than the government of Bahrain and published books, the 84 figure is almost certainly incorrect in 2013. I've no idea, but I'd be surprised if they've not reclaimed more islands in the 6 years since that data was gathered. If WP is going to deviate from 99% of hits on the internet (and I've been involved in adding one such item elsewhere, so I'm not intrinsically opposed to the idea), it'd be best if there's a cast-iron reason to do so. Bromley86 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven't checked online or at books, but if what you're saying is indeed the case, then al-Jamri source is valuable and should be used. Keep your personal preferences aside, we're here to improve the article and the source is reliable by Wikipedia standards (if you disagree, I'll take it to WP:RSN to get community input). We're holding it accurate as of late 2007 as currently stated and we know that's more accurate than just stating 33 islands. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
None of which addresses the core problem you have defending use of the Jamri source. Anyone reading it will walk away with the belief that Bahrain is an archipelago of precisely 84 islands, which even when the data was gathered was not the case. Those that read the BNA source will not. Now, if we were disputing the accuracy of the number 84 (we're not), then we'd need all the sources we could find to support it. My reason for saying that we should consider simply resetting it to 33 was because that's what everyone else says[1][2][3][4][5] (including parliament: "environment affairs committee chairman Jawad Fairooz . . ."We have 33 islands in Bahrain"),[6] except those that say 36![7][8][9]. If it's not notable enough for government agencies, is it notable enough for WP? It has nothing to do with anticipating future events, merely observation of events that have already occurred since the 84 figure was generated. If the government is talking of cracking down on unlicenced reclamation, then there's a lot of it going on.[10] Bromley86 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you intentionally missing the point? I don't want to remove the BNA source, instead I want the info which says "the number of islands, including island clusters have increased from 33 to 84" to be verifiable. You failed to find a source that verifies this info and you insist on removing the source I have provided. If the info is notable enough to be mentioned by a secondary source, then yes it should be included here. I'm getting a third opinion. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, but does anyone ever answer "yes" to that? Anyway, "no". Everything else to do with my position has already been stated. Bromley86 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Howicus, a volunteer at WP:3O. I'm trying to get an idea of the dispute here. If someone could summarize the dispute, that'd be very helpful. It seems to focus on the reliablity of the sources for the "84" number, right? I'm going to take a look at the sources that have been mentioned. Howicus (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And just because things weren't complicated enough already, List of islands of Bahrain says there are 49 islands, counting the 16 Hawar Islands. Howicus (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Howicus and thank you for volunteering to take the case. I think List of islands of Bahrain simply added Huwar islands (16) to the old 33 count (33+16=49).
The issue here is that Bromley86 doesn't want us to use this source, because he thinks I'm "trying to shoehorn an article on the Shia in Bahrain into an unrelated area". So he replaced it with this source. And when I reinstated the first source again, he removed it and that's when I posted above. To justify his removal he cited WP:OVERCITE and claimed my source was not appropriate (his reasons which I find unconvincing are found up). Currently no other source than the one I have provided supports that the number of islands was 33 and increased to 84 by late 2007 or 2008. The other sources either mention the number is 33 (outdated sources) or mention the number is 84 (good, but do not tell us the whole story). So that's why we need your input to tell us if it's appropriate to use the Al-Jamri source (the one I've provided and Bromley86 removed). Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I did some searching, and I'm not sure that the "84" number is accurate. I didn't find any other sources that support the 84 number except the BNA source, not even on the Survey and Registration Bureau website [11], which is where Al-Jamri says he got his info. Howicus (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I did a quick search in Google. This Al-Wasat source (in Arabic) cites the 2008 Survey and Registration Bureau report and says number of islands is 84, 33 of them are natural and 51 are not natural. I have to go now, I'll look into it when I get back. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh and the same article above tells us that the number 33 for islands is so outdated and criticized BICI report for using it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Howicus. Slight misrepresentation by Mohamed there; sure I said that, but that was only when he requested a full explanation after my two one-line edit summaries were not enough. I do have a concern about use of cites that support one political position, but not to the extent that I wouldn't use them if there's nothing else available. I'm also a big believer in not overciting.
In this particular case, I did a straight swap of the Jamri[12] source for a BNA[13] one. Although the formatting of the BNA one is not the best, it's perfectly acceptable as a source. IMO it's actually superior; both sources refer to exactly the same original data, however the BNA one makes it clear that Bahrain in 2007 was not an archipelago of 84 islands, but an archipelago of 84 islands and island clusters (the implication being there were more than 84 islands, the final count of which depends which islands you cluster and which you disaggregate). Sounds pedantic, and no doubt is, but as I've said earlier if we're going down the route of being more precise than the government of Bahrain (who always publicly state 33, at least as far as I've seen so far), we should be precise.
Since this started, I've actually come around to resetting it to 33 (or 36, if that's what the evidence supports, but so far it doesn't seem to). There's a whole bunch of links above, i.e. one that quotes the environmental affairs chairman in parliament[14]. Bromley86 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Small correction, al-Jamri and Mohamed Hamid al-Salman (Al-Wasat article) did not say they got it from Survey and Land Registration Bureau website. They just said they got it from the organization. Al-Salman makes it more specific when he says it was on August 2008. He also says it can be found in school and college books as well (I'll look into that when I get a chance). Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I've looked into more sources now. First I omitted all sources which stated Bahrain was made of 33 islands only, because this is clearly outdated as we have many man-made islands such as Amwaj Islands and Durrat Al Bahrain. I found the following sources:
  1. "Bahrain is an archipelago of over 40 islands and island groups" [15]
  2. "Bahrain is an archipelago of over 33 islands and island groups" [16]
  3. "Kingdom of Bahrain is an archipelago of 33 natural islands in addition to other man-made islands." [17]
  4. "Bahrain is an archipelago in the Persian Gulf of 33 natural islands and 12 artificial ones" [18]
I think it's best just to attribute info to Survey and Land Registration Bureau report that can't be found (BTW, the Arabic Wikipedia cites this source too, but without giving a url). I don't mind using Al-Wasat article if that can be seen as middle ground. The article does make distinction between islands and island groups. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd spotted that 2013 IHO one you linked to that states 33 and initially thought it was perfect for supporting a return to 33. After all, one might expect the International Hydrographic Organization (or delegates presenting to them) to know what they're talking about and it is recent. However, the 702 km² land area looks way too low, which throws into question the accuracy of rest. Unless it's something to do with low & high tides?
Don't think the Geocaching one counts. Likewise the Meetpie.
Although foreign language cites are perfectly acceptable, especially now machine translation is fairly good, they're less useful than English language ones. Seems more sensible to have 2 English ones than 1 Arabic one, IMO. Assuming we're keeping the 84, best way I can see to do that is to draw attention to the fact most sources use 33 (with a cite to either a Bahrain government website, other national or international body website or something like Nat Geo) whilst drawing attention to the effect of ongoing reclamation (citing the BNA, but I would say that). Something like:
Often described as an archipelago of 33 islands,[19] extensive land reclamation projects have changed this; by the end of 2007 the number of islands had increased to 84 islands and island clusters.[20]
There's an argument for leaving the island clusters part out of the article so only those opening the cite link are aware of it. Bromley86 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Mystery of SLRB info solved. I've went as far as searching for the info in a geography book taught to students of University of Bahrain. The book (in Arabic) titled Modern History of Bahrain (1500-2002) tells us the number of islands is 84 and cites SLRB (August 2010). However it also tells us that the SLRB info is/was not published. Here are some page scans [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25].
@Bromley86: I still think Al-Jamri source is better than BNA which doesn't tell us number of islands has increased. However, I've had enough of this and I'm willing to let it go. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't read Arabic, so I'll have to take your word for it. If you're willing to let it go, then...dispute solved? Yay? Howicus (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I just don't want to waste more time over nothing. Howicus, of the sources provided for the number of islands, which is/are most appropriate to use in your opinion? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd trust the government of Bahrain's website the most for the 33 number, and if the textbook you found says what you say it does, that one seems like the most reliable source for an 84 number. I have to go for a while, I'll be back later. Hope my input is helping! Howicus (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The textbook is good (although the ISBN (978-99901-06-75-6) seems to also be assigned to a marketing guide, which is annoying). It'd presumably still need an English cite though, otherwise someone will eventually substitute for it, so I'd rather not include it.
Help's always appreciated Howicus; just clicked my first WP "Thank" button, although if it's going to send you a notification that might just be an irritant :) . Bromley86 (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Section-blanking

I've undone this edit. Trimming may be approriate for this section. But the meat-cleaver approach to copy-editing here appears overbroad. Thoughts? David in DC (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As per my last article edit comment, serious trimming would not be amiss. I will spend some time on this then post a proposed new section either here or on a sandbox page. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 04:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. This topic is way outside my knowledge base. I just came here by way of pending changes review. David in DC (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Persian Gulf map

I found it difficult to figure out just where Bahrain is in relation to the rest of the modern Middle East. Could this map be added at the top of the Bahrain entry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persian_Gulf_map.png

Thank you. Risssa (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bahrain Flag

The articles in Wikipedia that discuss Bahrain or Bahrainis use the wrong flag. The flag of Bahrain has 5 white triangles, while the articles in Wikipedia use one with 6 or 7 white triangles, which is completely wrong and is unacceptable. Is it possible for someone change the flag used in the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.17.55 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Foreign relations image

I've restored the image. It is very relevant to the section it is in. If there is a better image, perhaps with a country that has closer ties with Bahrain such as Saudi Arabia or Gulf Cooperation Council, then I wouldn't mind placing it there. But just removing the image is wrong and as far as I can see is against consensus. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

George Bush

Why is there a George Bush II image on a page about Bahrain?
People visiting here to see images of Bahrain are confronted by the features of a previous president of a remote country.
His image also resides on pages for Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Nigeria and Romania.
George Bush Jnr admirers, please place his image on his page only. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt Bush has many admires here if any. As you can see in the section above, another image can do, but simply removing a good one is not helpful and counter productive IMO. Bahrain is classified as a major non-NATO ally and the U.S. fifth fleet is stationed here. Therefore, the image is relevant and I oppose removing it without proving a suitable replacement. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Bahrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Bahrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bahrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Iran's claim of Bahrain as it's 14 province

Shouldn't Iran's territorial claim of Bahrain be mentioned in the template as:

Disputed sovereignty

Self-governaned by Bahrain

Claimed by Iran

As is the case with for example, the Abu Musa Island?

I say this because there is no legal basis for the UAE's claim and the dispute caries no legal value - especially as it was dismissed by the UN and is accepted internationally as Iran's territory. However, UAE's claim is included in the template section simply because of the existence of such a claim. In other words, either the UAE's claim of the Iranian Islands should be removed, or Iran's claim to Bahrain's sovereignty ought to be included, in-order to be consistent. Falkland Islands - though an independent state as part of the UK, is another case in which the claims of both parties - the UK and Argentina are equally represented.

After reading the Wikipedias policies, I failed to find a section that outlines the criteria for a legitimate claim, in-order for it to be included in the template section. Iran's claim of Bahrain has repeatedly been made since 1972 until the present day. It was only a few months that an Iranian official once again repeated Iran's claim.

I appreciate that under the Foreign relations subsection, this issue is briefly alluded to as:

"Relations with Iran tend to be tense as a result of a failed coup in 1981 which Bahrain blames Iran for and occasional claims of Iranian sovereignty over Bahrain by ultra-conservative elements in the Iranian public".

However my point is entirely different. I am referring to the template section in-order to be consistent with the approach that was taken regarding the Iranian Islands in the Persian Gulf.

As I said, I couldn't find a section on wikipedia's guidelines that would clarify, or rather offer, a criteria to include such claims in the template section. If there is such a guideline, I would be grateful if someone makes a reference to it. I think it will be useful to have the inputs of the wider community of on this issue.

Thanks NuturalObserver (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The country template is set up very differently to other geography templates, and I do not think including the Iranian claim would add greatly to it. The Abu Musa template does use a map of Iran, which reflects control, although perhaps the initial description of "disputed island" does focus far more on the political claims than the topic warrants. CMD (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying. My point was twofold. One was in regards to the template sections, but the most important one was regarding the inadequate representation of Iran's claim in the article. Once again, I will point to Falkland Islands as the most relevant. Falkland is an independent, self-governed nation with independent GDP, natural resources and financial obligations but is yet part of the British Overseas Territory that Argentina claims sovereignty over it. Although the template section does not include Argentina's claim, there is a subsection of "3.1 Sovereignty dispute" in the article that states:

"The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim the Falkland Islands. The UK's position is that the Falklanders have not indicated a desire for change, and that there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the islands.[85][86] The UK bases its position on its continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982) and the islanders' "right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter".[87] Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands.[88][89] Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.[88]

In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown had a meeting with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[90] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, with 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[91][92] Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[93] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum.[94]".

With a further link to the main article: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

The argument that Argentine has made for it's claim of Falkland/Islas Malvinas, is exactly the same as Iran in principle - a historical claim. In addition to the historical claim, Argentina argues that because the country was governed by a dictatorship, any agreement with the British did not have the mandate of the Argentines people, therefore is invalid. Again, it is exactly the same argument that Iran has made very actively since the 1979 onwards.

There are more cases available of on Wikipedia that represents such claims. This article does not proportionally reflect that at all. As you said yourself, it a short sentence that focuses on the political aspect. The same consistent approach needs to be adopted. I also recommend creating a subsection for Iran's claim. Let's not forget that Bahrain up until the 1979 revolution, had an MP represented in the Iranian Parliament (Majlis). Including such content is not only inline with Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but it will add value to the article as much it has when including it in other similar cases such as the Falkland. NuturalObserver (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Iran has no official claim on Bahrain. The statements of one or two rogue officials here and there for electoral reasons or whatever do not constitute an official claim. As far as I know the dispute was resolved in 1970 via a UN survey (see Bahraini independence survey, 1970). However, if there is a reliable source that Iran is now claiming Bahrain as part of its territory, that would be different. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the first two sentences make little sense

Title. Socialistguy (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

How about now? Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 39 external links on Bahrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit war over Mohammad

There seems to be an edit war going on over whether Mohammad needs to be always preceded by "Prophet" and followed by "(PBUH)". Edits to remove these have been undoed without explanation. It seems to me that in a non-religous encyclopedia these honorifice are not necessary. --2A02:C7D:A34E:1200:719C:7809:C66A:6863 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Bahrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sports In Bahrain

One of the most popular Sports in Bahrain Is football Ketchup Master 11 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bahrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Biased?

Hi, I just wanted to point out that when I read the 'human rights' portion of the page, the second half of the penultimate paragraph and the last paragraph seemed very biased. I took the liberty of removing the last paragraph but please insert it back if I am wrong, as this was just a hunch.

Thank you -User:MrHistorianDude 16:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Media

I added more information to the Media subheading in order to include a more holistic view of the types of media present in the country including newspapers, television, and radio. Shahnawaz01 (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bahrain/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am bringing this article to GAR, due to a number of concerns regarding the WP:Good article criteria. There are quite a few short and scattered paragraphs throughout the article, and some very short sections, including one completely empty section (1b). There have been a number of longstanding tags appended to some sources in this article, including some citation needing tags, as well as some areas that are currently unsourced without a tag (2c). The article has 75kB of prose, well above what guidelines suggest (3b). This may not be a comprehensive list, being issues that stood out from an immediate look, and so other issues may also need to be addressed if this article is to remain at GA. CMD (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, closing this as a delist, with no work taking place on it. CMD (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Worldometer(s)

@NCCGOV: you added Worldometer - diff. I reverted and explained why, but you did the same thing again (which is basically revert of my revert) - diff. Explain your actions and self-revert per WP:BRD, please. WP:RSP says, that Worldometer is a self-published source and editors have questioned its accuracy and methodology, which means we are not using it - WP:GUNREL.--Renat (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Arabic IPA and Sound Clip don't match.

   I heard [ˈæɫː baħˈɾeɪn] in the Arabic pronounciation sound clip, whereas the article uses the IPA [aɫ baħrajn]. I know some of the differences are unimportant, but I'm suprised that the IPA uses [a] instead of [e].
   I have a hypothesis for why this is: Arabic only has three phonemic vowels /a/, /i/, and /u/. The Wikipedia page on Bahraini Arabic states that "Final Standard Arabic -ah becomes -eh in some positions." This leads me (not being an Arabic speaker at all) to wonder if the written IPA is for standard Arabic, while the speaker in the sound clip is Bahraini. If the sound clip is actually the most common Bahraini pronounciation, than perhaps the IPA should be changed. (I don't really know the policy for written Arabic IPA in articles like this.)
The article uses standard arabic pronunciation, while the sound clip is of the Bahraini accent. During formal articles and writing, standard arabic is used and not informal Bahraini writing. There is no problem. Burglar99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please add {{pp-semi|small=yes}} at the top of the page. TheGreatAustralian (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Visualization

The Religion in Bahrain pie chart label says 69.7% are Muslim, but the pie chart itself looks more like 50%. Any idea why? The Futurist Corporation (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's rendering a horizontal and vertical line which shouldn't be there, but the green is still clearly covering nearly three-quarters of the pie. CMD (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bahrain/Archive_3&oldid=1218062047"