Talk:Bahrain Thirteen

Bahrain Thirteen has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 26, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 5, 2012.

Bahrain High‑importance

	Bahrain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain 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.BahrainWikipedia:WikiProject BahrainTemplate:WikiProject BahrainBahrain articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deep concerns

Why are they deep concerned. Bahrain is sovereign country and has power to trial anybody just like we don't comment on United States judiciary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.205.176 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article talkpage is not a forum and should only be used to discuss improvements to the page as explained here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bahrain Thirteen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

Upon my first look, it appears that the last sentence of the lead is misleading. As written it appears to be about the court cases but in fact it was about their treatment in prison. If I'm right, can you clarify or separate? North8000 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to assess how this article is with respect to coverage/balance within its proper scope. So the next question is "what is its proper scope"? To some extent this is an article defined by a term rather than a subject with a scope that would still be definable (the same way) if that term did not exist. Surely it's not an article on what the title literally refers to; if it were, ther article woulg be 13 full biographies. There is no single "right" answer but I would think that the minimum scope would be there "13's" role in the uprising / actions leading to their arrests, and then related events which followed. Plus at least enough context information to allow absorption of the material as it is read, and that "context" material is also closely related.

One thought after a couple of reads is that 90% of th4e article seems to consist just of "what the government did to them" and "what other said about what the government did to them". I would think that ~75% would be fine but that 90% leaves out other useful content. So IMHO what it needs is about a 10% or 15% expansion in those other areas. Some suggestions (if material is available):

A bit more on the 13 people. Maybe just a few more sentences in that paragraph on their backgrounds. BTW, the article says that one is a Sunni but doesn't say what the other 12 are. What's obvious to the editor is not obvious to the readers.
Is anything more available on their roles in the protest or protest movement? Maybe a few more sentences on that would be good.
Bahrain people's perception/view on them. Is this a similar situation the other article that I worked with you on? Some sectarian division, some concern over what form of government their movement could lead to?

What do you think? North8000 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is more about their court cases in a similar scope to Bahrain health worker trials (and to a lesser degree UAE Five), but even that article has a section about medics role (do you think it should be of a similar size?). It shouldn't be hard to write about their roles; I've already worked on some of their biographies such as Abdulhadi al-Khawaja and Abdulwahhab Hussain. I agree with your suggestions and will hopefully work on them very soon. I've got an exam on 15th and another on 16th, but I should have some free time after that. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some good expansions on the article. Have a second look :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to list sentences in years for each of them (in a table)? Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly a matter of personal preference. My opinion is that a table that lists only names and sentence lengths would look too much like just a list, but I would not consider it a negative in the review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "A retrial in a civilian court was held in April 2012 but the accused were not released from prison." or something like it is in both the lead and the body. This is a confusing sentence; it appears to discuss "prison status" instead of the results of the court hearing...could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It tackles both. I don't see anything wrong with that. The BBC for instance mentioned "although the verdict reached by a military tribunal has been thrown out, he will remain in custody while his case is reviewed"[1] and in the same article they spoke twice more about their release. It gives the feeling that this was something expected, especially after BICI findings and recommendations. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any material available on Bahraini public view/opinion of these individuals? North8000 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph in domestic reaction section, feel free to move it around. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be in American English, but in a few places British English spelling are used. I can fix those if American English is intended, but first need I to know: do you intend that thes be in American or British English? North8000 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few other editors used British, but for me American is the standard. Since I was the first major contributor, then American, of course. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is only about a 1/2 of a sentence in the article about any support of Bahraini people for the crackdown actions. Is this because such support or coverage of such is non-existent? I know that in another article that we worked on together it was (going from memory....I probably have this wrong ) it was added that such support was due to fear that such activists might cause transition to an Islamist or Shia state. Is this applicable here? More generally speaking, is this absence of coverage of such in the article due to such support being non-existent or not covered in sources? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is essentially the same on ground. It's 1/2 sentence in the lead and more in article body:

Government supporters praised the sentences asking for no pardons to be given to the thirteen.[73] Mohammed Khalid, a former MP and a hard-line cleric[74] wrote "God is great! God is great!" on Twitter.[70]

Many Sunnis (who compromise a substantial minority[100]) support the government and see the Thirteen as dangerous revolutionaries that would destabilize the country should they succeed in toppling the monarchy.[61] Government hardliners[18] and Sunni political groups[101] often call for harsh and no compromise approach, including calling for no pardons[73] and death sentences.[101]

When searching for sources about fear of Shia Islamists however, I didn't find those who referred directly to the Thirteen. You can look yourself in articles used as sources to see the weight of coverage for this aspect. The fact that those fears are almost baseless is probably the reason why they're not well covered. How can one fear that Bahrain will be a Shia Islamist country when opposition parties are demanding a western-style secular democracy and had already offered to nominate a Sunni candidate for PM should they win in elections. This is especially true when speaking of Ibrahim Sharif, a secular Sunni who called for a constitutional monarchy, yet he's one of the Thirteen.

As a way to further balance this side, I though we could add an anti-opposition image [2] (Billboard in Muharraq, with pictures of jailed Bahraini Shiite and Sunni opposition leaders with their names written below, right to left: Hassan Meshaima, Abdel Wahab Hussein, Mohamed Muqdad, Ibrahim Sharif, Abdel Jalil Singace and a question mark over a blurred picture depicting a Shiite cleric that reads beneath it "And others." At top, the sign reads: "Disease must be excised from the body of the nation," and at bottom: "We won't keep quiet after today about any mistakes or excesses by those whom abuse Bahrain and its people." (AP Photo/Hasan Jamali)), but it's copyrighted and I'm not sure if it passes fair use criteria (it can't be reproduced, because those billboards were removed following the end of martial law). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not have the expertise on this subject not the ability to know what is available in sources (without spending an immense amount of time) my comments were more trying to do a general exploration of the scope and neutrality of coverage. And one way to do that is to pick a few areas which one would think of these 13 and the crackdown against them? My guess would be that that would be a significant area but I saw little coverage of it. So I was just asking.

My advice on that image is that it represents a significantly-held viewpoint to put in in and if not not. I woud think that a solid fair use-rationale would be not too hard to do. You'd need to explain what it's about in the caption. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry if my comments felt a bit distasteful or aggressive. I of course feel grateful for your review and take your comments as a way to improve the article. The thing is I simply couldn't find more coverage about this aspect. As for the image, I think it would be very nice (and illustrative) to put it along with another image showing support for them. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all.....I didn't see anything you wrote as even the tiniest bit distasteful or aggressive. I was just explaining that (long story short) I am mostly just seeking o have a conversation with you on this and not to make specific content decisions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads me to this question.....(and long story short why it is wiki-sound for me to ask it i this way. In your honest opinion, do you think that anytime significant has been left out or under-covered regarding the feelings of Bahrainis regarding the 13? North8000 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding content in the article no. But regarding media coverage, yes and this is not limited to this article; there is a feeling among many that Bahrain is under-covered compared to other Arab Spring countries. There is lack of in-depth coverage, partly because the government restricts journalists. BTW, I'm struggling with the images; last night I somehow uploaded over 1GB via Torrent, but couldn't upload 2.8MB via the Commons and Wikipedia.Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Passes this criteria. I had some questions regarding coverage of opinions of Bahrainis towards them, and they have been handled and responded to. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria. I had some questions regarding coverage of opinions of Bahrainis towards them, and they have been handled and responded to. I think that inclusion of that cartoon is borderline but not a significant issue. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has ~~three~~ images. No non-free images, so no use-specific rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Good Article. Congratulations on an excellent article! I will implement the details shortly. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

Congratulations! This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. I am "duplicating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded. Nice work! Sincerely North8000 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]

Hooray! and by this all my GANs are now GAs! Thank you very much for your reviews :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a lot of excellent work. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bahrain Thirteen. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bahrain Thirteen. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]