Talk:Day of Rage (Bahrain)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Day of Rage (Bahrain) 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 13, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 9, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that one protester was killed after security forces attacked protesters in Bahrain's Day of Rage?
WikiProject Bahrain (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 05:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article looks great, it's really interesting and informative. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a review. I'm putting it on hold for the moment because of concerns about neutrality, completeness and the writing style. I have left comments below, but don't be intimidated, most of them are really quick fixes to specific sentences. A lot of them are just style and wording, so if you don't end up taking my advice on all of them that's not a deal breaker. But I think taken together the issues with writing make this not meet the well written criterion at the moment.

Thanks! It's very nice to see an admin and human rights activist reviewing one of "my" articles!
  • I'm concerned about the neutrality of the article. It's a little tough to judge because I'm also very sympathetic to the protesters, it's hard to imagine not being! But certain words do ring alarm bells e.g. protesters "demand" or the government "claims". I've edited the article myself or brought up concerns about some of these below. I'm concerned overall that the information included comes more from the point of view of the protesters. On the other hand, it's great that you've included so many factual sources, e.g. mentioning the human rights ranking of the country rather than a more subjective assessment. Quotes are good when you're talking about a point of view, e.g. what the protesters are demanding. How about we address the concerns I've brought up here, then I can reread the article and get a second opinion if I'm still not sure?
Although I agree with your point about the use of "claim", I don't see anything wrong with "demand", but I don't mind changing it to something like "call for". You see, English isn't my native language so I may not see the differences as clear. I also will be rereading the article again to check for neutrality.
Well you certainly couldn't tell English is not your native language from reading this article! I'm not sure about 'demand' either, so I'm ok with letting it stand. I mean, you hear in neutral sources about "these are the protesters' demands" and so on. I do think demanding 'justice' and 'freedom' are kind of pushing it though! delldot ∇. 00:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks for the compliment. Now there are no uses for either words (as demands) in the article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done What are sound grenades or sound bombs? There's no article, maybe just a quick parenthetical to explain what they are.
They are stun grenades.
  •  Done The sentence Some opposition parties supported the protests' plans, while others did not explicitly call for demonstration is not discussed in the body of the article. I think that'd be really good info to include, and info in the lead should also be in the article in greater depth.
Did you read the last paragraph of "Calls for a revolution" section?
Derr! Sorry, don't know how I missed that. delldot ∇. 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done In the infobox, I'm not sure if this is NPOV: Causes: Corruption, discrimination against Shias, unemployment, slow pace of democratisation and Inspiration from concurrent regional protests. Goals: ending economic and human rights violations, fair elections and freedom. Maybe at least a citation for this, or a quote?
Hold on for this one.
Should be fixed now.
  •  Done Is there no estimate for the number of security forces in the infobox?
The number was simply not released to public or at least I've never saw it mentioned anywhere.
Never even a rough estimate? delldot ∇. 04:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If you read BICI report pages 68, 69 and 70 which detailed the events of 14 February, you'll find that protesters' numbers were described in great detail, where as there is no one estimate for police. Al Wasat local newspaper gave estimates for protesters only as well. The only mention for number of police during the day was when describing the events surrounding death of Ali Mushaima in page 69 of BICI where it says 8 policemen had to deal with 800 protesters (funny thing is that in page 229 -describing the same event- it says 6 policemen had to deal with 500 protesters :p). I finally found one estimate from PHR report. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! delldot ∇. 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done This sentence is kind of stuck onto the paragraph in Background: Iran has historically claimed Bahrain as a province,[4] but the claim was dropped after a UN survey in 1970 found that most Bahraini people preferred independence over Iranian control. Maybe a transition sentence to explain how this is significant in the background of this conflict? Dates might be good too.
I think the previous sentence should explain that. It elaborates on the history of Iranian-Bahraini relations. If I would change anything, I'd add a simple reference that most of the opposition are Shia and that Iran is a Shia regional power.
Yeah, you're right, this is fine. delldot ∇. 04:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done This wording sounds POV: demanding social, economic and political rights.
It's paraphrased from BICI report "During each of these decades, even before the appearance of social media, people demonstrated for what they believed to be their political, economic and social rights." Feel free to reword it.
I think 'reforms' is good. delldot ∇. 04:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done This sentence is difficult to read, maybe split into two: However, two years later the constitution was suspended and the assembly dissolved by the late Amir after it rejected the State Security Law which gave police wide arresting powers and allowed individuals to be held in prison without trial for up to three years.
Human rights
  •  Done This sentence is repeated in the next subsection, maybe merge it into there since this paragraph is mostly about international rankings: However, by 2007 torture began to be employed again.
  •  Done This just links to the generic concept, not an organization: The Freedom of the Press classified Bahrain in 2011 as "Not Free".
Whoa. One big mistake from me. I searched for like 30 minutes for the reference used for 2006 Index with no result. Finally I figured out that it was actually a Wikipedia article [1] which I also used in another article. Should be fixed now.
Shia grievances
  •  Done Unclear sentence: the government has reportedly imported Sunnis from Pakistan and Syria in an attempt to increase the Sunni percentage. percentage of what, the population? Imported? I usually think of importing goods, maybe there's a better word?
Yes of population. Bahrain citizens are only ~535k so adding something like 65-100k Sunnis can be a game changer. It is probably a good idea to include more info about demographics, but hey this isn't a FAC and I don't have much time. I changed "imported" to "naturalized", which is the local expression used.
Yes, the numbers would be good, consider adding it when you find a source. The first sentence does mention the Shia majority though so I'd say it's ok for now. delldot ∇. 04:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Numbers added. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
2010 crackdown
  •  Done citation needed: In the summer of 2010, authorities launched a two-month-long crackdown campaign against opposition activists, arresting more than 250 individuals including 23 leading activists, most of them members of Haq Movement and Al Wafa' Islamic party. also, needs clarification: does 'most of them' refer to the 250 or the 23?
  •  Done might this section fit better above the human rights section?
Sure why not.
  •  Done This section doesn't mention any protests about economics, but in the political history section it says people have demanded "social, economic and political rights". What are some examples of economic rights people have demanded?
End of unemployment and providing housing [2].
Ok, of course there's the big paragraph about unemployment. Maybe that could be trimmed a bit, e.g. just offering a range in a single sentence rather than multiple sentences with different estimates? e.g. unemployment was estimated at between 15%[1] and 30%[2]
Check it out now.
Great. The website source is not the greatest per WP:PRIMARY, but not a huge problem either. Maybe you'll find a better source as you continue to improve the article. delldot ∇. 08:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Calls for a revolution
  •  Done This sentence is too long and difficult to understand: It was also the ninth anniversary of the Constitution of 2002, which had brought some of the promised reforms such as an elected parliament, but opposition activists considered it going back on reform plans, because the upper house forming half of the seats was completely appointed by king and the parliament did not have the power to elect prime minister.
I've shortened it.
Oh, I didn't mean for you to take out information, just to separate the sentence into multiple sentences. I think the present sentence is not informative enough, It was also the ninth anniversary of the Constitution of 2002, which made opposition feel "betrayed" by the king. It leaves you wondering, what did the king do? Why did they feel betrayed? I added back in the old sentence with some edits, what do you think? Is this still accurate? delldot ∇. 04:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep it's fine. I just moved two references to the end to support it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Avoid passive voice when possible: A Facebook page which had 14,000 "likes" calling for a revolution and a "day of rage" in Bahrain on 14 February was blocked Who blocked it, Facebook? Or the government?
Events leading to the protests
  •  Done I replaced "August crackdown" with Manama incident, please revert me if that was wrong. Were the people they were offering to release really children? Like, younger than teenagers? Otherwise, probably 'youth' would be better.
I replaced it with "minors" as the source mentions.
  •  Done I'm not sure "expressing solidarity" is NPOV, might need to ask another editor for input.
I don't mind changing it to "expressing support" or "rallying in solidarity". I used the latter.
I like the former, I wasn't sure about the word "solidarity". I'll go ahead and change it. delldot ∇. 04:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done I don't think this is NPOV either: At night, police attacked a small group of youth who organized a protest in Karzakan after a wedding ceremony. maybe just be more specific about what police did. Or give a quote from someone saying police attacked.
You're correct, better just to say police fired tear gas and rubber bullets. Also fixed the other mention in the lead.
  •  Done leading to minor injuries to both sides - could we say to both protesters and security forces to be more specific? Or words to that effect?
  •  DoneI don't think this is NPOV: The protesters' demanded … socio-economic justice I think it would help to be more specific about their demands.
Again, this is paraphrased from BICI report "The slogans raised during these demonstrations varied, with some focusing on political grievances and others adopting socio-economic demands." and "As noted above, some of the demands expressed during these demonstrations included revising the Constitution, undertaking political reform and achieving greater socio-economic justice." This is from pages 68 and 70. I simply added "greater" before socio-economic justice.
I liked the reforms idea from above, I've changed it to that, see what you think. delldot ∇. 05:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Many people linked this to government attempts to contain the protests. See WP:WEASEL
Meh, the reference is using the weasel. Anyway, I've rephrased it into "According to Bikya Masr blog, "many people" linked this to government attempts to contain the protests". The source of course isn't the blog it self, but NBC news.
  •  Done Citations needed for each of these sentences: The government says that Ali was part of a group of 800 protesters that attacked eight policemen with rocks and metal rods. The government asserts that the police exhausted their supply of tear gas and rubber bullets in a failed attempt to disperse the crowd, and resorted to the use of shotguns. Witnesses say that that there were no demonstrations at the time Ali was shot.
It is provided at the end, BICI report pages 69 and 229.

I think it would be great to have an "International response" section at the end, to follow the Casualties section, just with responses from governments and heads of state about this day. If there are enough to make a section that is.

There are enough, but it will essentially be same as those in Death of Ali Abdulhadi Mushaima article.
Ok, per WP:SUMMARY we will just want a quick summary of that with a link to the main article. But wouldn't there be more of a response than just to this one death? delldot ∇. 05:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Mushaima's death was the biggest event of the day. Protests are not something unusual in Bahrain, but for people to get killed during them was something really big. Although I've never seen it covered in any reliable source, Hassan Mushaima, an opposition leader threatened that he'd call for the fall of regime if any person was to get killed in 14 February (which he eventually did on 8 March). Also, the biggest reactions were in the following days, especially Bloody Thursday and in mid-March after the Saudi intervention. Anyway, take a look at the new "Local and international reactions" section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to include would be a section on aftermath, or legacy--what came of these protests? What did they turn into? Did groups form, break up, or change? What was sparked by them? How did their nature affect the way the rest of the uprising unfolded? Were the police and government responses to the Day of Rage harsher than they were later, or were they tame by comparison? What happened to the people involved in setting up these demonstrations? I think an interesting way to end the article and make it feel wrapped up would be to give one sentence, "as of December 2012, here's what's going on."

As of December 2012, we're still stuck in a cycle of **** and nothing good happened yet lol. But seriously, I agree with what you're trying to explain and find it good. I hope I can find time to write about it. I've already spent much today.
Well, take your time, I'm thrilled with your response so far and am happy to let you take as long as you want. I'm also going to go back to being a sporadic contributor in January, so no rush. delldot ∇. 04:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I've started writing an aftermath section. Do you think it is too detailed, or is it good? Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think some of the detail could be pared out, maybe just a sentence about each event that has its own article. I had in mind more specifics about what happened as a direct result of the Day of Rage, rather than a summary of what came next (which is also good per WP:SUMMARY). How did the specific nature of the Day of Rage shape events to come? What was the significance of this day as a launching point for the rest of the struggle? What is the legacy of the day (if I can say it like that)? delldot ∇. 08:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah well I just read this after expanding the section. I'll see what I can find. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I searched for relevant articles with no satisfying results. It seems most sources focused on the legacy of the Pearl Roundabout (so many sources are confused and think protesters reached the Pearl Roundabout on 14 February). The events just developed so fast that the "Day of Rage" has become a nation-wide uprising. To me the main legacy of that day was the foundation of February 14 Youth Coalition which used "total decentralisation" to organize protests for the first time as suggested by Abdulwahab Hussain[3]. I'm not really sure what to write and I'm afraid that we could violate WP:SYNTH, because sources seem to refer to the whole uprising rather than just to this day. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall, great work, I think Wikipedia is really lucky to have you working on these articles, they're a valuable contribution. Let me know if you need any help or feedback as you're working on these items. Peace, delldot ∇. 05:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been stockpiling references since about July 2011. So, whenever you feel you want to write about any aspect of the uprising (be it use of tear gas, women role, US & UK role, sectarianism, arrests, casualties ect) or people involved in it, please let me know and I'll provide you with really big bunch of them to write a lone standing article about each. The main problem I'm facing is lack of time. I've worked hard to create and expand articles during summer holiday, but starting from this semester I'm being really squashed by tasks/revision and can't let Wikipedia drive me away like before. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Another minor suggestion: In the leadup section, maybe add a sentence explaining how the free economy was a cause for unrest after this sentence: one of the most important financial hubs in the region and has since held some of the top international rankings in economic freedom[12] and business-friendly countries,[13] making it the freest economy in the Middle East delldot ∇. 04:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I only added this as to show that it wasn't all black and also since I added other rankings. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok, good, I'm glad you're working to keep it balanced. Maybe just a qualifier, like "despite having the most business-friendly economy, protesters demanded..." or something to clarify how this fits in with the rest of the article. delldot ∇. 02:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I've expanded it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The link to ref 1 is broken and I can't get it at Any other ideas for how to find a backup? delldot ∇. 05:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's now ref 5. I think we can replace it with other sources. Will work on this and remaining issues later. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Too bad, I hate to make you take out a ref just because of a broken link. I will ask around and see if anyone knows a way to get an archive other than delldot ∇. 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I've replaced it where needed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've marked off the ones I think are done, if I had a question or something I left it unmarked, but it doesn't mean any of those suggestions are deal breakers. I will let you take your time with this and will read the article in full again once you say it's ready for me to review your changes. Take your time and we can work on it gradually. I'm really impressed with your response so far! I appreciate all your hard work. Peace, delldot ∇. 05:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the commission report would be a primary source, better to use secondary sources that report on it. It's ok to include it, but better not to rely on it so heavily as a reference per WP:PRIMARY. delldot ∇. 02:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain why is BICI a primary source in this article context? The way I see it is that we're not reporting on BICI it self (e.g. how it was formed, how independent or non-independent it was.. etc), we're reporting on other events. The BICI began investigations in July 2011, that's 5 months after 14 February which means they weren't directly involved or witnessed the events and it's definitely not a diary.
They used witnesses, opposition, rights activists and government accounts when describing the events and then added their own interpretations and conclusions. The report mentions a large number of sources it relied on in pages 4 and 5. The reason it is heavily relied on (in this article and others regarding the initial stage of Bahraini uprising) is because it provided a detailed description of the events (not fragmented or incomplete), included viewpoints of the sides of the conflict and revealed some details that the government wouldn't announce (such as the results of Ministry of Interior investigations).
I'm not very impressed by what they've done, since many of it was already known and they did a great deal of public relations to the government. I always try to use other sources when available, but at the time I'm writing this, I've not read any detailed narrative of the events except the BICI. I'm aware about at least one book that would soon be published, but till then we can't simply ignore the BICI narrative. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I can accept that explanation. Using a wider variety of sources is always good, but it sounds like this is fine as a source. delldot ∇. 08:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath and reactions sections[edit]

Looking great, here are some more thoughts.

These sections are very fleshed out now, you've certainly put in a lot of work. I hate to say it but I think the Aftermath one is now too detailed. I think the detailed info on other days of protest, the blow-by-blows of the Pearl roundabout stuff, etc. belong in other articles (if they're not already there). If you're including info, try to show how it relates to the day of rage, e.g. how it's a result of the events of that day, or how the events informed them. We only need to summarize the info that's already covered in other articles. That said I do think the funeral procession and the violence that resulted is valuable info to include. But I think for example this may be too much detail for this article (but great in others): Tens of thousands participated in those rallies and on 22 February the number of protesters at the Pearl Roundabout peaked at over 150,000 after more than 100,000 protesters marched there in the March of loyalty to martyrs.[2]:86–8 On 8 March, unsatisfied by the government response—releasing political prisoners[88] and dismissing three ministers[89]—a coalition of three hard-line Shia groups called for the abdication of the monarchy and the establishment of a democratic republic via peaceful means, while the larger Al Wefaq group continued demanding an elected government and a constitutional monarchy.

It's ok. I've summarized much of it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

However I do think it's good to have enough of a summary to include links to other articles like Bahrain Thirteen. Sorry to tell you to write and now to pare it back down. I can help with this effort if you want.

Well, that one is no more there. Anyway, we have two templates to link related articles, one above and one below. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a POV issue with this: Despite the brutal crack-down...

Nah, even before I trimmed most of the section there was still no mention of say, systematic torture, mock trials and such. Now with the section trimmed, I think this should remain. Also, many reliable sources use it; besides the two mentioned there, here are some: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"Brutal" is a pov term because it's an opinion, not an objective fact. I have changed this to "police crackdown". In general I think it is better to "show don't tell" using concrete examples of what happened, that way the reader can decide whether they think it was brutal or not. delldot ∇. 02:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the reactions of the king and others on February 15 are perfect, that's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to see, because it pertains precisely to the subject of this article. I'm not so sure about Amnesty International (their reaction is kind of always the same, so it's of arguable interestingness that they advocate that the perpetrators of human rights abuses be brought to justice and so on), but they are talking specifically about the 14th and 15th, so it's useful to show that there was immediate reaction. So I guess I would leave it in. I added dates to each of the international reactions to show that they were specifically talking about the 14th, can you check the Arabic language one to make sure the people actually made the statements on those dates? If you could add dates (or any way to show that the people are talking specifically about the 14th and 15th), as I did in the third para, to the second para, that would be great.

Done. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In this sentence, who is he criticizing? The protesters or the government? In reference to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, Hussain al-Rumeihy, a member of Parliament, said it was wrong to copy the events of other Arab countries, because the situation in Bahrain is different. Is there a way to clarify this?

He's basically saying it is "wrong" to do what happened in "other Arab countries". The source then analyzes that he's referring to Egypt. So he is by that saying protests are "wrong" which puts him in the government side. What else does he say, "there are no problems without solutions" and "The honorable sons of Bahrain should stand in one line behind the leadership [of Al Khalifas]". Anyway, in the Parliament there was only one opposition bloc, Al Wefaq (18 out of 80, after getting 63% of votes), while the rest -22 elected and 40 appointed- were pro-government. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed in this citation that they say, "Protesters, inspired by popular revolts that toppled rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, said their main demand was the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, who has governed the Gulf Arab state since its independence in 1971." Staff Writer (16 February 2011). "U.S. concerned by violence in Bahrain protests". MSNBC. Retrieved 26 October 2011.  Is this a vastly inappropriate simplification? If not, I think it would be a great fact to have in the lead, the infobox, and the calls for section. Having a "main demand" as Egyptians did would make the protests seem much more cohesive.

It is simplification, even for the first day before anyone called for fall of regime. The demands, which everyone agreed on during the first day were reforms, the main is probably constitutional monarchy. Resignation of prime minister is essentially within that demand, among others. Later when people started calling for fall of regime the demands were divided into two "roofs", the lower called for "reform [of regime]" (see Manama Paper) while the higher called for "fall [of regime]". Based on that logic we could simply say the main demand was deep reforms including whatever. It is already included in the lead that "they demanded deep reforms and changes", in later sections it's just more detailed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed it wasn't mentioned at all, so I included it in infobox and a section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of getting rid of the see also section, and adding

links at the heads of the aftermath and reactions sections? (I don't know what to do about the book article). It's not required for GA but I know See also sections are a bit looked down upon, it's better to incorporate the links. delldot ∇. 23:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be good, if that article wasn't outdated and needed checking for copyright violations. At the time I created it I though CV meant plagiarism and it was fine to do copy-paste style as long as you linked to the source. I should have checked and cleaned it a while ago.. like long while ago. It is the first on my "Check for CV" to-do.. ugh. I've incorporated the links. The last was a documentary, not a book. I'd recommend you watch it if you didn't; it won many awards and makes me cry every-time I watch it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh oh, that's a big problem, let's get rid of the copyright violations ASAP. Can you check the article and make sure I haven't missed any? I will do as much as I can tonight. Thanks for letting me know.` delldot ∇. 05:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, did you know that you can specify references in {{reflist}} by doing |refs = <ref name="whatever"> blah blah blah so you can have all that at the bottom of the article, and have just <ref name="whatever"/> in the body of the article? It might make for easier editing if you think it's worth the trouble. delldot ∇. 23:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I first encountered this style while reviewing a DYK nomination. I don't think it's worth it, because I usually open two tabs when editing an article and use Ctrl + F to move around, but it might be very useful when working in "hot" articles. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

New comments[edit]

Ok, I'm rereading the article. Can we be absolutely certain that there is nothing copied from or closely paraphrased from other sites in this article? Have you checked it over since you learned about that policy? I need to be certain that this is copyvio free.

It was written few months after I knew about the policy (Feb 2012). I've done about 20 spot checks, all clear. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest when there are technical terms like relative poverty, add a little parenthetical explanation of what the terms mean. You can just use the explanation in the lead of the article (just mention in the edit summary that that's where the wording is coming from).

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to copy it from that article, because it is not sourced and would fail WP:V. I've included definition of poverty threshold. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Go through the article and pick either % or percent and make every use be one or the other for consistency. I think for non-science articles you're supposed to spell it out IIRC.

Working on those. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I have to run. Sorry, now that I'm off vacation and back in town my life is a lot more busy and I have less time to devote to this project. I will definitely get through this review, though. Sorry for making you wait so long. delldot ∇. 02:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's alright, have fun. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


  • I'm not sure this is NPOV unless this is the government's stated intention: the government has reportedly naturalized Sunnis originally from Pakistan and Syria in an attempt to increase the percentage of Sunnis in the population. You could say "in what Shiites say is an attempt..." if you can find a source saying Shiites say that.
  • I've added that with a source. I've also added that: The government rejected accusations of undertaking any "sectarian naturalization policy". Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this Sunnis or all people? According to Khalil al-Marzooq of Al Wefaq, the number of those granted Bahraini nationality between 2001 and 2008 is 68 thousand.
  • You can't determine if they're Sunnis or not based on raw numbers as al-Marzooq did, so it's all Bahraini citizens. But in another interview (here), Ibrahim Sharif says "over the past decade, some 60,000 foreign Sunnis have been offered citizenship.. came up with that number by examining natural growth rates and population increases". Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In a rally against "political naturalization", Sunni opposition activist Ibrahim Sharif estimated that 100,000 were naturalized by 2010 and thus comprised 20% of Bahraini citizens. This guy is a Sunni opposing naturalization of Sunnis?
  • Exactly. Sharif "prefers not to be reduced to a sectarian identity" [10], but anyway this is an interesting/shocking fact. Sharif is secular Sunni (his wife is secular Shia), he is the leader of the cross-sectarian, secular opposition group National Democratic Action Society and is also the only Sunni among the Bahrain Thirteen, sentenced to 5 years due to his role in the first stage of the uprising. (and for that he's the only political figure among Bahrain Thirteen that didn't call for fall of regime, instead calling for deep reforms.) The case of Sharif (and few others) is often cited as proof that the protest movement is not sectarian in nature. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Have to run again. I'm making progress though. delldot ∇. 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Last bit[edit]

  • Can we get a date for when he said this? I can't read the source: In reference to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, Hussain al-Rumeihy, a member of Parliament, said it was wrong for protesters to copy the events of other Arab countries, because the situation in Bahrain is different. delldot ∇. 02:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you've addressed everything I've brought up. I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Good work! Symbol support vote.svg delldot ∇. 22:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, it has been a pleasure. Wish me good luck in today's exam! Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Day of Rage (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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ 2