Jump to content

Talk:Bloody Thursday (Bahrain)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Bloody Thursday (2011))
Good articleBloody Thursday (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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 5, 2012Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 17, 2015, February 17, 2018, February 17, 2021, and February 17, 2024.
Current status: Good article

Comment on images

[edit]

There are two image related issues here.

1. I don't think that the gallery adds to the article to sufficiently meet WP:Galleries. If it is kept, it needs to be trimmed and the images need to be given captions.

2. The images of the deceased people are unnecessarily graphic. You can get the point across without using most of them, and the last one especially. I'll also note that some of the images come from http://bahrain.viewbook.com/, which while claiming a CC-BY-3.0 release, hosts a number of images that have watermarks to various other sources, and a few images that are scans from older photographs. In short, I wouldn't use anything from http://bahrain.viewbook.com/.

Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to point out weak points in the article before any review has taken place :)
1. I admit this is the first time I read WP:Galleries and I agree it doesn't add much to the article. Would it be better to link to commons using {{Commons category||Bloody Thursday}} or using the current one found in "Gallery" section?
2. Yes, the images are graphic, especially the last as you pointed. I think they should be kept, since they show the 'bloody' part of this event, but they should be hidden and only viewed when clicked on (perhaps you could show me how to do that?).
3. Most of images taken from http://bahrain.viewbook.com/ are exclusive to that website and contain full image details with high resolution. However as you pointed a number of them have watermarks.
a. Pictures with watermarks which say "Lewa'a alnasr" are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 [1], the photographer only posts them in Bahrain Online forum. I have contacted him and taken permission in private and also asked him to provide the permission in the topic as he did in the previous link. If it's necessarily, he promised to provide specific images without watermarks if asked. You can check this search result for more of his images.
b. Pictures with watermarks which say "www.wattani.in" are technically released into the public domain, because the owner of the website closed it in February/March 2011 out of fear and released all copyrights.
However, this doesn't mean I won't take down specific images if you find that they specifically have copyright violations. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 09:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

last revert

[edit]

I couldn't insert edit summary due to clicking "Enter" by mistake. It was because reference spoke about 70 persons missing and army forces carried machine guns. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bahrain Bloody Thursday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lihaas (talk · contribs) 10:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC) also caveat, i had previously updated the main bahraini uprising when it first started but have barely touched it since (i believe that was before the nominator came to WP, or at least when he was new)[reply]

First off the bat:

  • Sources are Verifable and RS (though for Bahraini sources like the Mirror I would suggest adding te caveat as it could be pov in the polarised atmosphere.)
How about "according to..." Either name th eoutlet or "bahraini media"? Otherwise no probs here.
I've already added "according to" to the line supported by Bahrain Mirror. Al Wasat is used too often for this to be a good change. For instance look at this paragraph:


Its two references are Al Wasat. Other examples of its use are citing witnesses or injured protesters/paramedics and there are no exceptional claims made that aren't covered by other sources. I've even mentioned that some injured protesters were interviewed by Al Wasat. The paper claims it is independent. CPJ and FT among others also name it as independent. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, i dont think eveyr instance would need that. But perhaps one mention...more importantly , what is the Mirror's stance? just read first sentence in reple See Marikana_miners'_strike#16_August_shooting for varying accounts.
 Done. The section is now divided into three subsections: Eyewitness and journalist accounts, Health worker accounts and Government accounts. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • user has a history of being neutral in edits that could be decisive. Even of itself the page looks neutral. Doesnt accuse one side and citing as fact but gives due caveat such as "the government says..." I would add that the EL videos should indicate who the source of the video is. It also has a "govt account" which should automatically mean there is another account and should be labeled as such.
  • There is government account section because almost everyone (witnesses, journalists, doctors and opposition) was reporting something and the government was reporting something else, so I though it would be better to give it a separate section. I've modified the text of the first external video so that it indicates this was aired on Bahrain TV, the other video is of unknown YouTube account. I don't understand what you mean by giving due caveat, could you give more examples? Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, and i agree, i just feel it could be open to pov for UNDUE highlighting of 1 section. In regards, int should then say who mentions what and who made the video, which youve done mosly. However, the unknown account at Youtube is not RS then and like the egypt page it should be removed.
Which is the UK -based channel that was hacked by the govt from Bahrain? They could be used as RS.
 Done. Removed the second video. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • no tags (and since the user considers this his jewel (and is neutral) i believe those will be taken off pretty quick when answered)
    Resolved
  • no warring, page has also settled to few edits a month so its not current with large changes expected
    Resolved
  • Article seems re-written with cites, the main user tends to do this (which is a +_) Where needed quotes are given, however, certain phrases like "police who attacked him as "gang of thugs", determined to "clear that square, tonight, ahead of any protest on Friday" need to attribute whats in quotes. And also stuff like "...said" needs to be consistent in how the quote is introducesd/attributed.
Resolved

In terms of organisation, the "naming" is too small a section, perhaps it can be a subsection of "background". Also a general overview for overlinking, etc would be nice. But the article is comng along nice. ENGVAR seems to be to the USA? Is this appropriate? Im not sure. Article seems focused enough for necessary details to the reader. Nominator can see Bloody Thursday this

Resolved

Also a few sources in the infobox would help so for issues liek "victims" and "participants". One key ossue is the possible (and likely) pov of significance.) That needs to be retitles and due caveat given. Also EL is much too long.

Some sources in infobox for "Number of participants", need a copyedit there too. Attack type is "raid" time is a consequence not a type. "Target" source? and 24-hr time clock doesnt need "am".(Lihaas (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Resolved

Also couple of refs seem off. Also, disamb is not orking on my comp bu t try this too

 Done. I've added a {{registration required}} to NYT references. Other than that I don't see any problems with refs and there are no disambiguation pages. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

comment Article is coming along nice, changes being made promptly. Im going to give it a quick overview piece-by-piece, then ill post here if there are issues before approving. (perhaps in a day or 2 it should be okey, if those are met)Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article needs a copy edit: eg: "demanding release of detained protesters" is in the first section which is missing the word "the". Could be more.
 Not done
Done now. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see for overlinking (i just removed 1, twice)
 Not done
I'm done with overlinking already (see above); I left this one on purpose. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs need to be consistent. (which is key on FA) Eg- in naming section, one ref uses format with the article/url tags and one is wholly written out.
It may not be just one though. Quite simple to corrent. Remove curret to bare URL and use reflinks.Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First time I know about this reflinks application. Anyway, there were two more refs fixed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done
I've fixed the non-consistent refs manually. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in "pre-dawn raid" section perhaps move some images around. Is there an imge of Salmaniyya? We could add that in the section. Good pics, but a little clustered. + the captions in quotes need to be explained if needed, though i think prose on its own would suffic. I just changed "pre dawn raid" to "Reaid" as there was only one. I also removed the redundant mention of "am".
  • There is an image for a protest in Salmaniya hospital in the "Salmaniya hospital" subsection. There were images for the hospital it self, but they were removed from Commons due to "Freedom of Panorama" non-applicable in Bahrain. I think we'll lucky that a resident of Abraj Al Lulu donated all those images. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. It would be nice to right./left align and sprean images though.Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed some captions. I like the current alignment of images and find it fine. Do you have specific suggestion(s)? Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The images are goo, b ut a little cluttered, esp. in "aftermath". Try moving the alignment of something.
Also some of the caption dont attribute the qutes. We dint need quoted to just a media souce, if someone notable said so then it would be okey with the attribution. (eg- the salmaniiya protests caption)(Lihaas (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Fixed the caption and removed one image from "Aftermath" section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • Also the refs to the B ICI report with page numbers should be in the ref instead of listing the page number as a superscript. For second uses of the ref you dont need to put the whole link.
  • The RP template (which you refer to) is "a solution for the problem of an article with a source that must be cited many, many times, at numerous different pages. It is an alternative to the more common method of using shortened footnotes, that does not require the reader to follow two links to see the source." BICI report is cited 27 times mostly for different page numbers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was only suggesting that, but the seemingling random number attachsed as superscript is unusual and without reason for understanding. It confusedme too, till i saw the refs.Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a better option. Making the report one reference where all pages are listed will make it very hard to verify information and on the other if every set of pages are given a separate reference we might have up to 15 redundant references. I'm not sure if shortened footnotes is applicable in this situation (never used it) as we have web references. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You dont need to put the whole ref. For example, the first instance woudl say the whole thing to the BICI report with all details, the nxt instances would simply say "BICI report, p. X"(Lihaas (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
As I have said above, I think this will just create many redundant references (which isn't any better than the RP template). If you can show me how this would work in a sandbox, that would be good. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, i cant find what i sought (not sure which page), but heres what it would look like:
1. Report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI Report). Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. 23 November 2011. p.1.
2. some other ref
3. some other ref 2
4. BICI Report. p. 1300.
5. BICI Report p. 100,000.
This is in the MLA ref gide, which can be found across the web
Check it out now. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneLihaas (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful not to stray offtopic. If the UK's reaction is to the uprising in general it shouldnt be here (As in the arms exports). Lead shoul refelct the article, so UNDUE references to a few specific countries would be npov.
  • UK reaction reads as a reaction due to this specific raid as it is mentioned in the same article describing the raid and I believe could be the situation for the rest as well. As for the lead, it mentions GCC counties, so no need to mention UAE foreign minister reaction again. Same for France and Germany as we already mentioned the EU reaction, which is similar, while on the other hand UK reaction was a bit more and thus worthy mentioning. I've expanded it a bit to include rights groups and international observers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, it maybe but something like "The UK government announced that in light of the unrest" seems to the generic unrest and not the incudent of itself. As with the closing of the embassy. Perhaps re-word if its from this event.
Also the US mention (granted fifth fleet makes it notable, but hthat should be mentioned)(Lihaas (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Fixed the first one. The US fifth fleet is mentioned in the last line of US reaction. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
  • Also italics for the NYT but not AJE?
Okey, thats dodgy. Not sure wht precedent to follow and from where.Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here WP:ITALICS. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Resolved
  • Tony Mitchell is English instructor who lived in Lulu towers. You can read about his experience here. It seems uploader (who is an activist in Bahrain Watch) took permission from him. Mitchell also stated "I was contacted... by e-mail, asking me for permission to use my YouTube videos. I immediately said yes; the more people who saw them the better." Viewbook is clearly licensed under CC BY SA 3.0, all images have metadata and all except for one were never published before. As for AJE, yes they're all licensed correctly as indicated in their Flickr account. Al Jazeera are pioneers when it comes to licenses, they have http://cc.aljazeera.net/ showing all their CC licensed content (including many videos). Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, seems resolvd Tony Mitchell's statement says "I was contacted by CNN and the BBC" not sure if thats pen to anyone.
also dont see copy info for viewb ook?(Lihaas (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Removed the video. Viewbook license is displayed at the right and bottom of the screen [4]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Non-reviewer comments

[edit]

There doesn't appear to have been any action on this review for over three weeks, since the nominator responded to an issue raised by the reviewer. What is the status here, and can further progress be made? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details above done. Im reviewing the table belowLihaas (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Largely done but such instances as "Bahrain's top Shia leader " is vague with the mention of "leader." What is his title/function? Other fixes may be needed. Perhaps another set of eyes could do a quick review.
update im working on cleaning it up. In the next 30 mins it should be virtually read to go.
there are a lot of gfragments like "The SMC was seen as a safe place for the opposition protesters to go", im cleaning some up but unsure of ones like that. Ive also left some tags of what i couldnt answer. Possible copyvio in Ashton's comments (no quote) as well the state reactions. The article did need a complete review that wasnt thre.Now sorted
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Im unsure of the colour codes for the quotation box (though it is highlighted in an appropriate way and not repeated in article).AGF on this
Sectioning and organisation is sorted per discussion and overlinking and tweaks are also sorted per discussion.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Per above the sources are now formatted accordingly and references are aplenty. I only tweaked the further readings just now.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I just added the caveat for the "analysis", otherwise its attributed and what was not has been corrected in accordance with the above. The possible pov of one-side is certainly not present as due mention is given for who said what and cited.
2c. it contains no original research. see above
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article is on the event of the uprising, with only brief mention for context in the background with internal links for more in accordance with precedence for such articles. It clears the topic on hand and doesnt stray (previously had expresed concern but its sorteD)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). see above
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. There were some possible issues as mentioned above, but that hs been satisfied and changes were made to maintain npov
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. no edit wars, changes are also discussed when needed
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are either clearly marked on the WP image page, or explained (As in above) about fair-use such as for Al Jazeera, viewbook and Tony Mitchell
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images/captions were altered in accordance with the discussion above
7. Overall assessment. Good to go pending the top-section of this tabe

Medics trails

[edit]

I think that Bahrain health worker trials is closely related to this article, however I couldn't decide where should this be mentioned. I just figured that keeping it in "See also" would be fine. Other suggestions are welcome. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bahrain Bloody Thursday. 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) 20:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloody_Thursday_(Bahrain)&oldid=1208552658"