Wikipedia

Talk:2011 Bahraini uprising/Archive 3

< Talk:2011 Bahraini uprising
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

crowd size

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I added fact tags to the crowd size. "Bahraini activist" removed the fact tags, saying Financial Times (FT) was already cited. I've restored the fact tags (after adding this blurb) to encourage further discussion, but will not revert them again.

  1. FT doesn't allow linking where the referrer is wikipedia. You get harassed to register. Have to search the headline on google to get the article. Giant hassle.
  2. FT cited "the government" and "activists". No names. FT may qualify as WP:RS, but their phantom sources leave much to be desired. Al Jazeera cited a Reuters photographer for 100,000 crowd size.

--76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So what? I still don't get your point. The whole point of reliable sources is to verify. I didn't see anyone before complaining about a reference due to "having to register" or due to not being specific. As long as this is verifiable from a reliable source, then fact tags should be removed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:RS Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis. and in this case I'm questioning the reliability of the estimates of a Reuters photographer or "the government" as stated by FT. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright man (assuming you're male), didn't use FT for numbers and didn't refer to any "governmental" estimate. Check it out. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
On what basis are you questioning the reliability? RS sources like thi s have oversight so no reason to doubt ...unless somethign specific.Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
FT says "the government", BBC says "Opposition leaders", but who from these groups are they talking to? I just want a name. Can remove the fact tag and replace with a who tag I guess. "opposition leaders" is a weasel word IMO. Who did they ask? Protester in the street? The march isn't a secret, no need for unnamed sources. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
BBC were speaking to Khaleel Al-Marzooq, vice president of Al Wefaq. Also here are some of their tweets [1], [2], [3], [4]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
me doesn't tweet, and twitter is not RS. Still, that's a start. Have they published that anywhere? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The Tweets were just extra. BBC were quoting Khalil al Marzooq. Play the video, you'll hear him saying hundreds of thousands of people from the very first seconds [5]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So the opposition rally organizers say 100,000s of thousands.... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Protesters fests toward Pearl roundabout.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Protesters fests toward Pearl roundabout.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Protesters fests toward Pearl roundabout.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes called a revolution

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

An IP address "71.58.199.71" have removed content in the info saying that the uprising is sometimes called a revolution. The references supporting this statement are an Arabic article by Mansoor Al-Jamri calling it Pearls revolution and the other link to a Facebook page which has more than 80,000 likes calling it February 14 revolution. If those references are not enough I can provide more, but discuss first before any removal of content. Bahraini Activist (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A revolution is not nickname you call any event you like. The real meaning of revolution does not apply on Bahrain. The regime is still there and Mansoor Al-Jamri is just an opposition figure not an academic or observer (conflict of interest). Therefore, it should be an uprising not a revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.199.71 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
We are not changing the title from uprising to revolution. We are just stating that it's sometimes called a revolution in the introduction. When searching for "February 14 revolution" in Google.com you will get About 89,000,000 results. When searching for "ثورة 14 فبراير" (the Arabic translation) you will get About 135,000,000 results. While when searching for "Bahrain uprising" you get About 3,570,000 results. Pearls revolution is not a very common name and is sometimes used by opposition figures. This is to show that the term February 14 revolution is very common and thus should be included in the introduction. Bahraini Activist (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
My feelings about this are mixed. On the one hand, clearly no radical change in government one generally associated with a revolution took place. On the other hand, there's clearly a widespread use of the term "revolution" to describe this uprising. Because we go by what reliable sources say and not our own personal interpretations, I guess you can put me down for weak include. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
As long as you're just saying that it is sometimes called a revolution and not trying to say that it is a revolution (since it doesn't appear to meet the common name wording of that), then it should be okay. SilverserenC 17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

this and this articles are somewhat related. Bahraini Activist (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As Kudzu1 said, it wasn't (isn't) a revolution. If it becomes one then include it. Just because some people call it the 14 February Revolution doesn't mean it should be in the introductory paragraph of the article. As BA notes, the two links above are somewhat related, but not actually related. The WP one is a slideshow, and whilst revolution was a catchy term to use in the title, it was used incorrectly (as can be seen by the fact that there are no WP articles that use the term). In the case of the Guardian, "Pearl Revolution" appears to be their pet name for it, but it's not one that any other major outlet seems to use. Bromley86 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a revolution; that's why the title says uprising. However, it's often called a revolution, as shown in links and google search. More support for this naming: [6], [7], [8]. Let alone opposition outlets which only call it revolution. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. I've been mulling over this and the uprising section in the Bahrain main page and both of them have serious NPOV issues. Neutral is not opposition outlets, just as neutral is not Bahrain government sources. I've linked to UK government sources and major news outlets, but I'll evaluate them for spin. Whereas I've seen a load of statements about the uprising that are either (a) unsupported, (b)treat opposition statements as fact (which they might be, but they need to be confirmed by non-opposition sources) or (worse to my mind) (c) are apparently in there just to include a link to a negative news item (mainstream or activist). You make my point for me with those 3 links. Without evaluating their neutralness, it's immediately obvious that they're not Reuters/AlJaz/BBC/CNN/major national paper and that none of them mention the term used in this article.
Question. If you were currently in a (neutral!) university studying politics, would your teachers refer to it as the 14 February Revolution? No, they would not. You might refer to it as such, as might activists in general (Arab or otherwise), but that's a different matter. Bromley86 (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
If there are NPOV issues, it's better if you point them out here (in a new section) so more people can work on solving them. If more help is needed, you could contact other editors who are currently working on other Arab spring articles (they will probably show interest here as well).
I'm glad we both agree this is not a revolution (yet), in fact this article by Robert Fisk is very clear on that issue. However, I'm not speaking about changing the title, it's just that the term "revolution" is commonly used to refer to this event and thus should be included in the lead; it's already done with Libyan civil war article. You have a point that none of the references provided used the term "February 14 Revolution", but other terms are being used by reliable sources. Even those who are against the uprising such as Qaradawi referred to it as "revolution" [9]. My opinion is that we change "February 14 Revolution" to something like "Bahrain's revolution". Here are reliable sources to support:

Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Libya was a revolution! That's the whole point :) . A better example (in terms of semantics, rather than as a direct comparison) would be Syria, which is not yet a revolution. I'd have the same objection to any reference to revolution in the case of Bahrain; in fact, the only justification for including the current term is that it may have been the official unofficial name of the initial gathering, and as such is a historical term. I disagree with that, but I'd disagree even more strongly to what looks like a naked attempt to shoehorn the word revolution into the opening paragraph. Revolt is a reasonable fit, but again looks like an attempt to get another term in there as it (a) doesn't add any more than "uprising" and (b) isn't commonly used re. Bahrain.
Revolution: "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed."
Revolt: "to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government." Bromley86 (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I though revolt was short for revolution. Anyway, the point about Libya is that they mentioned the alternative names "revolution" and "uprising" in the lead. The discussion should be about where to insert this info rather than to either include it or not, because it's being used by reliable sources as Kudzu1 have stated. Should we put it in the introduction or create a naming section for this, just like in 2011 Egyptian revolution article or both? It's better if other people share their opinions as well. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I have notified 5 users who had contributed to the article in the past about this discussion. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The non-encyclopaedia, social media that is WP has already called Egypt a revolution when there has been no change but the ouster of the president. (PM et al still there) Which totally makes the word valueless. that said the MENTION of the word revolution as duly called by whoever (and the "syrian revolutionary council" does so too) is fair. I wouldnt even bold it as an accomodation, but with RS and due caveat its notable enough for the lead. (though dont quote google hits as a barometre. Its even more WP = social media, a la twitter "trends". My support goes to "feb 14 revolution" s the proper noun ter,m...its not a national revolution just et.
Incidentally if the uk govt is a "neutral" observer here then so is iran who BICI said is NOT involved...unlike arms funds and political support for the govt from the uk.(Lihaas (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)).
IMHO, it's fine to mention that the uprising has been called a revolution by some people, as long as it is clarified who those people are and the statement is sourced by multiple credible references. In that case, there shouldn't be a problem. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 02:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Incidentally if the uk govt is a "neutral" observer" - My fault for not being clear, I was giving an example of where I've linked to the UK FCO when supporting the Sunni/Shia proportion in an unrelated Bahrain article. My point was that links should be evaluated, even when they are a government or major news source, for bias and to ensure they support the fact/statement in Wikipedia in a neutral manner. Slightly off-topic, except that it supports my assertion that NPOV is deliberately being compromised to slant articles in favour of the protestors. Bromley86 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I see good consensus for mentioning the term "revolution".
  1. However what should be exactly be said? Lihaas suggested "feb 14 revolution", but I didn't find reliable sources to back that. I suggest "Bahraini revolution" and "Pearl revolution" as reliable sources above have used.
  2. Also where should this be inserted? Lihaas says into, so do I, but Bromley86 disagrees calling it "a naked attempt to shoehorn the word revolution into the opening paragraph".
  3. I suggest a naming section to be created where different names can be displayed, whether some of them make it to the intro or not. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
No more comments? Anyway, I guess no one has a problem with adding a naming section, but the first two points need to be discussed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Copying problems

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This article contains multiple instances of copying or very close paraphrasing from a variety of sources. Some examples: "The abrupt U-turn suggests that the US, which has been largely silent over the past month, still wields influence over the tiny kingdom despite its acquiescence to Saudi interests there" is verbatim from this source; "Bahrain’s government suspended the country’s only opposition newspaper Sunday, accusing it of printing false information about the ongoing democratic protest movement and of plagiarizing." and "Al Wasat is the only newspaper in Bahrain without connections to the ruling family, and was one of few domestic news sources for information on the protest movement." are verbatim from this source; and "Most of the opposition and protesters have said they do not want to overthrow the monarchy, but want the ruling family to give up most of its powers to the elected parliament." is almost the same as "most of the opposition protesters had said they did not want to overthrow the monarchy but want the ruling family to give up most of its powers to the elected parliament" from this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing, especially that it led to pulling it from ITN. At least this time it wasn't me lol. Anyway, I'll fix this soon. I wonder why no one noticed these CV's when it was put in "on this day" last February. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This article has been tagged for close paraphrasing from copyright sources for two weeks. In fact some of the content here isn't just closely paraphrased. It is verbatim and in both cases is a violation of copyright. As the article's main contributors have done nothing to address this issue, I am now removing the copypasted/closely paraphrased text. For those who want to rewrite the material, each diff below will show which text has been removed and the source.

– Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note While I have now removed what I believe to be all the blatant instances of copypasting in this article, there may be more, and I will continue to monitor it. I strongly suggest that those of you who are active contributors to this article now go over it with a fine-tooth comb to insure there aren't any more violations. This should be an absolute priority—not creating yet more articles on the subject with yet more copypasting from press articles and other websites. If any further significant instances of copypaste and/or close paraphrasing are found in the current text, I'm afraid that this article will probably have to be blanked and re-written from scratch. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this Voceditenore. Although I was hoping for a rewrite personally. I'm sorry that I didn't check it within time. I'll make this my first priority now improve the article soon. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why are protesters waving the flag of the dynasty they are fighting against?--Reader1987 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a forum, but anyway they're doing it for the same reason Tunisians, Egyptians, Yemenis and other Arab countries are waving their national flags. Libya and Syria are the exception, maybe because both of them were/are hitting on the really deep roots to completely change the regime. Also both countries were/are in armed conflict with the government which is probably the best explanation for using different flags (if I remember correctly, Syrians used their national flag when protests were completely peaceful and only changed it later after armed conflicts occurred).
Also, Barain's pre 2002 flag is almost identical with the current, one with 5 triangles and the other with 8. The old 8 triangle flag was used in the first days of protests, till the pro-government alleged it had 12 triangles and refers to the 12-imam of Shia (i.e. trying to say the protests are sectarian in nature - related blog post). The one before that has 30+ triangles, so protesters would have to create something completely new, which in my opinion would only strengthen the government claim that protesters are backed from "foreign countries". This has been discussed several times in opposition forums, some showed their disgust from using the "Al Khalifa flag", while others (majority) expressed their pride in waving with it and as far as I remember no result was reached despite designing some flags. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. We can include the things said by you in the article, after finding some sources--Reader1987 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Move?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Bahraini uprising (2011–present) Mike Cline (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


2011–2012 Bahraini uprising → Bahraini uprising (2011–present) –

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arabian Gulf

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently reverted Amejel change of Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf. I'm well aware of the Persian Gulf naming dispute and I worked hard to get the Arabs viewpoint represented there. I have reverted the edit, because in the English Wikipedia we use the most common name in English reliable sources, that is Persian Gulf, hence that is the article name, while Arabian Gulf would take you to a disambiguation page. It's totally fine when we call it الخليج العربي in the Arabic Wikipedia, because that is the most common name in Arabic reliable sources so is it fine for Turkish Wikipedia to name it Basra Körfezi (The Egyptian Wikipedia seem to have problems understanding that [10]). I hope my explanation is clear. Have a nice day! Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Improvements to article

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The article needs some serious work to get updated and to cover the topics of the uprising. I will list the sections that I think need updating/expansion/creation. I will also list many references which I have stored in my favorites bar. The first three sections (Naming, background and lead up to the protests) were written recently by me and I think they're good. Some sections will seem like needing a separate article already. Not all references are complete or good as they were collected over long periods of time without specific search. Any ideas are welcome. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are references to the section below, but I think it's better not to add them till we need that to avoid making the article very heavy. Besides this laptop just jammed on me when I tried to open 65 news tabs :p Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Some content was removed, for various reasons. I think it is helpful to display it here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Physicians for Human Rights, Do No Harm: A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic Attacks on Doctors and Patients, http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/issues/persecution-of-health-workers/bahrain/
  2. ^ a b Physicians for Human Rights, Do No Harm: A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic Attacks on Doctors and Patients, (April 2011) https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/bahrain-do-no-harm-2011.pdf
  3. ^ "Sentenced to Death". Gulf Daily News. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 11 May 2011.
  4. ^ "The Appeal National Safety Court confirms the death penalty of two defendants involved in murdering policemen", Bahrain News Agency, 22 May 2011, accessed 25 May 2011
  5. ^ "Bahrain suspends opposition newspaper", The Christian Science Monitor, 3 April 2011, accessed 23 June 2011
  6. ^ "Bahrain tries 2 Iranians, Bahraini in Iran spy case", AlertNet, 12 April 2011, accessed 23 June 2011
  7. ^ "Bahrain Seeks Death Penalty for 7 Accused in Killing of Police", Bloomberg, 25 April 2011, accessed 23 June 2011

New article need

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A new article is need so we feel more comfortable to add content about recent events (2012). We are not anymore in the "uprising" burst of 2011, we are now in a post-uprising repression VS civil right movement. The dynamic is different, a new article is need. Suggestion: Bahraini post-2011 uprising crisis. We should act now while online news provide fresh content on these trials, reconciliation processes, civil right actions, etc. Yug (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. See this Al Jazeera article, it says "the nearly 18-month pro-democracy uprising in Bahrain". Also if you think about it, protests in 2012, most notably on 9 March was larger than those in 2011 and there are still weekly protests where 10s of thousands participate peacefully (the last on 8 June [223]). There are also smaller protests in villages and almost nightly clashes [224] [225] between police (who use tear gas, rubber bullets, stun grenades and birdshot) and youth (blocking roads, throwing Molotovs, stones and iron rods).
What is needed is almost complete re-write for the article IMO. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Then why isn't this happening? At this point, it looks like the uprising is done as of the Spring of 2012 and no other activity has occurred. If other activity is going on, someone should at least take the time to throw in a couple of article references such as " Clashes continue between protesters and the government since the cancellation of the Formula One Grand Prix through September 2012" and simply link to 1-3 source articles in the reference section. Inquiring minds want to know. B.K. (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on that. I'm almost done with the first four months and will hopefully keep updating and you're welcome to help. Most news agencies report it as 19 months long conflict. For example: "nearly 19-month-long crisis" [226] and "he Gulf kingdom has been hit by nearly 19 months of nonstop unrest" [227]. As for your request I guess I'll just add these two lines to the lead for now:

Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I slightly changed the two lines by combining them with 9 March protest and adding the latest mass protest on 31 August. Have a look and tell me what you think. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Andrew Hammond (4 June 2012). "Bahrain says group follows violent Shi'ite cleric". Reuters. The Daily Star. Retrieved 6 September 2012.
  2. ^ "Bahrain forces quash protests". Reuters. The Independent. 25 March 2011. Retrieved 6 September 2012.
  3. ^ Staff writer (25 January 2012). "Bahrain live blog 25 Jan 2012". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved 17 February 2012.
  4. ^ Staff writer (15 February 2012). "Heavy police presence blocks Bahrain protests". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved 17 February 2012.
  5. ^ Gregg Carlstrom (23 April 2012). "Bahrain court delays ruling in activists case". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved 14 June 2012.

2013 Bahrain Grand Prix

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This needs updating to cover the new protests concerning the 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[228]>> Demonstrators clash with police in Bahrain (Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)).

Who Are They?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I can not tell from this what the protestors want, other than the fall of the current govt. Articles such as the Libya one are more helpful. What are the different factions, and what are their relative strength? Western modernisers, religious jihadis, Sunni, Shiite, what? The article would be improved by more information about the players in the game. 2.25.28.194 (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this section down, I hope you don't mind. The infobox does some good job with that, but yeah you got a point. I'll try to tackle this after exams. Unless you beat me to it of course! Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/new-decrees-to-quell-protests-in-bahrain/article4977326.ece. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is this still going on? I haven't heard anything about it in long time. Charles Essie (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: The civil uprising is certainly long over. It seems the last event was the Bahrain Tamarod back in August 2013. I therefor think we should rename it to Bahraini uprising (2011–13).GreyShark (dibra) 06:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The last action seems to be a bomb blast on March 3rd, 2014, so more than one year ago now. https://medium.com/aj-news/bahrains-uprising-remembered-four-years-later-63fd25d9fc3d Currently it seems as if the conflict between government and opposition is mostly fought in the media and in court. Maybe it should be split into Bahraini uprising (2011-13) and Bahraini opposition.--Beliar (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I would support such an action. I can update the timeline chart once the move is done, I've kinda been the custodian of that one for a long time.--ERAGON (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bahraini uprising of 2011. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Bahraini uprising of 2011. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Bahraini uprising of 2011. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's an AFD regarding this page. Mhhossein (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Bahraini protests of 2011. 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) 05:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator might also like to know that MOS:DATERANGE has recently changed and 2011–2017 would now be deemed the most appropriate form. Number 57 22:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bahraini protests of 2011 → 2011–17 Bahraini protests – The initial uprising is over but, as acknowledged by this article, the protests are ongoing. On that note, I would also recommend that the uprising have its own article (just like Bahrain Tamarod). Charles Essie (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The 2011 protest was called the Arab spring. Can we call it Arab Spring protests in Bahrain? Kiwigravity (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose a six year period of protests seems like a bit long for an article titled. If others think it is appropriate, maybe 'Bahranini Protests of the 2010s' or something similar to that. Not to mention that if the protests continue and it is decided to keep them in the same article this would need a move next year as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

oppose This page is about the Arab Spring protest. Maybe the title should be Arab Spring in Bahrain or Arab Spring protests in Bahrain. The new protests are not part of Arab spring, so a new page can be created. Kiwigravity (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there should definitely be a split. Charles Essie (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This page really ought to be split between an article just about the 2011 uprising and an umbrella article about the entire protest movement from 2011 to the present. Charles Essie (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kiwigravity and TonyBallioni: We discussed this above. What do you think? Charles Essie (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe it'd be better if this article talked about the protests and uprising that were mainly in 2011, while another article talks about the unrest in the country that has followed ever since. --KoveytBud (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm proposing. Charles Essie (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Bahraini protests of 2011. 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) 20:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Bahraini protests of 2011–13

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See 2011–12 Iranian protests and its talkpage. It also continued expanding until people, probably related to Iran regime in some capacity, protested, then the article was wrapped back to 2012. With regard to this article, related major protests ended in 2013. The same Iranians are trying to make this article longer and longer. There was anti-Iran regime protest in 2017, e.g. [229] but we don't include that in 2011–12 Iranian protests article.--Psychonot (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bahraini protests of 2011–13. 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) 21:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Bahraini_uprising/Archive_3&oldid=1153581284"