Wikipedia

Talk:Al Wefaq

Latest comment: 16 years ago by 155.245.110.107 in topic Major article cleanup
Learn more about this page

Anti-Al Wefaq bias

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This article is heavily biased against Al Wefaq. It looks like Bahrain government propaganda trying to denigrate Al Wefaq. --Sadadi 18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Misunderstanding of the term POV, which is not the same as bias. Please refer to the wiki article, WP:POV, on the use of POV before citing this. The immediate reference to conspiracy theory to justify the POV is the default Middle East response to an anything that goes on in the region - be it a war or seemingly the editing of a wiki page. Grow up. Something Changed 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean to say that this isn't POV?:
However Al-Wefaq did put forward candidates for the municipal elections that same year - giving an indication of the type of policies that Al Wefaq MPs will pursue when they enter parliament in this year's elections after the party announced that it was ending its election boycott.
This is your "point of view" about the future, not NPOV. --Sadadi 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
If this is the justification for describing the article as NPOV then this demonstrates a failure to understand the meaning of the term. It is not a POV assertion that a party's current policies give an indication of its future policies, especially if it continues with the same rhetoric and ideology. Every single political party in the world is assessed on the nature of its current policies - and these are taken to give an indication of its future policies. It is a perfectly reasonable statement to make - indeed it is a statement of the obvious. Therefore removed POV. Rick James Style 12:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
The article isn't biased, it simply states the actions of the group. It's not our fault that the only info we could find was on actions commonly considered racist and sexist. --Calibas 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
This article is completely biased! I am from Bahrain and i know for a fact this is complete utter bull, 1,500?? their demonstrations are 10s of thousands! every single village in Bahrain supports them! and about the underwear hanging on cloths line and the naked lingerie manneiquins it was prompted by Salafist Islamist in the Parliament, Jassim Al Saeedi, just fast google it, and the list goes on and on, oh and the main history of how we got the new "elections" is crap too, it makes it sound as if the king forgived all those who caused violenced to start a new page instead of the real story, he had presure to do so and he made a law to "protect" all the police that took part in torturing hundreds of Bahrainis. check ur facts, this is ridiculous. - Sorry this is the first time i ever post something like this here and no nothing of the guidelines, just had to do :).

Major article cleanup

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Flamebate!! Articles like this one gave Wikipedia its bad name. It reads like something written by someone who really really REALLY hates the agendas of Al Wefaq. Please...If you want to add something to this article, don't include your own opinions in it. You can be really descriptive and show no opinion at all. This is what encyclopedic content should consist of -- not a bunch of attacks and criticisms that lack any kind of descriptive nature. If you have criticisms, feel free to make a new section in the article and fill it till your heart's content with criticisms. Let's call it the "Criticisms" section OK?

I have corrected the grammar of the article as it showed poor command of English. I removed all biased criticisms and any points that were pure fabrications and did not reflect the true nature of Al Wefaq on the political scene. Finally, I added more informative points to the article.

You can be bold and add anything to it but PLEASE DO NOT revert my changes without discussing anything here first. I will keep my eye on this one for quite sometime. I have also removed WP:POV after the cleanup.

I still feel that this article needs re-writing from scratch but I don't have the time to do this.Yousifnet 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC) —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Reply

Most of your changes have improved the article and agree if people want to make things up they shouldn't use wikipedia, however I was concerned that you have deleted sourced content on the grounds of a 'clean up'. That's always a bad sign in my book.

I can't see how references to Al Wefaq's policies can go in a 'criticism' section, as they can't be said to be criticisms as these are initiatives it has advocated - lingerie mannequins etc. If they were responses then yes agreed absolutely, and think the view of the human rights group should go there if section created. Btw, use of terms like 'slammed' clearly POV and removed.

Look forward to your response & dialogue. Treble Six 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC) —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Reply

Ok, maybe I should have given a more detailed explanation of what I've done. First of all, most of the so-called 'sourced content' was pointing to dead links. There is nothing when you click on them -- Just the main page of Gulf Daily News. How could I know that these links used to point to real stories? How could I verify that what is being claimed has been discussed in the Bahraini press before?

As mentioned before in the Talk section above me by another user, the lingerie thing was something proposed by Salafi MP Jassim Al Saeedi and NOT Al Wefaq. Clearly, whoever put that on the article lacks any real knowledge of the Bahraini political scene. Similarly, the issue of one-way windows and racial segregation is just preposterous. I would ask you to read the cited articles and understand them and then think whether the conclusions in this article are unbiased description of the situation. Besides, these suggestions did NOT come from Al wefaq but rather from some municipal representative who may or may not be affiliated with Al Wefaq and certainly does not reflect the stance and position of Al Wefaq society as a whole.

Besides, what purpose does mentioning such subliminal issues as the lingerie thing serve other than damaging and attacking Al Wefaq? Seriously, we are discussion somebody's position on showing lingerie now!? How ridiculous is that?

I know this little rant may sound like I'm defending Al Wefaq but I am really not. Wikipedia is not the place for posting attacks on political parties. The Wikipedia entry on Al Wefaq should be descriptive. It should mention the main goals and agendas of Al Wefaq, perhaps also mention prominent figures in the party and a little on the history and how it started. If someone has any criticisms they could be mentioned in a separate section. ––Yousifnet 06:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

First thing is that I can see that your not trying to defend Al Wefaq, but to ensure that the article conforms to wikipedia's guidelines, and I agree absolutely that this article, like every other on wiki, has to be based on verifiable sources containing relevant information. You were right to delete the statements based on unverifiable sources, but I do not understand why you have also deleted links to verifiable content - that related to the call for removal of non-Bahrainis from manama so I've restored that.

For what its worth I'd also agree that if this municipal representative isn't related to the party then there's no justification for including statements related to lingerie mannequins, likewise the reverse is true - and in fact this councillor is a representative as you can see if you visit the group's website. But since the original claims aren't verifiable this is irrelevant.

On a more general point I can't see how it can be considered a 'criticism' to draw attention to statements by representatives of a party. By its very nature it can't be included as criticism since its the views by the party's own officials. Whether we find their views to be ridiculous or offensive is a subjective judgement on our part, and shouldn't come in the way of the content that wikipedia includes. Neither can it be regarded as trivial to include representatives' statements calling for bans on this or that, since it says something about priorities and where the party's coming from.

At the moment the page already fits into fairly straightforward sections and so I've divided it up, which should allow content to be added more easily. I think there's a lot of room for more background information and the history section needs to be expanded etc.

Treble Six 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let me just add to that - there's not enough information on the page to justify dividing into sections so abandoned that. Treble Six 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC) —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Reply

Fair enough; you made a strong argument. --Yousifnet 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good news. Was able to restore the links re lingerie mannequins and other material formerly deleted. Treble Six 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the article is biased. Although all the points mentioning their restrictions on civil rights may stay as long as they're verifiable, there should be more emphasis on Al Wefaq's role in fighting corruption and encouraging democracy in the country. --155.245.110.107 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

racial discrimination has no sources

edit

This section, in 'Ideology':

The party's policies on race came under scrutiny when its most senior elected leader, Manama Council head, Murthader Bader, called for the removal of South Asian nationals to other parts of the country, away from Bahraini families. Racial segregation it was argued would best address tensions between locals and third world expatriates that saw race riots against immigrants in March 2004. In 2006, the call was reiterated by Manama councillor Sadiq Rahma who said that Asian labourers 'make the neighbourhood dirty' . In 2007, Deputy Abdullah Al A'ali, a party representative in Bahrain's lower house, reiterated the call to move South Asian nationals away from Bahraini neighborhoods. [4] The effort has been criticised by Bahraini human rights groups as a 'a violation of basic human rights' .

has no sources other than the one I added (number 4). This is quite problematic, and I propose erasing most of it unless we can find the original sources. I would guess that the 'racial discrimination' angle is false, and that the basic idea is a defense of 'Bahraini culture', about which there is wide agreement among Bahraini political groups.Haberstr (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Update - Attack on Al Wefaq headquarters by Bahrain police

edit

Washington Post: Bahrain police attack Shiite opposition headquarters, break up weekly meeting by force — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahraini Activist (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al Wefaq. 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) 01:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Al Wefaq. 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) 11:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Wefaq. 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) 21:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Wefaq&oldid=1198266185"