Talk:Nabeel Rajab/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a Good Article review on this article. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

I have a few initial questions.....I am trying to figure out whether or not this has a mild POV issue in the body and the sourcing. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that there is very little coverage of any criticism of him. And the coverage that is there has wording that is very brief, and in a way that there might be concerns of being a "straw-man" version. Is this because such criticism seldom exists / has not coverage in sources? One example is "villain in the eyes of Bahrainis who fear that the protests will bring Shi'ite Islamists to power.". And then, for example, there is zero further content on that item. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your point regarding the "straw-man version", but I'm sure that finding criticism for Rajab in English-language news articles or international reliable sources is very hard. It is much easier to search in pro-government newspapers and media, but one should be careful not to mix smear campaigns such as "accusing him of racism, sectarianism, violence, being an Iranian agent, being an atheist, and a host of other often contradictory things"[1] with genuine criticism such as "anti-opposition factions, including much of the Sunni community, see him as a troublemaker"[2].

Like you've seen in the talk page, this problem was raised before when the article was nominated for WP:In The News last August (see related discussion here). I'd rather stick to what I read in international reliable sources, but if you think this isn't enough, I can always try to dig in pro-gov websites. Currently the criticism we have: the one you mentioned, the one above, formal charges against Rajab, two Public Prosecution statements and Samira Rajab statement. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some overtures to him from the Bahrain governmental figures were briefly mentioned but not really covered. And there is no coverage of any overtures, olive branches or attempts to negotiate from Bahrain or Bahraini officials. Is this because such do not exist / coverage of such does not exist? North8000 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Overtures as in suggestions/initiatives or do you mean responses? An example or two should clear the image. Also, if you find some responses only briefly mentioned, you can list them here and I'll look up the source used to support them and see if there is any more coverage available to be added. Sorry if I misunderstand or don't understand you fully; English isn't my first language. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to re-emphasize, I did not say that any of those items were problems. I was just having a conversation to help me figure ut wheterh or not it has a mild POV issue. And so I was just taking guesses at areas that might be of issue if it did have that problem. And, I was not asking you to go find sources covering criticism of him, I guess what I was really asking is whether you left out or minimized coverage criticism material that you have already found. The item where I was questioning whether or not it was a straw man is the "villian". "Strawman" is phrasing an argument or statement poorly deliberately in a way that is easily refuted. Saying that he is a "villain" is obviously untrue, a much weaker statement than detailed credible criticism of him. Again, I amd NOT saying that that is a problem or needs to be changed; I was just using it to facilitate a conversation such as we are having. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay :) No, I have not minimized criticism (at least not intentionally). I though the word "villian" meant a bad guy, but looking it up now in Google translator, the word has some very strong meanings. I think it would be better to replace it with "troublemarker" which the Foreign Policy used in order to avoid the strawman fallacy. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you noted that English is not your primary language. Maybe this is a fun way to learn some of the subtleties of the language. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that one thing that is not really covered / explained is what general Bahrain public opinion is of him. Actually, the coverage is sort of confusing. The details are that the a large faction seems to support him. And then there is the statement "villain in the eyes of Bahrainis who fear that the protests will bring Shi'ite Islamists to power" which seems to say the opposite. Would it be feasible to add a few sentences on what Bahrainian public opinion is of him or his movement? North8000 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reuters article wasn't clear on who "fear that the protests will bring Shi'ite Islamists to power". I think they essentially mean the majority of the Sunni population, becuase the largest opposition party Al Wefaq is a Shia Islamists movement (albeit internationally recognized as moderate and tightly allied with secular opposition parties). In short, most of Shias (60-70% of Bahrainis) support Rajab, while most of Sunnis (30-40% of Bahrainis) oppose him. Sure this looks like a sectarian stand, but it's deeper than that. Maybe it would be better to lose the Reuters source (to avoid WP:OR or at least mention it after the FP source) and add a simple reference to the demographics of Bahrain. Something like this:

Throughout the uprising Rajab was a "vocal critic of the human rights violations".[26] He was one of the few who kept criticizing the government during state of emergency.[2][56] Unlike other opposition parties who organized protests in Shia villages, Rajab insisted on staging them within the capital.[57] He led many protests,[58] several of them in Manama, putting him in standoffs with security forces.[57] Rajab was named by Al Jazeera English the "unofficial leader of the 14 February movement",[59] The Atlantic labelled him "the de-facto leader of Bahrain's resurgent uprising"[4] and Reuters said he was a hero in protesters' eyes.

Rajab said he was a normal activist and that he was not engaged in planning for protests. Despite acknowledging it was "dangerous and costly", he expressed happiness about his role in the uprising.[4] On the other hand the Foreign Policy mentioned that a big portion of the Sunni community think of Rajab as a troublemaker[11] ((and Reuters mentioned that those who oppose Rajab fear the protest movement would "bring Shi'ite Islamists to power")). Sunnis make about 30 percent of Bahrainis and Shia account for the rest.

Alternatively, we can mention demographics in the background section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Your first paragraph provides an overview based on an understanding. (= summary from sources). Why not just put that in with some cites. ? (?) North8000 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think now? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that that is good. One minor quibble......it assumes that the reader knows some things (or that the reader will presume them) that are never stated. That that Najab is affiliated with Al Wefaq and that Najab is assicated with Shia's. I would suggest a sentence early-enough in the article that says those two things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I added (or readded?) that Rajab is a Shia into the infobox. While Bahrain Center for Human Rights (headed by Rajab) and Al Wefaq are not officially affiliated, both are working toward common goals and are helping each other. For instance, in the Al Jazeera documentary cited [3] Rajab is seen on 20:30 giving a speech at a rally organized by Al Wefaq. So the assumption is correct to an extent. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I think I can add more info about Rajab's anti-sectarian stand and his ambitions in the uprising (he says he has no political goals, he just wants what the people want), but this would definitely take time (I've got my first final exam in a week!). I'd rather leave it for later time. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is immensely important context which is not clearly covered in the article. Maybe you are so knowledgeable on it that you do not realize how few of readers are. What about a few sentences along the lines of what you wrote above, something like:

The majority sect in Bahrain is Shia Islamist, Suni Islamists comprise a substantial minority and hold the top positions of power. The largest opposition party is Al Wefaq which is a Shia Islamist movement (albeit internationally recognized as moderate and tightly allied with secular opposition parties). One source of opposition to Rajab (who has taken anti-sectarian stands) and his movement is the fear (particularly amongst Sunis) that they could bring Shi'ite Islamists to power.

Is this sourcable / a summary from sources? North8000 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've re-written the paragraph with sources. The only thing that I changed is the first two uses of "Islamist". They are Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims. (Islamist is a political term.) Actually I may not be as knowledgeable as you think, because Albert Einstein once said "if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough". Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the template documentation and the wp:mos both indicate that pull quotes are not supposed to be used on quotations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed those to block quotes. With the pull quotes / cquote being a very visible and clear conflict with both wp:mos and the cquote documentation, I don't think I could pass it with those in there. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was told before about these. They should have been replaced sometime ago. I don't see any reason why the block quotes shouldn't stick. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Passes this criteria. Waiting a bit to see if my removal of the pull quote / cquote formatting sticks. I don't think that I could pass it with that stil in there, being an obvious conflict with wp:mos and the cquote template documentation. I'll wait a bit to see if this change is accepted. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

Passes this criteria. Possibly still a bit light on covering opposition to him and reasoning of such, but this is only in a very minor degree. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Passes this criteria. Might be a bit heavy on "things that were wrongly done to him" and a still a bit light on covering opposition to him and reasoning of such, but this is only in a very minor degree. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 12 images, no non-free imagesNorth8000 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

Congratulations! This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! I will implement the details shortly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer