Talk:Nabeel Rajab

Links removed by bot

Those 2 links I posted in External links were removed by Wikipedia bot.

• Picture Album: Nabeel Rajab detention
• Picture Album: Attack on Nabeel Rajab and his mother's house

Do you find anything wrong with them? They don't violate copy right as I've taken permission from the owner, they refer to an offical page of the subject we are talking about, in this case they lead to a photo album in Nabeel Rajab's Facebook profile about 2 topics which were covered in the subject. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Involvement in the 2011-2012 Bahraini uprising

The text describes the “serious facial injuries” that he sustained as well as a brutal beating meted out by the security forces. However video and pictorial evidence does not corroborate this, with one small (mature) bruise on his cheek and a video of him calmly walking away from hospital with no visible difficulty. Even the US spokeswoman pointed out that the facts surrounding the violence remain in dispute, despite the opposition’s claims that extreme violence was used. The government’s reasoning also looks weak but it looks biased to rely solely on the opposition claims. AKhani84 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Rajab's lawyer exaggerated the injury. Showing the image while still putting what he said can indicate to the reader that BCHR employees sometimes exaggerate things, don't you agree? About Gov POV, I inserted all what the sources had, if you have more then add it to the Timeline of 6 Jan. This paragraph is already HUGE for this article, I was planning on summarizing it the same way I did in injuries section in 2011-2012 Bahriani uprising. Bahraini Activist (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea Bahraini Activist, I agree it is much too long and would be happy to help you summarise it, accurately and balanced. AKhani84 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually on re-reading this I think it would be helpful to state explicitly that the BCHR employees tend to exaggerate things (as Bahraini Activist says above). AKhani84 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't say that explicitly; that would be original research. see Wikipedia:No original research Bahraini Activist (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mild POV

This article perhaps over-represents a pro-Rajab POV, and could do with additional mentions of additional govt statements, and making its sourcing to advocacy organizations (even widely respected ones like Amnesty International) clearer. I'll try to pitch in with this myself over the next 12 hours. Khazar2 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts are much appreciated :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there still parts which needs addressing in regards to POV? P.S. Due to your long time experience with human rights related articles, I find your judgments highly creditable. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--I think it's getting better really fast. And thanks, too, for all the work you've put into this one over the past year to flesh it out. Khazar2 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the POV tag. I'm not sure whether you (Khazar2) put that in or someone else, but to note, I don't have a pro or anti Rajab stance and would be happy in helping with others to determine what's POV and how to fix it, if specific examples can be brought. --Activism1234 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I did. Generally speaking, there's three categories of things I'd personally like to see tweaked:

1. Making sure any disputable information sourced only to Rajab or to an advocacy group (such as BCHR) is indicated as such in the text, and reducing the amount of this in the article. If we can't find a reliable source for an incident, it's probably an indication that the incident is trivial enough not to include.
2. Avoiding undue weight to smaller incidents from Rajab's life--minor arrests, harrassment, etc. At this point, we should be able to just find sources about the pattern of harassment without documenting each incident (unless, as above, receiving significant coverage in secondary sources).
3. Including information from the Bahraini government and Rajab's critics where possible.

Do these sound logical to others?Khazar2 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me. I don't know how much help I'd be with finding info from the Bahraini government other than doing Google searches on it, as I'm not familiar with their claims. But I can help out with attributions to advocacy groups (to clarify - are you including Amnesty and HRW in this? Such as "According to HRW, Rajab...") or finding other refs to support that. (have to go for a while now, be back later) --Activism1234 23:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the international groups like AI and HRW are certainly reliable for things like dates of arrests, etc. When they state a judgement like a "peaceful protest", etc., it's probably better to say it's coming from them. Khazar2 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is some info about accusation on Rajab at the end of this article. Finding sources for these government claims is really hard. Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

One POV (to me) that I'd suggest fixing is the infobox that he's a human rights "defender." Is this used on other articles about human rights leaders? What makes one a defender? I'd suggest changing it to "human rights activist," unless there are precedents for this or a reliable reference saying he's a defender.

Also, reference 9 in the lead, <ref name="HRW 7.12.2010"/> does not have such a tag anywhere else in the article, and thus doesn't have any info. It is unclear what link it's referring to. Someone familiar with this reference should insert it. --Activism1234 00:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Aaaargh after you changed the wording, I noticed that the wording still exists in the lead, but there is actually a Wikipedia page called Human rights defender. My mistake. Not sure which way to go now, don't mind either one particularly, and will leave this up to others to decide whether it should be defender or activist. --Activism1234 01:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think your suggestion was a good one. "Defender" has a bit too positive and successful a connotation, I think. Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I realize I'm going a bit Fast and Furious with my edits here. (Dibs on being Vin Diesel). I'm trying to work fast-ish just because this is going to be a much-visited article today, and there seems to be a general consensus for revision. Please feel free to revert anything that you feel I've pulled prematurely, or let me know and I'll self-revert and discuss. Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now removed the tag; everything I was considered about seems to be fixed. Please revert me if concerns remain, however. Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal measures improvements

A few suggestions for improving this section.

1. Since it's likely going to be posted at ITN, perhaps the 16 August legal measures part should be in a new subsection or even section, which can be expanded and updated as events unfold.
2. "On 16 August, Rajab was sentenced to three years prison on three cases of organizing and participating in "illegal" protests, his lawyer said. "It is a very stiff and unexpected ruling, I am surprised. They are peaceful protests, not violent ones", he added." Who is he? The lawyer? Or Rajab? If it is the lawyer, we should remove "his lawyer said" from the first sentence and put it before the start of the second sentence. The position of "his lawyer said" at the end of the 1st sentence seems awk to me - is his lawyer saying he was put in prison? I think that'd be known regardless of what his lawyer said. Is his lawyer saying what's in quotes ("illegal")? If so, perhaps consider "on three cases of, according to his lawyer, organizing and participating in "illegal" protests."
3. The image does not show up. Fixed

I'm going to fix some minor grammar mistakes in the passage as well. --Activism1234 01:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't have any preference for #1. It's definitely the most notable legal problem so far, but I'm not sure we have enough info to expand into a breakout section yet. Got #2 covered; since we have so many supportive quotes, I got rid of the defense lawyer one, added a prosecutor one, and moved up the (indirect) quotation from Rajab himself. #3 was my stupid error, fixed now. =) Khazar2 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup looks better. Also I'm fine with the way it is now regarding the sections, with 2011 and 2012 two different sections. If there's a lot more info on the recent August arrest, we can always break it up, if that reaches the case. --Activism1234 04:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job guys. The article is thinner now, but definitely in a better shape. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree. The article is in a much better state as a result of all these recent efforts. I hope you don't mind me adding to the changes, in particular reducing the number of direct quotes. Too many reduces the impact of the important ones where the actual words used are important (eg legal charges, major statements of principle/opinion, vividly succinct summaries). Opbeith (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

On a first pass, all your changes look to me--thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey, look who we got to contribute! Good to see you there :) I tend to overuse direct quotations to avoid being accused of close paraphrasing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't keep away once someone insisted on rattling my cage elsewhere and got me going again! I completely understand about the quotations use, it's a tightrope act and there are too many people who would rather stick a foot out then help with the balancing act! But reported speech makes it a bit easier to give more coherence to a cluster of comments as well as making the text more readable.

July arrest over tweets

PING!!!

Is this arrest covered in the article? --Activism1234 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, toward the end of the 2012 section. Khazar2 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it referring to the sentence "He was released on bail on 27 June still facing three charges relating to Twitter activity and two about organizing "illegal" protests."? If so, I believe there's a lot more info we can add there using the source I gave. --Activism1234 20:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right. I wasn't reading closely enough; the arrest you mention came after the tweets. My best guess would be that this arrest was for the charges at the August trial? Mohammed CJ is probably the best person to sort out where this fits, you might ping him directly or just wait for him to reply here. Khazar2 (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Pinged. --Activism1234 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This arrest was due to a Tweet. He was kept in jail since 9 July and later sentenced to three weeks due to it. The final verdict of this case is scheduled on 23 August. I've got many sources saved in my personal laptop back home, this case gathered some reactions similar to the current. I'll expand it further tomorrow. Oh and the 16 August arrest section need to be changed to 16 August sentence, cuz he was arrested since 9 July on this case. Many sources can be found in Bahrainrights.org (use sources provided, not the articles) and www.bahrainjdm.org. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I got to go now. Will probably stay away from Wikipedia for a while. Useful references for expansion (by chronological order - some might be covered already): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. In Arabic: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done expanding :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much rights groups mentioned?

I think I've added too much rights groups. I'm thinking about removing those not mentioned by a secondary source like what was done at Pussy Riot. Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though a few of the obvious heavy-hitters (Amnesty, HRW, Reporters Without Borders) should probably stay regardless; orgs like that are borderline reliable sources in their own right. Khazar2 (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

For reference, I'll list the removed rights groups: "The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom House, Front Line Defenders" Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Introduction

I'd like to suggest a reworking of the introduction to make it a more rounded overview. It's quite a substantial reworking so I haven't changed the article directly. One element that perhaps still needs incorporation is the scope of his collaboration with other activists in Bahrain.

"Nabeel Ahmed Abdulrasool Rajab (Arabic: نبيل أحمد عبدالرسول رجب) is a Bahraini human rights activist and opposition leader. He is president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), a nonprofit non-governmental organisation which works to promote human rights in Bahrain.

He is also a prominent international human rights activist. He is a member of the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch's Middle East Division, Deputy Secretary General for the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), former chairman of CARAM Asia and president of Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR).

Nabeel started his human rights activity during the 1990s uprising before going on to become involved in campaigning on behalf of migrant workers in GCC countries. He subsequently became a leading campaigner against civil and human rights abuses in Bahrain including torture and deaths in official custody. He is known for his pioneering use of social networking as an important element in human rights campaigning which has brought him into conflict with the authorities.

Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders have both described him as being targeted by Bahraini authorities for his human rights activities.

During the 2011-2012 Bahraini uprising, in which he led numerous protests, he has clashed with the political authorities and security forces. His house has been attacked with tear gas, he has been arrested several times, he has allegedly been beaten, and he has been the target of death threats. As well as criticising the Bahraini government itself, he has also been sharply critical of the role of Bahrain's allies, including the United States.

Following protests during the Formula 1 race in April 2012 that attracted media attention, Rajab was arrested and incarcerated several times. On 9 July, he was detained and sentenced to three months prison for having "insulted Bahrainis" in a Twitter message and most recently on 16 August, while still in detention, Rajab was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on three protest-related charges. The verdict has drawn criticism from Bahrain's western allies and human rights organisations.

Nabeel received two international human rights prizes in 2011, one in 2012, and Al Jazeera English called him "the unofficial leader of the 14 February movement".

He remains a figure of controversy within Bahrain, with Reuters describing him as "a hero to protesters, but villain for Bahrainis who fear the protests will bring Shi'ite Islamists to power."." Opbeith (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I like it, but I have two comments. First the two single lines should be combined to paragraphs (the above to above and the bottom to bottom). Second was it necessarily to remove this line? "He was detained for twenty four days in May and twenty two days in June before getting released on bail." I agree about your point on his collaboration with other activists in Bahrain. What crosses my mind currently is that Maryam al-Khawaja is currently the acting president of BCHR while Rajab is detained and I also have some images for Rajab with other activists. This needs a bit of research, I'll work on when I'm done with the current sources. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that the two single line paragraphs deal with separate topics but with the appropriate form of words they could be combined. The first paragraph summarises the formal international recognition of his human rights work. Because there's not too much detail included it's OK in the introduction as it is rather than being summarised. The second is an overall analysis by a respected observer that crudely but succinctly sums up his position and role in Bahraini internal politics and society. The details of the awards could be given in a small section of the main text and the two paras combined along the lines of (just a rough suggestion): "Nabeel's human rights work has been recognised internationally but within Bahraini society he remains a figure of controversy. As "the unofficial leader of the 14 February movement", he has been described as a hero to protesters but a villain in the eyes of Bahrainis who fear that the protests will bring Shi'ite Islamists to power."

I considered that the specific importance of the two detentions and releases had been overtaken by the July detention and the two prison sentences. They could be mentioned in the main text but the July and August sentences are rather more important. Opbeith (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds great and makes content read smoother than before. Well, what are you waiting for, make it live! Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Reference to Twitter activity

(For ease of reference I've created a new section and moved your comment about the Twitter accounbt here, duplicating your signature from the other comment - hope that's OK with you)Opbeith (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also this is general note, the April Twitter incident is mentioned twice in the article, once in uprising section and once in Online activity section. This needs to stay in one place. I'd say keep it in uprising section, since related cases brought against him later are there. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible revised version:

"... He ranked number 2 in Bahrain behind Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa.

Although on this occasion Rajab was personally congratulated by the Minister his use of Twitter to publicise human rights abuses has brought him into conflict with the authorities. In April 2011 he was threatened with prosecution for publishing an allegedly fabricated image on his Twitter account of the body of Ali Issa Saqer showing signs of torture in custody, although the threats were withdrawn after prison guards were charged with Saqer's death. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) described the threat to charge Rajab (was he formally charged?), the first ever in the Arab world involving "tweeting" (publishing information on Twitter), as an illustration of the Bahraini government's implacable hostility towards freedom of expression and Internet freedom.[150]

In 2012 Rajab's Twitter-based campaigning led firstly to his detention for a week on the charge of "insulting a statutory body via Twitter," after he published tweets critical of the Ministry of Interior (leading to criticism of the authorities by international human rights organisations), then to a 3 month prison sentence for a Tweet criticizing the prime minister, and eventually in August 2012 he was given three further one year prison sentences for illegal political activities involving the use of social networking sites." Opbeith (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he wasn't formally charged, just threatened. They backed down when they knew that a BBC reporter and a HRW activist saw the body themselves. In May, Rajab was kept in detention from 5 May to 20 May for the tweet (that's about two weeks) and another eight days for organizing illegal protests. The rest is cool. Make it live as soon as possible. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs

I saw the usefulness of having two separate paragraphs at the beginning as being to emphasise the importance of his key role as a human rights activist in Bahrain and what appears to me to be his less central role as an international human rights activist, and in the process to avoid too indigestible a first paragraph packed with a sequence of organisation names.Opbeith (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand Opbeith. However, GA guidelines say lead should be two to four paragraphs. Currently it's five. Also it states that paragraphs should three to six lines long. That's why I made the change. I've never had a GA before. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nabeel Rajab/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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"[47] with genuine criticism such as "anti-opposition factions, including much of the Sunni community, see him as a troublemaker"[48].

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 [49] 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

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

(I am "repeating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded.) Congratulations! This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. Thanks! My first ever created article and top edited namespace is finally a good article :D Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Addition of contentious and poorly sourced/unsourced "AlTajdeed controversy (AlSafara Cult)” content

Addition of poorly sourced and unsourced content into a section titled "AlTajdeed controversy (AlSafara Cult)”, mainly by User:Outsider96 mainly in these diffs. It was removed by and subsequently reinstated by the same user. I have subsequently removed it on the basis of WP:BLP/WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that .. is unsourced or poorly sourced. I have warned the user on their talk page.

If this happens again, please report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents since this article has Good article status. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)