Talk:Bahrain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Link

What happened to the link for the Coat of Arms? It's still there for the flag. Fry1989 (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Audio

I don't see the point having an audio of the country's name said in American English. If any, it should be the Arabic pronunciation TFighterPilot (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an Arabic pronounciation .ogg file? That would very useful to have in this article. I don't know if another language wiki has that file already. 141.151.176.205 (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption

The "Woman with Orange hair" in the picture looks an awful lot like a woman in an orange headscarf. I don't mean to be pedantic, it's just that if the idea is that it's a picture that illustrates that women in Bahrain wear what they please, I don't think it accomplished that. --CptBuck (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have changed the text accordingly, hopefully this is better. Kind regards. Rehman 09:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit

First paragraph of 'Politics' section, needs capitalization: "have forty members. the first round" (delete this topic when fixed) Blnewbold (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. Rehman 09:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.164.115.194, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} |population_density_rank = 7th should be changed to |population_density_rank = 10th according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density Thanks, JCW 80.164.115.194 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Good request, thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Map of Bahrain.svg

This map is crap. Surely the whole point of the outlined oblong (the one in the whole-world map) is that it outlines the area covered by the bigger map. This one does not - it's got nearly all of India in it). Even at 2000px, I have no idea where Bahrain is. In fact, I'm going to delete it to stir up some attention. Mannafredo (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I added this one found on Commons; another useful map is here. TJRC (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In a hilarious turn of events, the crap svg map got replaced with a low-resolution png which, despite being low-resolution, actually provided some insight as to where this country is. The low-resolution version was subsequently "superseded" by a "superior" svg version: namely the same crap map that we had before! Draconx (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Al Khalifa ascendancy to Bahrain and their treaties with the British

It is just a minor spelling/grammatical error. In the final sentence of the final paragraph under the section "Al Khalifa ascendancy to Bahrain and their treaties with the British" begins "The Britain's interest..." It should read either "Britain's interest...." or "The British interest..." ant321 17.02.2011Ant321 (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Nice one, Ant. Mannafredo (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Illustration

The choice of illustrations is pretty poor. Is the taking of photos forbidden in that country?--dunnhaupt (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Military

As of 2-17-11 CNN reports that there are 6,000 U.S. military personnel at the U.S. base in Bahrain, not 1,500 as stated in the article. Also the ref #81 is not currently accessible to verify the stated 1,500 figure. Let us resolve this. Thanks.  uriel8  (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The number of US personnel at a place like that will be fluid. Operation Iraqi Freedom (do they still call it that?) guys in and out. Best just to talk about the US military's involvement with Bahrain but say no numbers, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.208 (talk) 15:45, February 17, 2011

2011 Protests

Anyone have the time to create a page detailing the 2011 protests in Bahrain? Should be ample sources for information. RantingMrP (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Read why Wikipedia is not a newspaper. When a encyclopedic summary is a available in an independent source, it may be added. patsw (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

POV of the History Section

This reads like a long explanation of why Bahrain should be part of Iran rather then a balanced report of the history of Bahrain. Is this factually correct or does this section need some severe TLC and closer adherence to NPOV?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Trade goods of the 18th and 19th century

This article and History of Bahrain allude to other trade goods supporting its economy beyond slaves and pearls before the oil economy arose in the 20th century. What were the goods originating in Bahrain or were traded there in the 18th and 19th centuries? patsw (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Faszfejü, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please correct typo "loose" to "lose" in the following passage:

"In 1927 Reza Shah in a letter to the Allied Nations Community demanded the return of Bahrain. Britain knew well that her weakened domination over Bahrain would be equal to loose control all over the Persian Gulf, decided to bring under control at any cost the uprisings of people of Bahrain. To achieve this the British elements encouraged conflicts between Shiite and Sunni in Bahrain."

Faszfejü (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done And I fixed the grammar errors in the sentence, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mustafa85, 9 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The Alwasat dead link is active, please update it:

http://www.alwasatnews.com/1658/news/read/222276/1.html

This is the article about Indian people in Bahrain

Mustafa85 (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of Bahrain

According to [[1]], the name "Bahrain" referred to the eastern mainland Arabia until the 16th century at least. Literally, Bahrain is the Arabic term for "two seas" that is true but it is doubtful what is wrote in the current article that "two seas", refer to the freshwater springs that are found within the salty seas surrounding the nowadays little island of Bahrain. It's just a contemporary urban legend. Please correct. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.228.239 (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done It appears that someone else has fixed this already as I can't find the instance you refer to. If I missed it, please repost. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

This article is in urgent need of improvement in the English used. 06:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.158 (talk)

I am doing a major copyedit on the article now. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pre-islamic History section

The text states (now al-Hafuf province, Saudi Arabia), Batan Ardashir (now al-Qatif province, Saudi Arabia) but I can find no reference to these provinces as part of Saudi Arabia. Since this article will be put forward for WP:GA and WP:FA review this needs to be sorted out. My geographical knowledge of this area is limited. Does anyone know what these names should be? ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Our Arabic linguist friends may need to help us sort that out since we may be foiled by limitations of the English transliteration of Arabic names. Veriss (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tomseattle, 23 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the first sentence of the section 'Islamic Conversion and Portuguese Control', the words 'who sought' should be replaced with 'seeking'.

Tomseattle (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation used here is incorrect. From the pronunciation I've heard, the letter h is not silent; additionally, the a sound is not correct (it is [a] not [ɑ]). I might be wrong, but this is by far the pronunciation I've heard most often. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the "h" is definately silent in British English. As for [a] or [ɑ] I'm not familiar with the IPA so I can't comment. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've heard (at least from Aljazeera) [ħ] instead of a silent h. Don't they use British English? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I recorded the Arabic pronunciation of the word Bahrain

Do note that I am not an Arab. I'm Israeli who doesn't actually speak Arabic. However, with so many dialects of Arabic, I'm sure I got at least one right. I'd like to get some feedback before adding it to the article. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Spot on accurate! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 17:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunni Shia ratio

This ratio has been changed since the past 15 yrs, the Sunni now are 63%. So please check your references if they were just blogs and compare it to the official government websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldoy (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so Saudi troops killed so many Shia in the last 15 days of these 15 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.159.219 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The percentage of Sunni in bahrain is 57.6% and Shi'a is 49%. according to the below article:

Dialogue, Representation, and Statistics

On the eve of Bahrain's National Dialogue, whose first substantive sessions will begin tomorrow, Al-Jazeera is reporting a very peculiar story. It is based on a "leaked" report outlining the findings of an official study purportedly commissioned by the Bahraini government in the second half of 2010. What is this study, you ask? A study of the ethno-religious (Sunni-Shi'i) composition of Bahrain.

As one of the notable results of my 2009 mass survey of Bahrain was precisely this--a first direct estimate of the ratio of Sunni and Shi'i citizens in Bahrain since the country's very first census in 1941--naturally I was intrigued by this new government "study." And a bit surprised. For, according to the Al-Jazeera summary, the government study found that Bahraini Shi'a comprise a slight minority of the country's population, at 49%, a figure quite removed from my own estimate of around 57.6%.

In addition to this 49% Shi'a / 51% Sunni ratio, the Al-Jazeera summary also reports a few other "facts" revealed by this study, undertaken by Bahrain's Central Informatics Organization. Among these are that

the document emphasizes that the procedures for naturalization did not influence the sectarian division during any period by more than 1%, because it was limited and conducted in accordance with the conditions set for citizenship. That is to say, this 51% Sunni majority was not achieved artificially by political naturalization, as contended by many in- and outside Bahrain, but by some natural demographic process. Indeed, the study says,

the document shows that the primary beneficiary since the [new] Bahraini citizenship law passed in 1963 are wealthy Persian Shi'is and not the followers of the Sunni sect. And similarly:

The document adds that, after he took power in March 1999, King Hamad ordered the return of exiled citizens abroad, and the number of returnees with their families during the period from 2001 to 2003 [amounted] to about 10,607 citizens, mostly of the Shiite community. The conclusion of the report is thus clear:

the lack of accurate and scientific data [has led] many international institutions, foreign governments, and the media to believe for 20 years that the demographic distribution in the Kingdom is divided into a Shiite majority (60% -70%) and a Sunni minority (30% -40%). But they were wrong! And this leaked government report proves it.

Yet a few things make one suspicious of such results.

In the first place, the timing and content of the leak are simply very convenient. One day before a contentious national dialogue is to begin in which a Shi'a-dominated opposition is poised to demand substantive political reform in large part on the basis of their majority demographic status, we have a leaked report saying that "Oops, you aren't a majority after all! And by just one percentage point!"

1) Similarly, as highlighted in the quotations above, the related "conclusions" and emphasis of the report are equally convenient. These go something like this:

Sunnis have "historically" been, and still are, a majority in Bahrain. (The report notes that "historical estimates [average] about 56.2% [Sunni], compared with 43.8% of the Shiite community, a small difference making it difficult to divide the people to majority and minority [groups]." Never mind that the last Bahraini census to report ethno-religious affiliation (in 1941) put the ratio at 53% Shi'i / 47% Sunni.)

2) The government has never engaged in political naturalization. 3) Indeed, if anything, Bahrain's generous naturalization policy has done more to bring Shi'a to Bahrain, not Sunnis. 4) Thus, not only are Shi'a misguided to claim political disenfranchisement on majoritarian grounds and as a result of political naturalization, but the only reason they have reached even their current demographic status of 49% of the population is the government's liberal immigration policy.

The other suspicious thing about the findings of the study are its procedure, as reported by Al-Jazeera. The latter tells that the study was based on "analysis of historical documents and studies and field surveys"; records of the Sunni awqaf (religious endowments); family and marriage records; religious conversion records; and "data from the intelligence and security services.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walik2020 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words now a days Sunni polulation in bahrain is higher than shi'a, please adjust your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.243.92 (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference:

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/bahrain/bahrain-denies-sect-based-population-report-1.833374 http://bahrainipolitics.blogspot.com/2011/07/dialogue-and-statistics.html

RE 'Britain encouraging conflicts between Shiite and Sunni'. Sources needed.

The Article says at one point: "Britain believed that weakened domination over Bahrain would cause her to lose control all over the Persian Gulf, and decided to bring uprisings amongst the people of Bahrain under control at any cost. To achieve this they encouraged conflicts between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Bahrain."

Does the author of these lines or others have a reliable source for this? Cjannink (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 112.216.16.19, 28 April 2011

Under the section of etemology there is a typo, I think. "Concpt" should probably be, 'concept.' 112.216.16.19 (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What's a "leftist"?

In the section about the 1990s uprising in Bahrain, there's a line which says:

"The "1990s Uprising in Bahrain" or "1990s Intifada" was a rebellion in Bahrain between 1994 and 2000 in which leftists, liberals and Islamists joined forces."

Are these "leftists" left-handed people? --Theresonator (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Leftists are people who believe in equality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.250.227 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Theresonator: I am guessing that perhaps English isn't your first language and that you're therefore not necessarily familiar with all the colloquialisms that might come your way — understandable (although I had always thought this particular figure of speech, which originated in French and is used in at least one unrelated language I know of, transcended language barriers). In any case, "leftists" refers to the political left.

I must admit, however, that I'm a bit confused also. It seems redundant to say both "leftists" and "liberals." If you mean two distinct things by these two terms — for example, if by "liberals" you mean what are also sometimes called "neoliberals," or if by "leftists" you're referring to communists or revolutionaries as opposed to more moderate "liberals" or reformers — I would suggest being more precise as readers of some nationalities might be confused. Mia229 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Avenger717, 18 June 2011

hello i do not know how to do this, hopefully this time im doing it right. i would like you to please add one more family to the paragraph in the bahrain article.

from: These families and tribes included the Al Khalifa, Al-Ma'awdah, Al-Fadhil, Al-Mannai, Al-Noaimi, Al-Sulaiti, Al-Sadah, Al-Thawadi, and other families and tribes.

to:These families and tribes included the Al Khalifa, Al-Ma'awdah, Al-Fadhil, Al-Mannai, Al-Noaimi, Al-Sulaiti, Al-Sadah, Al-Thawadi, Al-Shurooqi, AL-hiddi and other families and tribes.

please contact me on my email (redacted) if i did it wrong. thank you

Avenger717 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:30, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Daprezjer, 21 July 2011

In the sentence that ends ", the two seas referred to lie to the east and west respectively" (I believe this is the first sentence of the third paragraph?), "respectively" is added in error. You only add "respectively" if you're referring to things that were listed before, such as "the [whatever] sea and the [whatever] sea that lie to the east and west, respectively." So in this case, the word should just be dropped.

Daprezjer (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Removed the word Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dawsari Tribe section is unbeliveable

Shi’ites in Bahrain also known as "Baharna" are the natives who lived in the Historical Region of Bahrain, spreading north to Basra and Kuwait in addition to the East province of Saudi Arabia (Al-Hassa, Al-Qatif). The Baharna are descended from Arabian tribes who had lived in the region since pre-Islamic times; prominent among them in those times were the tribes of Banu Abdul Qays and Rabi'a.

Ṣa‘ṣa‘ah ibn Suhān and Zaid ibn Suhan (brothers) are companions of ‘Alī bin abi Talib (Prophet mohammed's cousin) from Abdul Qays Tribe. They were supporters of Ali when he was the Calipha during the first muslim civil war which divided the muslims into two parties Ali's (Shiítes) and Al-Kulafa' Al Rashdeen (Sunni's). Both of their graves are in Bahrain and are still visited by Shi'ites to pay their respect. This was in the late 600's, Which is arround ~1200 years from what this section claims that Al Dawsari tribe first brought shi'ites to Bahrain in (1800's AD)?????

Also Maitham Al Bahrani a famous Bahrani shiíte scolar (died in 1280 AD).

I cant see how Al Dawsari clan arrival to bahrain is linked to the arrival of shi'ite! And cant see the relation between the 1800's arrival of the dawsari clan and the 2011 protests!!?? would love to see the sources for this section, I couldnt find a single line that made me feel I am reading history it was more like reading someones BLOG!~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.25.135.121 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Daprezjer is completely correct. The section on al Dawsari Tribe is completely non-factual. There is no historical evidence whatsoever, in any form of literature that supports it. I am extremely shocked and surprised that it has not been removed already as a an act of historical vandalism. The section was also added recently and has sectarian underpinnings in its historical distortion. It should be removed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRMMRRMM (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain was declared a kingdom

by whom? Grammatically, isn't it stylistically poor to use the passive voice? Shouldn't it read, "Bahrain declared itself a kingdom" or "Bahrain's emir declared himself king" or something?70.59.144.114 (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a think about this. You are of course correct, but the current phrasing neatly sidesteps the constitutional/political issues in a neutral way.Bromley86 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 October 2011

Please change the Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf because as known Bahrain is a GCC country and there is a joint heritage between all of the GCC countries that is very clear when studying the history of the area. 188.116.231.160 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done The wikipedia page is Persian Gulf. Name changes should be discussed there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from alismart, 13 December 2011

Please update: Population of Bahrain as of the official census released by the government of Bahrain (http://www.census2010.gov.bh/results_en.php) says total population in 2010 was 1,234,571 of which 666,172 were non Bahraini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alismart (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this worth a mention?

Bahrain is the most densely populated country in the world after the three City-states. Therefore Bahrain is the most urbanised nation which is not a city state. No mention of this is made anywhere on this article. This source [2] says that Bahrain consists entirely of one metropolitan area, which doesnt contain the country's entire population which leads me to doubt the source's reliablity but is used as a source in a number of other articles. So is this worth a mention and if so what section should it be put in? Eopsid (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be included. Bahrain indeed has very high density; 1461/km2 [3] in 2009. In Addition to that, one should keep in mind that opposition groups claim that about 40% of Bahrain land is private properties to the royal family, so this means even more density at residential areas. For example density of Manama is 5,304/km2 and 1961/km2 in Muharraq Island while it's almost 0 in Umm an Nasan and Hawar Islands each is almost same size as Muharraq. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added this information to the Geography section as a similiar peice is in the Geography section of the England article. Eopsid (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I shifted it to demographics to go with other population information. CMD (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

AlJazeera documentary mention

The Al JAzeera documentary "Bahrain - Shouting in the Dark", available on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaTKDMYOBOU), could be referenced in the link section for balance. It should be citet and linked to in the section on the 2011 popular uprising. 83.249.105.199 (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

As far as I know, Bahrain does not mean "the two seas", but "of the two seas". Bahrain is the genitive dual of bahr (sea), meaning "of the two seas", not the nominative dual "the two seas" (bahran). This makes more sense, as the official title means "the kingdom OF the two seas", not "the kingdom the two seas". This is in accordance with Modern Standard Arabic. I am not an expert, but a beginning student of Arabic. However, please make this change if the above can be confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piedijon (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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) 20:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Error corrections

Please note that re: Bahrain under the section "Iran drops claim" the name of Mr. Vittorio WINSPEARE GUICCIARDI is erroneously spelled Winspeare-Giuccardi.

The u and I are inverted In GUICCIARDI and no hyphen between the two surnames is used.

Also, he was not "manager" of the UN office in Geneva, but Director-General of the UN Office in Geneva and Under Secretary General of the UN.

109.55.6.113 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Antonio Winspeare Guicciardi

Edit request on 22 April 2012

add hyperlink to Qal'at al-Bahrain

Balacs (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Add Bahrain is the second most endangered due to flooding from global warming ...

Add Bahrain is the second most endangered due to flooding from global warming ... First is the Marshall islands, third is the Maldives, followed by Kiribati, and fifth the Bahamas. Ranking reflects percent of population at risk; University of Southampton UK source.

resource: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_5-6_144/ai_n58473630/

published in November 14 & 28, 2011 The New York Times Upfront

99.181.148.5 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What about on a wp article on Ranking of Nations threatened by global warming and resulting climate change List? 99.109.127.232 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe reference it at Mountain of Smoke, the highest point in Bahrain? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why, not? 99.181.137.83 (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why no response Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? 99.181.148.206 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor adding material; wrong question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're correct on the "wrong question", of Why. 99.112.213.15 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin appears to by busy with other edits. 99.181.139.153 (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Knock it off. There is no possible reason for it to be at Mountain of Smoke. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) This article does seem to be the primary choice, highest point is isn't in the flooding of the nations List article. 99.181.142.126 (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you're still lying by adding "global warming and resulting climate change" everywhere "global warming" used to appear. I'll have to go over those. Still, it may be that it should be in this article, or one of the appropriate subarticles. "Climate" might be better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) Please add wp "lock" to Bahrain article. 108.195.136.132 (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The ranking might fit in Regional effects of global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Started. 99.181.148.240 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Union with Saudi Arabia

There has been much talk recently about a possible union with Saudi Arabia. Strange that this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. bbc wsj reut BigSteve (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I added it. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2012

Please change "Bahrain is a Constitutional monarchy" to "Bahrain is an absolute monarchy which claims to be a constitutional monarchy".

Sources: http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/bahrain-western-pr-firms-to-the-rescue-of-this-absolute-monarchy/ http://socialistworker.org/2011/05/11/brutal-face-of-bahrains-monarchy http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/bahrain-demonstrators-repressed.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18voices.html http://www.enritimes.com/countries/bahrain.aspx http://guides.library.cornell.edu/content.php?pid=259276&sid=2163172 http://bahrainipolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/bahrains-war-of-attrition.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/middleeast/21bahrain.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/8304-turmoil-in-the-middle-east-bahrains-revolution http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50527 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=610_1300114588 http://wspus.org/2011/02/bahrain-resists/ etc., etc., etc. Clioveritas (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Many of those sources aren't reliable, and we have sources like the factbook noting it is a constitutional monarchy. CMD (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 June 2012

Its the Arabian Gulf, not Persian.

Juke21233 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done See Persian Gulf naming dispute. Dru of Id (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The World War II Italian air raid on Bahrain on October 19th 1940. Perhaps this should be mentioned?

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197604/air.raid.a.sequel.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanslune (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a bit late but it's now added. Droodkin (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy

The description of Bahrain as an absolute monarchy is contentious. The country has a constutution, cabinet, parliament, and a balance of power between the king, royal family, tribal chiefs and parliament. To simply dismiss the government as being an "absolute" monarchy is wrong. It is not a "constitutional monarchy" either (i.e. strictly limited powers). I suggest changing it to simply "Monarchy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Desert landscape

The image is for a beach, not a desert (it's for cornish al-Ghous in Muharraq). In general, there is no desert in Bahrain in the way it is in Saudi Arabia (i.e. no big sands). Here it's more like empty lands with stones and small bushes and trees such as Tree of Life, Bahrain. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain does have a desert, but on a much smaller scale than KSA. Sakhir is a desert (the whole Southern Governorate is, aside from Riffa and the coastal villages). --Droodkin (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant, it's not a sandy desert as one might imagine, rather it's composed of many rocks (I don't know what is it called in English) and thus I think the Tree of Life image would be more suitable.

By the way, you're doing a great job with this article. You could add something about Sickle-cell disease in the health section; it is so common in Bahrain that the government initially attributed the deaths of some detainees to it before admitting they died under torture (Sickle-cell_disease#Middle_East). Also you can add RCSI to the education section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do, I was wondering what I had forgotten! Thank you :) --Droodkin (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sport in Bahrain

This section and its main article are outdated/missing important parts. These articles can be helpful:

1. 2004 Bahrain Grand Prix
2. 2005 Bahrain Grand Prix
3. 2006 Bahrain Grand Prix
4. 2007 Bahrain Grand Prix
5. 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix
6. 2009 Bahrain Grand Prix
7. 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix
8. 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix
9. 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix

Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Move the Uprisings to the History section ?

The 1990s and 2011 uprising should be in mainly in the history section of the article, I think. Any views ? --Droodkin (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems logical. Also if you think the 2011 uprising section needs further summarizing or some edits, feel free to do so. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Small mistakes

I will list whatever mistakes I spot in the article here.

1. "92% of Bahrain is desert with periodic droughts and dust storms the main natural hazards for Bahrainis". - Obvious
2. "The race has since been hosted annually, with the latest edition of the Bahrain Grand Prix was the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix" - No mention for 2011 race cancellation.
3. "one of the most controversial Grands Prix in the sport's sixty-year history". Many independent sources such as Al Jazeera, CNN, AFP and Sky News named it "controversial", however The Independent named it "one of the most controversial in the history of the sport" (it would be nice if would fix the mistake in other articles as well). Also the word "protests" should link to 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the list you've made, I believe it would be best that you edit the article to rectify the errors. I won't have the time to do so in the coming days. Plus, it's encouraged to be bold :) --Droodkin (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

History section

So I started summarizing it yesterday. Some material I read about for the first time, but I think I'm doing well. Some lines don't have references and I'm not sure if the provided sources actually support the content there, because many of them are offline.

Which of these is the correct? "the Quarmations were overthrown by the Arab Uyunid dynasty of al-Hasa" or "Abu al-Bahlul was a Sunni Bahrani member of the Abd al-Qays tribe in Bahrain who overthrew Ismaili Qarmatian rule in the islands around 1058"? Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Books I've gone through state that the Qarmatians' rule ended in 1078[4] while the Uyunid dynasty's rule started in the same year, so we can safely assume the Uyunids overthrew them. Though some books give the year as [5] or even circa 1076. This is to do with the end of the Qarmatians (which also ruled some parts of eastern Arabia). According to the Abu al-Bahlul al-Awwam page, the Qarmatians were expelled from Bahrain in 1058 (and also states that the Qarmatians were completely defeated in mainland Arabia by 1067). --Droodkin (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bahraini independence referendum, 1970

It wasn't a referendum, it was a survey. "a 1970 U.N. survey (some refer to its as a “referendum”) determined that its inhabitants preferred independence to Iranian control." [6]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed [7]

I find this important, because even Bahraini people don't about it and thus I'll leave some links for anyone who wants to review this in the future: United Nations Security Council Resolution 278, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15]. For transparency, all of these links were provided in a thread in Bahrain Online. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing subsection

The time between 2002 and 2011 is missing. Much of it is summarized here, but it is not referenced. I'll see what I can do about it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of it (until 2006 at least) is in the politics section. --Droodkin (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I need to move few paragraphs to the politics section, which it self needs a rework anyway. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Politics section

I think this section needs reworking. I have re-written the first paragraph. Among the changes is changing Bahrain from constitutional monarchy to just monarchy. The reasons for this should be clear by anyone who reads the rest of the paragraph; the king holds a tight grip on almost all authorities. I know that CIA factbook says it's constitutional monarchy, but a number of reliable sources name it an absolute monarchy. For instance, Democracy Index classify it as "authoritarian regime" and "absolute monarchy" (was "hybrid regime" and "constitutional monarchy" in 2006), in List of current sovereign monarchs it is classified as Mixed government, The New York Times refer to it as "absolute monarchy" [16] [17]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It would go against the neutral POV, I think. Factually, it is entitled as a constitutional monarchy by encyclopaedias. Plus, constitutional monarchism is a sub-division of monarchism. It is still incorrect to state that it is an absolute monarchy. --Droodkin (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Which one you think is POV absolute monarchy or just monarchy? I only used references above to support the use of just monarchy instead of constitutional monarchy. I have a feeling that using constitutional monarchy can be promotional for the current government, and it is therefore my suggestion to use "monarchy" (i.e. being less specific) in order to avoid supporting any POV and thus adhering to the NPOV. looking at Constitutional monarchy article they've classified them into those with representative parliamentary systems and "other" (i.e. no representative parliamentary systems), I don't know if this can be applied here, but this is better than just saying Constitutional monarchy. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain has a constitution, which makes it a constitutional monarchy. That's what Britannica uses, as well as quite a few sources. It's not at all promotional for the current government. CMD (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected it. By the way, nice to see you here CMD :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing

I'm thinking about removing most of the last three paragraphs. The material in them is mostly trivial, discusses parliament activities in detail and puts undue weight on some topics while not covering hot topics such as state-owned properties [18] [19], family law [20] [21], political naturalization.. etc. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The content of the first and second of the last three paragraphs looks useful, although we don't need the quotes etc. Third one can probably go. However, when removing information from this article for being UNDUE, it shouldn't be removed, but instead shifted/merged to whatever the appropriate main article is (in this case, Politics of Bahrain).

On a separate note, this probably shouldn't be at GAN if there's a large amount of editing involved. GAN should wait till afterwards. CMD (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When summarizing history section, I didn't do that because Droodkin told me it was already covered in detail in the main article. About the GAN, you're correct, but there is a huge backlog there that it will probably take weeks to months before anyone starts reviewing it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the last three paragraphs became four after I moved one from Women's rights section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Improvements

Looking at the peer review, the only essential improvement needed is for references. Some sections and lines are missing references while others need proper, complete, consistent formatting. I think automated edits help a lot with this, would be nice if someone could redirect me to the most suitable tool for this situation.

This tool indicated that 2 links are dead, however I checked them and they work fine for me. Other concerns are about varieties of English such as using -ize vs. -ise. Governorates section needs expanding with text. Some automated fixes are available here. Also, is the lead good enough now? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So basically, we have to go through each and every reference to check whether their formats are correct ? That'll take a while but still doable. The two links work for me too. The lead is good enough, I guess, but I think we can lose the Murjan Tower bit. We can also update the lead with the Bahrain pearling trail UNESCO Heritage Site inscription, along with the Bahrain Fort. On a side note, you did a great job summarising the article, now I feel lazy! :) --Droodkin (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is still place for two more images—a picture of a prominent hospital in the health section, and a picture of a wild animal at the Al-Areen Wildlife Park in the biodiversity section. If either of you gentlemen could obtain and add a good quality image of these two, that would be awesome. I will start reference formatting now, and copy-edit the article sometime next week. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 15:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded one of the many free images for animals in Al-Areen Wildlife Park found in Flickr. Too bad I don't know the name of the bird lol!. As for hospitals, I think most will be deleted since Freedom of Panorama is not allowed in Bahrain, but we are lucky enough to have two images by Al Jazeera English [22], [23]. I think that will do. Thanks for your efforts Prabhu. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The birds are probably Greater Flamingoes, unless for some odd reason someone in Bahrain imported flamingoes from the Americas. CMD (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Added two photos but I don't think the one in the health section is the best around. An old photo of the American Mission Hospital would do nicely. --Droodkin (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! :-) Thanks for adding the images. While the flamingo image was nice, I have removed the signboard image for reasons specified in the edit summary. An image of American Mission or any other hospital will do, and should be easy to get. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find an image; I've e-mailed a request for one. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. Give me a day or two to read it carefully. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

First things

Okay, this is what I’ll do. Due to my busy schedule, I will review in detail a few sections a day until I finish. I will post these reviews here daily.

• Hello! I'll be the person who edits the article as fits. Take your time, there is no need to rush.--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Today, I’ll discuss the article overall qualities, organization, infobox, and lede.

Overall, the article looks well written, but could use some minor organizational adjustments. For someone who knows nothing about Bahrain, geography might be one of the first sections to look at. I’d recommend moving that section right after etymology. Also, governorates should be moved before politics.

• Y I've looked at other GA country articles (Scotland and Croatia included) and they usually place geography after the history section. Seems like a fair compromise.--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox looks fine.

The first paragraph of the lede looks good. The second one about history doesn’t have any refs, but I assume that there plenty in the history section below. The third and fourth ones are okay, but I’ll like to see a sentence or two added about the country’s current culture and language, and maybe along with challenges the country is facing.

• The second paragraph is roughly a summarized version, all the citations are in the history section (I figured it would've made the lead a bit too cloggy with a citation after every line).--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lede is not unnecessary. It’s slanting towards current events. Plus, there’s already a section discussing the uprising under the history section.

Summary of needed improvements:

• reorganize the sections as stated above Y
• add a sentence or two in the lede about the country’s current culture Fair enough
• remove the paragraph about the ongoing uprising Y

Tomorrow I’ll review the etymology and history sections. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Reorganized it, I don't think there can be a statement on the country's culture. It is cosmopolitan but it's constitution declares that it is an Arab state. I think it would be better to leave it neutral (plus, a culture section already exists).--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Etymology and history

Nice job making those changes. It looks like I got some extra time today, so here I go:

Etymology

Who is “al-Ahsa”, from the third paragraph? This needs to be made clear.

• Al Ahsa is another name for Al Hasa, which was already mentioned in the section.--Droodkin (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic period

Any writing about history should be written in chronological order. I’m having problems with this sentence: “It has been ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and then Arabs, under whom the island became first Christian and then Islamic.” First, it does not indicate which eras or years it is describing. Second, it interrupts the chronological order by introducing Persians and Arabs, when the next paragraph is about the Persians. I recommend that the Persians and Arabs be removed from the sentence and indicate which years/eras the Assyrians and Babylonians ruled the island.

“During the classical era, the island was known as Tylos in Europe.” Shouldn’t this sentence be in the etymology section? How is this important to the island’s history? Also, why is “Tylos” boldfaced in the second paragraph?

“AD” should be added to “In the 3rd century [here], Ardashir I…” for clarification.

The wikilink to “Sassanid dynasty” should take the reader to the “Sassanid Empire” article, not a family tree.

Is this sentence necessary? “The Sassanid Empire divided their southern province into the three districts of Haggar (now al-Hafuf province in Saudi Arabia), Batan Ardashir (now al-Qatif province in Saudi Arabia) and Mishmahig (which in Middle-Persian/Pahlavi means "ewe-fish").” I don’t see how it’s important. Also, which one of these is Bahrain?

This subsection should mention the role of Arabs in the island’s history.

Islam, Persian and Portuguese control

I think these sentences are more appropriate if they are moved to the etymology section. “Until the late Middle Ages, "Bahrain" referred to the larger historical region of Bahrain that included Al-Ahsa, Al-Qatif (both now within the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia) and the Awal Islands (now the Bahrain Islands). The region stretched from Basra in Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz in Oman. This was Iqlīm al-Bahrayn's "Bahrayn Province". The exact date at which the term "Bahrain" began to refer solely to the Awal archipelago is unknown.”

I’m surprised that this section doesn’t contain information about medieval Arab trade.

The header of this section say “Persian”. The word “Iran” was not commonly used until 1935. The words “Iranian” in this section should be changed to “Persian”. [24]

Rise of the Bani Utbah

Things look fine here. However, I'll a little disappointed that the only images I've seen so far are maps of Bahrain. Are there no historical paintings, artwork, or maybe photographs of historical landmarks?

Summary of issues (This will be used as a check-list)

• Who is al-Ahsa? Y
• Sentence interrupting chronological order, needs year/era Y
• Tylos, move to etymology Y (good enough)
• AD Y
• Wikilink to Sassanid Empire (minor issue)
• Possibly unnecessary sentence about 3 districts Y
• Role of pre-Islamic Arabs? (preferred but minor issue)
• Info about how word Bahrain is used historically should be moved to etymology Y
• Medieval Arab trade? (preferred but minor issue)
• Persian > Iranian Y
• No images except maps? Y

The etymology and history section could clearly use some clean-up. However, the sections are very well-cited. I'll review the rest of the history section tomorrow. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, edited.--Droodkin (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you made a lot of improvements, however there are still somethings left. According to the etymology article, "etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time." I really think the sentences in the history section describing the historical use of the word Bahrain should be moved to the etymology section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hope you like the photos! :) --Droodkin (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Side note - It looks like Mohamed CJ added this to the history paragraph in the lede. "Starting from February 2011, the country has experienced major sustained protests and near-nonstop unrest inspired by the regional Arab Spring." This seems a little wp:undue. According to the manual of style, [25] "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject". I'd recommend shortening this sentence, perhaps like this: Since early 2011, the country has experienced sustained protests and unrest inspired by the regional Arab Spring. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done It is a shame that I don't have enough time to help with fixing other problems. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

More history

Nice job making those improvements! This is not a short article and might take a few more days for me to finish reviewing.

Al Khalifa ascendancy to Bahrain and their treaties with the British

Second and fourth paragraphs: “Iranian” should be changed to “Persian”.

Early 20th Century reforms

This should be added for clarification: “In 1927, Rezā Shāh [, the Shah of Iran,]demanded…”

Discovery of petroleum and WWII

This should be removed because it was already discussed in the previous subsection: “culminating with the appointment of Charles Belgrave as advisor. He went on to establish a modern education system in Bahrain.”

Drop of Iranian claim

There appears to be a verification request for this sentence: “The policy of "deiranisation" consisted of importing a large number of different Arabs and others from British colonies as labourers”. I have found to web source to verify that. [26] However, the sentence looks like close paraphrasing of the material in the web source I provided, thus violating copyrights. Dr. Mojtahedzadeh looks reliable, so the sentence can stay in the article, but it must be rewritten.

I checked the third paragraph, which also cites Dr. Mojtahedzadeh, and it doesn’t seem be close paraphrasing.

Independence

Everything looks good here.

Bahraini uprising

I don’t really see how this uprising is more significant than the 1990s uprising, and has to be written in more detail. It’s seems like wp:undue weight. This stuff should really only be written in one paragraph. The tone also seems to be in favor of the protestors. It needs to be wp:npov.

Here’s what I recommend: “Inspired by the regional Arab Spring, large protests demanding political reform started in Bahrain in early 2011. The government responded by conducting thousands of arrests, requesting security assistance from the GCC, and declaring a state of emergency that lasted for three months. Clashes between protesters and security forces lead to dozens of deaths. Protests, sometimes staged by opposition parties, are ongoing.

I’m not even sure if we should keep the subsection “Bahraini uprising” heading. I’ll let you decide on that.

1990s uprising was way smaller than this one, no foreign intervention, no international media attention, no huge protests etc. I even dare to say that the media attention received by the uprising is the biggest in the history of Bahrain. Nevertheless, the summary looks good, but it's inaccurate. For instance, 1) demands aren't just political reforms, as parts of the opposition called for fall of regime, so it's better to avoid pointing to that and 2) state of emergency lasted for two months and a half (declared as three months, but ended before). I'll hopefully work on this tomorrow. As a side note, this section was already trimmed last July. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Check it out now. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary of issues (this is used as a check-list)

• “Persian” > “Iran” in 2 places Y
• Rezā Shāh , the Shah of Iran clarification (minor issue) Y
• Redundant info about Charles Belgrave Y
• Copyright violation (Dr. Mojtahedzadeh) Y
• Bahraini uprising subsection: undue weight and strong bias Y

I hope you can fix these problems. I will return soon reviewing the geography and politics sections. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. --Droodkin (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

History sources

I'm concerned with the quality of sources used in many parts of the history section. Sources like these [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] are at best borderline as reliable sources. Other footnotes appear to go straight to primary sources, such as [34]. Is it possible to source more of this section to scholarly works or fact-checked media? I've also added a citation needed tag for the statement "The event resulted in approximately forty deaths and ended after Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa became the Emir of Bahrain in 1999", which does not seem to appear in the given source. Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Geography and politics

The Bahraini uprising section still needs to be fixed. Meanwhile I shall move on.

Geography

These two sentences contain the exact same info: “The agricultural and domestic sectors' over-utilization of the Dammam Aquifer, the principal aquifer in Bahrain, has led to its salinisation by adjacent brackish and saline water bodies. Over-abstraction of the Dammam aquifer, the principal aquifer in Bahrain, by the agricultural and domestic sectors, has led to its salinization by adjacent brackish and saline water bodies.” Remove one of them.

Done. --Droodkin (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Climate

Citation needed: “The Zagros Mountains across the Persian Gulf in Iraq cause low level winds to be directed toward Bahrain. Dust storms from Iraq and Saudi Arabia transported by northwesterly winds cause reduced visibility in the months of June and July.”

Added a wikilink to the NW wind (Shamal as well as a citation. --Droodkin (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity

The bullets following this are not necessary: “Bahrain has five designated protected areas, four of which are marine environments. They are: …”

I believe it would be better to list them rather than to clog it all in a paragraph since it is straight to the point. --Droodkin (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Politics

Shouldn’t the “a” in “al” be capitalized (Shaikh Khalīfa bin Salman [Al] Khalifa)?

This might need to be added per the NYT source: “making him the world's longest serving [unelected] prime minister.”

“an extremely important role” sounds un-encyclopedic. Perhaps change “extremely important” to “vital”.

 Done. "al" is not always capitalized, but in Al Khlifa (sometimes Al-Khalifa) it is the most common way of writing it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Human rights

Looks good.

:) Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Women’s rights

This section sounds a little biased and can be organized better. It lists a lot great accomplishments done by Bahraini women, giving the impression that women have it good in Bahrain. I recommend having the first paragraph be about improvements in women’s rights and their accomplishments. However, a second paragraph containing criticism of the women’s rights situation is probably needed, to make this section more neutral. The sentence about Ghada Jamsheer should definitely be included in the second paragraph. Try to find some more women’s rights issues that Bahrain is facing.

Compared to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain might be a heaven for women, but there's the usual males get higher salaries and better job opportunities. I'll try to find some and add them. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I can make it anymore, too busy :( Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Military and foreign relations

Looks good.

Summary of issues (this is used as a check-list)

• redundant info about aquifers Y
• Citation needed for in the Climate section Y
• Bullets not necessary in Biodiversity section Fair enough
• Capitalizing “al” (minor issue) Y
• add “unelected” (minor issue) Y
• change “extremely important” to “vital” (minor issue) Y
• Make the women’s rights section more neutral by having two paragraphs, one describing improvements, the other describing ongoing issues and criticism.

I hope you can fix these things. I’ll be back tomorrow to review the governorates and economy sections. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Verification in military section

Hopefully these are points that can be quickly corrected, but a few points in the military section failed verification.

• The sentence "The supreme commander of the Bahraini military is King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and the deputy supreme commander is the Crown Prince, Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa" couldn't be exactly verified by the given source, which described the Crown Prince as "Appointed Bahrain Defense Force Commander-in-Chief" and did not mention the king.
• In the sentence "The BDF is primarily equipped with United States equipment, such as the F16 Fighting Falcon, F5 Freedom Fighter, UH60 Blackhawk, M60A3 tanks, and the ex-USS Jack Williams, an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate renamed the RBNS Sabha", the given source only supports the statement about the RBNS Sabha, not the more general statement "primarily equipped with United States equipment" or the other types of planes and tanks.
• In the sentence that ends "about 1500 United States and coalition military personnel", where does this figure come from? The site currently mentions "6,093 military personnel and DOD Civilian employees", so perhaps the figure is just out of date? (Perhaps an "As of" would be helpful here.) It would also be worth clarifying who the "coalition" is in this case if that phrasing is kept.

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Governorates and economy

A sentence about current women’s rights issues still needs to be added the women’s rights section. I will continue with the review:

Governorates

Looks good.

Economy

“Persian Gulf crisis of 1990–91” should be changed to Gulf War or Persian Gulf War, due to common name. (minor issue)

Wikified a link to it. --Droodkin (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the economy section looks really good. However, I’m disappointed that the section doesn't discuss Bahrain’s major imports. It briefly discusses imported crude oil, but is that it? I’d expect an arid and populous country like Bahrain to import food at least.

Added two citations as well as more about the country's agriculture industry. Should be enough.--Droodkin (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall, these two sections are really well-written. I shall review the demographics and culture sections tomorrow. After that, I shall make my final assessment.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Demographics, culture and citations

Demographics

Looks fine.

Culture

This section should at least briefly mention how people dress in Bahrian.

The source from ayearofreadingtheworld.com in the Literature section (the part with the self-published source template) has questionable reliability. The author worked for the Guardian, but her blog is not entirely convincing. I’d recommend to just remove the sentence using that ref. It’s not really that important.

Grammar: “Ali Bahar was one of the most famous singer[s] in Bahrain”

Some of the holidays in the holidays chart don’t have descriptions, which should be added. Also, is this chart complete? What does “non-regular” in this sentence mean? “Other non-regular holidays are listed below:” The chart appears to include common holidays such as New Years and Labor Day.

Citations

The sources here seemed to be cited properly, no bare URLs. However, Khazar2 brought up some important points (see the History sources section above) regarding the reliability of certain sources in the history section. There are a lot of easily accessible reliable sources that can be used for the history section, such as these: [35], [36], [37], [38]. I’m sure there’s more. See if you guys can replace the questionable sources with reliable sources. I’ll look at the sources of this article more in depth tomorrow. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations should be good now, I weeded out the self-published ones and added new ones.--Droodkin (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Final assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is not beautifully written, but it's pretty good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Don't see any big problems here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The sources are properly cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There does appear to be a few sources whose reliability is questionable. However, the statements that cite these sources are not statements that are likely to be challenged.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yup.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pretty much all the topics I can think of are included in this article. There are only a few minor issues, such as the article's lack of inclusion of how people dress in Bahrain. But then again, there are plenty of photos of people.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The parts that I thought contained undue weight have been fixed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No big problem here. The women's rights section could use a sentence describing current women's rights issues. However, I've checked several featured articles on countries, and none of them had women's rights sections. I'm not sure if a women's rights section is necessary for this article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	All the edits I've seen so far have been constructive and cooperative.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images don't seem to violate copyrights.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good choice of images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Thank you guys for taking your time improving this article. There are still some more things that can be done, especially regarding reliable sources. Congratulations, I believe this article meets the criteria for a good article.

Britannica not RS?

This edit removed an Encyclopedia Britannica article as a citation in the languages section. Isn't Britannica a valid source here? --Droodkin (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely a reliable source. Just make sure the source supports the text there. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant to the content since it is the source, therefore I'll revert it to the previous edition in good faith.--Droodkin (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Most popular sport in Bahrain?

The source for stating that assoc. football is the most popular sport in Bahrain appears to be a quotation from a guy from a sports company (and what he says is "I think the most popular team sports in Bahrain are without a doubt football and basketball.") Can we find a more direct source for this? (In other words, a publication itself saying this, rather than a businessman?) If we do wish to rely solely on the businessman, then we need to change the text accordingly. Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source.--Droodkin (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations and references

The referencing style on this article is a bit odd. Books appear to be listed in duplicate between "citations" and "references", but the Template:Sfn style is not used; the citations are simply duplicated. (The books all appear to be used only one each, anyway, making the footnote/full reference system unnecessary.) Other books are listed that no longer appear to be references for the article at all, such as Rihani. Over the next 24-48 hours I hope to condense the duplicate citations, and remove the books that are no longer references. If there are any objections, though, I'll restore the original list from a previous version of the article. Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've condensed all the books that didn't have multiple references to them into the inline citations. Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving with Miszabot

Per the request at the top of the page, I've set up Miszabot to begin archiving older threads from this talk page--anything older than four months, with a minimum of 10 threads left on the page. This will hopefully make the page less unwieldly. If anyone objects, however, these edits can be swiftly undone. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claim on '90s uprising

The citation needed tag I added to a fact about the end and casaulties of the '90s uprising has been removed on the grounds that the claim is sourced to a Wikipedia article [39]. However, Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself; citations for these facts should be added separately. If the claim is important enough to add here, surely a proper footnote for the claim is important enough to add, too? Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would additionally note that the article being linked to also does not seem to have sources for this information, a good reminder of why a wikilink is not a reliable source. Droodkin, would you be willing to restore the tag you removed until a source for this information can be given? Thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a new citation which, although focuses on another issue (Bahrain's parliament), it provides background info on the 1990s uprising and includes the casualty toll. I hope this is enough. --Droodkin (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if this is me being dense, but I still don't see the casualty list or ending date on the given citation. [40]. Is there something on this page I'm missing? Khazar2 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what went wrong here; the source for this sentence was after the sentence before. I've moved it to the casualty sentence and removed the source that doesn't support the sentence. Thanks for running this one down! Khazar2 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued sourcing concerns

Since the GA review closed without addressing most of my sourcing concerns (fair enough, it's the reviewer's call), I've moved them to here. Unless there's consensus that I shouldn't do so, I'll also tag with inline citations to bring them to the attention of future editors. I apologize if it seems like I'm being a pain about this--since this is a top-importance article, I'm hoping to help get it to be the best it can be. I will begin addressing these problems myself where possible, but the help of more expert editors would also be appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think my concerns have been largely addressed. Thanks everybody who pitched in! Khazar2 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality of sources

I'm concerned with the quality of sources used some parts of this article. Sources like these [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] do not appear to be reliable sources. Other footnotes appear to go straight to primary sources, such as [47]. Is it possible to source more of this section to scholarly works or fact-checked media?

Verification in military section

Most of the statements in this section appear to be unsourced, and one appears to be badly outdated.

• The sentence "The supreme commander of the Bahraini military is King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and the deputy supreme commander is the Crown Prince, Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa" couldn't be exactly verified by the given source, which described the Crown Prince as "Appointed Bahrain Defense Force Commander-in-Chief" and did not mention the king.

• Fixed. Khazar2 (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• In the sentence "The BDF is primarily equipped with United States equipment, such as the F16 Fighting Falcon, F5 Freedom Fighter, UH60 Blackhawk, M60A3 tanks, and the ex-USS Jack Williams, an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate renamed the RBNS Sabha", the given source only supports the statement about the RBNS Sabha, not the more general statement "primarily equipped with United States equipment" or the other types of planes and tanks.

• Fixed. Khazar2 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• In the sentence that ends "about 1500 United States and coalition military personnel", where does this figure come from? The site currently mentions "6,093 military personnel and DOD Civilian employees", so perhaps the figure is just out of date? (Perhaps an "As of" would be helpful here.) It would also be worth clarifying who the "coalition" is in this case if that phrasing is kept.

• fixed. Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced quotation

• "The Lonely Planet Guide describes Bahrain as "an excellent introduction to the Persian Gulf", because of its authentic Arab heritage and reputation as a liberal and modern country." The quotation in this sentence has no source, and the given source does not mention authentic Arab heritage or Bahrain's reputation as a liberal and modern country (in fact, it mentions Bahrain's protests and demands for freedom).

Is this a good enough citation? --Droodkin (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not--that appears to be word-for-word what we have, which isn't a good sign; we either plagiarized them, or they plagiarized us (probably the latter).

Would it be okay to just update this with a more current version of what Lonely Planet says about the country, based on the current website? Then we can try to archive it to avoid losing the given version (though my usual archiver seems to be down today). Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Khazar2 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Map

The historic map is interesting, but hard to read (even after clicking over to a larger image). What is needed is a map that shows where Bahrain is either in the world or in the Middle East. And it should stand out. Look at how it's done for Germany or the U. S. as examples. Kdammers (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to this map? If so, the map is meant to show how the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia used to be called Bahrain (discussed in the Etymology section).--Droodkin (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Two points. First, For some reason, the map of Bahrain in the world was not showing up on my screen, but now it is. So, my request is moot. Second, yes, I was referring to that map, and now I see some confusion there: the text says that the terminology lasted into the late Middle Ages, but the map is from the 18th century, long past the Middle Ages. Kdammers (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this map was made as a 'historical' or archive one? After reading multiple sources, I'd say the word "Bahrain" stopped referring to the entire eastern region from the 1700s or so (conflicting sources, some state the 1600s, some leave it ambiguous).--Droodkin (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

Formerly an emirate, Bahrain was declared a kingdom in 2002.

Should read:

Formerly a State, Bahrain was declared a kingdom in 2002

Bahrain was never an Emirate according to the Bahrain National Museum Archives. 46.184.254.131 (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed now, thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)