Jump to content

Talk:Casualties of the 2011 Bahraini uprising and its aftermath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Deaths

[edit]

There have been a number of deaths since 6 February that should probably be mentioned:

  • 12 February 2012: Fatima Albasri. Don't have details right now.
  • 17 February 2012: Hussain Albaqali. Died as he did not seek timely medical attention for burns sustained during the "Sky's Mourning" tire burning protest, due to fear of going to the hospital. MoI says that his parents said that he set him self on fire after a family dispute, and says that Hussain admitted that he set himself on fire, and that the confession was recorded on "audio and video tapes." This confession has not been released yet, as far as I can tell: (MoI statement).
  • 18 February 2012: Mansoor Salman. Tear gas (BCHR).
  • 21 February 2012: Rose Nisha Naikarottu Baby Varghese. Her family claims that she slipped into a coma during an asthma attack that may have been triggered by tear gas. (GDN report)
  • 25 February 2012: Abda Hussain. Tear gas. (Nabeel Rajab tweet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmarczak (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the page and charts w/ all of the deaths except Fatima Albasri.Billmarczak (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, nice to see you back; having you here is a great motivation for editing and creating new articles. Fatima Albasri wasn't mentioned by any notable political figures or parties. Only this Facebook page gave details about her death. This makes total deaths 76 with 25 allegedly with tear gas - will update related articles with numbers. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 06:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this tweet that seems to be from the Alliance for a Republic's official Twitter account. Also, there was a 1.5 month old baby allegedly killed from tear gas today. Also, looks like there's some copyright issues in this article that we should fix up. Billmarczak (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the copyright issue from Bahrainrights website, I have contacted them in the past and they responded in a good timely matter. Also, for those killed under torture, I'll do copy-editing from Torture during the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising since it was cleaned from copyright violations recently. For now, fix the CV from this link and I'll see if there are further CV to fix. This is a serious issue in Wikipedia!
For the new death, you can use these tweets by S.Yousif Almuhafda as references [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. This definitely won't be the last death by tear gas as long as they keep "sinking" residential areas with tear gas.
The Twitter account seems valid. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll fix that CV later, as well as adding Fatima Albasri, the 1.5 month old baby, and Sakina Marhoon. I received a document from the BCHR listing Fatima Albasri's death, but they don't seem to list it on their website, which is odd. Billmarczak (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those 3 deaths. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

[edit]
[edit]

This article was tagged for close-paraphrasing and needs to be cleaned. Among the sources improperly used in the article:

--NortyNort (Holla) 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket number for BCHR article is: #2012031710000511. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of reporting

[edit]

Hi guys. Just back from a dissertation-enforced break from Wiki and I am a little concerned about how the reports of deaths have been construed on this page. It seems that a number of the recent casualties noted in the list rely solely on allegations made by the opposition or those without any medical knowledge, and are then counted as being a result of the unrest. For instance Yahya Yousef (I thought this was his father’s name, not his?) is on the list purely because his father *thinks* teargas may have led to his death. Is there any medical evidence for this? Apparently the baby didn’t even leave the hospital as he was ill from birth – I really don’t think that every death in Bahrain can be blamed on the unrest.

Similarly with using quotes from the BCHR in general. It is clearly in their wider political interest to state that the authorities are to blame for a majority of the deaths. In some cases relating to tear gas, they may (probably do) have a point but nonetheless are there any independent reports? Can’t the families ask for an independent autopsy? It is interesting that no international press wires/outlets (that I’ve seen anyway) have said that the government is responsible for these deaths. AKhani84 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. As long as the source is reliable, we can use it (we are exactly saying that his family is the one blaming his death for tear gas and that there is another official reason by the hospital). Amnesty International have used BCHR as source [8]. You might have also noticed that we have added some deaths that weren't mentioned by BICI report such as that of the taxi driver, the Pakistani guy who was crushed while destroying the Pearl roundabout and a youth who was run over.
It would have been much better if there was a neutral medical facility that those injured from protests or even those at their houses could go to, get treated and then leave without being arrested/interrogated. The problem started since 16 March 2011 and for a while, till August 2011 (closed since then) there was a secret clinic for Médecins Sans Frontières which has treated some 250s injures (glad I remembered it, now I can add it to the number of injured), while other injures are treated at houses (with few exceptions at hospitals when the case is severe). You can't count on autopsies as long as the government has control over the hospital; they have proved in the past that they don't tell the truth, remember those killed under torture and how the government kept denying for months? this is just one small example. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "clearly in [the BCHR's] wider political interest to state that the authorities are to blame for a majority of the deaths." The BCHR is a human rights organization, and it's not clear that they have any political agenda. As for verifying cause of death, that's a hard problem. For forensic exams in general, I usually don't see the conclusions of such exams reported anywhere except the Ministry of Interior media center or pro-government papers. International media reporting on these deaths is basically what we do here on this Wikipedia page, kind of a he-said/she-said between witnesses and human rights organizations on the one hand, and the government on the other hand (though the international media doesn't report every single death). Why would the international media issue a finding to the effect of "the government is responsible for this death?" It's not their job to perform an investigation of each death. It's unfortunate that the medical knowledge isn't getting out there, but understandable, given that doctors are currently facing charges of "violating patient privacy" for giving media info about casualties and letting them take pictures. As for forensic exams, there's evidence that the government either forges forensic exams or is totally incompetent at conducting them (see BICI report about Ali Alsheikh). A lawyer claimed as recently as this January that his requests to be present during the autopsy, and for an independent forensic exam, were denied (see Mohammed Ibrahim Yacoup). Furthermore, the BCHR has "demanded" independent forensic exams of people who allegedly died of tear gas "due to difficulty of verifying the cause of death." Billmarczak (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in small tables

[edit]

The current death number as of 7 June 2012 is 94. I've counted the deaths one by one from the detailed table. However in the first of the small table, the count is 93. I've traced the problem and it seems it started from the creation of the article (always 1 less than the total number). Thus I'll look into Bahraini uprising article history to see where the mistake was made. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the mistake, it was made in February 2012 by me. This is the diff (2 edits) [9]. Six deaths were added, but only five were put in the top small table. An extra one should have been added to "other" category. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another mistake was done on 9 June by me again. Instead of adding the two new deaths to civilians, I added one to expatriates and the other to security forces in the top small table and in the one below it one was added to security forces and the other to civilian (correctly) as shown in this diff [10].
To fix this, in the top table "other" category: +2 civilians, -1 security forces and -1 expatriates. In the table below it "Unknown Assailants" category: security forces -1, civilians +1. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The editors of this article may be unaware of the standards, but Twitter and Facebook are not considered "reliable sources". See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Please remove all Twitter, Facebook, and any other social networks from the references.Boneyard90 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to a search in Reliable sources noticeboard I got the following comments on using Twitter:

1. "it was fine as long as it came from a reliable person associated with the subject." [11]
2. "Tweets by notable individuals, if it is highly relevant and important, can be used as a self-published source with proper attribution." [12].
3. "Asking whether Twitter in general is a reliable source is a bit like asking whether the World Wide Web is a reliable source." [13].

If you still think it isn't reliable the way it is being used here, then why don't you start a discussion in WP:RSN and notify involved editors? Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cite a general discussion, not a policy, but from the same link, I find the following:
  1. There has for quite awhile been an established consensus against twitter feeds as RS or even EL. -User:Dlabtot
  2. Twitter now has it where notable people can verify their accounts - User talk:MikeAllen
  3. Twitter feeds are like any other self-published source. - User:Jayjg
  4. Twitter feeds are reliable sources if they are official outputs from experts in their field - User:Sam Blacketer
  5. Twitter personal feeds from unverified accounts cannot ever be used. - User:Wifione
I don't think a discussion at WP:RSN is necessary. The Twitter sources fail reliability, as per The Duck Test: sources are not notable or expert, and some represent clear Conflict of Interest, as does undue or strenuous participation on your part, as your username reflects your bias and therefore risks violating NPOV. Again, please remove unverified information based on social networking sites.Boneyard90 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My username has nothing to do here. My "bias" is clearly presented in userboxes on my user page. Most of the Facebook sources I don't think should be removed are those of February 14 Youth Coalition. It is the group which started the whole uprising and is it still organizing protests. They only have Facebook and Twitter accounts, and no official website. Thus linking from their Facebook account is justified IMO (Do you know Facebook/Twitter role in the Arab Spring?). Other Twitter sources by BCHR activists can be replaced by the organisation website (it's linked from Twitter because they announce it there first). Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the February 14 Youth Coalition "started the whole thing", then Twitter posts by them represent a Self-Published Source. Twitter links that quote and rely on the testimony of deceased family members represent Primary Sources, which are not allowed. If the deceased were notable, if the Feb 14 YC has anything notable and verifiable to say about the incidents, then Al Jazeera or Al Wasat will have covered it. I understand the inclusion of a Feb 14 YC twitter post ONLY if it contradicts those (or similar) news sources, so any assertion in the article should read ...this happened (ref: Al Jazzera), but Feb 14 YV reports this happened (twitter)... The group is notable, but its methodology is not verifiable, and it is not a credible and impartial news source.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm.. What about when the Al Jazeera rely on the testimony of deceased family members? What about when Al Wefaq, Bahrain's main opposition party does that too? What about when Reuters reports that opposition activists say 80s were killed by government, but doesn't mention the deceased names? I'm ready to change my mind, but I need you (if you would) to explain what is accepted as RS, what is not and why. Thanks for your time, I appreciate your patience. As a general note, local newspapers, including Al Wasat avoid mentioning Feb 14 YC, maybe for the same reason they avoided mentioning Al Bandar report. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more question. Are primary sources not permitted at all (or very limited) in general, or is this only applicable to social media websites? For example is there a difference between a claim made by Ministry of Interior (or Bahrain Center for Human Rights) on their confirmed Twitter account and another claim made on their official website if both are not reported by a news agency? Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera, Reuters, and other media or government agencies allegedly do the research to confirm the veracity of the information they publish. We, as Wikipedia editors, do not purport to do the research, but only quote those who do the research. In other words, Al Jazeera can quote a Twitter account, we quote Al Jazeera. As far as the names of the deceased, the same policy applies. Remember, Wikipedis is Not a memorial. Some names may have to be removed from the list.
Based on policy and the Twitter discussion of verified accounts, I would say Twitter posts by the Minister of the Interior are applicable, as is information from an official government site, but only direct quotes or "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", with no interpretation or analysis of the material by a Wikipedia editor. See the policy at WP:PRIMARY. I also want to express my appreciation that we are acting in the spirit of cooperation.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Thus in the sense that we can accept Twitter posts by verified accounts assuming they allegedly do the research to confirm the veracity of the information they publish, shouldn't this also apply to Twitter accounts of human rights activists and opposition parties? In this post Feb 14 YC claim they have done research and cited a witness who have seen the incident, shouldn't that be enough? (or "its methodology is not verifiable, and it is not a credible and impartial news source")

Do links from reliable sources make a Twitter or Facebook account verified? For example, @angryarabiya is not a verified account in Twitter, however there are reliable sources such as this which say the account belongs to Zainab al-Khawaja.

What about government sources which in April 2011 denied any torture allegations, but in November 2011 accepted there was systematic torture and that five died as a result? (see Torture_during_the_2011–2012_Bahraini_uprising#Government_denials and Torture_during_the_2011–2012_Bahraini_uprising#Deaths) Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case, human rights activists and opposition parties are not news services, but they do have a position, and some human rights activists' groups are quite credible, like Human Rights Watch. Because they are not a news service, they should not be relied on primarily, but because they are credible, they can be used to refute a news service or government agency. It's all about how it's used. See my example above, ...this happened (ref: Al Jazzera), but Feb 14 YV reports this happened (twitter)....
As for unverified Twitter accounts, that has already been covered: Twitter personal feeds from unverified accounts cannot ever be used. - User:Wifione. To take a reliable source that this Twitter is that person's (unverified) account, therefore that account is by extension reliable, sounds like it violates WP:SYNTHESIS.
Third case, reliable sources deny torture, then retract denial. What's the issue? Report as is. "On this date, torure was denied (ref), but later on this date they admitted torture (ref)." People cover up, people admit, people make mistakes, are caught in lies, whatever. And readers hear one thing or another. By putting the verifiable truth forward, readers get an accurate picture.Boneyard90 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on first and third points. However, I don't see any synthesis in the second point. We are not saying that source A says so and source B says so to conclude that C is supported by both. Rather we are establishing that a Twitter account is verified to belong to a notable person by a number of reliable sources in order to use this persons tweets as a primary source. After all "verified" means Twitter approved this account, which could be interpreted in the same fashion you did (i.e. the only difference here is the method of verification). Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, in at least that case, it would be ok. ZaK has stated via Twitter, an account confirmed by X (ref), that she saw...(twitter ref). I think you see what I'm getting at. Full disclosure to the reader. A Twitter account is cited, and who verified it, but this is an exception to be used sparingly and with diligence, after all attempts at using conventional reliable sources is exhausted.Boneyard90 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll start working on references from tomorrow. Let's hope we can agree as often :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unreliable references

[edit]

I will list the numbers of references which I think are considered unreliable or primary or self published according to (what I understand so far of) Wikipedia policies, please discuss and correct me if any mistakes occur (Did I tag them correctly? Did I miss any of them?).

  1. Ref No. 18 for Fadak Habib Nasser Mushaima. [14].
  2. Ref No. 30 and 31 for Hawra Mohammed Saeed - [15]
  3. Ref No. 43 and 44 for Riyadh Hassan Rashed - [16], [17]
  4. Ref No. 58 and 59 for Mohamed Khamis al-Khunaizi. Both sources are Twitter, but each is telling a different story - Found RS [18], [19]. In Arabic: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].
  5. Ref No. 60 for Saeed Ali Hassan Al-Sikry, but there is counter viewpoint supported by a RS - [25], [26].
  6. Ref No. 62 for Abbas Jaffaar al-Sheikh. Same as above - [27], [28], [29]
  7. Ref No. 63 and 64 for Muntathar Saeed Fakhar. Same as above - [30], [31]
  8. Ref No. 69 and 70 for Zahraa Ali Hassan Al-Hawwaj - [32], [33], [34]
  9. Ref No. 69 for Abdali Abdulla Mohammed Al-Ma'ameery. [35], [36], [37]
  10. Ref No. 71 for Ali Isa Abdulla Al-Hayki. [38], [39], [40], [41].
  11. Ref No. 72 for Fatima Albasri. [42], [43]
  12. Ref No. 78 and 79 for Habbib Kadhem Ahmed al-Mulla. [44], [45], [46], [47]
  13. Ref No. 80 and 81 for Sayed Jaffar Salman Juma'a al-Alawi. [48]
  14. Ref No. 82 for Yahya Yousif. [49], [50], [51]
  15. Ref No. 87 and 88 for Jaffar Jassem Radhi. [52], [53], [54]
  16. Ref No. 91 for Sabrie Mahfoodh Yousif. [55], [56], [57].
  17. Ref No. 96 for Sayed Mohammed Sayed Radhi. [58]
  18. Ref No. 97 for Hassan Majjid Hassan. [59]
  19. Ref No. 101 and 102 for Khadija Mohamed Ali Abbas. [60], [61]
  20. Ref No. 108 for Maryam Nasser Abdulla. None found.

As I have said before, some deaths can be supported by other references not used here such as using BCHR website instead of Twitter accounts of its members (you can make edits on the list itself if you want). Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the lack of reliable sources for most of these. Many of the names should be removed from the list, but I will not protest if #3 (Mohamed Khamis al-Khunaizi; Ref #58,59) stays. Also, if the Twitter account for Nabeel Rajab is confirmed as a verified account by a separate reliable source, then as per our discussion regarding Zainab al-Khawaja, it would seem information associated with Ref #69 & 79 would also be acceptable.Boneyard90 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nabeel Rajab account is confirmed for sure lol. He's been arrested three times so far for tweets. Here are two refs [62], [63]. What I'm trying to do now is find RS for those for don't have then remove the rest. If others want to discuss this in the future, they can see names here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done searching for RS. Currently there is only one death which I found no RS supporting. The rest have references, some are clearly reliable, while others might need checking. It would be nice if you can check them. I have found that a death which I removed before is included in Bahrainrights website: Shabeer Mammed [64]. I removed him (diff), because the source provided [65] [66] didn't mention he died due to tear gas. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I found a source for the last death! Al Manar. Well, better than nothing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're doing some good work. Keep it up.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Casualties of the Bahraini uprising of 2011 and its aftermath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Casualties of the Bahraini uprising of 2011 and its aftermath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bahraini uprising of 2011 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casualties_of_the_2011_Bahraini_uprising_and_its_aftermath&oldid=1206575432"