Talk:Mahdi Abu Deeb

Improvements
According to Ref 1 (which it's URL needs to be corrected to: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/10/20111016145759140585.html), Deeb founded BTA in 2001. This is also confirmed by Al Wasat news paper. I'm not being bold, because this will probably result in an edit conflict.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  09:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Sorry if I've been blocking you from working on this! I couldn't sleep tonight and was looking around for stuff to do. =) Khazar2 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain Mirror--reliable source?
These expansions look largely good to be, but I see two potential problems here that we might want to clear up. The first is that the article relies heavily on the Bahrain Mirror, which I'm not sure qualifies as a reliable source. You've done a good job of mentioning in many places an "according to the B Mirror", but I still wonder if we should be using this quite so heavily? I also worry that the level of detail included about the torture accusations starts to throw NPOV a bit out of balance; we expand on Deeb's claims quite a bit and the govt. claims very little. But I know this is tricky, since this is a case the government probably prefers not to talk about--there's going to be much more about there from Deeb's supporters. You know the Arabic sources better than I do, though, so I'll let you take it from here; I just wanted to put those thoughts out there. Kudos on gathering all this research! Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Bahrain Mirror is reliable. Many of journalists working on that site used to work in Al Wasat, even their logo look similar. As explained in their first article, they created the website after government targeted journalists (BCHR report documents 90 cases of targeting journalists). Anyway, some of the material published by Bahrain Mirror 7 months ago were mentioned by Deeb during his trial on 2 April as reported by Al Wasat. For example:

So actually, we can remove "according to Bahrain Mirror" from some sentences and replace them with Deeb said.
 * 1) "I was thrown from the first floor then beated by 10 men".
 * 2) "I was forced to sign papers I can't read".
 * 3) "I wasn't allowed to pray for 4 days".
 * 4) "Asian military nurse threatened and beaten me"
 * 5) "He mentioned the name of one of his torturers". - they actually don't name him, but from description you know it's the same person (Mubarak bin Huweil).


 * About the NPOV part, I don't think the government denies the torture, especially after the BICI report. Anyway, just to add balance, here are some articles from pro-gov media that mention Deeb:, , , , , .  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also Bahrain Mirror were more accurate when they mentioned Deeb was arrested from his cousin's house, which his daughter mentions too in the video.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion about reliability of Bahrain Mirror in WP:RSN here.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  08:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, and thanks for addressing this so thoroughly. When I questioned the Mirror's "reliability" I just meant in the sense of whether they were considered a Wikipedia-approved "reliable source"; I don't necessarily doubt the quality of their journalism. I just want to make sure this one holds up for higher levels of review in case you want to take it to DYK, etc. As for the balance issue, you're quite right that the govt. case doesn't differ much from Deeb's statements. I added one additional line just to give some sense of their argument, but didn't see much more that could be added. I do wish we could find a govt. response to the torture allegations, even if it's just a line in Al Jazeera or somewhere that "the govt refuses to comment". But I didn't see that in reviewing the sources originally, so it might be WP:UNDUE anyway to specifically seek it out and include. Anyway, I'm satisfied with where this is at, I think. The article has a lot of allegations (as so many of these torture articles do), but I think we have them well-sourced to the people and organizations who made them. Khazar2 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. I've contacted Maryam on her Twitter account and she provided an image.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific! With the image, this seems like a good candidate for GA, perhaps. Khazar2 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What were BTA's real demands?
One of the sources (Bahrain Center for Human Rights) says:


 * The Bahrain Teachers Association (BTA) who have played a significant role in the February 14 uprising as they stood in solidarity with the people’s demands, calling for strikes in protest to the brutal attacks on the peaceful protesters in Feb 2011 and to pressure the government to respect human rights and meet the people’s demands.
 * Their strong role in support of the uprising led to a crackdown where both teachers and teachers’ unionists became subjected to arbitrary arrests, military prosecution, torture, suspensions, salary cuts, and investigation.

The article mentions that "Deeb ... criticized the government and its response to the protests" and says that BTA demanded "reforms in Bahrain's educational system and protesting killing and suppression of activists, of which students made a high percentage".

I think that without emphasizing that Deeb and his BTA "played significant role in uprising" and had the "strong role in support of the uprising" some uninitiated reader could be mislead to believe that government prosecuted Deeb and BTA because of their demands for "reforms in Bahrain's educational system" and protests for ill treatment of the students during this uprising.

I propose to emphasize that Deeb and his BTA "played significant role in uprising" and had the "strong role in support of the uprising".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point, agreed.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  10:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability and BLP
Notability

Wikipedia:Notability (people) ''When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.''

The event in this case is arresting of BTA leader who played important role in support of anti-government protests. I am concerned about this event's/person's notability.

Victimisation

I am not sure if this article meets demands of WP:BLP, more precisely the section which says Avoid victimisation:

''When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.''

Using the subject as a self-published source

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases..."

Deeb's daughter is a source for numerous assertions in this text either directly or trough press releasess.

Summary:

Deeb is obviously notable for one event which is his persecution. He (mis?)used his position in BTA to support anti-government protests. His role in protests is eluded with claims that his demands were "reforms in educational system" and treatment of the student protesters. His case is expected to have a hearing at the Supreme Court of Appeal on 2 May this year.

I would appreciate comments on my concerns. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. Deeb is obviously notable. The arrest of BTA leader is not to be isolated from the bigger picture which is arresting anyone who played an important role in the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising as a type of repression, which it self is a notable event. Besides, the coverage is for his role in February-March 2011, arrest in April 2011, imprisonment since then, alleged torture, trials since September 2011 till April 2011 and responses to all of that. He's been called a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty international, and just reading the section about responses should make it clear how notable he is.


 * The victimization/details part, I sorta agree and wouldn't mind it getting fixed/summarized. This point was raised by Khazar above, but I guess it was left unresolved.


 * I don't think there are any self-published sources used in the article. How would you conciser Deeb's daughter statements as self-published sources?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  11:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to briefly agree with BA's notes above. Abu Deeb has received enough sustained individual coverage and discussion that I don't think it would work very well to fold all of this content into the 2011-2012 Uprising master article. This a nationwide conflict with many players; a good comparison might be the many articles we have on decorated soldiers, war criminals, and other unusual cases for World War II, who are often only notable for involvement in World War II, but still are not all put into the master article.
 * I do agree with you that the article goes into perhaps too much detail about his victimization for neutrality purposes, but given that his family has gone to such great lengths to publicize this on his behalf, I'm not sure it falls under the victimization clause. (I do appreciate your bringing that up, however--I wasn't previously familiar with it.)
 * As for self-published sources, I think everything in the article is published by a third party, even if it quotes a Deeb family member. Thanks for taking a look at this one! Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. I kind of agree with you, so I will not insist on my concerns regarding notability and BLP.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for your opinion about the neutrality issue connected with victimisation. I don't want to be involved in editing too much because I am reviewing this articles' DYK nomination. In order to avoid taging this article as POV somebody should take care about this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a pass at it right now. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to reduce the sections that seem to me excessively detailed in terms of narrative while leaving the details that seem important to the legal case (such as his enumeration of his injuries before the court). Since his alleged torture (which the Bahraini government's own commission of inquiry appears to have confirmed) is a big part of the story here, I don't want to cut too much. Do these edits seem like a fair balance? I'm happy to take another pass if you'd like. Khazar2 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Charges
The article says Mahdi Abu Deeb has been charged for:


 * "halting the education process, promoting hatred of the regime and disseminating fabricated information"
 * "had issued statements that led to problems within Bahrain's entire education sector"

The sources emphasize:


 * issuing BTS statements inciting hatred of the political regime and violent crimes . He also faces charges of advocating regime change by force, and through illegal means, and calling for civil disobedience. 24/7 news
 * Association to incite the commisssion of criminal acts ..... promoting the overthrow of the Government by force ...Government's response to the UNHCR

Without adding that he was charged for "promoting the overthrow of the Government by force and illegal means" and "criminal acts" the information in article would not correspond with sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it does correspond with some sources (you can check the quotations against the footnoted refs); it's just that the sources don't correspond with each other. But thanks for going the extra mile to find these additional sources. The complete list of charges is a big help. For now I've tried to strike a balance by leaving the charge descriptions of Al Jazeera et al. while adding these new statements in as well. Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Torture
Allegedly tortured Deeb and Bahrain Mirror (anti-government dissident paper) is the only source for serious accusation against two government officials. Such serious accusation should be based on high quality sources and Deeb and I think that BM can not be considered as such. Therefore I propose to remove the names of the government officials Deeb identified as men who tortured him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I agree they should be removed for now till further reliable sources are provided. (I have came across one of them regarding medical team torture case, but I have no time to do research currently).  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry
... is used as source for two very important assertions. First about Deeb's activities during the protests and second about his mistreatment in the prison which included beating. Maybe I did not look carefully, but I could not find any menton of Deeb's name in the above mentioned source. Is it possible to get some quotes from this source which support this serious claims?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes they didn't give his name. While I find it clear the report was referring to Deeb's statements since no other BTA member was sentenced to 10 years, the same info about torture (and more) is available in other human rights report by Human Rights First pages 6 and 7. Also, this FIDH report about their recent mission confirms Deeb spoke about torture during his recent trial on April and shows the organization response to that.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If they did not give his name then this source should not be used to support the above mentioned assertions because it could be seen as WP:OR and source mistreatment, regardless of the fact that there are other sources which do support the above mentioned assertions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll remove the part about his activism supported by BICI and replace the BICI ref which supports torture by that of HRF.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Responses
Without government response to the criticism this section of the article does not fully meet NPOV requests.

There is a source which prove that very important organization (OHCHR) was deeply concerned because of the human right issues in Bahrain and sent appeals and requests for explanations. The first among many issues they were concerned was related to Deeb.

I think that UN's agency should be mentioned in this article. Not only because it is important but mostly because it could be presented within the main points from the government's reply (1)that Deeb was found guilty by the court, 2)that he had been afforded all judical guarantees and 3)that he has right to appeal) which are necessary to be presented within responses section in order to meet NPOV requests.

Any comments?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're referring to the .pdf of a written statement of a Bahraini ambassador to OHCHR again, I'm reluctant to draw on that document too extensively per WP:PRIMARY (just as we haven't drawn on the complaint originally submitted to OHCHR or other presumably available paperwork from them). Is it possible for you to find the information you'd like to include covered or quoted in a reliable secondary source instead of a direct statement by an involved party? Even if it's quoted in state media, that would be better, I think. Khazar2 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the .pdf statement of Bahraini ambassador to OHCHR is a Primary source. It provides "insider's view of an event" which is needed in this case (as I emphasized at the beginning of this section, "Without government response to the criticism this section of the article does not fully meet NPOV requests.") Not for extensive use of this document. Just for one sentence which could say that:
 * "When OHCHR informed government of Bahrain about their deep concerns of the human rights issues in Bahrain which included Deeb's case, Bahrain's ambassador replied that Deeb (1)was found guilty by the court, 2) had been afforded all judical guarantees and 3) has right to appeal."
 * I don't insist on .pdf document as source. If you have other sources for government responses to the criticism, use them instead of .pdf. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind adding that even if it's primary source if no secondary sources can be found (which is a bit strange), but I also want HRF and FIDH comments on the trials to be added.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added that document as well as the response from the OHCHR's Special Rapporteur. I wish we could find the OHCHR's official findings for further context, but that combo should do nicely. Poking around for this, I also found a vote by the EU Parliament on Deeb which I've included, along with a secondary source to show its (mild) notability. Khazar2 (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the FIDH doc, Mohamed CJ, I think it might be a bit mild to include here; the furthest it appears to go is to say that they're concerned Deeb's torture allegations aren't being taken seriously enough by Bahraini authorities. I don't have any major objections to including it, but I feel like this ground is already covered by some of the stronger critiques in the article. If you still want to put it in, though, I won't object. Khazar2 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, now you call me Mohamed CJ instead of BA after seeing the twitter account. I don't mind as long as you think this is for the best of the article.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding this section with government's response and some additional important responses. I propose to rearange this section to follow some order. Either the importance (first UN, then EU, then various NGOs) or chronology (which is probably most neutral and suitable for expected further expanding).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

New response.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)