Talk:Pearl Roundabout

Correct Arabic: Singular or plural or both
Taking note of the new Arabic Wikipedia article, I'm now wondering whether we should state that the Arabic name is Dawar al-lu'lu' (147,000 Google hits in Arabic, and what we have now), Dawar al-lu'lu'ah (815,000 Google hits, and the Arabic Wikipedia title), or both. Wareh (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Always thought it was the singular. It only has one pearl after all! 173.255.228.156 (talk)

Past tense/destruction of roundabout as roundabout accurate?
The only cited source says the BDF "cleared the country's Pearl Roundabout area of anti-government protestors, bulldozing and burning their camp." The monument is destroyed, that's clear, that belongs in the past tense. But it seems premature to speak of the roundabout in the past and as "bulldozed," when our source only says the protesters' camp was bulldozed. Unless the roadway has been torn to shreds (and we have a WP:RS saying so), traffic may not be using the roundabout now, but it's still a roundabout. Wareh (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Protestors had already torn out the paving and kerbstones for barricades, and the vegetation was gone. Today the monument is also gone. They pushed one of the 'sails' with a buldozer and the whole thing just sort of twisted up and collapsed in on itself. Ignominious end for such an iconic Bahraini landmark. 173.255.228.156 (talk)

Peninsula Shield involvement (destroyed monument caption)
There have been no confirmed reports of Saudi or Peninsula Shield involvement in March 16th events, image description is not credible. Someone should change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WafaAlsayed (talk • contribs) 07:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What you say is half true based on our sources. For the March 18 destruction of the monument we have no source stating GCC involvement, so the caption was rightly changed to remove this.  On the other hand, for the March 16 events (demolition of the protesters' camp), the MSNBC story says clearly that BDF, riot police, and GCC forces did this together, so I'm restoring that, in a more cautious form that need imply nothing more than that the military forces entered after the camp was cleared.  Wareh (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Annoyingly, the MSNBC article is no longer in the same form as when it was originally cited and no longer makes specific mention of riot police or GCC forces. There is no reason to consider this a correction, but, in light of this, if you feel the text I have left is not correct, please feel free to improve it. Ideally we would have good sources about the role of the GCC forces in this, though. Wareh (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * However, note here, a Reuters photo captioned, "Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) forces move in to Pearl Square to evacuate anti-government protesters in Manama March 16, 2011." So, unless we find a WP:RS calling such reports of GCC involvement an error, I will maintain a stronger position, which is that the reference to Peninsula Shield Force in connection with the March 16 events is supported by sources and must remain.  Wareh (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Bahraini Foreign minister announced in meeting yesterday that GCC forces are used to protect vital buildings. Thus, there is still no evidence of whether they were involved or not. Can someone guide me to an article where credible sources are stating this. How can one distinguish between GCC troops and BDF ones as one can argue uniforms are similar. Did any official, be it Bahraini or non-Bahraini announce this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WafaAlsayed (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given the Reuters reference which claims that GCC forces moved in on 3/16 to clear protesters. Reliable news media can be assumed to be factual without other reliable sources contradicting them.  Bahraini government statements, obviously, do not serve the same function as sources, but you should feel free to add, with a footnote, a Bahraini government claim that may contradict the media reports.  Wareh (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Image
To change the subject to the "Image of destroyed monument" announced in the previous section's title, it lacks licensing (taken from the internet without any clues provided about the photographer's rights and permission) and is eligible for deletion for tomorrow. See commons:File:Pearl Monument Leveled 20110318.jpg. So I've gone ahead and removed it here. If anyone thinks they can save it by argument or by producing the photographer's permission, the time is short. On the other hand, we do have a properly licensed image of the monument in the context of the recent protests. It seems obvious to me this belongs at the top; the entire site has become far more notable through this association than for any other reason, and at least this image tells part of the story of the present situation. It's quite lovely to look at the Bahraini flags flying under beautiful blue skies, but that has little encyclopedic value in comparison. Note that there is no indication from any WP:RS in the article that the monument ever attracted significant praise or admiration as a work of architecture from important critics, etc. Wareh (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is "nostalgic" about the image. The protest image with tents should go in the protest section, as it is related to that section. The old image accurate shows the roundabout and monument, thus is a more complete representation of the contents of the article (roundabout + public square + monument); the protest picture only shows tents and the monument, thus is incomplete. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, "Pearl Roundabout with nothing happening in it" is not actually what I believe many readers now and in the future will come here to read and learn about. "Protest + monument" trumps "Roundabout + square + monument" precisely because the roundabout and square now derive about 90% of their encyclopedic notability from having been the site of protests.  While of course I'd like an even better picture that told this story with a wider or better view, etc., I remain convinced that the one we've got is much more relevant than any older image unrelated to the events of 2011.


 * Let me put it this way. By my count, something like 422 of the article's 705 words of text are devoted to protests and demolition.  Thus, I support featuring more prominently an image that has to do with the majority of this article's content and of this topic's interest to the reader.  (The WP:LEAD in general reflects the overall composition and content of the article, so I don't find persuasive the idea that an image related to the most important section of an article should be placed down in that section rather than in the lead.)


 * I do hope others will add their opinions about this to ours. Wareh (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)