Talk:Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain

Thanks for copy editing
Thank you Ian Waithaka for lifting the burden of copy editing the article. You've done a great job. Mhhossein (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Ian Waithaka (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
Article implies that the Saudi intervention was primarily for financial reasons, ignoring much of the surrounding tensions, possibly assuming people have a background understanding of those tensions. Noting also the article needs a copy edit, there are poorly written sentences and spellings all over the place. WormTT(talk) 19:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Worm That Turned: Did you miss "Sectarian & Geopolitical goals"? Mhhossein (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please consider my previous note? Mhhossein (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I considered it. You know I didn't "miss" part of the article, it's woefully insufficient. WormTT(talk) 12:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please be specific by saying what exactly has to be covered and present sources if you know any in this regard. Please avoid making general comments as you did when tagging the article. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient explanation at the AfD discussion and the DYK discussion. You've made no changed to the article since either of these discussions. If I were to make the changes, I would be deleting large sections, so I better not. WormTT(talk) 19:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As the many opinions showed, and some editors said, the AFD was a clear mistake (I can't still figure out why you nominated that as an admin!). I won't base my edits on your apparently non-neutral approach and will gather more views toward your tags. This way, I can understand what the problems are, if there are any. Mhhossein (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus showed that the article should exist, but not that it should exist in this form. It certainly doesn't imply it was a mistake (the consensus wasn't unanimous). However, to make it easier for you, I've made a basic list of issues that I would want changed before even considering removing the tags. WormTT(talk) 09:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Initial list of issues
I hope that gives you something to be getting on with. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Title needs changing - should really mention "uprising" and I'm not keen on Saudi-led, as they did not appear to be co-ordinating it, just sent in the most troops. I would recommend "Intervention in 2011 Bahrain uprising", but would accept "Saudi-led intervention in 2011 Bahrain uprising"
 * The background needs to be covered. Not in depth, we're already FORKing, but the religious tensions in the area exacerbated by the Sunni rulers needs to be right at the beginning of the article. Then a brief overview (no more than a sentence) of the riots on the uprising. Then that Bahrain's rulers contacted the GCC for help, which included Saudi Arabia, also ruled by a Sunni family. The Sunni - Shia tensions are one of the most significant factors in this article and the word Sunni is not mentioned even once. The causeway between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is mentioned in the deployment but it needs explaining that this is an issue for Saudi Arabia which they would want to protect.
 * Accusations of conspiracy without evidence which went no further should not be included in the article.
 * Forces used should include all forces, not just Saudi. I believe at the time there were 1200 from Saudi Arabia and 800 from UAE - plus some from Kuwait, would need to see a source on those.
 * The economic goals section is given far too much weight based on the sources provided. I would recommend removing the titles and making it one section, with less weight given to the economic goals, and more to the religious goals, per the sources. One person's opinion on US interests should be removed.
 * The phrase "according to" is used 6 times in the article (not great), but more importantly, it doesn't always explain why the source is relevant. For example, who is Nuruzzaman and why should we care?
 * Aftermath and reactions should be combined
 * The image should either be in the aftermath section with a bit of information about the protest (as the only information is in the image at the moment). I'm struggling to find any evidence that the image was of protesters marching on the Saudi Embassy... do you have any evidence of that? The source certainly doesn't say it.
 * Thanks for the list which features specific points. Please consider that:
 * I agree with having a background and I don't know why I have not created that. Do you know any reliable sources for the suggested points to be included in the background?
 * I have no problem with removing the accusation of Iran's conspiracy. But how can we remove it when there are 2 sources discussing it (both of the sources have said that the accusation was baseless)?
 * There's already a section devoted to all the "units involved", as you see. I've tried to use reliable sources for writing them and I did not repeat the data in the lead in order to keep it brief & informative. I think the best way is to reflect the number of involved units in the infobox.
 * The economic goals can be developed if I can find more sources in this regard (what do you think?). Source #12 by Bronson also deals with economics. That's mainly based on Nuruzzaman's article who's Associate Professor of International Relations at the Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait. He was educated from University of Alberta. Per his previous works, he's considered an expert in this area and we'd better bring his points here. So, why not having an expert point on US interests? Moreover, I found two other sources ( and ) pointing out U.S. interests. What's your idea?
 * "According to" was used with the aim of making proper attributions to avoid POV problem. In fact, I did it not state the opinions as facts and to let the readers know they are just some opinions. Can we remove them? or change them? how?
 * I agree with merging aftermath if we can't find more sources for it. But note that reaction section is a common section in Military history articles.
 * I agree with you on the image issue and I also can't find evidences that the image was of protesters marching on the Saudi Embassy. What kind of evidence do we need?
 * Thanks again for the points raised. They certainly will lead to the enhancement of the article quality. Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We can add or remove whatever we like, we're the editors here - we don't to include facts which are not relevant to the article and we should missing ones that are. The article should stand alone, so the background section is very important, I'll be interested to see what you create. The Iran conspiracy theory should go all together, it has been debunked by sources and is no longer pushed by the government, therefore it is not relevant to the either the uprising or the intervention. Just drop all mention of it, all together. I would be careful of adding more to the economic goals, if you are having to search hard for the reasons behind something, those reasons you find are probably not suitable for wikipedia, we're not meant to be adding information from the fringe. The units involved section only mentions Saudi troops, while they do not make up the whole force. The problem with that many "according to"s is that it's clear that the article is based on opinion, which Wikipedia articles shouldn't be. That's why we shouldn't really be focussing on opinions of goals, unless it's gleaned from a large number of sources. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the above points, as far as I see. Can you please check to see if I have done them correctly or any thing is left undone? Mhhossein (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to keep on the discussion Worm That Turned? Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Duration of presence of foreign troops unclear

 * The infobox says the date was "14 – 18 March 2011 (4 days)"
 * But the same infobox also states that the result was "Suppression of Bahraini opposition demonstrators from 2011 until 2012"
 * The "Units involved" section implies the troops were still there in 2014.

When exactly did the foreign troops withdraw? Please clarify.

Junuxx (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Junuxx: The third one seems more logical to my eyes. The first one is not sourced and the period mentioned in that of the uprising. But my question is if Saudi forces have really withdrawn from Bahrain. -- M h hossein   talk 13:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Iran proxy conflict
Hey IP, instead of committing edit war, please tell us which of the sources are exactly supporting your claim. -- M h hossein   talk 17:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/weekinreview/20proxy.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Bahraini_uprising CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents
Hello User:Mhhossein‬, I didn't see your message on your revert edit. Apologies. I have made my edit to the belligerents on this article to clarify the Saudi-led conflict with Bahrain. Kuwait never participated as far as I know in the peninsula shield force intervention in Bahrain, I would love to add their name if there was a sourced material to back this up. As for the SANG, I think the force participating, either from the SANG or the UAE Ministry of Interior, was called the "Peninsula Shield Force" officially. Bahraini opposition, which carry the Bahrain flag, is a group of pro activists with multiple banners and they really don't have an official organization or transitional government with the Bahrain flag. I think its necessary to distinguish them from the Cabinet of Bahrain which carries the Bahrain flag. I have made my edits for clarification purposes. Please let me know if you disagree with my edits and I'm sure we can come up with a good solution. Cheers! Wikiemirati (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for respecting my call to TP discussion. 1- See Refs 20 & 21 regarding Kuwait involvement. 2- I'm OK with "Peninsula Shield Force". 3- You might be right regarding the Bahrain flag. 4 - You removed Saudi Arabia and Emirates bullet points, why? -- M h hossein   talk 19:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1- Ref number 21 and 20 consider Kuwait to be "patrolling the border", as this article talks about an "Intervention" I think it is misinterpret the reader that Kuwait actually played a part in the intervention. Ref no 20 also state "The U.S. Navy, which has maintained a permanent naval presence since 1947, was already there. In addition to the estimated 5,000 Saudi and Emirati forces, about 7,000 American military personnel are stationed less than 10 miles from the Pearl Roundabout, the center of the country’s protest movement — Bahrain’s equivalent to Tahrir Square." Under similar sense we can also add the US as a belligerent which would give a false impression that the US was involved in the intervention. That is why I propose removing Kuwait from the Belligerent, as they sent no troop into Bahrain and simply increased security in their borders.


 * 4-We can leave the Saudi Arabia and Emirates bullet points, I removed them because "Peninsula Shield Force" flag encompass them both, much like the NATO flag. We can leave the flags to detail which countries exactly are involved in the "Peninsula Shield Force".
 * Let me know what you think. Thanks! Wikiemirati (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned sources say that "To keep the Khalifas on their throne...Kuwaitis sent their navy to patrol the borders." This is much different from the already stationed US forces. Kuwaity forces were sent for their defined mission hence were part of the intervention. Btw, "Decisive Bahrain government victory", is a clear original researched POV restoring which is not welcomed. -- M h hossein   talk 14:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Increasing border patrol does not mean an intervention. The article is titled intervention, I do not recall Kuwait sent forces into Bahraini waters or land, to me the aforementioned source simply states as you quoted "Kuwaitis sent their navy to patrol the borders.", not intervened in Bahraini territory. I do agree however with the status quo, you can keep it as "suppressed" instead of "victory" as there was no military clash apart from one bomb which was set. The original Bahrain article about the uprising mentioned victory of the cabinet of Bahrain over the Bahraini opposition, that is why I included it here. Thank you for your reply. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for expansion of the infobox. As for the Kuwait issue, the source says that the action of sending were done with the aim of "keeping the Khalifas on their throne". -- M h hossein   talk 12:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)