Template:Did you know nominations/Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Three reviewers have raised POV issues with this nomination that have not been adequately addressed after over six weeks, and now the article is at AfD for POV issues. It is time to close this as unsuccessful. Should it ever become a Good Article, it can be nominated at that time.

Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain

 * ... that Bahrainis called the Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain an occupation and a declaration of war?


 * Reviewed: Narjis

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 05:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC).




 * Symbol possible vote.svg uninteresting hook. Surely every intervention by a foreign country that is unauthorised, would be considered an occupation or an act of war by the host country? I'm surprised you didn't draw on the conspiracy theory line with this article, as you have done with so many articles. Could it be that you have learned to avoid conspiracy theories? Or is it that the conspiracy goes against your pro-Iranian POV?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are disgusting. Could you please politely deal with such issues? If I were to avoid the conspiracy theory line, I would not include it in the lead of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The hook and article content is only the opinion of the Shia opposition group, al-Wefaq. They do not speak for all "Bahranis" and to do so is would be an obvious bias POV.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's easy:
 * ALT1: ... that Shia led Bahraini opposition called the Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain an occupation and a declaration of war? (per sources, it's not only "al-Wefaq", per sources. Mhhossein (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two sides to the intervention. To only state one side and make no mention of the other in the hook is bias. How about finding something more interesting which doesn't enter the territory of opinions?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What about this:
 * ALT2: ... that Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain marked the first time GCC uses such a collective military option for suppressing an uprising? Mhhossein (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you still wish to keep on with reviewing this nomination? Mhhossein (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * New reviewer is needed: Former reviewer is probably no longer wiling to complete the job in spite of being pinged. I request another reviewer. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including consideration of previously raised issues; earlier hooks struck due to discussion to date. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @BlueMoonset I'll do the review. @Mhhossein there appear to be some problems with the article, can you please fix them? I'll just detail them below


 * BlueMoonset: Unfortunately I don't consider FreeatlastChitchat neutral here, nor I consider him much of a reviewer. I don't know If I can ask for another reviewer. Please stop hounding me on different pages. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein Your quite blatant and to be frank cringe worthy personal attack will not get this DYK through. And as my review is above board, you do not have a leg to stand on. Now stop getting personal and remedy the article so it can be promoted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * blatant or anything else, you're not considered neutral here and I can't understand why you hound me almost where ever I go. Just stop doing this. You can naturally have your comments, of course and if you feel like doing a review, there are hundreds of other nominations out there which need be reviewed. Do them, but not mine. Mhhossein (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein you do not WP:OWN this nomination. I think you need to learn that before debating anything. Anyway, solve the issues and get this through, that is the simplest solution. Please do not post here any more of these offtopic "debates" use the ANI if you have a problem with my edits, or debate on the nomination if you have a problem with the review. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No one of course own this nomination. As I said, you can naturally have your own comments as an editor, but you're not considered the reviewer. Can you understand the difference? I'm waiting for another reviewer, anyway. Your hounding is fully ontopic here, just don't do that. Mhhossein (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein And I have been telling you that you do not make that decision. You do not have the right to "pick" a reviewer. You cannot tell anyone "Hey you are not considered a reviewer" that is just a personal attack. So aside from your bad behavior you are doing nothing here. Just cleanup the article as I instructed and stop posting these personal attacks here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Full review needed. The reviewer may consider the points raised above. Mhhossein (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein The "points raised above" IS the full review. Remedy the article so it can pass the nomination FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at issues raised above and read the article myself, I think the review by FreeatlastChitchat was fair. The second paragraph in the Goals section only has one source yet is making a very big statement that the intervention was financially motivated. As very little work has been done on this article since it was nominated and reviewed; I think this one should be a no. Mhhossein please do not be disheartened, you have clearly put a lot of time and effort into this article - going on the front page is not a measure of how good you are as an editor. I think this is an incredibly hard and emotive topic to write about and DYK is not the right place to broadcast it - you are just opening yourself and the article up for criticism. ツStacey (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Stacey: The article got it's first review on 26 March which was handled and the reviewer then never came back here. I even pinged him and proposed a new hook. Then, yesterday, another reviewer, who is clearly not neutral here in this nomination, addressed the hook and I did not reject his points by saying that he could naturally have his comments here, but per his background with me he couldn't be considered as a neutral editor. That's why I requested a new reviewer. So, your 'no' to this nomination is really odd to me and I should tell you that the latest review done just dates back to one day ago! did you check it? Mhhossein (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to stop getting hung up on DYK's. When concerns were first raised about it not being neutral you didn't address them. The tag on the section I am referring to has had a tag on it since the 1st April. You are dealing with controversial issues and I don't think that should be taken lightly. When a review was completed yesterday you spent your time asking for a new review and seemingly didn't agree with any of the advice given. I doubt you will take advice from me either. This DYK needs to be closed so you can focus on the articles rather than arguing with DYK reviewers. ツStacey (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to "by whom?" inline tag? Is your decision due to this really? For your information I should say that tag had nothing to do with POV issues and I just did not see that or I would, of course, addressed that. As I said, I did not disagree with the points, rather I used the right to ask for another reviewer when the current one was not neutral and had a background of hounding and other issues. I ask for BlueMoonset's intervention. --Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a request here to gather more attentions towards the alleged POV isses. Mhhossein (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The article has under gone some recent changes. Full review is requested. --Mhhossein (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg You have re-shuffled the text. I see no improvement on the issues identified (you have added 1 source?). "According to Nuruzzaman, among the important factors leading to Saudi sending troops to Bahrain were "the possibility of the loss of oil fields, terminals and crude processing plants, the loss of investment and future investment prospects, shrinking business opportunities for Saudi business firms and corporations in the Gulf sub-region. Bahrain's economic, financial and military significance has turned it into a battle ground of the three powers, i.e. "Iran, on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia and the U.S., on the other." Any Saudi departure from Bahrain would also directly affect U.S. interests." <- This needs to go! Its based on 1 persons perspective! ツStacey (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt if you've really gone through the edits made or you would see that:
 * The view point of "Bahrain opposition group" is asserted and now we know that not all the Bahraini people hold that view point.
 * The alleged "by whom?" tag (which you did not tell us if you'd failed the nomination due to that tag previously) was resolved.
 * More sources were used and it was tried to express different viewpoints to have a more informative article, , and
 * There are also some other improvements. By the way, I think that view point is not hold just by one person only (going through the sources tell me that), although we may reduce it to . --Mhhossein (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some trimmings were done. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)