" 
 ::Where to start?  Firstly, I looked for the SLRB report, but couldn't find it.  What I did find was the BNA release.  I replaced the Jamri source giving the reason, using the shorthand ""Substituted official cite"" to mean ""one is from an official source who's only focus is reclamation, the other is from a paper on Sunni:Shia relations which has no interest in the factual accuracy of this point"".  I thought this was fairly reasonable shorthand, especially as we're not discussing a contested point (although actually, as it happens, we're likely both wrong and the number is likely >84 now, but that's a different matter). 
 ::You added it back, I removed it.  Again, this seems like common sense to me, but I pointed you to WP:OVERCITE and explained why the BNA source is ""better"".  As you've read the policy, you've seen this: ""A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient.""  Sure, you'll point to the next sentence which talks about ensuring against linkrot, but again this is just not such an important point that it needs two cites.  And, as the data is almost certainly already out of date, linkrot is not going to be a huge issue as within a year or two someone will update the article to reflect the new number of islands/island clusters.  The key point in WP:OVERCITE is this, ""The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be read"" and doubling up cites on unimportant points is unnecessary.  So then we're back to which source to use.  
 ::* As I said in the edit summary, one is from an official source solely related to reclamation, one is not.   
 ::* One contains more detail and so is factually accurate, one is not.  The Jamri source is factually inaccurate when it says 84 islands, as the BNA source makes clear that there are actually more than 84 islands, but there are 84 islands and island clusters. 
 ::* One source is dated 2008, one source is dated 2010.  Not a big deal, but now that mousing over a cite will pull up the cite detail, there may be some who do that but go no further.  With the Jamri cite, they'll form the impression that the data is from 2010, with the BNA cite they'll correctly see that it's from 2008(ish). 
 ::* Your point about the formatting of the BNA source is a minor one.  Granted it's been written by someone who is not perfectly fluent in English, but there's no difficulty in understanding what he's written and no inaccuracies have crept in.  All caps is not an issue; remember, the cite is to back up the statement in WP, it's not really there for further reading.  When it's a choice between formatting and facts, facts win every time. 
 ::* Final point.  Didn't mention it in the Edit Summary, as I was being civil, but you may recall me from last year when I tried to get involved in rewriting parts to do with the BICI & other elements of Bahrain current affairs.  I was having internet problem which ended with my connection going down for 2 weeks and me giving up on WP for a while, but before that I remember having to fight you line by line to try to get a NPOV article out.  This is just my perception mind, and may therefore be incorrect, but it was my belief that you were editing the page to provide a very one-sided view and, more, were doing your best to use cites as a way to present your case.  For example, a reasonably innocuous statement would have a cite to an article about human rights violations when there was a perfectly good alternative cite from a source like Reuters that fully supported the point made but didn't stray into politics.  I see this here, where you're trying to shoehorn an article on the Shia in Bahrain into an unrelated area when there's a factually superior source.  Perfectly understandable behaviour for an activist and an unavoidable problem with WP being edited by it's users (those most knowledgeable and interested in a subject are rarely uninvolved), but not something I agree with; apologies if I'm off base on this. 
 ::All that said, I was interested to see the Jamri article mentioned the subject that drew me to Bahrain in the first place, namely the Sunni:Shia proportion.  I don't suppose you have a link to that analysis of the 2006 election results, as 62% would support Gengler's assertion of a lower than expected proportion of Shias.  I hadn't included Gengler's in the Demographics section as it didn't seem to be verifiable enough, but it'd be interesting to see if there are other studies.   "