Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead should note wealth

The editor 'Gorebath' removed reliably sourced content from the lead that says that Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is a billionaire and that there's a blurred line between the assets of the Government of Duibai and those of the ruling Al Maktoum family. It seems essential to clarify to readers that Al Maktoum is extraordinarily wealthy, and to give context on the sources of that wealth. It seems standard in WP articles to note in the lead when the subject is a billionaire. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need to clarify that Al Maktoum is wealthy? Most political leaders are extraordinary wealthy, we don't include it in their lead. This isn't a British tabloid were wealth is added for grabbing reader's attention, would you want to add that he owns this house or that yacht or whatever as well? Gorebath (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a distinction between being wealthy and being a billionaire. It's also pertinent to note that the wealth is in part derived from a blurry distinction between the assets of the state and his own family's, which relates to the authoritarian nature of the regime in Dubai. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the sources mention that hes a billionaire because there's a distinction of assets. You're combining references to put a narrative that is not stated by either of those sources. Gorebath (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly pertinent to his status as a billionaire that the source of that wealth be clarified. There's no dispute in RS that the assets of the government and his family are blurred. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree If riding and owning horses can be considered lede worthy, certainly there can be a mention of wealth. Given it directly relates to cited information elsewhere in article about no clear line between personal and state owned assets. Similar pattern can be seen here for example: being poet, equestrian etc. find comfortable mention. It should be on page lede of of others belonging to ruling Al Maktoum family, especially serving office holders. Perhaps it could be argued that it is just too obvious a point to mention for monarchs.  Ohsin  18:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Riding and owning horses shouldn't be lead worthy, these are not accomplishments worthy of mention; neither is a political leader's wealth. You may include his wealth in a separate section, but it does not warrant to be in the lead. This isn't the dailymail or times were a political leader or an actor's wealth is added for sensationalism and shock value to readers. Gorebath (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned! He is one of the most successful owners in the history of horse racing! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You may mention that he owns Godolphin, but to mention that he himself rides and owns horses is not lead material. Gorebath (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are overlooking his win at the FEI World Endurance Championship, he appears to have won a global level sporting event. Surely that merits mention in any article? Even someone so exceptional? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, if its an achievement worthy of mention then it should be in the lead, "riding and owning horses" as suggested by Ohsin is not lead worthy. Don't go splitting hairs on the definition of riding and owning horses. Gorebath (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is splitting hairs, the subject is notable for both riding and owning horses. That is plain enough english, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We can remove “Billionaire” but I’m not seeing a justification for removing that there's a blurred line between the assets of the Government of Duibai and those of the ruling Al Maktoum family. @Gorebath: your edit summary only addresses the first part so I’m guessing that removing the second part was a mistake? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Article continuity. There's nothing wrong with the second part of the sentence and would fit perfectly in the body of the article, however I fail to see how it fits in the lead as a separate sentence with no continuity of thought. That's like saying "Trump is a billionaire. Through Trump University, he defrauded or lied to many student." This statement would never be added to the lead as it forms no thought continuity and focuses on controversy in the lead. Lets not focus on controversy in a BLP article shall we. Gorebath (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it like saying that? Also how is it controversial? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Because the author who added the statement clearly meant to make it sound that he is a billionaire because of the blurring of assets. Of course, that may well be the case but the added two sources here do not make that connection. Also, the blurring of assets statement can be definitely counter-argued by others who may state that he may have made his own wealth with his multiple successful businesses, hence controversial statement. Gorebath (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So what is the objection to noting the blurring of assets without noting that he’s a billionaire? I don’t think anyone argues that his wealth is completely separate from the state, if you know of a source I’d love to see it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I would also note that it appears that Donald Trump’s lead doesn’t mention his billionaire status because that status is significantly disputed. Does anyone dispute that Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is actually a billionaire? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no objection of including the blurring of assets statement, however I don't find it fits in the lede which talks about his roles rather than his assets. The article is about the person, not his assets - which should be included in the body of the article. The only purpose his asset is added to the leade in this context is the authors method to point out his "authoritariansm". Donald trumps business ventures, including casinos, real estate, manhatten developments etc.. are not included in the lead. Also, Trump's billionare status is not disputed, not according to Forbes. Gorebath (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The specific reason why Trump's wealth status is not mentioned in his lead is that the status of his wealth is disputed. Old version of his lead (e.g. 2017) prominently featured a Forbes assessment that he was a billionaire. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead covers whatever the article covers, I’m not aware of any consideration that biographic leads cover roles rather than assets or accomplishments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of Gorebath, I gauge that there is full support for text in the lead on the subject's wealth, as well as the sources of his wealth. Some of Gorebath's arguments for exclusion have also been punctured, such as WP:OTHER arguments that the lead for Trump doesn't mention his wealth (it did before the status of his wealth was disputed). Surely, the text can be restored? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your argument for inclusion of his wealth is that and i quote: "it's also pertinent to note that the wealth is in part derived from a blurry distinction between the assets of the state and his own family's, which relates to the authoritarian nature of the regime in Dubai." which had never been stated by a RS... A RS stated that 1- there is a blurred line between his wealth and state assets 2- he is a billionaire. To combine and synthesize this conclusion using two RS that did not mention your aforementioned conclusion is WP:SYNTH and should not be included in the lead. Gorebath (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You're confused. The proposed text does not state that he is a billionaire because of the blurred line between the assets of the state and his family. The proposed text is that he is a billionaire and that there is no clear divide between the assets of the state and his family. If you want, we can put punctuation between the two sentences, which should resolve your one remaining complaint. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is clear your intention of associating billionaire status with the blurred assets sentence to imply causation, as clearly mentioned verbatim by you. You may include the blurred assets sentence, however attempting to associate the two sentences for a cause-effect relationship is inappropriate. Going further, to clarify that a monarch is wealthy is quite absurd as basically every monarch in the world is wealthy. Gorebath (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There are actually only less than a dozen royals who are billionaires, several of whom happen to be authoritarian leaders of resource-rich states. Are you back to arguing that readers should not be informed that Al Maktoum is a billionaire? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You may create a whole article called The finances of Al Maktoum Family for all I care, but to associate your original thought that he is a billionare because there is a blurring of assets without a RS that clearly says so is inappropriate. Queen Elizabeth gets paid by the British government, this information is trivial and not provided in the lead of her article. Neither is Hans Adam, who is a verified billionaire. You seem you're adamant on including that he is a billionare for the sole purpose to highlight his authoritarian status in the lead of the article. Again, add a RS that states this or don't add it at all. Thanks. Gorebath (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking for. You've moved the goalposts so far that you're asking for RS to substantiate text that no one is calling for adding to the lead? This is what should be added to the lead: A. He is a billionaire. B. There is a blurred line between the assets of Dubai and those of the ruling Al Maktoum family. Both of which are substantiated by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am quoting you directly here "It seems essential to clarify to readers that Al Maktoum is extraordinarily wealthy, and to give context on the sources of that wealth", also "It's also pertinent to note that the wealth is in part derived from a blurry distinction between the assets of the state and his own family's, which relates to the authoritarian nature of the regime in Dubai." Gorebath (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

with that said, I have no objections of you adding that he is a billioanre or that there is a blurred distinction of assets. Attempting to add them together to create a context is where I don't agree with. I propose you add one sentence to the lead and the other in the body of text to prevent confusion of portraying your original thought for a cause-effect relationship. You decide which statement. Gorebath (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Alleged autocrat vs. autocrat

I'm having trouble figuring this out.

I can't tell why bin Rashid *is* an autocrat—it's presented as a statement of fact—but people like Xi Jinping ("He has often been described as a dictator or an authoritarian leader by political and academic observers") and Rodrigo Duterte ("frequently described as a populist and nationalist") aren't, even with the latter's extrajudicial killing spree.

Jair Bolsonaro is not given a single description, despite this nugget: "Since 2019, Bolsonaro has faced four separate denunciations for crimes against humanity. He is under investigation before the International Criminal Court in The Hague for crimes against humanity, genocide, and ecocide."

What's the difference between a described autocrat and a straight-up autocrat? I guess I'm extra-wary of orientalist phrasing; things in the Middle East suck, but there's a "those backwards savages" coloring to the statement of fact. It's straight out of the US establishment's lexicon.

Yes, I've read the talk page. I still don't know why the guy who's got 3 million people locked up gets wiggle room when bin Rashid gets none.

FishAndCrisps (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the consensus on the Xi Jinping page to not describe him as an authoritarian ruler in wiki voice. You have to talk to the people on that page to understand their rationales. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit annoyed I missed out on the discussion you had, since I'm torn on this. On the one hand, "described as" is a fact (we can say he's described, but we can't say he *is*). On the other, I *agree* he's an autocrat. But being Arab, I'm exhausted of seeing our leaders' negatives highlighted and their positives kinda dismissed, especially since autocrats around the world get a little more legroom. It feels like there's a lot of confirmation bias against Arab leaders. Of course they *are* autocrats, not *described* as autocrats. Because Arab. So, like I said: frustrating. I'll see if I can reason with the Xi Jinping people, but if not, maybe we should reconsider this. FishAndCrisps (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do go and try to reason with the Xi Jinping people. The standard set on him, is as you say way to low. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolute monarch - need more sources

We've got Al Maktoum described as "absolute monarch of Dubai" twice in the article, both going back to the same Haartez source, from 2011. Some issues with this:

1. I can't find other sources where the phrase is used. It comes up on Goodreads, where biographies are also crowd-written unless an author comes in, but that's it. There's a Flickr one. Could anyone with better Google-Fu drudge one (or five) up?
2. The phrase "absolute monarch of Dubai" doesn't make a ton of sense, because the real ruler of the UAE is in the capital, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai isn't sovereign.
3. Also, I don't think he's technically a monarch? Maybe it's a semantics issue, but he's Prime Minister. While he's not voted in by the public, he's not an Emir, like the Thani family in Qatar, or crowned royalty. He's kind of in the middle. We should probably figure this out.

Update: I'm going to cut that from the article, as the one Israeli source on this (pre-Abraham Accords) is weird and, well, absolute monarch isn't the best descriptor, seeing as he's subservient to bin Zayed. I'm also removing "regime," a biased term.

FishAndCrisps (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This all seems like your own personal research. If you don’t think he’s technically a monarch I assume you can find a source which says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's kinda in the middle. He's the PM and ruler of Dubai, which doesn't extend to ruling the UAE; he's second to Bin Zayed, the President. My issue is with "absolute monarch," which, as I noted, is used only once, in 2011, in a Haaretz article. It's just not supported. Surely someone of this stature would have more than one credible descriptor of "absolute monarch"? I'm going to revert your edit because you undid quite a number of changes I did (including grammatical!), but I'll tinker with the intro a tad.

Update: According to the UAE government website (https://uaecabinet.ae/en/roles-responsibilities), "The Prime Minister and all the ministers are jointly responsible in front of the President of the UAE and the Supreme Council for execution of the General Policy of the Federal Government inside and outside the UAE." This suggests subordination to the president. That's not an absolute monarchy. FishAndCrisps (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to get consensus for your changes first, then you can restore them. Do we have a more reliable source? Also “suggests” isn’t really within our purview, they would have to say most of the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a more "reliable source" for the roles of UAE government positions, surely? We can doubt claims on their achievements, but this is an Emirati government website simply listing his official, recognised duties as per UAE law. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Also note that I am challenging almost all of your edits, we would need better sources for most of what you want to add. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. So let's break this down, because currently this is a mess:

(1) There is only one source that says Al Maktoum is "absolute monarch," and it's ten years old (https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216851). We need further sources on this, or it has to go. He is, strictly speaking, the Prime Minister, which is second to the President (as stated above). The English translation for that page is a little hazy, as "in front of" is taken literally from Arabic (أمام); it's supposed to mean "reports to." That does not negate the charge of autocracy, but it does mean his rule is not absolute; keep in mind that Dubai isn't even the capital.

(2) The stuff on the Emirates Mars Mission I stuck to was pretty factual, as he did in fact Tweet all that and the Hope mission did arrive at Mars before the China and US missions. I wrote around the puffery. I'm not sure why that was removed, to be honest; I wrote it in because the page on John Kennedy talks about his involvement with NASA's space missions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Domestic_policy).

(3) The word "regime" is problematic. "Administration" means the same thing, but without a negative connotation. I hate that this word is always applied to our (Arab) leaders.

(4) Honestly, I'm surprised you removed the grammatical mistakes I'd fixed, but let's settle the big stuff first. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

1) I do actually see a lot of use of absolute monarchy... for instance "The UAE is a federal presidential elected monarchy, which is a federation of seven absolute monarchies or the Emirates.”[1] 2) the sources which are reliable seem to suggest that this has more to do with the UAE than Al Maktoum. The UAE based sources and Twitter are also problematic and shouldn’t be used at all here. 3) when talking about an authoritarian state any problematic connotations of regime would appear to be moot as they would be accurate. 4) I’m not seeing any fixed grammatical mistakes but there is a lot here, can you be more specific? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) That's even more confusing. Seven absolute monarchies under one rule. Are we sure The India Times is a good resource? (2) I disagree. He sets it up and pushes for the mission (like Kennedy does with the space race) and then uses Twitter to publish the first images. I initially pulled that out from here (https://phys.org/news/2021-02-arab-emirates-publishes-photo-mars.html), but then just went to the source. (3) "Administration" is less biased—hell, government would work. The "autocratic" descriptor is there. The word regime as per this WaPo OP piece (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/is-it-the-trump-administration-or-the-trump-regime/) isn't technically being used correctly, anyway. (4) I'll just work those in as minor edits, since they're just comma splices and the like. (5) I totally forgot I also wrote in something about the Gold and Commodities Exchange. I see your point about its successes, but I think we can safely say he founded it. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

1) How is that confusing? Thats a literal description of their chosen (weird and unique) form of government. 2) always use a more reliable source over twitter, you went the wrong way. 3) the WaPo piece appears to be talking about the US not the UAE, those are not comparable political systems. 4) Still not sure what exactly you’re talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear I have no major problems with your most recent edit, [2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm amused by the implication you may have "minor problems" with it, though! To get back to business: (1) Like how does that work? It's suspect enough I can't take that India Times article seriously! (2) The "more reliable source" says he published the first images, but sure, I'll stick it in there. (3) No, you've missed the point: "“Regime” refers to the kind of governing system that runs the state. The United States has a constitutional republic for a regime, the People’s Republic of China has a communist regime, and Iran’s regime is a Shia theocracy." In my edit, I wrote, "Al Maktoum is the ruler of Dubai and Prime Minister of the UAE,[10] a position appointed by the president.[11] The UAE's government is autocratic, as there are no democratic institutions, and internal dissent is prohibited.[12][13][14][15] It is characterized by scholars as authoritarian.[16][17]" The word 'autocratic' already carries the word 'regime,' but I removed the word because I find it kinda horrible and misused (regime bad!). (4) Already addressed. (5) What do you think about this one? Also see above on why I think the UAE government website listing the PM's functions are reliable. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Haha nothing major, just for example those stray letters you accidentally inserted at the beginning of the article. This is not the place for a general discussion of the UAE’s political system, there are a number of excellent books on the subject and any of them will assist you in this regard. I’m not against a proportional mention of his involvement in the space program etc, but it needs to be from high quality sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I overlooked the stray letters! So space is fine, just add more robust sources. My wording on "absolute monarchy" still isn't good enough, I take it? Could I at least phrase it as, "Al Maktoum is the absolute ruler of Dubai and Prime Minister of the UAE, a position appointed by the president. The UAE's government is autocratic, as there are no democratic institutions, and internal dissent is prohibited"? It's a reasonable compromise. I also need your opinion on (5) The Gold and Commodities Exchange, which he founded and which is important to the UAE (effectiveness/reliability is up for debate; I'll look into it). FishAndCrisps (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That appears reasonable there, those two sentences do join well together although I think Dubai not the UAE is meant in that second sentence. The Dubai Gold & Commodities Exchange is definitely notable I’m just not sure on what level Al Maktoum was involved, from what I’m seeing he inaugurated but it seems to be in a ceremonial capacity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, so I left it ambiguous until I could figure it out. I forgot to write in the change log that I added further sources to the Emirates Mars Mission, whilst keeping it proportionate in size. Thank you for your help! FishAndCrisps (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Family assets and government assets

Should the lead note that there is a blurred line between the assets of the Government of Dubai and those of the ruling Al Maktoum family? (Source: Michael Herb's Wages of Oil: Parliaments and Economic Development in Kuwait and the UAE, pp. 110-111. Cornell University Press) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. It is a helpful clarification for readers who might be confused about the source of his wealth and the nature of Dubai's political system. The lead already notes that he is a billionaire, and that he established and oversees various state-owned companies, but it fails to clarify what is actually owned by him and what is owned by the state. I fail to see the reasons why the clarifier "it's blurred" should be excluded from the lead. Excluding such a sentence would just obfuscate the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. This is important background that can be covered in a sentence or two. I'm not persuaded by the objection. Neutrality^talk 05:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - I see no valid reason to exclude such important information from the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, only if it's included in the right context and separately without attempting to add that Al Maktoum's billionaire status is because there is a blurred line between his assets and his state and his authoritariansm, as that would be a synthesis of an original thought (as the surveyor formed previously by combining two sources and clearly explained in the above discussion) to create a context where both cited RS did not form. (See discussion above). Gorebath (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Its an important part of his background and should be included. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Important information that should be covered in the lede. As long as its well written, I see no reason not to add it. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes An important information that should be included in the lede. Sea Ane (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I concure, an important information which is relevant for bio and should be included in the lede. Ip says (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Seems to be important information for the lede, that clarifies the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't see why this isn't relevant for the lead. I'd venture a guess most people aren't familiar with how family and state wealth can bleed into each other in some Gulf States. TheSavageNorwegian 15:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of Pegasus spyware

Perhaps a separate section is needed to accommodate new findings of UK High Court related to abuse of spyware to target not only Latifa but Haya and five of her associated including Fiona Shackleton.  Ohsin  16:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Women's empowerment

OK, so User:Snooganssnoogans takes issue with a change I made on women's empowerment in the UAE. I was pretty careful with what I wrote and I challenge the accusation of "poorly-sourced puffery". This is the addition challenged:

"Women's empowerment Al Maktoum formed the Gender Balance Council in 2015, saying he was “happy to be part of [the] discussion” on empowering women within the UAE.[89] The council’s goal was to improve gender equality in the country in leadership roles,[90][91] including at the Federal National Council.[92]

Al Maktoum issued a law in 2006 to form the Dubai Establishment for Women Development, renamed by law in 2009 as the Dubai Women’s Establishment,[93] with the stated goal of putting women in leadership roles in the UAE, combating gender equality issues at the workplace,[94] and developing the professional skills of Emirati women.[95] In 2015, he issued a decree forming a board for the establishment.[96] It is led by his daughter Sheikha Manal bint Mohammed."

Note that I did not say it actually achieved any of these things, just that it said it wanted to, and also included a source like CNBC. Snooganssnoogans says an oppressive "regime" can't allow women to flourish, but theory aside, what part of my addition is puffery? Everything I added is factual: the councils were formed; these were their stated goals.

I feel this is misguided.

FishAndCrisps (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to plop a section called "Women's empowerment" into the article of the leader of a country with vast gender discrimination and repression who himself has kidnapped his daughter and wife. Not even leaders that have taken actual concrete steps to advance women's rights have those kinds of sections in their articles. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that these institutions have had a concrete effects on women's rights in Dubai. If anything, the very purpose of the institutions may be to whitewash the image of the country by purporting to be progressive on an issue where it is decidedly not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You're speculating ("may be to whitewash"). The facts: these institutions were founded, and they remain active. I did not provide a single achievement that they've claimed. It is also not our place to speculate on the hypocrisy of claiming to be for women's rights and then kidnapping your own daughter, though I notice you're ignoring that the daughter in question has since been seen in public. (He did not kidnap his wife.) The fact is, he founded these institutions. Also, could you provide examples of leaders who've done well for women's rights that don't have these sections? FishAndCrisps (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@FishAndCrisps: you appear to have forgotten that we have consensus that The National (and the other major Emirati outlets) are not WP:RS in this context. Please do not forget again. If you keep forgetting its likely that you will see yourself topic banned from BLP, the UAE, or both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: But these aren't claims of achievements. They're simply records of fact. Institution A was founded with the stated goal of B; it does not say it actually achieved it. I thought we agreed that was OK? FishAndCrisps (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We agreed on zero use for BLP or controversial topics (even under normal conditions BLPs have a higher sourcing standard and can only use WP:RS except for some about self). This would appear to be *both* Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I misunderstood, then. I didn't realise this was controversial, anyway. Women's rights in the UAE are a lot better than they were, as I'm given to understand. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume that women’s rights in the UAE will remain a controversial topic for a number of decades. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: where is this unanimous consensus that The National is not RS for BLP articles? Gorebath (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about a unanimous consensus. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341#UAE news outlets: Gulf News and thenationalnews.com. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there that using gulf news and the national is not appropriate for BLP articles. A ban on these articles does not replace WP:NPOV. Threatening a good faith editor with topic ban based on your agreement with snooganssnoogans that gulf news and thenational is not reliable is not assuming good faith. These sources can be used per WP:PSTS. These sources have not been depreciated. Unless you get consensus, please refrain from threatening users for using them and removing such sources. Thanks Gorebath (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If you don’t see a consensus on reliability then you don’t see a source which can be used on a WP:BLP such as this one... Even in your extremely charitable reading of consensus you couldn’t use it here. Also just FYI WP:ONUS exists so talk page consensus is necessary even if you think the source is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thats not how consensus works, restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus. To imply that there are community restrictions and to go as far as to threaten a user with topic ban isn't appropriate. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Unless you can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. I agree with WP:ONUS however. Gorebath (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale” agreed, unless the place is WP:RSN in which case it actually does... If you would like to challenge the consensus in the previous discussion you can, it might help to limit the conversation to just one outlet at a time if you want a green light to use them for BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you bring this to RSN you mention that the context is that you want to use a source owned by the deputy prime minister of a country on the BLP of the prime minister of that country, who also happens to be the source’s owner’s father-in-law. Aren’t Emirati politics fascinating? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

While your point is a good one, Emirati newspapers should nonetheless suffice for factual statements, divorced from claims of achievement. Why would a paper of record in the US cover internal Emirati governorship if it had no bearing outside of the UAE, even if that thing is notable enough to go on Wikipedia? I found your reverts completely unfair and biased, but decided I didn't have the attention span to keep engaging. FishAndCrisps (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That discussion appears to be in an impasse. I do not see community consensus with multiple users disagreeing on depreciating the source. I have no reason to challenge a non-existent consensus. We don't remove every impartial source from Wikipedia as that is not a substitute for WP:NPOV. Removing a source which states that person x established law x is not a contentious BLP violation that necessitates scrubbing the source from Wikipedia under COI claims and threatening multiple users with ban for using them. Gorebath (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason why these sources are not reliable for these claims is that actual RS would provide context on the women's rights situation in Dubai, as well as assess the extent to which these institutions actually serve their intended purpose. That is what RS do in countries with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The sources you cited are just stenographers for the authoritarian regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think the article on Bin Rashid warranted that. Criticism of both institutions is already in their articles. Also, please stop using the word "regime". It's a Washington establishment weasel word. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Could User:Snooganssnoogans or an editor respond to this or should we consider it resolved? There is a global increase in awareness towards gender equality issues, this is inclusive of the 'Middle East', both socially as well as on a governmental level. What is not valid in highlighting a ruler’s effort towards this? That is a fact as well as a national law, in this case, like any other law, and there are whole pages on Wiki for gender laws and women related issues. This is regardless of the rule and whether these laws or institutions are failing or succeeding at actually achieving the goals, which is on its own, an entirely different discussion. The facts of laws or establishment remain as standard common information. The establishment is a fact, and its supposed purpose was mentioned, with no cream or cherries on top. Any help or suggestions? Gorebath BristolTreeHouse FishAndCrisps (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of content - "poor sourcing"

The mass removal of content by User:Horse Eye's Back, makes one question whether there is a personal bias or opinions that are impacting this removal, versus pure improving of content and their citations, such as the publications of MBR. While I do agree with some instances, the use of the “poor sourcing” reasoning, at least, is harsh and over-done. (Why would ISBNs not be valid to including publications, and cause for the removal of the entire segment?)

Many segments were removed for poor sourcing, diversely and inconsistently – Some were purely invalid such as the removal of a section on UAE-Israel peace agreements, sourced by Al-Arabiya news, an established international news outlet, and segments removed when cited by local and government sources (The National, Gulf News, MBRSG). Local official news and official websites should be valid enough for government structures and some local events and news that otherwise, would not be covered by international news. The lack of wide international news coverage does not contradict with the credibility and significance of the stated facts, which are known facts, at least, regionally, and especially when the segments entered are not opinions and mention stated and claimed facts, such as government structure and positions, institutions founded and by law, and strategies launched by the government.

And I will be happy to continue this discussion as I continue to review the removed segments done by User:Horse Eye's Back. FishAndCrisps (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP, WP:DUE, and WP:NPA. If you have a specific question about a specific edit I made I will be more than happy to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Horse Eye's Back for your willingness to do so. Let’s start with the two points mentioned earlier:

Indeed, why would the entire section on publications be removed for need of ‘better sourcing’? Even if, according to you, the word “notable”, was obviously an issue, does it warrantee the removal of the entire section? ISBNs are clearly enough to portray the existence of publications. Any public figure that publishes work can get this mentioned to their name. This is a fact, and the use of ‘poor sourcing’ argument seems overused, as in this situation. If you have an issue with the word “notable”, then that could have been removed for needing “better sourcing. ISBNs should be enough to validate the works' existence. According to WP:BLP, “Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs”.

The removal of a section on UAE-Israel peace agreements, for “poor sourcing” where one citation was from Al-Arabiya news, which is a well-known and established international news outlet. Given the region, and the significance of the Arab-Israeli conflict -one of the most famous conflicts- and given the controversy behind the topic and establishing relations between Arab governments and Israel, this is a historic event that must be mentioned. I don’t see it valid to use “poor sourcing” when one source was Al-Arabiya News.

You did not continue the discussion on the talk thread under “Women’s Empowerment” and it is vital to bring it back up where many of your reverts, with the use of “poor sources”, were removal of content backed by sources such as the National and The Gulf. If the content is about facts of establishments of organizations, laws, strategies, with no subjective language nor puffery nor claimed information on the functionality of said organizations and opinions, then there is no issue to using such sources, as well as governmental sources, to state such facts and information. (The “Consensus” you mentioned shows no clear consensus and no community consensus). Emirati newspapers should suffice for factual statements, especially when these might not be relevant enough for international media to cover, and when in compliance of WP:NPOV. The expansive removal of content based on this, to sections with said sources, and when no puffery or subjectivity is there, seems problematic and would seem that they are to a point that is not always warranted nor objective. FishAndCrisps (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ISBNs can’t establish WP:DUEWEIGHT, just because something exists doesn’t mean that we cover it. I don’t believe that Al-Arabiya News is an independent source when it comes to the UAE and politics, they are based there and its a country without freedom of the press... It certainly can’t be used on a WP:BLP for that. The National and The Gulf can’t be used in this context because they aren’t WP:RS, note that per WP:NPOV "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Wives and children

Should the table in Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum § Wives and children section be removed for poor sourcing? Especially when it includes this many living people and leaves cells empty and says others details are unknown. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, the table should be replaced with a paragraph written with data from reliable sources. Vyvagaba (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per above.-- Abdul Muhsy talk 00:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mainly yes (Summoned by bot) no brainer really, any uncertain/disputed/unreliably sourced info should be given context by being rendered in text. Though there is no reason either way why certain & RS info should/should not be retained in a table if it clarifies. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

British Court Case

The article makes reference to a British court case concerning Al Maktoum's wife starting "On 5 March 2020, a British court ruled that on the balance of probabilities, Mohammed had abducted two of his daughters,". The court ruling on this matter ruled on matters that happened outside its jurisdiction. The trial therefore was widely viewed as unserious for this reason and the defendant, Al Maktoum, did not attend the trial nor made any serious effort to legally challenge the accusations in court. It was, for all intents and purposes, a show trial conducted by a foreign nation and has little legal significance to the parties involved. While it's questionable for the content to be part of Wikipedia's account of the subject, it certainly should not be included in the summary section above the Table of Contents, due to its shaky validity. If included, it should be included under "5. Controversies" while discussing the above view about the invalidity of the court's ruling to be fair. Snakamoto721 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)