Talk:Dubai/Archive 3

Human rights and labour
On 21 March 2006, workers at the construction site of Burj Dubai, upset over bus timings and working conditions, rioted damaging cars, offices, computers, and construction tools.[46][47][48]

Can someone finish the sentance? lll


 * What is the last sentence referring to in the first section of the article. It says something about Ness hub and human rights? I googled Ness hub and didn't come up with anything.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Ness" was the result of vandalism. I have reverted it.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hotels in Dubai
i have added a link to Emirates Residence, Which has a comprehensive listing of hotels and apartments in dubai and the rest of the emirates.
 * If you have another look I have removed this spamlink. Thanks
 * --Ad@m.J.W.C. 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Recreation section
I added the content below on recreation, which was reverted with an edit summary diff stating "the information is in Wikitravel". Actually, it isn't. There is no reference in the Dubai article to recreation, just an obscure link to Wikitravel which is focused on tourism rather than local sports and sporting activities.

I therefore propose that the following content be reinstated, which will also allow more information to be directly included on recreation and sporting activities, as is the case in many other city/location articles. The Dubai cup is quite notable, for example. Peter Campbell 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Recreation
Water sports in the Arabian Sea are popular in Dubai, including diving, water skiing, parasailing, power boating, sailing and fishing. More recently, kitesurfing has become popular at a stretch of beach close to the Burj Al-Arab on the Jumeirah coastline.
 * Peter, let me just say first off that I do appreciate your efforts in trying to improve the article. I have considerable experience in developing and enchancing Wikipedia articles on cities and feel that a "Recreation" section is unencyclopedic (and possible highly subjective). I have not found too many featured Wikipedia articles addressing the subject (in fact, a quick look at WP:FA should show you that the section is absent in the articles featured.  There is a "tourism" section in the Australia article, but that's as far an exposure as that general topic gets).  I also know that "Recreation" and "Travel" sections generally get weeded out during the peer review phase and generally don't appear in peer reviewed articles that are nominated for WP:FAC. However, I might be willing to consider a small "Travel" section depending upon how the content is structured.  Your thoughts on that are appreciated.  AreJay 01:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * AreJay, I propose a small recreation section that covers notable activities in Dubai, such as the Dubai Cup and water sports. These would be of interest to many and detail what the local population engage in.  If they are properly cited (not travel ads) then I think this content should be included. Articles such as San Francisco include a brief section on both sport and recreation.  I will have another go at adding the section when I get some time.  Peter Campbell 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oil & Gas
"Dubai's oil reserves have diminished significantly and are expected to be exhausted in 20 years. [35]"

The UAE government oil-gas report referenced in this endnote appears to be from 1999 or 2000 -- it refers to March 1999 in the past tense and 2000 in the future tense. Since the report uses the time frame of "20 years," it would therefore stand to reason that the oil reserves should have only about 13 more years. I think the statement could benefit from further clarification or updated information.

Mpiras 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy
In the first section, headed by the title "Dubai," oil and gas revenues are stated as 3% of gross revenues, yet in the "Economy" section, oil and gas revenues are stated as 30% of revenues.

Which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ms411 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor changed the figure in the "Economy" section without providing a reference. I've returned it to the 3% figure. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if there was more information as to the breakup of gross revenues of dubai. A pie-chart would be especially helpful.

(CRW) --24.9.223.43 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubai development
Is there a centralized article about all this massive Dubai development with countless of megaprojects around the city? If not, I think one should be created so we have a centralized article with basic info of each and links to separate articles with more information about all these amazing projects, including but not limited to Dubai Waterfront, Palm Islands, The World, Dubai Healthcare City, Dubai Festival City, Dubai Internet City, Dubai Media City, Dubai Studio City, Dubai World Central, Dubailand, Dubai Marina, Dubai Silicon Oasis, Dubai Knowledge Village, Dubai Humanitarian City, Dubai Maritime City, Dubai International Financial Centre, DuBiotech, Dubai Academic City, etc. -- -Majestic- 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubai Emirate vs. Dubai City
Why are there not two seperate pages for these two seperate entities? I think this page is a bit confusing, and the first paragraph needs to make the distinction about which of the two the article is about. --Criticalthinker 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Abu Dhabi city page is separated from Abu Dhabi (emirate), so why does Dubai not do the same? The lead and article article are very confusing in terms of whether the city or emirate is being described. Rai - me  04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree too. It would be a good idea to split the article into two different articles.  The problem is that there is a blur between the two.  Whenever there are statistics for Dubai, it is only for the city or only for the emirate.  Usually it is hard to find one set of data that documents the city and the emirate at the same time.  Going along with this is the government of Dubai (called Dubai Municipality).  There is only one government that controls the entire emirate, with the city of Dubai not considered a seprate entity.  Whenever the government releases information/statistics it refers to the whole emirate and not the city.  But, there is not that much difference between the city and the emirate since the majority of the people live in the city.  I do not know the exact percentage.  So, if we did split it, I am not sure how we would do that.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to throw some light on the matter, the government hasn't clearly demarcated "Dubai city limits" primarily because the city is rapidly expanding. A lot of this expansion is happening southward, towards the desert or "interior" as they like to call it. They are minor towns and villages outside what is conventionally thought of as "Dubai city" (Al Aweer and Hatta are good examples) but even in these areas, basic services are provided by the Dubai Municipality and associated city organizations.  I don't have the exact numbers (and I don't think exact numbers were ever published) but I've lived in Dubai and go back almost every year, and I can safely say that about 95-97% of the population of the emirate is based in the city.
 * Abu Dhabi's case is slightly more complicated than that and would definitely warrant having two different pages for the emirate of Abu Dhabi vs. the city. Al Ain, is the 4th largest city in the UAE but is part of the emirate of Abu Dhabi.  It even has its own city municipal corporation.  Therefore when you talk about Abu Dhabi, there's a significant difference between the emirate and city and there's a clear need to distinguish between the two.  I don't see that as a necessity for Dubai and I'm personally ok with 1 "Dubai" article as opposed to one artcle each for the city and emirate.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating UAE emirates and capitals
At several of the talk pages for the individual Emirates of the UAE, queries or proposals have been put forth for having separate articles for the emirates and their eponymous capitals (e.g. here and here. As of now, two of the emirates have been disambiguated from their capitals: Abu Dhabi (emirate) / Abu Dhabi and Ajmān / Ajmān (city).  If you are interested in discussing a comprehensive approach to the issue, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia. —   AjaxSmack   19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stress
should it be mentioned that the stress of the name dubai should be on the bai? Mallerd 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mallerd, I believe it is already there. If you look at the top of the article you will see this: .  The " ' " between "dʊ" and "baɪ" means that the strees is on the following syllable.  That means that the information about the stress is already in the article.   Leitmanp 22:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't notice it. Sorry, thanks ;) Mallerd 23:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Population
How many extra people will Dubai need in order to fill up all the buildings under construction and where will the come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.197.7 (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * is the population of dubai city 1.6 million? im not really sure because other towns/cities in dubai emirate wouldnt have a very big population, so its hard to tell.dubai emirate and dubai city should have different pages just like abu dhabi does, the 7 emirates of the uae should all have that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.25.249 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The majority of the population of the emirate of Dubai is concentrated in the city. As User:AreJay noted above, about 95-97% of the population is in the city of Dubai.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubai in the future
I think we should install a list in the article, to give a view of the many new projects in dubai (like: dubai downtown, dubai metro, waterfront, dubai world, palm islands, world- central int. airport, burj dubai etc.) Here is an animated picture, how the dubai downtown will expected look like: http://www.42international.com/images/Dubai%20Downtown.jpg --Englishazadipedia 18:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already an article about all of that. Go to Developments in Dubai to see it.  Leitmanp 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ok.. Now we should prepare a short text- phrase about that, and edit a link: "Main page Development in dubai see here: ...." This is the usuall way. If we dont mention it in at least a few phrases, and on the top of the section the "main article" per link (in the dubai article), people won't even find it. --Englishazadipedia 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Gallery
I believe the gallery that was added on 13 October 2007 by TB115 (talk|contributions) should be deleted. There are already a lot of pictures in the article. Also, the article is a general article about Dubai. If people want to see pictures about specific subjects in Dubai, they can use all the links provided in the page. There is also the template that provides easy access to many Dubai-related topics. --Leitmanp 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I question the encyclopedic value of a gallery. I am reverting the edit - the poster may defend the recent addition on this talk page. AreJay 19:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

GBLT
I have removed the paragraph on GBLT because it read like it was someone's opinion. I think this is an important topic and should be included in the article with appropriate references. I don't think there's a derth for such material on the internet - I'm sure HRW, UAEPrison.com or Amnesty International have some information that we can cite; I don't think you're going to find any goverment data on this, however, except perhaps a random Ahmadinejad-esque statement saying "There are no gays in Dubai". AreJay 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick Facts
The flag has a white bar on the side, and it's the same exact white as the background of my page. Is there some way to offset flag to show that? Maybe put the flag on a greyish background box? Lousyd (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also on my PC. It looks like the flag is just a red box as the white doesn't show up. Would be good if someone could adjust this. Thanks. Rodgerclarke (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dubai
For all interested editors, a WikiProject Dubai is currently being proposed here. Feel free to add your name if you feel you would like to be apart of this. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A temporary page has been created at User:Raime/WikiProject Dubai. Go directly there to add your name or to help us create the project.  Thank you.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharia?
I heard that the law system in Dubai is Islamic-Law (Sharia). Shouldn't this somehow be reflected in the article or am i missing a point? Hairmare (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I celebrated the new year at Dubai for the first time.. all what i remember is the Prostitutes..beer and alcohol everywhere.. so please don't talk about Sharia in Dubai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.53 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dubai does follow Sharia. I've been working on a "Civic administration" section for this article for a while, but it's still very much WIP I'm afraid. AreJay (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The laws are applied differently, depending on your religion. Marskell (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

traffic congestion
I added info about traffic congestion and the stress/money loss involved in the Transportation in Dubai article. Should any of that be mentioned in the main article as well, or just leave it where it is for now.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think some of that can be incorporated into the article; I don't think it warrants a separate section, however. If possible, I think we should try to mirror the article along the lines of the WP:USCITY or WP:UKCITIES formats. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity
i disagree with the ethnicity sub-section in this page..1st of all emiratis and pakistanis are not an ethnic group, only arabs and indians are considered ones. you might want include the 15% emirati population in brackets after the arab. furthermore, those percentages add up to 90.7%, the remaining "9.3%" should mention the rest who are consisted of europeans,north americans,australians,other asians like iranians and so on. and since we want to complete the "100%", do not refer to it as ethnicity, because dubai is a very diverse city, use the term nationalities for instance. who agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.25.249 (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Indians and Arabs don't constitute ethnic groups either. Neither do Europeans, North Americans or Australians.  I'm going to go ahead and change the heading to "National origin".  Thanks AreJay (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * im sure about the arabs being an ethnic group. i never said north americans, australians, europeans were ethnic groups, thats why i mentioned to change ethnicities to nationalities. but anyways thank you for changing to national origin, thats much better :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.25.249 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

theres a 9.3% nationality missing on this page because if you add up the indian emirati pakistani arab bangladeshi percentages it would be 90.7%, i think you should add "various other nationalities" since uae is the most diverse country in the middle east, especially dubai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.68.97 (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Images
I have a few concerns about the images in this article. First of all, the image in the Media section does not relate to the media. Although the building in the image, Etisalat Tower 2, is owned by Etisalat, no media-related content is visible. I did a quick look through some images on Wikimedia Commons, and the only image I could find was Image:Dubai Media City 1.jpg. Although it may not appear visible as a thumbnail if it is put in the article, it clearly shows the logos of Reuters, CNN, and MBC. This would provide substance to the section, something Image:Etisalat Tower 2 on 28 December 2007 Pict 2.jpg does not.

I also have a comment about a caption. The first image under the infobox says "....is the oldest existing fort in Dubai." I could be wrong, but isn't Al Fahidi Fort the oldest building in Dubai, not just the oldest fort?

My third concern is the organization of the images. Every image, except for one, is on the right-hand side. To me, it appears as one long strip of images that (at first glance) are not intended to supplement the content. Is there a policy at Wikipedia about the organization of images? Is it possible to mix it up a little, and move a few images to the left?

These are just a few things that are on my mind that I would like to address. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Leitmanp, here are some of my thoughts on the images:


 * With regards to Etisalat, it is hard to depict "media" unless we're talking about images (screenshots) of one of the newspapers...there has been some discussion on Wikipedia around whether taking images of copyrighted material constitutes copyright infringement..there appears to be some grey area around this, so I'd rather not get into it. The logic behind using Etisalat 2 was that this company provided services around one medium of communication (electronic) and was well established in the country. Some of the other media houses such as DMI have gone through several rounds of metamorpheses over the years, but Etisalat has remained fairly stable since the 1970s.  At the end of the day, the Dubai Media City image doesn't depict "media" either, since all it's doing is showing a couple of buildings in DMC with the logos of CNN, MBC and Reuters. When displayed in thumbnail format, the DMC image logos aren't really visible; however, with the Etisalat image, every other Etisalat building in the UAE conforms to a similar motif (big glass building with golf ball on top :P), and certainly, from an international front, there has been a lot of publicity around this building (saw it on Yahoo! Pictures a couple of months ago too), so even without explicitly depicting some form of media or media-related activity, it is likely that the reader would be able to recognize the image in question.
 * But, is it possible to use another image that clearly depicts the "ball?" I still feel that the current image does not depict anything to do with the media.  It would become apparent if we had an image with an unobstructed view of the ball.  Either of the three images on Etisalat Tower 2 would be okay with me.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * About Al Fahidi fort...I don't really know if it is the oldest building in Dubai. If we're able to find a verifiable reference for that, I think we should restructure the caption per your comment above.
 * I found an article in Gulf News from October 2001. It says Al Fahidi Fort is the oldest existing building in Dubai.  That article may also contain some buildings/places that we can incorporate into the Dubai landmarks discussion or even use as a source to create articles for those landmarks.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it myself. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the organization of images..there isn't any Wikipedia policy around it, but as someone that has gone through WP:FAC twice, I've noticed that the "alignment" of images is something that gets brought up quite frequently. People on FAC typically like to see images aligned to one side of article. Having said that, an unaligned article wouldn't in and of itself get disqualified from FAC, since clearly this is more about aesthetics than it is a violation of Wikipedia policy.  I'm personally open to mixing the images up, so long as they don't distract the reader.  My suggestion...maybe copy the Dubai article to a temporary page (say User:Leitmanp/Dubai) and reorganize the images there.  I think this would give me a better idea as far as what you had in mind, and we can continue to discuss and tweak the image structure in the temp article.  When we're in agreement, we can go ahead and make the necessary changes to the main article.  Your thoughts? AreJay (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea; I will go ahead and do that. When I find a configuration that I like, I will leave a message here to let you know.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After playing around with the content I realized something: there are not a lot of options with the current size of the sections.  If they were larger, then it would be easier to move the images around and to mix up the location of the images.  Currently, there are only about three sections that I feel can allow for image formatting.  The history section (User:Leitmanp/Dubai) is long enough.  I moved the image of Al Fahidi Fort to the top.  This allowed the section to become (at least for me) uncongested.  The only problem is the infobox to the right.  Does it look bad to have an image on the left and an infobox on the right?  Is it okay to begin a section with an image on the left? The next section (Geography) already had two maps, one diagram and one image.  It was long enough to allow the movement of images, but everything was positioned reasonably.  There was nothing I could do there.  The third section that allowed some experimentation was Governance and politics.  After the Geography section, which had three images on the right, I wanted to break the line.  I moved the image of the construction workers in Dubai Marina to the left and down a few lines.  At first, this looked okay.  Then I realized the "See also" link was being pushed to the right.  The only way to prevent that was to add an extra line before the "See also" link.  I am sure that someone would delete that extra line during an edit of the article without thinking about its purpose if we needed to keep the link left justified. Sorry for the long, tedious explanation of the process I went through.  I just wanted to explain my reasoning for what I came up with.  Let me know what you think about the organization of the History section and about the placement of "See also" without adding an extra line.  Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if all images were right-aligned (with the exception of ones that need to be left-aligned due to the infobox or other reasons). The problem with having both left- and right-aligned images is that situations such as the current one in Dubai turn up: images straddle text on both sides of an article, which is frowned upon as it can greatly distort text on smaller browser screens. I think we should consider right-aligning all, or at least most, images, and also removing some - this article is bordering on too many. Cheers, Rai - me  12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like what you did with the History section...the text seems to have more breathing room now. As far as Etisalat, I think that if we can find a Media image with a higher width:height ratio, we might be able to accomodate more than one image in the Media section.  The trouble with the Etisalat thumbnail right now is that it takes up way too much space. I found this image on Flickr - it's a photo of a page from Gulf News...I'm trying to research if using the image would constitute a copyvio. I've struggled with images in this article too in the past...there really isn't much wiggle room.  It comes down to trying to balance content from a summary standpoint and trying to use the best images possible to complement summarized text.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raime about the Geography section and the quantity of images throughout the entire article. One of the reasons why I wanted to move the images around was beacause it looked like a little too much.  I was hoping that by moving them around, it would appear less clustered.  I propose we take out Image:Dubai map city.svg.  It his hard to see the content when it is a thumbnail and does not show much anyway.  And AreJay, when you said "I like what you did with the History section," were you referring to moving the Al Fahidi Fort image?  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the images at User:Leitmanp/Dubai are arranged very nicely, particularly the Al Fahidi Fort. Perhps this article shouldn't have all right-aligned images, as the alignment doesn't seem to distort the text in any way. However, the city map would definitely be a good one to remove. One other thing - I am wondering if it would be better to include Image:Dubai Geography.png by itself without wikilinks, as at least in my browser some of the links seem to be too close together, making it very hard to read them. The map without the links is a great, informative image by itself. Cheers, Rai - me  21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of using Image:Dubai Geography.png, we should just change/reformat Template:Dubai geography map. The good thing about the template is that it shows Dubai's relation to other places mentioned in the section.  The image without the links does not even point to where Dubai is located, something that is probably needed.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (un-indent) Then I think we should reformat it to just include a link to Dubai. Keep in mind that the location of Dubai is also highlighted in the map in the infobox, and that many other cities provide satellite images without wikilinks, such as Boston, Massachusetts. Sp I don't really agree that it is needed. We could also consider doing an imagemap, such as the lead image of List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. Cheers, Rai - me  23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel we should keep the Image:Dubai map city.svg since it is very pertinant to the discussion around how the city is currently laid out. It also is the only free-use city-detail image online and I'd really like to find a spot for it in the article. To that end, I wouldn't mind getting rid of either the temperature bar chart (takes up too much room and amount of text it supports is about 2-3 sentences) or the Image:Dubai Geography.png since Dubai's relation to the region has already been indicated in the Infobox in the article. It looks a bit repetetive to me. I realize Dubai city map.svg has awkward size dimensions and I'm looking to see if I can correct that...@ Leitmanp, yes I was referring to the Al Fahidi fort.  Also with regards to our Media discussion, I have confirmed that we cannot use photographed images of copyrighted material (eg. the Flickr photograph of a page from Gulf News).  I'm not sure if there are any DMC images that very clearly show Media outlets' logos...I wouldn't mind switching the Etisalat image for such an image since I realize how much space the Etisalat image occupies. Thanks AreJay (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can get rid of Template:Dubai geography map and replace Image:Dubai climate chart.svg with Infobox Weather (which seems to be on most city articles). We can place it at the bottom of the section since it takes up the whole width of the article.  It will also be easier to read than the climate chart.  I tested this at User:Leitmanp/Dubai.  Let me know what you think.  As for a media image, do you think the Gulf News headquarters will be okay, if we can get one?  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with the structure on the temp page and if everyone is in agreement, we can go ahead and make the necessary changes to the main article. I think an image of the Gulf News HQ, if available, would be appropriate in the media section. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Weather infobox should default to "hide" though. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the main article should be changed. The image placement on Leitmanp's page looks good, and the smaller city map looks much better. However, I am unsure about the weatherbox defaulting to hide. Is this standard for most city articles? Cheers, Rai - me  21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if other articles are using the template...I just feel from an esthetics standpoint that it takes up too much room and sort of breaks the flow of the article structure. Having it default to "hide" I think would resolve the issue.  Thoughts? AreJay (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, several featured articles use the Weather Infobox (New York City, Hong Kong, San Francisco, California and Dhaka) and they do not default to hide. It might look the template at User:Leitmanp/Dubai breaks the flow of the article right now because it is blank.  Once we get the information put into the template, it might not look bad.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the temperatures and rainfall totals to the template at User:Leitmanp/Dubai. Let me know if that is good enough to put in the article.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Can we make the colors a little milder though?  See HTML colors for possible ideas.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the colors are automatically chosen in the template (Template:Infobox Weather). The color that appears in the infobox will be based off of what number you type in.  You can go to Template talk:Infobox Weather to see the full spectrum of the colors used and for which temperatures.  If you think the colors should be changed, you should request it there.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I think I'll do is import the template from Template:Infobox Weather and make modifications to the color combinations; I don't think the template was designed for the kind of weather that Dubai has. I'll add the template to a temporary page (User:AreJay/DXB Weather and see what I come up with.  The chart in the article is good, but just looks a little too gaudy right now.  I'll probably work on this sometime tomorrow evening or on Monday.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * regarding the Image:Dubai map city.svg - The locations of the Palm Islands, Palm Islands 2 and World Islands are inaccurate and need to be revised/corrected. Satellite images show the locations relative to each other to be different than what is shown here in this self-made map. Thanks for the work and there is more left to do. Baadcatj (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the satellite imagery you're referencing. Thanks AreJay (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sea World Dubai
Sea World is planning on opening a park in Dubai. Check here:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.110.74 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationalities in Dubai
According to the Country and Metropolitan Stats in Brief (2005) has showed:

In Dubai only; about 1,056,000 people (or 83%) are foreign born among the total population of Dubai as of 2005 was 1,272,000 (both native and foreig and its 1% is 12,720). That means only 17% (or 216,000 people) are native citizens of United Arab Emirates.

Now we count the real percentage and population of each foreign nationalities. It has 1,056,000 are non-Emirati people (its 1% is 10,560 people).


 * India: 51% among 1,056,000 foreign people or (10,560 X 51) = 538,560 Indians or (538,560 : 12,720) = 42.3% of the total population


 * Pakistan: 16% among 1,056,000 foreign people or (10,560 X 16) = 168,960 Pakistanis or (168,960 : 12,720) = 13.3% of the total population


 * Arab: 11% among 1,056,000 foreign people or (10,560 X 16) = 116,160 Arabs or (116,160 : 12,720) = 9.1% of the total population


 * Bangladesh: 9% among 1,056,000 foreign people or (10,560 X 9) = 95,040 Bangladeshis or (95,040 : 12,720) = 7.5% of the total population


 * Others (including smaller remains of the people from the Philippines 3%, Sri lanka 2%, Europe 1%, USA 0% and other countries 7%): 13% among 1,056,000 foreign people or (10,560 X 13) = 137,280 people or (116,160 : 12,720) = 10.8% of the total population

Here is the summary table:

As far as I know and I've witnessed it in a short trip to Dubai (in 2006) that the foreigners are much more larger than the native population (the numbers of women wear hijab or burqua are much more lesser than the unveiled women). It's un-true because someone has edited the existing Infobox with 43.3% of the people here are Emirati nationality (I think it was a vandalic edit) and always keep the percentage of Muslim foreigners (from Pakistan, Arab nations and Bangladesh) more larger than the official estimates (Evidence: ) and let the numbers of non-Muslim populations as less as better (mostly Indian Hindus). Now I am going to fix it!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Largest population
The articles Abu Dhabi (emirate) and Dubai each claim to be the largest emirate by population.  Randall Bart    Talk   22:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a recurring problem. Many of the Dubai contributors try to pitch in and manage the Abu Dhabi article as well, but there really isn't much oversight when it comes to that article. Since the Dubai article is well cited, the best solution would be to add a  tag to the Abu Dhabi article in the event that it's population rank is changed again without appropriate references. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Dubai
Do you really believe dubai has 5000 years of history? come on! whole of UAE has no history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiften1981 (talk • contribs)  18:54, 19 April 2008

Sister cities
There should be a section on sister cities in the article. I know Dundee and Beirut some of them. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool??
Oh come on, what are the chances of Liverpool moving to Dubai??? That has to be bogus! Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tulips?
As I look at the discussion page re: Dubai there are strict guidlines as to how to conduct oneself while posting.

I felt as though I had to tip toe through the tulips.

Just by chance, I decided to visit the Vatican discussion page, which I thought would be controversial in nature and would have the same cautions. To my suprise (not really) no tip toeing necessary. At least not anywhere near to the restrictions on the Dubai page.

Granted, we are at war footsteps away from Dubai. However, that has not caused us (America) to tip toe financially through Dubai.

It's a shame that more Americans don't realize that freedom of speech is not necessarily for free.

Signed,

A Christian in America, tip toeing through the tulips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.10.17 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Weather infobox color coding
There is a discussion about changing the colors on the weather infobox at User talk:AreJay/try2. Please feel free to join the discussion. A proposed version can be found at User:AreJay/try2. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Attractive Photos abruptly and strangely removed
Some of the photos that are currently in the article are either old, uninviting, or just plain ugly. Indeed, some of the photos, clearly are not representative of Dubai's rapid growth. Instead, the awkward photos, namely Image:Dubai Flusstaxi.jpg and Image:Deira Souk on 9 May 2007 Pict 2.jpg, do not serve a meaningful purpose as the "Deira Souk" photo, is dark without any luster. I have exerted effort in placing several decent photos that are clearly germane to the context of the body of the article only to have them abruptly removed for no apparent reason apart from having to "discuss" the matter first in the discussion section. Scythian1 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scythian1, can you please explain how the images you added were better than the current images or how they were "uninviting, or just plain ugly." I think there is nothing wrong with them.  First of all, Image:Dubai Flusstaxi.jpg clearly shows an abra while Image:Bank of Baroda in Dubai on 31 May 2007.jpg does not.  As you can see by the titles, the latter is focusing on the Bank of Baroda Building.  Also the abra is barely visible, especially when it is a thumbnail in the article.  As for the other changes, Image:Deira Souk on 9 May 2007 Pict 2.jpg is better than Image:Ibn Battuta Mall on 2 June 2007 Pict 11.jpg.  The reason is because the former shows the true culture of Dubai while the Ibn Battuta Mall image shows artificial culture.  That fountain is meant to be associated with Andalusia and has no direct association with Dubai.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the fountain is associated with Andalusia, there are considerable traces of shared Arabic cultural workmanship with Dubai culture. In any event, while the Souk is reflective of culture, the Souk image currently in the article is dark and almost impossible to decipher as to what precisely the image is.  I propose this picture, Image:Wafi_souk_galerie.jpg or Image:Dubai Gold Souk on 31 May 2007 Pict 1.jpg As for the Abrar image, I propose this nice picture showing numerous abrars - Image:Abra boats 2 .jpg. Thoughts? Scythian1 (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with using Image:Wafi souk galerie.jpg as it is a mall and not a real souk. But, I would agree to Image:Dubai Gold Souk on 31 May 2007 Pict 1.jpg if other editors also agree to include it.  As for the abra image, I still do not understand what is wrong with the current one.  I am oppposed to changing it unless you can provide a good reason with which I can agree.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose the Wafi image simply because it's an image of just another mall in Dubai (Wafi Centre Mall). I am okay, in principle, with the Gold Souk image.  If lighting is the only issue with the image currently in place, I can fairly easily make adjustments to the image in Photoshop.  Thoughts? AreJay (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've adjusted the lighting of the original souk image. Does this look any better? AreJay (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
As a Wikipedia editor who has made thousands of contributions, I have yet to see such a bias-ridden article. The fact that the politics and governance section of the article ends with Human Rights Violations link clearly suggests unwarranted one-sided-ness. Nations with far worst human rights violations certainly do not have any "see also" links toward human rights matters on politics section. While Human rights does implicate governance, it does not warrant that it should be in this section. The content pertaining to human rights should be in its OWN section. For instance, I do not find articles pertaining to nations with a history of racial tensions to have current race problems in "politics" section. Alternatively, I do not find contents about slavery in "politics" sections of nations with a history of slavery. Scythian1 (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The question isn't so much what weightage other articles give on issues pertaining to human rights, the question really is whether it should be included in this article, and I think the answer to that is yes. How does it suggest "one-sided-ness"?  If anything, much of the article is apportioned to painting rosy pictures of Dubai's real estate and skyline boom.  If such a seemingly positive portrayal can be made (and not be called POV) then neither can any representation of the human rights abuses in the city.  The fact of the matter is, the treatment of forgein labor and sex-trade are very real issues, as admitted by both the government and independent human rights organizations.  I fail to see how multiple citations from independent sources pointing to a similar state of affairs vis a vis human rights in Dubai can be called "bias ridden".  Unfortunately, what happens on other articles shouldn't have any bearing (and rightly so) on how facts are presented in this article.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you ignoring the "weightage" of other articles? You failed to address why all articles in Wikipedia should be treated alike for the exception of Dubai's. Without providing explanation, you merely posit - "I think the answer to that is yes."  Then, in an attempt to obfuscate the human rights issue, you attempt to suggest I am asserting a POV since I am commenting about the utterly bland pictures in this article.  Given your numerous contributions to the Bangalore article, I am sure that all those rosy pictures are up there not for positing a POV but merely to improve the quality of the article while providing an updated representation of the city.  The 2 photos that I posted are not bland, and unappealing, and they provide a more recent representation of Dubai.  Bangalore has a substantial child maid prostitution and child trafficking problem which the government has attempted to address.  I am baffled as to why the issue of child maid prostitution and trafficking have not been addressed in the article. See  and  for information about this serious problem.  Moreover, racial tensions and slavery have been continuously been addressed by many Western nations who have acknowledged its serious implications even after many decades of reform.  Yet those nations' articles do not have "see also" links toward human right matters on the politics section.  Again, human rights issues should be placed in the appropriate article - the Human rights in Dubai article.  Accordingly,  NPOV will be reinserted.  Please do not remove the banner, as this discussion is not resolved. Thanks Scythian1 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scythian1, I disagree with your claims that the mentioning (or the lack of mentioning) of human rights in other articles should be comparable to the extent of human rights in this article. Each article is independent and should be treated as such.  You could start by saying what exaclty in the Governance and politics section is one-sided or with which you disagree.  If you are asking for any mention of human rights to be removed, then I also disagree.  The human rights in Dubai is a major issue and should not be hidden.  Also main articles, such as Dubai, are meant to provide a quick overview of a topic.  Then more specific articles, such as Human rights in Dubai, is meant to be longer and contain more in-depth information.  That is why that article is linked below the section, to provide further infromation on the topic.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Leitmanp, I am not suggesting that there be absolutely no mention of human rights. What I am suggesting is that detailed instances and content of human rights violation be placed in its appropriate section.  This article provides way too much detail and content without providing a "quick overview."


 * I propose that it should be snipped, summarized and edited into this:


 * "Article 25 of the Constitution of the UAE provides for the equitable treatment of persons with regard to race, nationality, religious beliefs or social status. However, many of Dubai's 250,000 foreign laborers live in conditions described by Human Rights Watch as being "less than human."   NPR reports that workers "typically live eight to a room, sending home a portion of their salary to their families, whom they don't see for years at a time."   A 2007 PBS documentary entitled Dubai: Night Secrets reported that prostitution in clubs is tolerated by authorities and many foreign women work there without being coerced, attracted by the money.   "


 * ''See also: Human rights in Dubai


 * This provides an appropriate and summarized view of the matter. Thoughts? Scythian1 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, after looking over the section in more detail I saw that there was indeed some specifics relating to the human rights. I actually see no problem with how it is organized right now.  Unless others think that the paragraph contains too much information, I think we should keep it.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Scythian1, I'm not sure what the purpose of dragging in my contributions to other articles on Wikipedia was, other than possibly to try and either discredit me as a biased editor and/or to shift the focus of your questionable claims to what I have or haven't done on other articles. Those "rosy" pictures that you claim exist on the Bangalore article were not added by me.  In fact, if you had only looked at the article's talk page, you would have noticed that I fought tooth and nail to get some of those images removed.  You want to add information on child prostitution in the Bangalore article?  Go for it.  This is, after all, an encyclopedia anyone can edit.  But that's not the point.


 * First, Wikipedia articles are as good or bad as the contributions they receive. Your statement "[y]ou failed to address why all articles in Wikipedia should be treated alike for the exception of Dubai's" makes no sense. I am not asking for Dubai to be treated differently from other articles.  I'm saying I don't care how other articles are maintained...I'm interested in the Dubai article and will absolutely ensure that all possible views are incorporated to present a comprehensive picture of the city.  Not all articles on Wikipedia are created equal. You only have to read the second sentence of the Wikipedia policy that you've been quoting from to realize that all significant views, published by reliable sources need to be incorporated in the article. Like Leitmanp, I do not think that that section of the article needs to be changed right now.


 * Second, when I replied yesterday, I hadn't yet fully read what you said above about these co-called "bland" images, so quite obviously, I couldn't have accused you of POV over the images you wanted to add. My reply to you above was only in regard to the NPOV dispute. The point that I was trying to make with the "rosy pictures" comment was that if it was ok to include such images to present a rather glamorous, one-sided image of the city (let's face it, not every street in Dubai looks like Sheikh Zayed Road), it should also be ok to talk about the not-so-glamorous side of Dubai. I'm not sure why you think I have some hidden, ulterior motive wrt this article. Fact of the matter is, I've lived in Dubai for over 10 years (still visit the city every year) and I therefore have a fairly solid understanding of the city.
 * And lastly, if it is this reversal that is upsetting you, then feel free to build consensus on this talk page to go ahead and add those images. I personally prefer the image of the souk because its one of the few images that shows traditional Dubai.  The Ibn Battuta Mall, is after all, like any other mall in the city.  But that's my own opinion. Feel free to build consensus on this talk page before adding them to the article.  I only ask that you stick to discussing issues relevant to this article and not try to drag in what you think I may or may not have done on other articles to attempt to water down my credibility just because I happen to disagree with you.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubai split proposal
Would the user proposing the splitting of the article into separate Dubai (city) and Dubai (emirate) articles please explain the rationale behind the proposal? Thanks AreJay (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the rationale is the same used in the above Talk:Dubai, although there it was proposed that the city be located at Dubai and the emirate at Dubai (emirate). Cheers, Rai • me  17:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed someone even asks. They're obviously two different things, so they should obviously be in separate articles. If the city accounted for the entire emirate, that would be different (cf. Berlin), but it's not the case. &mdash; Of course, I'm not fussed that both should have the disambiguation parenthesis in their title. You can leave one of them at Dubai. &mdash; Timwi (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are two different "things"; however, as stated in the article, the city comprises 98% of the population of the emirate. The emirate outside the city is largely uninhabited and barren.  I therefore don't agree that there should be a separate article for the emirate – I'm not even  sure what that article would look like and what would be included in such an article, contentwise. AreJay (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between the Emirate of Dubai and the City of Dubai is hard to see. They both share the same government and any information/data/statistics given about Dubai is about the entire emirate (but of course these statistics usually refer to the city as that is where the majority of the people live).  There is rarely, if ever, a difference between the city and the emirate.  They are pretty much the same exact thing and two seperate articles would be redundant.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Case closed. Keep one article. &mdash; Timwi (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Languages
I noticed that the fact tag that followed a sentence about which languages are spoken in Dubai has been removed. I do not fully understand the reasoning for the removal as there are no sources to support the listed languages. I added the tag after I got tired of seeing editors add or remove languages without a reason or a source to show that a particular language is widely spoken in Dubai. I would like for there to be a list of languages spoken in Dubai with the number or percent of speakers. This should be sourced, but I could not find anything that provides numerical data. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Leitmanp, I removed the tag a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, as you well know, it is next to impossible to get sufficiently reliable information on ethnicities and languages in Dubai. It was only after a great deal of research that we were able to get some information on the ethnic makeup of Dubai, that has since been included in the Dubai article as well as some other Dubai-related articles.  Due to the fact that there don't appear to be surveys that document "unofficial languages" (Arabic is the only official, recognized language in the UAE), we can only draw upon what we already know about the ethnic composition of Dubai to conclude on what languages are primarily spoken in Dubai.  I have outlined some information that we do have, and what we can infer from them:

As much as I would like to get reliable sources on langauges in Dubai, there just isn't any out there. And I doubt we're going to see such information collected or released in Dubai, because, in my personal opinion, a) the government doesn't put much weight to such data, and b) they are already very sensitive about the low proportion of Emiratis in the city, and are unlikely to make public any information that would further accentuate this point. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 40% of the population is Indian (citation available). A majority of Indians in Dubai are from the state of Kerala (citation available).  We can therefore infer that Hindi (the official language of the union of India) and Malayalam (the official language of the state of Kerala) are widely spoken in Dubai;
 * About 17% of the population is Pakistani (citation available). Pakistan's official language is Urdu, so it can therefore be inferred that Urdu is widely spoken. Having lived in Dubai, I also know that many Pakistanis in Dubai are ethnic Pashtuns, so it can be inferred that Pashto is spoken in Dubai.  However, as far as I know, reliable sources aren't available to support my claim;
 * About 10-15% of the population is Emirati. In addition there are several immigrants from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.  Arabic is therefore widely spoken in Dubai;
 * About 3% of the population is Filipino (citation available), therefore Tagalog is spoken in Dubai (inference);
 * Similarly, about 3% of the population is from Bangladesh (citation available). Bangladeshi and Bengali immigrants from India speak Bengali, so it can be claimed that Bengali is spoken in some number in Dubai (although not as widely as some of the languages I've mentioned earlier);
 * English is the lingua franca of the city and is spoken widely in the city. I don't think a citation would even be necessary for this.


 * AreJay, thank you for your detailed explanation. I understand what you mean about the lack of data.  I am not sure if you have heard of it, but there is a Statistics Centre of Dubai (http://www.statisticsdubai.ae/); it was set up in 2006.  Although it does not compare with the statistics organizations in some of the world's MDCs, it does contain interesting information.  After I left my message above, I attempted to find information regarding languages in Dubai but I came out empty-handed.  Also, your final comments were something I never thought of, but it makes sense.  I hope Dubai will eventually see the benefits of calculating such data.  But, thanks again for the extended response.
 * One more thing, Persian/Farsi is listed in the article but you did not include it in your list above. I thought there was a large Iranian population in Dubai, or am I mistaken?  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Leitmanp, no you're correct in saying that there was (is) a large Iranian population in Dubai. To the best of my knowledge, the migration occured in the early part of the century (see Al Bastakiya) and the people have since intergrated with Emirati society and therefore speak Arabic, not Farsi.  This, again, is to the best of my knowledge, but given that I don't have any acutal data to support this, I wouldn't want to generalize.  I think we include Farsi in the list, until someone is able to produce a reference to say that they have integrated with UAE society.  Thanks for the link to Statistics Dubai.  I will take a look at this website and some other online sources today to see what we can come up with in terms of reliable source data. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
I am thinking that we should protect this article due to the constant vandalism that the page receives (preferably indefinite semi-protection due to the heavy and persistent vandalism). Although blocking IP addresses from editing the article would prevent vandalism and the addition of spam, it would also prevent others from making corrections. From time to time, IP addresses do make constructive edits and a page protection would prevent that valuable help. Any alternative ideas or comments? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse protection. I see no constructive edits from "anonymous" IP editors here.  Give it a try. JBsupreme (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse on this page.  I'll try and work on getting this done.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ĕ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.160.254 (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)