Talk:Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi

COI concerns
See. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Issues
As referred to in the entry and edit comments, Khalid has hired California Strategies to represent him in the US. They are required to register with the Federal Government (contract repeatedly posted in the entry and removed by SDLipton.) California Strategies runs the Blog mentioned above (they are required to disclose in the footer of the blog) and the blog is repeatedly used as a reference in this entry. In fact, it was the only reference in this entry until it was flagged as being a self published source.

There is no reason for neutral users to remove the posting of lobbying contracts for an Emirati Sheikh undertaking a million dollar public affairs campaign to lobby the US public and the federal government. This is the type of service Wikipedia offers the world. I submit that several users editing the Khalid entry are functionaries of Khalid and or California Strategies in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Their biased portrayal of Khalid and negative comments regarding his brother, Sheikh Saud who replaced him as crown prince coincide with the signing of the California Strategies contract. They repeatedly attempt to remove any mention of Khalid's DC lobbying efforts as well as several cited facts.

I welcome any moderators' comments or attention to this matter. Lucastar78 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is why I tagged it for the COI issue a while ago (at least, I think I was the one who tagged it). I'd suggest using the dispute resolution process; failing that, take it to WP:ANI. If the page is being regularly edited by COI users and they don't respond to communication, we semi-protect the page and block the agenda-driven editor. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The lobbyists who represent Khalid in the US continue to remove cited information - through various aliases. They are interested in pushing out information from a propaganda blog and solely focus on Khalid's "Policies." This means, they delete any references to his documented lobbying in the US, as well as the repeated published statements from the UAE in the US press and on their website, stating that Khalid no longer holds any official position in the UAE. This is not a COI issue. I welcome an open and frank discussion on this matter, but wikipedia is a dialogue and not a forum for lobbyists to ram their propaganda down the public's throat. I have to give it to them though, they are persistent. Guess it justifies the 900 k project fee.Lucastar78 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I reported the page for protection. At least now we'll see if they stick around to resolve the issue. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That is some fast action. I will hang around for the duration. Appreciate it.Lucastar78 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there has been a back and forth campaign regarding this page for months. Last week I went through and edited this page thoroughly - it was in disarray and seemed like it was being used for political purposes.

The page was missing citations and factual documentation. I added over 20 new citations for mundane facts - IE the date Sheikh Khalid became crown prince in 1958 - and factual documentation for the controversial issues in which Sheik Khalid was involved. I included additional factual information about his lobbying and political activities in the US - a point disputed above. I included names of the lobbying firms and the citations to the contracts. I removed comments like "California Strategies is paid to operate the blog to promote Khalid's agenda and to position him as a "thought leader" in DC." that seemed to have an agenda.

I think this paragraph in the opening section "However, this alleged royal decree has never been officially recognized by the Government or Ras Al Khaimah or the United Arab Emirates. The decree has never been presented in public other than in .pdf form on a blog managed by his lobbying team, California Strategies with whom he has a contract for approximately $900,000. [2] The decree was never officially published in the UAE nor does it have an official document number, both of which are necessary for such a decree to be in effect or considered authentic. For this reason, the official UAE informational website, www.uaeinteract.com lists HH Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi as Crown Prince and Deputy Ruler of Ra's al-Khaimah. [3] UAE Political Leadership" which is continually added by LucasStar78 seems to have an agenda.

As opposed to what I posted which was that Khalid stated there was a decree and that "The decree has not been officially recognized by the Government of Ras Al Khaimah or the United Arab Emirates." Which is correct - Khalid stated there was a decree - no official or government has recognized that decree. What khalid paying a lobbying firm has nothing to do with this factually accurate statement.

I created third party citations for the policy section where possible - which did not exist before.

I added citations for the section that detailed Sheik Khalid's tenure as crown prince - there were almost no citations for this section.

I removed the back and forth disputes that were evident on the page and created a factual framework for the controversial situations that were not discussed in the previous entry - this included the current situation about the America's cup, Iran, nuclear weapons and Sheik Khalid's lobbying and political efforts in America.

I do not work for CA strategies or any of the other firms mentioned. I am not interested in a back and forth dispute over the page. I think it should have factual, unbiased information. I am happy to work out an agreement on the language.

I feel like I improved the article and made it more factual and accurate. Previous people had been editing the page for months and it was flagged for poor content and citations. Again - happy to work out a compromise to create a good page. Max Austin (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely willing to work out an unbiased accounting of the facts. That is why it is frustrating to continually have to correct the record on certain instances i.e. - The UAE's official website - UAE Interact (cited in article, published statements from the UAE Ambassador in the US (The Hill article cited in article titled "Deposed Sheikh hires former reporter in lobbying effort.") and the UAE US Embassy website ALL state that Khalid is not the Crown Prince or Deputy Ruler of Ras Al Khaimah. These facts have repeatedly been deleted in favor of Max Austin's and his predecessor SDlipton's misleading inro paragraph:

''His Highness Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi is the Crown Prince and Deputy Ruler of Ras Al Khaimah. He is the eldest son of His Highness Sheikh Saqr bin Mohammad Al Qasimi, who has ruled Ras Al Khaimah, the northernmost Emirate of the the United Arab Emirates, since 1948.''

Despite the modulated tone of Max Austin on the talk page, I remain unconvinced as to his motives.

Having observed what is going on with regards to Khalid in the US, there is a very interesting story here. One that Khalid is paying a lot of money to only tell one side of. He was kicked out of his the job he was born into, and replaced by his brother at his father's behest. His father is very old. In fact the longest living seated monarch in the world. Khalid hires lobbyists in the US and produces an "official decree" that says his father changed his mind. His blog and lobbyists (same outfit) state on the power of this unregistered and not officially recognized paper that he is the voice of Ras al Khaimah. The timing is interesting given his father is not long for this world. I was moved to edit when I saw the reports of a sheikh running bus ads in DC that the entire entry was a rehash of his blog and the only citations were back to self published websites.

If editors feel that it is appropriate to add Khalid's current "Policy Positions", then pointing out his current lobbying initiatives and the fees that foreign nationals are paying to (mis)represent themselves in the US should also be fair game and not removed.

If perhaps, I am guilty of going overboard in removing Max Austin and SDLipton's occasional unbiased edits, it is due to the fact that they have been interspersed with edits that have removed cited (from reputable sources" facts.

That begs another point - citing Khalid's blog and website are not generally acceptable in an article such as this. The same goes for PRNewswire - as these are self published sources. Both of which have been done on this page. And if Max Austin has gone through the altruistic endeavor of researching all of these sources - then why are very few of them actually linked?

Lets work this outLucastar78 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

LucasStar78 - appreciate your comments. Lets work it out in the next couple of days so we have a good, accurate post. I think we both have valid points. How about we go section by section in the discussion page and edit the language. We'll come to an agreement on each section and then post. Sound good? 69.181.24.163 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100111024157/http://www.mees.com:80/postedarticles/politics/ArabPressReview/a46n28c02.htm to http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/politics/ArabPressReview/a46n28c02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126041116/http://www.rakforthepeople.com/ to http://www.rakforthepeople.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126041116/http://www.rakforthepeople.com/ to http://rakforthepeople.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)