Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum/Archive 1

Liverpool Takeover
This part of the article is uncited as well as being grammatically, erm, flawed. The sort of statements made in this section really can't stand without being cited. Epeeist smudge 10:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC). The "reasons" cited for why DIC didn't end up investing in Liverpool were ridiculous. Someone has made them up. The real reasons where that they were looking at Liverpool primarily as a business and DIC are well known for their ruthless streak when it comes to business.

Removal of Hon Title
I'm not entirely sure of the Wiki policy here, but I'm very surprized to see that the "Sheikh" has been removed from the name in the opening paragraph. He is almost universally known as Sheikh Mohammed and a quick check of british royalty and aristoccracy (hereditory and otherwise) seem to include their titles. If Wiki poloicy does demand the deletion of the title, I'm tempted to suggest it is either bad policy or mis-applied.Epeeist smudge 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture ?
Shouldnt this page include a picture perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.195.131 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

this one is good: http://www.dubaicup.ae/images/sheikh-mohammed.jpg --Englishazadipedia 22:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

POV
"Sheikh Mohammed enjoys a vast and enviable popularity, with both expatriates and Emiratis.His charity programmes as well as his good natured behaviour and respect to elders and his genorusity is well known."

This sentence doesn't belong in this article. I don't think his popularity can be substantiated with appropriate citations. It's not as if gallup pollers roamed around in Dubai asking people if they liked Sheikh Mohammed. AreJay (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was "bold" and removed it.  I also removed POV.  If that was for something other than the Popularity section, please bring it back.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lufthansa Flight 181
Didn't Sheikh Mohammed play the role of chief negotiator with the Palestinian hijackers of Lufthansa Flight 181 when they landed at Dubai? Does anyone have information? 9591353082 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He did not play the role of chief negotiator, but was involved. There was an article in Time in 1977 about the incident.  You can read it here.  Sheikh Mohammed is mentioned in the fourth paragraph.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

slavery accusations ???
what about this? "Dubai's ruler has been accused of enslaving thousands of young children for camel races in a class-action lawsuit filed in the US". am i crazy, or this should be in the article?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346430.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.124.210 (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be in the article, its like we are saying "George bush is accused by many many war crimes in Iraq", i think theses kind of sentences should be removed. NoPity2 02:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be referred to as Sheikh?
Shouldn't his title "Sheikh" be referred to him? Its like everyone know him as Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashed Al Maktoum NoPity2 2:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sheikh" is a title and not a part of his name. It is like calling someone "Sir", "President" or "King."  While there are some instances (historically) where that was a part of the name, it does not apply here.  Actually, everyone (in Dubai) knows him as "Sheikh Mohammed", and not "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum."  Anyway, "sheikh" is not a part of his name and therefore should not be included in the title.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh i understand, but a quick visit to ruler of Ajman Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi is referred to Sheikh. And i think many of the other Emirates rulers are also referred to as "Sheikh", and added to their names. If their names are not supposed to include "Sheikh", then i think someone needs to change the other royal families names such as ruler of Ajman .. NoPity2 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just moved Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi to Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi. Let me know if there are others that have the honorific title (sheikh or sheikha) in the articles' titles.  Thanks.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Found another one, Ruler of Fujairah Shaikh Hamad bin Mohammed Al Sharqi. Oh BTW, is it ok to include the title "Sheikh" in the opening paragraph and the rest of the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoPity2 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think including "Sheikh" or "Sheikha" in the opening paragraph is okay. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mothers of his 19 children???
Who are the mothers of all 19 of his children? Pretty basic fact to include in an encyclopedic article. Evidently, Hind Bint Maktoum Bin Juma Al Maktoum is the mother of 14 of them. And Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein is the mother of another. 19 - 14 - 1 = 4, so there are 4 children unaccounted for. Who was/were their mother(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBrnstn (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Birth date
Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (Arabic محمد بن راشد آل مكتوم; Muḥammad bin Rāshid al Maktūm), also Sheikh Mohammed, (born July 15, 1949), is the Prime Minister and Vice President of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Ruler of Dubai.

as per the introduction birth date is showing as 1949 but below picture birth date is mentioned as 1942 please correct this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrez.goilkar (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Facebook Page
Should the fact that he himself opened his own public facebook page with his personal family pictures uploaded be in this article? He also asked the public through facebookfor their opinions on matters, like whether schools should start during ramadan or after eid. It's pretty awesome for a state leader, dont you think? :P Source is here: http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Government/10329559.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.160.46 (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am from Niger Republic, a muslim country and working for a christian organization. it is really disconcerting how they are trying to evangilize people around here. they take advantage of our poverty and the lack of employment, promising youngster jobs and descent situation provided they convert to christianity. Nonetheless, I am not condemning them; rather I condemn other rich muslims countries; I am dismeyed how much indifferent they are to our poverty and to widespread islam. why do they not invest in our poor muslims countries like christian non governmental organization in order to increase the al umma of the prophet, Mohamed (PBBUPH), ther seal of the prophets?''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assidiq1969 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

comment about affection for one child
The last part of this sentence was added recently with no reference: "Sheikh Mohammed has 19 officially acknowledged children: eight sons and eleven daughters of whom Mohammed Sharn Abdur-Rahman he cherishes most."

With no supporting ref, I think it should be removed, esp. since it is hurtful to the other children. I plan to do so unless someone objects with supporting data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Anne (talk • contribs) 13:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right, removed as unsourced personal gossip. JohnCD (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Section on Controversies
I don't think that a newspaper printing a photo of him in error then immediately apologising counts as a "controversy". It's pretty trivial stuff with no reflection on him (maybe on the paper). Insteadofworking (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolute monarch of Dubai?
He cannot be an "absolute monarch of Dubai" because Dubai is not a sovereign state. He ACTS as though he is one, but officially (and Wikipedia is based on official information) he has a "boss" above him - the President of UAE. UAE is NOT a monarchy, it's a federation. Therefore, sheikh Al-Maktoum is NOT an absolute monarch.

I MAY be wrong in understanding the status of "emir", and if I am, please explain. Nomad (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

New owner of English championship football club Leeds United
3 July 2012, Sheihk Mohamemmed bin Rashid al Maktoum aquired a controlling stake in English football Club Leeds United — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.118.226 (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubai Holding
The article refers, "Dubai Holding, the debt laden and financially troubled holding company". Dubai Holding has just posted a 20% profit forecast for 2014: http://www.thenational.ae/business/economy/dubai-holding-group-set-for-at-least-20-per-cent-rise-in-profits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversies
Also, while we're on the subject, the cite for controversy over the Dutch mosque is a six-year-old forum post. Unless someone has some better source for any controversy over the mosque's construction, I'd suggest the reference be updated to merely note the donation? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Holdings
Maktoum is a major landowner in the Scottish West Highlands owning several estates. Amongst his numerous West Highland holdings probably the best known is Inverinate Estate, near Kyle of Lochalsh. He also inherited the former Wills Tobacco estate of Killilan from his late brother. Killian Estate provides the only practical access to the famous Falls of Glomach, Britain's highest waterfall, which is owned by the National Trust for Scotland. Public access over these estates is restricted and frequently the source of acrimony. The Maktoum holdings are "absentee owner" estates and are effectively operated by a German company (Smech Properties I believe) from an "Off Shore" tax-haven in the Channel Islands. This information is easily available within the public domain. I think this information warrants a mention in the article but dont personally feel qualified to edit the main page.

Sorry for the rash of notes in here, dipping in and out as time allows. I can find no online reference to any controversy regarding the Falls of Glomach or access. The one TripAdvisor review of it talks about how good the access is, while the National Trust website makes no mention of any access restriction. . Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wedding to Sheikha Hind
This is all a tad questionable. The source cited is hardly reliable and, in fact, shows a picture of the wrong wedding (the lady in the picture is Princess Haya, not Sheikha Hind). Additionally, although the celebration of Mohammed's wedding in 1979 was undoubtedly lavish by the standard of its day, $100mn is a daft figure. Dubai back then was a small town - these images from Dubaiasitusedtobe.com clearly show the scale of the celebration. And it's not a $100mn affair. http://dubaiasitusedtobe.com/pagesnew/SheikhMohammedsWedding1979.shtm#.VA02PsWSy-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Have now removed this reference. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
It was first made back in 2004 and the article has changed drastically.

I don't know if the speedy is the best solution for an old article like this. If it was newly minted and overly promotional I could understand, but why not use a cleanup tag?

You are also welcome to revert to an earlier nonpromotional version of this article. --WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

assalam......His Highness..Rashid Al Makthoum, Iam the representative of allah,from the lookman chain. The lookman chain 2nd stage is started after prophet muhammed(s.a). Im the first man in the chain. im geting Vahyu from allah day by day..today also. Vahyu started on last Ramadaan 12th (july 10,2014). Me got the prime Vahyu 1.the earth is going to destroy ..step by step with in          november 1 to december 30 2015.(next year). The countries are going to destroy is first one is 1. america 2. china 3. india 4. africa 5. uerope 6. north america 7. indonasia 8. russia 9. siriya. (the neighbour countries are including these ). Lookman chain two mens are coming all the 9 countries like soorath..yaaseen..after the first mubeen).                                                                              Destroying the countries like as..soorath..shoorah(chapter 26)188 to 225 aayaths. It is the first step of last day of earth. The same (the cleaning of earth) repeat on 2115,2215,2315,2415. In 2500 the earth is no more....                                       Between 2315 to 2415 Eesa nabi and Imam Mahadi is coming.                                  These all me got from allah by Vahyu only.                                                    Im geting three types of vahyu  1.coming Gibreel(a.s) and giving  2.thinking and sure me the thoughts 3.closing my eye and travelling my soul to allah premises and giving instuctions to me behind a wall.(I cant see allah). Allah given me an order to contact u. So pls giving me a chance to see and tell these truths.I can come to U.A.E anytime. i got passport and all. Iam geting the vahyu important times are 1. between magrib isha 2.isha to sleeping time 3.morning 6am to 10 am daily. the main places geting vahyu are 1.my bed room  2.hanafi masjid perinthalmanna  3.shoping corner im using to stay in the evening   4. my own masjid near my house. 5.my bus journey to city perinthalmanna. my identifications allah given me are 1.I can talk to any abody all over the world by my mind (telepathic mind). 2.me like as salih nabis camel...if anybody disturbing me allah may start to destroy the earth. so pls note all these got from allah by vahyu only.. Ali Anvar Madala,Elad Post, Cherukara via,Malappuram dist, Kerala State, India. 679340.                                                               alimadala@gmail.com PH:+91 9447279638. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimadala (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Net Worth
When Mammuar Gaddaffi died it was estimated by different sources that his net worth was around 200 Billion USD. We all know that according to forbes and many other source Bill Gates has been named the wealthiest person in the planet with a net worth of around 80 Billion USD, but after the Gaddaffi net worth claims came out, I don't believe that Bill Gates is the richest but rather Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum might be Bobby shabangu talk  18:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. 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/20071018025527/http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae:80/english/dubai/dubai_almaktoum.asp to http://sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/dubai/dubai_almaktoum.asp

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 17:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Children section
Could we perhaps model it on the table of Stanley Ho as shown at Stanley Ho Family? 78.146.143.159 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090619215426/http://www.uaepm.ae:80/en/index.html to http://www.uaepm.ae/en/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

adding images
I wanted to add a twitter image released by the ministry of communication. http://images1.calcalist.co.il/PicServer3/2016/08/28/633225/14_l.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we'll be aloud, but why that picture specifically? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikileak
A possible source of information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ruler or Emir of Dubai?
Despite the British media incorrectly giving him the title 'emir', he is styled 'ruler' of Dubai and never emir - on his own website, in the bios given in his published works and in every UAE government website that refers to his governmental roles. A change on this page was made to Emir citing the UK newspaper The Independent, but the danger here is that a newspaper 4,000 miles away makes a silly error (other British papers do, too), which is then reflected in Wikipedia, which is then picked up by any journalist doing basic research and suddenly we have created a virtual truth where there was none. Even in Arabic, he is titled 'hakem' or ruler. And never, ever, 'emir'. Cheers. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. 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://archive.is/20141019103723/http://www.dubaiinternetcity.com/about-dic to http://www.dubaiinternetcity.com/about-dic
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027161337/http://gulfnews.com/business/property/uae/nakheel-to-restart-scaled-back-palm-deira-1.1240906 to http://gulfnews.com/business/property/uae/nakheel-to-restart-scaled-back-palm-deira-1.1240906
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107145141/http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/corruption-team-makes-its-case to http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/corruption-team-makes-its-case
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327065208/http://www.uaeequafed.ae/newsdetail41.htm to http://www.uaeequafed.ae/newsdetail41.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403044454/http://www.uaeinteract.com/russian/news/default.asp?ID=196 to http://www.uaeinteract.com/russian/news/default.asp?ID=196
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620232311/http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/olympics08/sports/10199968.html to http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/olympics08/sports/10199968.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217235944/http://patronsofthearts.ae/ to http://www.patronsofthearts.ae/
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20120330201431/http://www.nettyroyal.nl/newsapr04.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20040607080147/http://www.nettyroyal.nl/newsapr04.html on http://www.nettyroyal.nl/newsapr04.html

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) 03:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Promotion
The "Humanitarian development and philanthropy" section contains text that reads like promotional copy. It would be better served by quotations from relevant press releases which make it clear that the promotional wording is the emirate's own, rather than reflecting a purported neutral point of view that doesn't actually exist. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/equestrianism/11468943/FEI-suspend-United-Arab-Emirates-from-equestrianism-following-spate-of-scandals.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) is missing from the list of his children
Would an experienced Wikipedian please add Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) to the list of his children? Her DOB is 5 December 1985

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum_(II)

Thanks... Explorium (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry... I meant in the Arabic Wikipedia... This article does not list his 30 children. Explorium (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sheikha Shamsa Al Maktoum incident
In year 2001, a woman claiming to be one of Sheikh Mohammed's daughters with name Sheikha Shamsa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum made allegations of kidnap, forceful imprisonment after she ran away while on a family vacation. She made statements to a British solicitor she personally knew to have been kidnapped and taken back to Dubai on a private jet in late August 2000. Based on this and her direct statements to police, investigation began in UK in March 2001. Due to scanty details, no access to accuser and non-cooperation from Dubai royal family in general the investigation didn't went anywhere. Though it could have been easily a case of domestic dispute, in a March 2018 video statement Shamsa's younger sister Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) corroborated the story with more details and claimed to have been instrumental in putting Shamsa in contact with journalists and investigators in UK. She made other serious accusations on Sheikh Mohammed about mistreatment of Shamsa and herself.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/10/jamiewilson.stuartmillar1

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/10/jamiewilson.stuartmillar

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/15/jamiewilson.stuartmillar

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/15/jamiewilson.stuartmillar1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohsin (talk • contribs)

The Dailymail is widely regarded as an unreliable source, see WP:DAILYMAIL. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but this is the source that broke the news, analyses the video, links to dedicated page making it important. There are other non-english sources on the story that verify identity of woman in video, her friend's statements to legal firm representing them , and TheTimes has covered it as well. Ohsin (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ohsin. Sheikha Shamsa´s situation is widely known in the UAE, and just like Sheikha Latifa´s situation, there has been an almost total media blackout on her real story with a fake narrative by the UAE fed to traditional reliable sources. AP just set the record straight a couple of days ago.Explorium (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding two more articles related to incident from The Guardian and queries in UK Parliament.


 * https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/11/jamiewilson.stuartmillar


 * https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/22/london

Ohsin 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011213/text/11213w10.htm#11213w10.html_spnew7


 * The second of those sources says "there is an inquiry into an allegation received", but that was more than sixteen years ago. If no reliable source reports on any outcome or progress in such an inquiry, we cannot just throw the "inquiry into an allegation" into an article on a BLP in order to imply things. Hansard is a primary source as I understand it, so does not really help. MPS1992 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I must admit, this all struck me as odd, too - it's all pretty wild and we now have a repetition of the even wilder Latifa story. I think the Latifa stuff could be toned down and reduced to a single recount of the clear facts and less of the 'allegedly' content? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I got around to looking at this. I've pared it right back, removing the Daily Mail and sources that quote the Daily Mail, allegations and allegedly language and defamatory or potentially defamatory material. I've kept the solid cites and the video link. The end result is very little text indeed - if I've gone too far, I'm sure people will let me know. But the original (repeated) text was clearly way too much. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Another article from The Guardian on Shamsa and impeded investigation about her alleged abduction.


 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/missing-emirati-princess-latifa-al-maktoum-had-planned-escape-for-seven-years

Article at present states the allegations were by her instructor ignoring British solicitor via whom she managed to contacted police. Direct interference by Sheikh Mohammed in the case as revealed by Foreign Office and denial of access to Shamsa need mentioning. Ohsin 01:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Allegations etc of son's death & edit reverting
I've had a couple edits reverted over the past two days by USER:debresser, the first of which removed the cited incident where Saqr Al Qasimi was arrested. Turns out the target of the revert appears not to be so much that incident as my removal of the text in a section regarding Mohammed's son, which a) arguably doesn't belong on Mohammed's page anyway and b) consists of "conflicting reports and extensive media speculations" and "Yemeni sources claim" ("Yemeni sources" being parties in a conflict in which the UAE is involved). I maintain this material violates WP:BLP and arguably WP:NPV. I tried discussing this on his talk page but just got another revert quoting WP:CENSOR and no other response. It's not that this material is offensive, as per WP:CENSOR, but that conflicting reports, speculation and claims have no part in an encyclopedic biography (IMHO) - and that speculation not even being made about the subject of the biography. I'd be happy if someone else could arbitrate. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think this is censoring. These allegations are reliably sourced. Previous attempts to remove them have also been reverted, so there seems to be consensus that this is legitimate material. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that consensus can change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best. :) But one pushy editor is not yet a change of consensus. Especially since Wikipedia policy is clear that if something is well sourced, it can be published, even if it is not pleasant for somebody to read it. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:QS says Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.. The "pushy editor" has claimed an alleged conflict of interest. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Emir of Wikipedia That is interesting. Where did User:Alexandermcnabb admit to a COI? Debresser (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He didn't say he a COI, he said the source did. Yemeni sources claim" ("Yemeni sources" being parties in a conflict in which the UAE is involved). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

USER:debresser You're not even waiting for the issue to be discussed, it's revert, revert, revert. There is no consensus on this right now, in fact the last comment here appears to me to require a response, rather than giving you carte blanche to once again (the third time) revert the removal of material clearly in violation of WP:BLP, claiming some spurious consensus. It's nothing to do with WP:CENSOR - the material is pure speculation and claims by clearly conflicted sources. This in any case is the biography of Mohammed bin Rashid, not his son and I fail to see how trotting out wild and arguably malicious speculation as to the circumstances of his son's death serves to in any way enhance that biography. Rashid bin Mohammed has his OWN page on Wikipedia. Incidentally, the media cited are about as dodgy as it can get - an Albany, Oregon based PR company newsletter quoting claims made by the Iranian-backed Yemeni Houthi militia commenting to an Iranian news agency in Qom? How much more questionable or conflicted do you want to get? As for being "pushy", I sought to engage with you and discuss this after the first revert - you just ignored me. I am happy (as I have stated before) to be guided by consensus, which is why I sought it here on the talk page of the article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your point. What does his son have to do with anything? It is his daughter we are talking about. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You're reverting edits without even understanding what you're reverting? The removal of material that violates WP:BLP, which you're so doggedly contesting, relates to his son. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Debresser and her ips have a very long block log (blocked by over 10 different admins) and topic ban log for this sort of behaviour. Of 19 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That would explain a lot. MPS1992 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Typical of an editor who claimed yesterday's version was the stable one, to agree with a year-old case of well-poisoning that got it all wrong. Amateurism, or perhaps intentional censoring, all around. When looking at such statistics, you might want to keep in mind, that I have been an active editor for over 10 years and 100,000 edits, many of them in the very contentious WP:ARBPIA area. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. MPS1992 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Burj Al Arab and Jumeirah Beach (9601659067).jpg

6 wives or 6 marriages
All the newspapers have reported in the last few weeks that Al Maktoum has 6 wives. Examples:


 * The Fairy Tale Is Over for Dubai’s Royal Family, Foreign Policy, 10 July 2019
 * Princess Haya, Wife of Dubai’s Ruler, Seeks Refuge in London, NYT, 2 July 2019

But insists on Al Maktoum having 6 marriages ;-) --93.211.215.130 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. It doesn't matter as both are correct. Al Maktoum had a total of 6 wives, however Islamic and UAE law forbids more than 4 wives at the same time. The written sentiment implies that Al Maktoum still has six wives. Referring to Princess Haya as the sixth wife of Al Maktoum is correct. As royal family tends to keep their private life very secret, it is unknown who Al Maktoum is currently married to (except for his first wife). I have made the change to avoid reader confusion that Al Maktoum still keeps six wives as having six wives at the same time is prohibited by law. Have a good day. --Wikiemirati (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually not quite true. It is not our job to make it look like someone is not breaking the law, it is our job to report what the sources say, and in this case they are very clear in what they state. "The Jordanian-born and British-educated Princess Haya, 45, married Sheikh Mohammed... in 2004, becoming his sixth and 'junior wife'." and "Princess Haya, the most visible and glamorous of the sheikh's reported six wives, has left him." Changing wives to marriages in an admittedly deliberate attempt to distort what sources say is not acceptable. Remember, wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Specifically regarding the royal family's secrecy "Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversies/Allegations
There are some editors who are very keen to hammer in any allegation or claim made by anyone, anywhere into this article - and these would appear to me to at best skirt and at worst directly contravene the requirements of WP:BLP. Wild, unfounded, unsubstantiated - and often unsourced in the media pieces being used as citations - claims and allegations don't belong in a WP:BLP AFAIK. If there's an admin or more experienced editor that could comment, it'd be helpful... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I resent the tone of your post. In any case, as I wrote on your talkpage: this is a represented in reliable sources as information, not as a claim or rumor. And even if it were a claim or rumor, on Wikipedia we write that "allegedly" or "such-and-such claims that... ", but not remove it out of hand. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
I've fully protected the article in the WP:WRONG VERSION to prevent any further edit-warring. I have set the protection to one week, but I am willing to lift the protection earlier if there are clear signs that the consensus emerging above is established. The RfC can, of course, be closed at any time that consensus becomes clear or debate tapers off. Please do your best to look for common ground and find something that everyone can live with, as I'd prefer not to have to start imposing sanctions on any established editor for disruptive behaviour.

I'll keep the page on my watchlist and I'm available to fulfil any uncontroversial edit requests for the next week. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A clear consensus was established a good while ago. A single recalcitrant editor refuses to accept that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's go through the process, Andy. It shouldn't take long to see the result of the RfC, and I'm content to take that as binding, to the extent that I will impose sanctions for disruptive editing at that point on any editor who breaches the result. Please humour me for now. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that present text: "he had abducted daughters and threatened his wife", begs the questions whose daughters? Everybody's/anybody's? How many? All on his own? It would be clearer as "he had arranged the abduction of two of his daughters and threatened his Nth wife/one of his wives." Pincrete (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because the sources omit the possessive pronouns in their headlines. The sources read in more detail are nevertheless pretty clear that it was his daughters and one of his wives (their mother). Would you (or anyone else) like to propose an explicit form of words that clarifies any ambiguity, and see if we get any dissent? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understood that someone had simply copied the headline. I'm not that familiar with the incident but will attempt a form of words (if Wuhan's most famous export doesn't get me first!) ! Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understood that someone had simply copied the headline. I'm not that familiar with the incident but will attempt a form of words (if Wuhan's most famous export doesn't get me first!) ! Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No comments for over a week - can someone put this Rfc out of its misery please? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have requested that an admin close the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Probabilities
It is always amusing* to be told by an edit warrior to "take it to the talk page" or "follow WP:BRD" when that editor has done neither of those things, and has clearly missed the facts that WP:BRD is not mandatory, and that "BRD is never a reason for reverting." and "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once.".

Accordingly, I have restored the - quite correct and legally crucial - statement that the recent court finding was made "on the balance of probabilities" (as opposed to the equally common, criminal law, standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"), which is supported by both of the cited source (indeed: discussed at length in each of them), and look forward to anyone wanting to remove it making a reasoned case for doing so, rather than making utterly false claims that "that is always the case in court" or the ridiculous "sounds POV".

* as amusing as any indicator of either blind cluelessness or wilful ignorance can be. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please remove all personal attacks from your post. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think any informed reader knows that in civil cases the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities and in criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason to state so specifically, since it is not relevant. After all, in civil cases no ruling will state more than "in the balance of probabilities", even if theoretically it would be "beyond reasonable doubt" as well, since for example, the amount of a fine or compensation does not vary based on that difference, nor does anything else. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So you don't dispute that the statement is correct; and you don't refute that it is supported by both sources cited. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. I hold that it is not needed. In addition, it reeks of being a POV edit. The edit seems to try to diminish the verdict, which was a simply and 100% guilty, by qualifying the basis for that verdict, even though that is completely irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you imagine there was a "verdict" of "simply and 100% guilty", then you're not in any position to make any judgment regarding this or any similar article. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you being so... unpleasant? In any case, any verdict is either 100% guilty or 100% innocent, whatever the basis of verdict. I mean to say, that either he goes 100% to jail, and pays 100% of the fine, or his does neither of these. For example, if 2 judges think he did it and one doesn't, he doesn't go to jail for 2/3 of the time. This seems trivial, and I really don't appreciate the unpleasant tone of your last post, or the fact that you didn't remove the personal attacks from your previous post. By the way, see this, please. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no verdict of "100% guilty" or "100% innocent", nor a fine, nor a jail sentence. I really don't appreciate you making damaging edits regarding a quite basic issue that you clearly do not understand. Your appeal to authority would be laughable even if this did not apply. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been looking a bit at articles here on Wikipedia about people who were convicted, but do not see that we usually add such qualifiers as "on the balance of probabilities" (in articles that are not about the legal case itself). This reinforces my conclusion that the original edit was POV-based. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "people who were convicted" And what - you being a lawyer, and all - do you think Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been convicted of? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Either go with 'balance of probabilities' or suggest the civil standards in some way. TheGuardian states 'The civil standard is a conclusion made on the balance of probabilities; that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true. It is not a finding to the criminal standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt.' and per Cambridge police "The burden of proof and evidential requirements are significantly different in family court proceedings to that of criminal proceedings, however, in light of the recent release of the judgment, aspects of the case will now be subject to review," Ohsin  18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's possibly relevant here to unearth a comment made in an earlier, now archived, discussion on this page: "Debresser and her ips have a very long block log (blocked by over 10 different admins) and topic ban log for this sort of behaviour. Of 19 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well-poisoning. Judge by argument, not editor. But I knew you were up to nothing goo, as soon as I saw you had edited here. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Since continues to oppose my edit, and in a most unpleasant way I may add, perhaps we should take this to WP:DR/N. However there can be no talk of leaving the contentious "on balance of probabilities" on this page, as long as there is no consensus for it. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please visit the dispute resolution at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Rfc
Should the article use the phrase "on a balance of probabilities" when referring to the 'Fact Finding Judgement' by a civil court that the subject of this article abducted his daughters and threatened his wife? --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Added later: Another suggestion is to leave it out from the lead but have it in the section. I find that suggestion balanced and would agree to it.


 * Oppose addition, as redundant and giving a POV impression. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Close this as clearly WP:FORUMSHOP, especially as Debresser has already tried two different venues for this (see above) & been rebuffed. There is a full discussion above, with a very clear consensus with 5 editors participating. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While it is true that Debresser has tried different venues for this, including DRN, I think it'd be a good idea to settle this issue with a binding RfC like this. (At least none of the other venues seemed to have settled the issue.) It'd also allow a broad range of editors to engage in the discussion. --MrClog (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not forumshop, since the WP:AN3 was about a behavioral issue, and WP:DR is where opening an Rfc was recommended. Nor was I rebuffed. You disagree with me without bringing even one argument or countering even one of mine. All you have brought to the discussions is personal attacks and unpleasantness. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The current RfC is not neutral and brief as required. I have suggested to the filer that I'd write a neutral and brief summary for them. --MrClog (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You will be wasting your time. This matter has already been settled. A single editor is being highly disruptive; and must stop or be stopped. As for "we do not use this formula on other articles which mention civil rulings", that claim too is false. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I made that search a week ago, before reverting... Feel free to check those articles, and you'll find that they are either general articles about law or in-depth articles about specific law cases, not articles about a person which mention a courtcase in one sentence only. I found only one exception. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Feel free to check those articles" I did - as indeed anyone else can do - which is how I knew your claim is false. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: The original, partisan, RfC, to which I responded . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will only be "settled" when Debresser is blocked (again). When he convinces himself he is right, consensus means absolutely nothing to him, as his conduct here shows. He has just reverted again, after several days, with the laughable edit summary "Undid revision 946676473 by Johnbod (talk) Restore last stable version, without controversial and unsourced addition that is being discussed at the moment." The version had been stable for the 11 days before the 21st, after the discussion above, until he came along and changed it.  Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How do RS cover it? Guy (help!) 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The source used in the article does not mention it. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But a proper account, in The Guardian, certainly does: "...the actions of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum were described by the judge as behaviour which, on the balance of probabilities, amounted to potentially breaking English and international law." (para 2), and lower down: "McFarlane’s judgment explains that his ruling “may well involve findings, albeit on the civil standard, of behaviour which is contrary to the criminal law of England and Wales, international law, international maritime law, and internationally accepted human rights norms”.
 * "The civil standard is a conclusion made on the balance of probabilities; that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true. It is not a finding to the criminal standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt." Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also The Statesman: "The judgment, above all, is a reflection on the attitudes and doings of royalty. The credibility and standing of the palace in Dubai must now be open to question. The judgment has been given in a family court case. The verdict was pronounced on what they call the “balance of probabilities”, indeed the civil standard of proof. It was not exactly a verdict that has been established beyond reasonable doubt, as would be required in a criminal case." That's here
 * Toronto Star-5 Mar 2020: "Judge: Dubai ruler threatened wife, had daughters abducted ...Sheikh Mohammed also has several unofficial wives. ... threats and abductions met the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities."
 * Times of India-7 Mar 2020: "... the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, when ... He also found, on the balance of probabilities, that Latifa “has been ..."
 * The Sydney Morning Herald-13 Mar 2020: "Princess Haya married Sheikh Mohammed in 2004 and had two ... on the balance of probabilities, Sheikh Mohammed was responsible for the ..."
 * The Sydney Morning Herald-13 Mar 2020: "Princess Haya married Sheikh Mohammed in 2004 and had two ... on the balance of probabilities, Sheikh Mohammed was responsible for the ..."

In fact the media very often use the phrase, entirely properly. This was a completely different case: "Fashion designer Khalid Al Qasimi 'died of drug poisoning' The Guardian-12 Dec 2019, "He added: “I am quite satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it ... Sheikh Mohammed bin Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, died from a ..." Even the Daily Mail did the same on that one. This is yet another "sheiky" case: "Arab Prince did marry model in Islamic ceremony but it is not ... Telegraph.co.uk-22 Dec 2011, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Maktoum, 53, whose Emirates airline sponsors ... he was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the ceremony she ...." Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Debresser's recent claim that "The source used in the article does not mention it" is - once again - a falsehood.

You'll see that earlier on this page I said (emboldening added) "So you don't dispute that the statement is correct; and you don't refute that it is supported by both sources cited", to which Debresser replied "Absolutely correct.".

The disputed text is in:

"In December 2019, a UK family court ruled that—on the balance of probabilities—Sheikh Mohammed orchestrated the abductions of Sheikha Latifa and Sheikha Shamsa and subjected Princess Haya to a campaign of "intimidation"; the findings were published in March 2020."

The first of its two sources incudes the text the actions of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum were described by the judge as behaviour which, on the balance of probabilities, amounted to...; the second is the full legal ruling, which uses the phrase twelve times.

This is such a lot of wasted time and effort to deal with one editor who won't accept consensus. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support addition in both the article and the lead. There are two reasons for my support: (1) many sources use the term "on the balance of probabilities" (see above) and (2) we're talking about a BLP here, where we should err on the side of caution when it comes to making sure that the article does not defame the subject. Many readers of Wikipedia are not lawyers and may not know that civil suits are decided on the balance of probabilities, and thus proper context is important. --MrClog (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording of this Rfc was changed, but not copied into my opinion. I will now repeat the part of the original wording which reflects my opinion: 1. this sounds apologetic = POV and 2. we do not use this formula on other articles which mention civil rulings. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion may not be part of the RfC question, and I'm astonished that an experienced editor like yourself did not understand that. The original listing at even contained your initial oppose !vote. Please be more careful in future. --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion, per arguments expressed by me above & elsewhere, and MrClog etc, since we seem to be carrying on with this. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion Per previous responses, is redundant and unnecessary. ~ HAL  333  02:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion per reasons of others inc. MrClog and, frankly, why would one want to exclude significant clarifying info, which necessitates so little additional text? Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion, for the avoidance of doubt, per all my comments above and in the linked discussions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per MrClog Idealigic (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per explanations above. Seems to be factually correct and encyclopaedically appropriate. Guy (help!) 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per explanations above. Seems to be factually correct and encyclopaedically appropriate. Guy (help!) 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sheikh Majid-Sword-Family.jpg