Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Global Initiatives

Poorly sourced puffery
Extraordinary claims about benefitting "69 million people", as well as having "90,000 volunteers" need extraordinary sourcing. Currently, it's sourced to non-independent souces, and in some cases literally to the dictator himself. This edit should be reverted. It's the kind of brazen puffery that was highlighted in this discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I concure, as long the sources cited and the user who is on some level intertwined with said sources, the discussion should run its course on the reliable sources page. And no reverting should be taking place on the article itself. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
International Humanitarian City should be merged to this page. There is nothing that justifies a fork for one of the initiatives of the 'Mohammed bin Rashid Global Initiatives'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a goof idea, IHC does not appear to be independently notable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of puffery sourced to the organization itself
I took a stab at removing some of the extraordinary levels of poorly sourced puffery in this article. This included claims such as the organization "providing hope" in the lead, as well as incredibly detailed and unreadable text about every single project that the organization released a press release about. These edits were reverted in full by "Alexandermcnabb". I think my edits should be restored. The Wikipedia page for "Mohammed bin Rashid Global Initiatives" is not supposed to be equivalent of the actual website for the organization. It violates the NPOV and RS guidelines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those edits certainly appear warranted. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's a large organisation, active across a large number of areas. It consists of some 33 philanthropic initiatives. The article was accepted via AfC pretty much as it stands - it's properly sourced. It arguably needs to be updated. Sourcing unontroversial, structural aspects of a philanthropic organisation to its own annual report strikes me as being perfectly acceptable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * AfC is not an endorsement of the content of the article. It may be acceptable but it doesn't appear to be WP:DUE and Snooganssnoogans is right about the puffery. I’ve been seeing issues with puffery in a number of articles created by you which have to do with Rashid et al, my eyes will be open in the future for more. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)