Talk:Dubai Creek Tower

Tallest/second tallest structure

@Robynthehode: The current statement in the article is speculation. We don't know if it will become the second tallest structure. It might become the tallest structure. If you can prove (with reference?) that it won't become the tallest structure I would be interested in that. Otherwise we shouldn't speculate about the future timeline of buildings. --mfb (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree about speculation. This sentence was added recently (not by me) and I didn't remove it immediately but adding more speculation does not help. Let's remove the sentence altogether as it is likely to contravene WP:CRYSTALBALL

Good, removed it. I kept the tallest tower as there is no competition, but feel free to remove that as well if you want. --mfb (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As the tower is under construction I think we can keep, as a compromise, the revised sentence. Of course the tower's height may be revised but that's further speculation. Glad we could sort this Robynthehode (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, currently the highest tower is 630 m high. If the tower doesn't reach that height it can hardly be called "completed" as its current project. --mfb (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition of "under construction"

Although CTBUH still lists it as "under construction", nothing happened since the foundation was completed in May 2018. That's already more than seven months without any progress. How long can there be no progress until it is no longer defined as "under construction"? The main source for the tower being under construction is the developer Emaar itself and of course the developer is not interested in admitting problems. There might not be a perfectly riable source for the stop of construction, but at the same time there even less is any reliable source for the progress of this tower. The last update on Google Earth was in July 2018 and it shows the completed foundation, which even reaches a few metres overground. So any progress further overground should be visible from large parts of Dubai right now.

At least the article should mention that there has not been any proof of progress for a very long time.93.227.223.1 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If there is a reliable source that says it is not under construction or there are specific problems they may be noted if not contravening WP:UNDUE. However looking at Google Earth is original research and contravenes WP:OR. You will need to get consensus here first before changing anything significant unless you have a source that is at reliable as CTBUH. Robynthehode (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: I know what reliable sources are and what not, thank you. But I also know which year it is. A source from 2016 cannot say anything about the construction status of 2019, no matter how reliable it is. That it was under construction in 2016 is not disputed. For the current status we have a somewhat weak source saying that it stopped, and absolutely nothing that would suggest otherwise. A year has passed since that IP already noted that construction halted, and still no progress. Note the phrasing I chose: "appear to be" - that is very conservative, and it does indeed appear to be halted. There is a picture of it. The article as you reverted it to is highly misleading, and in contradiction to the best source we have about the status of 2019 (which is not a good source, but still a source). --mfb (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However I don't think you do realise about the reliability of CTBUH. It is a membership organisation that has as its members the developers, architects, construction firms etc of buildings. The developer of this tower is a member. CTBUH is the most reliable source we have. I don't know where you get '2016' from, CTBUH website is updated regularly. Your source is WP:OR. Therefore unless you have a more reliable source than CTBUH and can justify why it is more reliable then the status of the tower remains. Robynthehode (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think this makes CTBUH less useful as a source, precisely because it is not independent. It is biased towards is members. Emaar has considerable financial interests in making it seem like the tower is "just around the corner", and their membership in CTBUH lets them dictate what status the project should have on the CTBUH website. They are not likely to admit it publicly and make a fuss when a project goes belly up, the official line is still that construction is ongoing as we speak. However, the facts on the ground are that there hasn't been ongoing construction on the site since May 2018, when the foundations were finished. Google Maps has imagery from mid-2019 showing the construction site in the exact same state as it was a year ago. For all intents and purposes, this tower is on hold, and construction is only ongoing on paper. I think there have been a few business articles around saying the equivalent of "Emaar to award contract for the construction of Dubai Creek Tower", would that be sufficient sources to say the tower is currently not yet under construction? Codraroll (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: You don't know where I get 2016 from? Are you serious? Check your edit maybe. You didn't even bother to update the access date. I'm also not sure how flashydubai.com is related to CTBUH. At this point I'm running out of good faith I can assume. So maybe find this CTBUH reference you talk about, and stop putting an ancient reference from a questionable website into the article. --mfb (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: I did take this to the talk page but you didn't reply any more. There is no policy that says Youtube videos are generally unacceptable, they just shouldn't be used if more reliable sources are available. But this doesn't seem to be the case. In the absence of better sources, these are the best we have. And both of them agree that construction halted. --mfb (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, that YouTube video is from an anonymous channel, giving no credibility to its claims. A single line of text at the end of the video saying construction was halted in 2018 is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It's two different channels, both focus on skyscraper construction. Both videos discuss that it is halted both in the video and the description. Knowing the name of the channel creators wouldn't change much. --mfb (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, who are the people behind the channels? What are their credentials and reputation? What are they basing their claim on? Why would there be no supporting coverage whatsoever in any reliable source? Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd is correct. These Youtube videos are not reliable sources because of the reasons stated. And yes there is a general policy to say Youtube videos are generally unacceptable. To quote from WP:YTREF 'Anyone can create a website or video and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For this reason, self-published media as seen on YouTube are often not acceptable sources.' and 'YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video.' If you noticed in my edit summary I did not say there is a general or blanket ban on using Youtube videos as sources. But they do have to meet the standards of other reliable sources. The Youtube videos you are using do not meet these standards. Or if they do you need to show they do. From your comments above I maintain you do not understand what a reliable source is. Please review WP:RS. Your statement 'It's two different channels, both focus on skyscraper construction. Both videos discuss that it is halted both in the video and the description. Knowing the name of the channel creators wouldn't change much.' illustrates that you don't understand the criterion for reliable sources. We do have better sources CTBUH. But even if we didn't that doesn't justify using unreliable sources just because there are seemingly no better sources according to you. Robynthehode (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It is easy to see why there are no better sources. The owners/builders of the building just stopped giving any updates, so looking at the construction site is everything people can do. And people did. In the absence of better sources, do we just write nothing forever? In 2030, will we still claim that the building is under construction if there is no official update? In 2040? Is there a year when you'll agree that the building is not under construction if we don't get any updates in the future? Can we at least write that there was no update on the progress for a while, or say that the last reliable update was from [date to be checked]? "Under construction as of 2018" or so. Currently the article is wrong and the claim that it is under construction has no source. I prefer correct article with questionable sources over wrong articles with absolutely no sources. Yes, the claim that it is under construction (as of now) is unsourced. --mfb (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

When reliable independent sources write about it not being under construction, we'll update the article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Depending on what you consider reliable enough we might claim that it is under construction in 2100. But anyway, I found something new: Tim Gibson, theb1m.com: "While foundations were laid in 2017, no progress has been made since". --mfb (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because something is on the web doesn't make it a reliable source. That site looks more like a blog than a reliable news source, and their claim is immediately dubious since we know the pile cap was laid in 2018. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(←) @Mfb:I don't have much time here, and so I can't get into a back and forth on this. The bottom line is that something must be reliably sourced for an encyclopedia to claim it and youtube can't fill the role, with the exception of very unusual circumstances. For example, we might say that organization A, if their channel is verified, put Video B on youtube, but even then we would still strongly prefer a secondary source that stated the same fact directly if at all possible in lieu of using youtube as the source.

I concede that many RS are slow to update; in fact we expect them to be if they are taking their time to carefully verify new information. It is fully possible the building is now on hold. However if that is the case we need a reliable source to say that. If you have a source and aren't sure about its reliability, then I suggest you inquire at RSN which to the best of my knowledge is where the wiki-experts on that topic hang-out.

My other concern is, what's the rush? Wikipedia is Not news. There's no harm in waiting until RS update for us to follow. I'm sure Wikipedia will still be the first encyclopedia to cover this change. So while I understand your enthusiasm, I encourage you to be patient and take a step back and wait for RS to report on this or update their databases. Thanks.

𝒬𝔔 01:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Rush"? We are talking about roughly two years without progress now. If nothing changes we'll keep writing that it is under construction in 2100? Whatever. Okay, no Youtube videos. But let's consider this from the other side: There is no reliable source saying that the building has been under construction since mid 2018 at least. We have some articles copying older claims but not more. We can't leave this claim in the article, right? So let's write under construction (as of 2018), okay? That's all we have from reliable sources. --mfb (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a reliable source - Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH). Accessing it today the tower is still stated as 'under construction'. CTBUH fulfils a reliable source. What's the problem? Robynthehode (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The main problem: We don't know when it was last updated, that might be the status from years ago. The independence of that source was questioned before, too. --mfb (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mfb True we don't know when it was last updated but that is largely irrelevant here. It is the reliability of a source that matters. So one editor above has questioned the independence of CTBUH. Fine to question CTBUH. But just saying that the source's independence has been questioned adds no weight to your argument unless that independence is properly discussed and a consensus reached about CTBUH as a reliable source. CTBUH is used across Wikipedia as a reliable source for building/structure information. They do have editorial oversight, they seem to check their facts. Their information is verifiable. If you are going to challenge the independence and reliability of CTBUH you are going to have to do better than a mere mention of questioning their independence. Maybe you should contact them and challenge their listing of the status of the Dubai Creek Tower? I would also urge you to reread WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:TRUTH before commenting again. Robynthehode (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

How is the last update largely irrelevant? If you take websites that are old enough you can have reliable sources saying that Barack Obama is president of the US. Websites document the status at the time they are written/updated. They cannot be a reference for future events (beyond talking about plans). I'm not sure what you try to achieve with broad references to guidelines I know. What would you think if I would tell you the same? Yeah, that's what I think about you doing it. --mfb (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear when I said 'largely irrelevant'. But my comment is in the context of CTBUH being a reliable source that is updated so exactly when it was last updated is irrelevant. It can be discerned by looking at the website of CTBUH as a whole that it is updated regularly but not all pages are, or indeed need to be, updated unless new information about the buildings/structures come to light. It is clear to me and possibly other editors that you don't know or understand WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:TRUE. I base my view on the fact that you used Google Earth to try to back up your argument above (in contravention of no original research); you used Youtube videos to do the same (in contravention of WP:YTREF; you suggested an unreliable source blog above (in contravention of what a reliable source is). My comments are not a personal attack on you nor a blanket criticism of your editing but in the present discussion I can only base my view on what you have said and done in relation to this article. Other editors have clearly stated the sources you have used for this article are not reliable so maybe just accept the what is looking like a consensus on the point in hand - the tower is currently under construction until a reliable source says otherwise. Robynthehode (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We'll still write that this building is under construction in a 100 years if CTBUH doesn't update their page any more. Okay, whatever, not worth further discussion. But I would like to make a last comment about your discussion style here because I see a consistent pattern: Most of your replies contains at least one new obviously wrong statement. You put a questionable and obviously outdated 2016 reference in the article for the current construction status, calling it something else in the edit comment, then asked me what 2016 reference I meant when I told you. You claim I would have used Google Earth - I didn't, some IP user did. I never said that the references I found would be good - just better than nothing. And so on. You claim that I wouldn't know or understand guidelines for no good reason apart from other made-up claims from your side. --mfb (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to admit my errors if they are clearly stated in any discussions and to apologise if necessary. So please let me know my 'obviously wrong statements' and 'made up replies'. Contrary to your claim I would like to pose some questions: Did you not reply to my response to the IP 93.227.223.1? Your answer certainly seems to imply you were that IP. If you were not then I apologise for my assumption. But if you were then you referenced Google Maps. If you weren't then you too could have brought up the fact that looking at Google Maps is original research. Did you not use Youtube references that have been comprehensively rejected as reliable by me and other editors? Did you not use another reference that has been challenged as being a blog which contravenes guidelines as to reliable sources? If I am wrong in any of these claims then where is your evidence? My evidence are the posts you wrote above. I may have misread, mininterpreted or otherwise made an error but I am, unlike you it seems, happy to admit any error I have made. As to your rehash of the '2016 argument' it is just a rehash of what has been discussed already by me and other editors. Robynthehode (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave some examples in my previous reply, I don't feel the need to expand on that. My first comment here was in reply to your edit comment on the article asking about taking it to the talk page. I indented it because I saw you made a similar comment to someone else a year ago. Why would have I said anything about Google Maps, duplicating your old reply, to an IP that was here a year ago? Which other editors discussed your flashydubai.com addition from 2016? I don't see anyone, which brings me back to the topic of you making up stuff. --mfb (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay if you can't give examples backed up by evidence then fine. Your accusations fail. If you are not the IP at the top of this talk page topic why did you reply to my post replying to that IP with 'I know what reliable sources are and what not, thank you.'. Re the 2016 issue I maybe didn't make it clear. Referencing 2016 was a reference to the general argument about the age of references not to the specific revert I made which restored the flasydubai reference. Having checked that again I did restore but not initially cite that reference. I did this in error and our initial exchanges about this revert were complicated by my error. Again I am happy to admit my errors but seemingly you are not. You were in error to reference Youtube. You were in error to suggest a blog as a reliable source. Maybe we can both accept our errors and learn by them? Robynthehode (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You keep asking about things I answered directly before, I could repeat myself but don't see the point in it. My last comment here. --mfb (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, I sympathize with the frustration of knowing something but not being able to prove it in a Wikipedia article because of the absence of reliable sources. I know it doesn't help anything, but I find it suspicious that there hasn't been any more coverage on progress of the tower construction since the pile cap in 2018. Personally, I do consider it likely that construction has stalled for some unknown reason. We just can't say that in the article because we can't back it up. Schazjmd (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

We are halfway through 2020 now and the tower is still nothing but a concrete donut sitting idly in the sand, as it has done for the past two years. Can we at least change "Estimated completion" to "unknown" or something like that, since it's pretty clear by now there's no way they could complete this in 2021? Codraroll (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this otherwise it is WP:OR original research which is against Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

At what point does absence of evidence become evidence of absence? A developer is not likely to report on a project if it is going badly, and if the word of the developer is the only source we're going to accept, we will never get anywhere. The best source I can appeal to at the moment is Emaar's own website about Dubai Creek Harbour , which retains a render of the tower but does not elaborate on its existence. The first of the external links currently listed in the article is a link to to a page for Dubai Creek Tower, which doesn't exist anymore. Instead, the link is now redirected directly to the aforementioned main Dubai Creek Harbour page. It is evident that Emaar is not actively promoting the tower or surrounding properties anymore. The scope of Dubai Creek development seems to be scaled back to the island of Dubai Creek Harbour itself. Google Earth also has imagery of the site going back several years, showing no change to the site itself since foundations were completed in 2018. There is also this article from 2019 that speaks of an ongoing tender process for the tower's construction, suggesting that the tower was not under construction as of July 2019 since no contract had been awarded by then. There still hasn't been an announcement of an awarded construction contract, which also points towards the tower not being under construction. At any rate, all available documentation suggests the tower is not currently rising, and that completion by 2021 would be impossible given the time it takes to build such a massive tower. Codraroll (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Codraroll The reliable source widely used in Wikipedia is the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH). The sources you have shown are primary. See WP:RS. CTBUH states that the Dubai Creek Tower is under construction see http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/the-tower-at-dubai-creek-harbour/23572. Editors in Wikipedia report what reliable sources say. We do not engage in WP:OR original research. Clearly if the completion of the tower is impossible (we get to 2022 and CTBUH still says 2021 for the completion date) we may, by consensus, decide to change the completion date to 'unknown'. However, as editors we do not speculate WP:CRYSTAL but report. I realise it is frustrating and the article content may not match what may reasonably be surmised from known facts. But again we are here to report from reliable sources not to do original research or engage in WP:SYNTH or event argue for the truth WP:TRUTH. Robynthehode (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So, a picture that someone have taken can be used to show how a building looks. But it can't be used to make conclusions? Now that's "very" logical indeed. 46.132.71.61 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No making conclusions is original research WP:OR which is not allowed. If you don't like the policy you can challenge it but it is there for good reason as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place for original research or opinion. Robynthehode (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Short update, all renders and mentions of the tower have now been removed on Emaar's own Dubai Creek Harbour page . This includes the link in the article which used to direct to the tower's own page, which doesn't exist anymore . Reuters reports that work on the tower has been stopped , and while this was denied by Emaar's chairman , his response was all ad hominem and no substance. While it is evident that no work has happened on site for over two years, admitting so would make Emaar look weak, and so their official stance is that the tower is still under construction. Emaar is represented in the CTBUH, and presumably use their leverage to keep the tower labelled "under construction" on its website. After all, it took a couple of years of abandonment for the CTBUH to admit that Jeddah Tower was on hold as well. They may be reliable when it comes to information about the buildings they list, but they are really slow when it comes to updating construction status. I understand that this might not be enough to sway everybody here, but the information should at least be considered as part of the documentation whenever we do agree to apply the "on hold" label.Codraroll (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your update. I have briefly looked at the sources you have supplied and believe the Reuters one may be sufficient to change the status to 'on hold' as it is both a reliable source and specifically mentions the tower and its building status. What do other editors think? Robynthehode (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"Suspended due to Covid-19 pandemic"

I know the article says construction of the tower was suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but should it not be mentioned somewhere that work has not happened on the site since the foundations were finished in May 2018? The reasons for the suspension of construction are quite complex, without much information revealed to the public, but at any rate it certainly started long before the coronavirus emerged. More appropriately, when one contractor finished their work and left, nobody came in to commence the next phase of construction as the contract had not been signed with anyone yet. This article from 2019 talks about an ongoing tender process for the construction, showing that the tower had not resumed construction in more than a year after its foundations were completed. No such contract has yet been awarded as of August 2021, suggesting that the process is at best still ongoing or at worst has been canceled.

Meanwhile, Emaar is no longer actively promoting the tower on their website, the model of the tower has been removed from Dubai Mall, and it has been removed from all renders on the Dubai Creek Harbour site . As can be seen in another of my posts on this page, this happened in early August 2020, while the suspension of construction "due to Covid" was not announced until December . In short, it appears that the developer uses the pandemic as an excuse to save face, rather than publicly admitting that construction is not ongoing.

While it understandably would be too much to directly put in the article that Emaar is lying, I think it should state the fact that no construction has happened since May 2018. It's a break in construction activity for more than three years, which is twice as long as it took from groundbreaking until the foundations were complete. I would consider that a notable period in its construction history. Codraroll (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References