Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:UNDUE

I've been bold and restored the sections removed from the prior lede, which contained perfectly accurate and correct material. Although the wording has been pored over - and been the subject of an RfC - I don't see that the finding of a British court is the most important fact in Mohammed's entire life and the exclusion of his many achievements in favour of highlighting that fact is clearly WP:UNDUE and you could even probably argue on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS that it shouldn't be in the lede of an article about a political career spanning decades. It is dealt with comprehensively in the 'Controversies' section which is precisely where I would argue it belongs. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

And you have been reverted. Do you think that just because some time has elapsed we will allow you to polish this article to your liking? The sentence about a British Court is due, and the poet thing is undue. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who this 'we' is, but the material removed from the lede was there for over two years and is completely WP:DUE. This is the biography of a living person, the lede should summarise the article, not your POV, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I agree with User:Ohsin who thinks that those two paragraphs are puffery and UNdue, and that the sentence about the court ruling is due. Please refrain from dealing out POV accusations. Not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

They are sourced fact. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

So they can say in the article. But not in the lead. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

They might be able to have a sentence in the lead, but not the first sentence or paragraph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Him being a poet is so not important compared to the rest of the facts, that I oppose it categorically in any place in the lead. I mean, he is a prince and a prime minister, and being a minor poet comes far behind all that. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if you knew anything about the subject you are so eager to belittle? His poetry is not only recognised but is actually widely celebrated in his native country. That's a fact. You might not like his native country, or have the highest opinion of its people, but that's the way they roll. He's not a prince, he's the Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler (Hakim) of Dubai. He hasn't been a prince since 2006. The contribution from Emir of Wikipedia above was to support the inclusion of this element of Mohammed's biography in the lede - which is, in any case, a stable element in the article. You would, presumably, have to demonstrate that his poetry is irrelevant to a broad picture of the man and establish broad consensus before removing it - and you certainly haven't done that, have you? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is it every post of yours has to contain a personal attack? The WP:UNDUE argument is clear and is sufficient, and there is nothing here that warrant additional "broad consensus", whatever you mean by that. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There was no 'personal attack'. And it is not clear and it is not sufficient. The fact is cited, so a desire to remove it really comes down to your POV and that's not good enough. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"You might not like his native country, or have the highest opinion of its people" That is a personal attack.

Again, I am not removing any facts, I just don't think they ought to be in the lead, Because of WP:UNDUE considerations. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

While personal interest and hobbies are noteworthy when defining a notable personality, simply using few published creative works to paint someone as a recognized poet is WP:UNDUE in lede, it should take more than a state media feature on state head to weigh the creative works as substantial contributions to the field. Again 'stable lede' is hardly an argument, has there been a discussion on creative significance of the creative work in question?  Ohsin  11:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how status can be quantified as "substantial contribution to the field". A publisher author is by definition an author. A published poet is also by definition a poet. Whether his poetry is substantial or contributed to the field has nothing to do with wikipedia presentation of facts in my opinion. He fits the definition. The creative significance of the work shouldn't decide on whether he should or shouldn't be called a "poet". We're not here to judge if a particular author is a true author or if a particular poet is indeed a poet. Gorebath (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And for what it is worth it is mentioned under section for personal interests. The new insider.com citation is just circular reference to 'Source: Government of Dubai' as mentioned under article, just further highlighting WP:Puff through official outlets. Point of contention here is whether he has contributed to field enough for that to be mentioned in lede or not as 'recognized poet'. For example other sources cite his poetry to be amateurish and worse than bad!  Ohsin  08:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

I don't understand your view of seeing this as a puffery. This is not arguing that he is a better-than-shakespeare all time greatest poet. The correct way to describe this is by calling him a Nabati poet, not a recognized nor an "amateur" poet as has been recently added based on western news reports, as those are based on authors and editors point of views of his work and are not neutral facts which is what wikipedia strives to present. If you follow Arabic poetry you will know that there's a difference between classical and the Nabati style poetry which is widespread in the gulf Arab countries, and Mohammad bin Rashid is a published Arabic Nabati poet with his poems transcribed into multiple Arabic literature which is what the initial point of view of the added information wanted to portray. His poetry is also based on Arabic citations, not English ones, which counters your argument of "not contributing enough", albeit I think that's a weak argument on not to include a cited fact on someone because he simply has not "contributed enough" even though he fits the definition perfectly.

Just the fact that he is a Nabati poet deserves to be added to the lead without adjectives such as "amateur" or "removed" or "recognized" etc.. as we do not judge the works of people in wikipedia. If you think his poetry is "bad" or "amateur" as you say and have cited sources, you may word it as " John Doe thinks Mohammed bin Rashid poetry is amateur, etc.." and give a cited source. Gorebath (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Which, if we're lucky, knocks the poetry argument on the head. However, that was essentially a distraction introduced to divert attention from the real issue with the lede here - that a British court finding, moreover one reached on 'a balance of probabilities' and in a process uncontested by the subject of this biography, while it should absolutely be included in the article, should not form a part of the lede, which is surely intended to summarise the article - the life of a prominent individual - but take its place in the 'controversies' section where it is already fully and properly covered. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I removed the tag questioning the weight of a well-established and cited fact and calling for a discussion which is already well underway, albeit perhaps not to the liking of the tagger... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the same facts are repeated three times in the article. I tidied these to one report of the events which faithfully maintains all of the facts and their supporting citations. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb I have restored the tag. Please be aware that you are not allowed to restore this tag as long as the issue has not been resolved. In general, involved editors should not remove tag unless there is clear consensus. Please see WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

He rules an authoritarian regime

The lead cannot omit that he's a dictator. That's essential information about him and presented in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Also why does the lead talk about some non-notable "world peace" award that this dictator created? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The lead also presents this puffery: "He is responsible for the growth of Dubai into a global city". Could you imagine if Obama's lead were to say, "He is responsible for bringing the U.S. out of the Global Recession and bringing health insurance to millions of Americans"? It's absurd puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You are perhaps avoiding the fact that the statement comes directly from the cited, reliable, source - an academic study. Dubai IS now a recognised global city. And Mohammed is most certainly responsible for its meteoric growth since the 1990s. By 1966, at the age of 17, he was responsible for its airport. He was also responsible for developing Dubai's tourism business - from zero to $21 billion in 2017. He was the world's youngest Minister of Defence at age 22. He was responsible for the launch of the world's leading international airline, the development of DP World, Jebel Ali and other global logistics operations. He was responsible for the launch of Dubai Internet City and the very many other economic development zones under the TECOM umbrella - let alone the development of icons such as Emirates Towers, the Burj Khalifa and the Burj Al Arab - and hundreds of other developmental milestones, including the road, traffic, transport and communications infrastructure of the city. Dubai Holding employs hundreds of thousands of people and is an enterprise comprised entirely of commercial operations launched by Mohammed. This is all very well documented indeed - but the core fact here is that the statement comes from a reliable source, correctly cited in the text and as such it is perfectly appropriate - regardless of your personal view of him or the nature of governance in the Emirates. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of the 'non-notable peace award', notability is not conferred by any editor, but by - again - a reliable source, cited in the article. This is properly sourced, verifiable content. It shouldn't be removed without a valid reason. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that there is reliable sourcing that points to this ridiculous "peace award" as being notable. The only sourcing is a "www.emirates247.com" story on the creation of the award. There is nothing on this in the body, and I would strongly dispute that a media outlet in a country without press freedom is a reliable source on the actions of the authoritarian regime. Also, the "peace award" is at no point covered in the body, and it doesn't even have its own WP page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Emirates247 is a UAE media outlet. Unless you're going to get consensus that all UAE media outlets aren't reliable sources, it stands as a reliable source. A lot of things in the UAE don't have their own WP pages - look at my own page creations and you'll perhaps start to build a picture of how little WP is edited/contributed to from the Emirates. That's partly because WP was blocked here for years (by admins, not by UAE authorities) because of IP range issues, partly because the few editors that do surface get slapped down so fast they just give up. The argument that a thing that doesn't have a WP page is inherently not notable is a little dangerous, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally, on the question of 'dictator', that's rather pejorative. He is the Ruler of Dubai, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. From where do you get 'dictator'??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well from Amnesty International for one. And there is a good case for arguing that all the arabian Gulf countries are Family dictatorship. Talk about authoritarian as a mild expression. Who elected him, vis a vis your words "He is the Ruler of Dubai, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. From where do you get 'dictator'???" Who elected him to any of those political positions and does the population have any recourse in replacing him? https://www.amnesty.org.uk/united-arab-emirates-uae-free-speech-repression-injustice-censorship Best regards Ip says (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is zero dispute in reliable sources that he rules an authoritarian regime. There are a number of criteria for authoritarianism, but most prominently is the lack of free and fair elections, human rights protections, the rule of law, and active participation of the public in politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument about systems of governance that is a little larger than any single BLP. Dictator is pejorative language. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Dictator and Authoritarian are precise terms to refer to systems of government and rule. We don't obscure undisputed facts just because readers may not like those facts. Many articles say their subjects are convicted murderers, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, communists, fascists etc., even if many readers may associate those things with negative things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) There is nothing on him being individually responsible for "the growth of Dubai into a global city" in the body of the article. (2) The cited source for this claim is a non-peer reviewed "case" in the Harvard Business School catalogue, authored by someone with a conflict of interest with the subject[1] who also just so happens to be a massive donor to Harvard University. (3) For extraordinary puffery claims such as being individually responsible for the growth of an entire city and being individually responsible for the success of a number of "major enterprises", extraordinarily high-quality sourcing is needed. For example, we would NEVER say that FDR individually solved the Great Depression or that Obama individually brought health insurance to millions, unless the weight of reliable sources specifically used that kind of extreme language. We use tempered neutral language when covering those subjects. The claims require high-quality sourcing in particular given that the subject rules an authoritarian regime where he can claim responsibility for things and others will allow that and the press/academics are too weak to assess it empirically. (4) I have no objection to language saying Sheikh Mohammed's rule oversaw the growth of Dubai, and that he was involved in the establishment of a number of enterprises. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the BBC and Reuters. Neither piece is particularly complimentary (Reuters' polemic in particular hasn't stood the test of time terribly well), but both uphold the central fact you are disputing - he is the individual directly responsible for leading the transformation of Dubai. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The BBC uses similar language that I recommended: "In the Middle East, he is renowned for overseeing the transformation of Dubai into a top business and tourism destination."[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we perhaps do as done for the emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and use absolute monarchy? Btw the introduction could benefit being a bit less puffery Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure readers know what means. I favor using both the precise term (absolute monarchy) and the more commonly understood broader term (authoritarian regime). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He rules an authoritarian regime

The lead cannot omit that he's a dictator. That's essential information about him and presented in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Also why does the lead talk about some non-notable "world peace" award that this dictator created? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The lead also presents this puffery: "He is responsible for the growth of Dubai into a global city". Could you imagine if Obama's lead were to say, "He is responsible for bringing the U.S. out of the Global Recession and bringing health insurance to millions of Americans"? It's absurd puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You are perhaps avoiding the fact that the statement comes directly from the cited, reliable, source - an academic study. Dubai IS now a recognised global city. And Mohammed is most certainly responsible for its meteoric growth since the 1990s. By 1966, at the age of 17, he was responsible for its airport. He was also responsible for developing Dubai's tourism business - from zero to $21 billion in 2017. He was the world's youngest Minister of Defence at age 22. He was responsible for the launch of the world's leading international airline, the development of DP World, Jebel Ali and other global logistics operations. He was responsible for the launch of Dubai Internet City and the very many other economic development zones under the TECOM umbrella - let alone the development of icons such as Emirates Towers, the Burj Khalifa and the Burj Al Arab - and hundreds of other developmental milestones, including the road, traffic, transport and communications infrastructure of the city. Dubai Holding employs hundreds of thousands of people and is an enterprise comprised entirely of commercial operations launched by Mohammed. This is all very well documented indeed - but the core fact here is that the statement comes from a reliable source, correctly cited in the text and as such it is perfectly appropriate - regardless of your personal view of him or the nature of governance in the Emirates. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of the 'non-notable peace award', notability is not conferred by any editor, but by - again - a reliable source, cited in the article. This is properly sourced, verifiable content. It shouldn't be removed without a valid reason. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that there is reliable sourcing that points to this ridiculous "peace award" as being notable. The only sourcing is a "www.emirates247.com" story on the creation of the award. There is nothing on this in the body, and I would strongly dispute that a media outlet in a country without press freedom is a reliable source on the actions of the authoritarian regime. Also, the "peace award" is at no point covered in the body, and it doesn't even have its own WP page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Emirates247 is a UAE media outlet. Unless you're going to get consensus that all UAE media outlets aren't reliable sources, it stands as a reliable source. A lot of things in the UAE don't have their own WP pages - look at my own page creations and you'll perhaps start to build a picture of how little WP is edited/contributed to from the Emirates. That's partly because WP was blocked here for years (by admins, not by UAE authorities) because of IP range issues, partly because the few editors that do surface get slapped down so fast they just give up. The argument that a thing that doesn't have a WP page is inherently not notable is a little dangerous, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally, on the question of 'dictator', that's rather pejorative. He is the Ruler of Dubai, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. From where do you get 'dictator'??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well from Amnesty International for one. And there is a good case for arguing that all the arabian Gulf countries are Family dictatorship. Talk about authoritarian as a mild expression. Who elected him, vis a vis your words "He is the Ruler of Dubai, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. From where do you get 'dictator'???" Who elected him to any of those political positions and does the population have any recourse in replacing him? https://www.amnesty.org.uk/united-arab-emirates-uae-free-speech-repression-injustice-censorship Best regards Ip says (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is zero dispute in reliable sources that he rules an authoritarian regime. There are a number of criteria for authoritarianism, but most prominently is the lack of free and fair elections, human rights protections, the rule of law, and active participation of the public in politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument about systems of governance that is a little larger than any single BLP. Dictator is pejorative language. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Dictator and Authoritarian are precise terms to refer to systems of government and rule. We don't obscure undisputed facts just because readers may not like those facts. Many articles say their subjects are convicted murderers, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, communists, fascists etc., even if many readers may associate those things with negative things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) There is nothing on him being individually responsible for "the growth of Dubai into a global city" in the body of the article. (2) The cited source for this claim is a non-peer reviewed "case" in the Harvard Business School catalogue, authored by someone with a conflict of interest with the subject[3] who also just so happens to be a massive donor to Harvard University. (3) For extraordinary puffery claims such as being individually responsible for the growth of an entire city and being individually responsible for the success of a number of "major enterprises", extraordinarily high-quality sourcing is needed. For example, we would NEVER say that FDR individually solved the Great Depression or that Obama individually brought health insurance to millions, unless the weight of reliable sources specifically used that kind of extreme language. We use tempered neutral language when covering those subjects. The claims require high-quality sourcing in particular given that the subject rules an authoritarian regime where he can claim responsibility for things and others will allow that and the press/academics are too weak to assess it empirically. (4) I have no objection to language saying Sheikh Mohammed's rule oversaw the growth of Dubai, and that he was involved in the establishment of a number of enterprises. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the BBC and Reuters. Neither piece is particularly complimentary (Reuters' polemic in particular hasn't stood the test of time terribly well), but both uphold the central fact you are disputing - he is the individual directly responsible for leading the transformation of Dubai. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The BBC uses similar language that I recommended: "In the Middle East, he is renowned for overseeing the transformation of Dubai into a top business and tourism destination."[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we perhaps do as done for the emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and use absolute monarchy? Btw the introduction could benefit being a bit less puffery Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure readers know what means. I favor using both the precise term (absolute monarchy) and the more commonly understood broader term (authoritarian regime). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Maktoum Award for World Peace" in the lead

It is absurd to list some obscure "world peace" award that this dictator gives out in the lead of the article. This has to be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling him a "Nabati poet" in the lead

Not every person who has written poems deserves to have it mentioned in their lead. This strikes me as the kind of absurd COI-style puffery that is endemic to this article. It should be removed ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing and NPOV

I have restored the Harvard Business Review as a source - it's ridiculous to claim that it is not a valid source as it's not peer reviewed. There is no argument or consensus that HBR is not RS.

And yet non-peer reviewed sources are being presented to stand up the extraordinary claim "Al Maktoum rules an authoritarian regime in the UAE where human rights violations are severe and systematic, and Emiratis and residents are forcibly disappeared, arbitrarily detained and tortured for criticizing the regime." Two of the three sources here are opinion pieces from the same contributor to Human Rights Watch and the third source is AP which only upholds the word 'authoritarian'. The sources do not bear up 'severe and systematic' or the 'forcible disappearance or arbitrary detention of Emiratis and residents'. And this isn't the UAE article or the Human Rights in the United Arab Emirates article - it's the BLP of the Prime Minister!!!

We have to be careful with Biographies of Living Persons and should be aiming for NPOV rather than seeking to selectively present wild assertions and demonise our subject. These edits require more care. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The content you're talking about is not sourced to the HBR. It's something called a "Harvard Business School Case". I specifically said it was of dubious reliability due to the funder-donor relationship between Maktoum and the Harvard Business School[5][6], and Maktoum's relationship with one of the authors[7][8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? "Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), the Harvard University South Asia Institute (SAI) and the Harvard Business School Club of the GCC have collaborated to offer a five-day intensive course for 50 underprivileged students, under the Patronage of His Highness Sheikh Maktoum bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Deputy Ruler of Dubai and President of DIFC." is a conflict of interest and a funder-donor relationship issue? They got together to help underprivileged kids! Receiving the Dean of Harvard at your majlis isn't a funder-donor relationship issue! Shelve the extreme bad faith for a second here, try and see that there may be another side to the story that doesn't meet your unrelenting dislike of the political system of the Emirates and its rulers. Grief, they sign a fellowship program and you've got that down as Harvard (your institution, as an American, I thought it was reputable) being corruptible - but your evidence isn't 'cash for questions', it's academic links!

As for the other content, there is no dispute in reliable sources that Maktoum rules an authoritarian regime and that human rights violations are systematic and severe. Reports from Amnesty, HRW and Freedom House all show the same. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

define systematic and severe. I've worked in the region for 35 years and lived here in the Emirates for over 28 years, working mostly in media here. I've never seen these 'systematic and severe' violations. I've never even seen one. I must be wholly blind or perhaps there's another narrative not quite as fund-raisingly eye-catching as that presented - based on a tiny number of alleged cases - by Amnesty, HRW and Freedom House. Huge improvements have been made here - particularly under Mohammed - but you're so keen to wield the bludgeon, you're not even looking at that more nuanced picture. And that's, honestly, a shame. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

All I can say that it's strange that you're unaware of the human rights situation in the UAE given that all bodies that study it say that it's a repressive country with severely curtailed human rights. Then again, it's maybe not that strange when you simultaneously reject that the UAE system of government is authoritarian. Thankfully, Wikipedia guidelines instruct us to look to what reliable sources say, not the personal assessments of individual editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

True, it's strange. You'd wonder at what you're being told by them, wouldn't you? I don't reject the 'authoritarian' label, although I think it's simplistic. And yes, we agree that OR is not acceptable - but again, you're using these strange phrases - "a repressive country with severely curtailed human rights". Some 8 million expats live here - happily. Some 1.2 million British tourists alone come here every year. Happily. 1.1999recurring million have a great - if expensive - time here. This is hardly the stuff of concentration camps and gulags and an atmosphere of fear and repression... But that's clearly your personal assessment... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Don't use personal attacks on the talk page, not your first time. (But that's clearly your personal assessment...) eyes on the ball and possibly keep of the mena politics, if you have a Conflict_of_interest#Other_categories_of_COI. Ip says (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

'Personal attack'? Having a view was, last time I checked, not a COI. We should be aiming at balanced coverage, not puffery for sure - but also not skewed by negative bias. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Horse shit, of course that was a personal attack. Stop denying the abuses of despotic regimes and actually address the very real issues that have been raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: This have nothing to do with demonetisation of the subject in hand. Notwithstanding the reliable sources, in regards to the nature of what kind of regime the subject rules, there can be no doubt that it is indeed a authoritarian and oppressive absolute monarchy. The ruling family have shown a clear interest and commitment, in obtaining legitimacy through philanthropic puffery and public relations campaigns. To "balance" out a encyclopedic middle ground would be a scholarly dishonesty. Your own apparently privileged experiences living in and benefiting from the environment in question, may set a unconscious bias towards a personal perception, in opposition to honest and reasonable criticism from other users like @Snooganssnoogans:. Ip says (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Too much hysteria here - you can see where the idea of failing to maintain a NPOV comes from. An absolute ignorance of the Emirates, its culture, history and system of governance is not an issue until you incorporate that ignorance into a bias that selectively renders facts, removing reliable sources, cherry picking negative wording and generally giving undue weight to anything negative that can be reached for. No newspaper in the Emirates is a reliable source, no external source that has anything good to say is reliable and clearly nobody with a more balanced or nuanced view is reliable either. That's not encyclopaedic - that's failing to maintain NPOV. The idea is balance and that's clearly failing here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexandermcnabb: I don’t see a consensus to use the source here. Am I missing something? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. There is no consensus to remove the Harvard Business School paper as a source from the lead of this page. The language of the article was changed from 'responsible' to 'overseen' after other sources were provided to substantiate Maktoum's role in the growth of Dubai in the face other editors' feedback. However, the HBS source from the stable version of the page (for many, many months) remains valid until such time as clear consensus establishes that it is not a reliable source. Harvard is not reliable. Interesting. However, no realistic objection to the source was raised that was defended against a reasoned challenge. You would surely, as an experienced editor, recognise that you'd need consensus to REMOVE sourced content or established sources rather than requiring consensus to add sources. If we all required consensus to add a source, WP would move glacially slowly, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean that this source is only used in the lead and not in the body at all? I second Snooganssnoogans and Ip says’s concerns bout the source’s independence and on the appropriateness of using a Harvard Business School Case as a source in this case. I note that you appear to misunderstand how WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS work, adding/restoring has a higher bar than removing. WP is supposed to grow slowly, this isn’t a race. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Again I concure. You @Alexandermcnabb: should be very careful in your edits, in regards to puffery content. This seems remarkably like a pattern in connection to (bad faith?) misunderstanding WP policy. And the tenacity in pushing the narrative of (and I'll say it out loud) the dictators in Arabia, may possibly indicate your COI. Ip says (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That source has been in the article for months, if not years. As far as I am aware, Harvard Business School is not a deprecated source. You, Snoogans and IP says should know that as you all spend time at the RS noticeboard. Nobody is 'pushing the narrative' here - we are aiming at a balanced BLP of a national leader - or at least one of us is. The word 'dictator' is inappropriate - perhaps attempting to reach some understanding of other countries and cultures rather than dismissing them out of hand might help in building a more inclusive and diverse project and, indeed, community. As for the inference of a COI, please do drop that particular stick - it's being bandied about too much in this discussion - it's purely ad-hominem. I have no COI. I also demonstrated that Snoogans' assertion of a conflict of interest between Harvard and the UAE's leadership was frivolous - a point I note was quietly dropped. So if Harvard is not a deprecated source and there is no COI, where is this 'higher bar' of which you speak? Because it would seem the bar is more defined by WP:IDONTLIKEIT than it is by any reasonable reading of guidelines. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else I’m not seeing a consensus to include this source. Perhaps wait and see if any other editors come by with more opinions than the ones which have been offered so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of RS content about ruling an authoritarian regime

The editor 'Gorebath' just removed peer-reviewed studies, as well as other RS that clearly noted that Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum rules an authoritarian regime. The editor falsely claims that the sources do not mention Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum when they do. The content that the editor removed[9] should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gorebath: your edit summaries [10][11] don’t seem to be accurate, thats does not appear to be OR or SYNTH nor does it appear to be a BLPLEAD or DUE issue (I would also note that together those policy points do not form a coherent argument, they can’t all apply at the same time). Would you mind providing a bit more of an explanation for your edits? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

of course. I am mentioning the above sentence that I have removed:

"Al Maktoum rules an authoritarian regime in Dubai, where human rights violations are severe and systematic, and Emiratis and residents are forcibly disappeared, arbitrarily detained and tortured for criticizing the regime."

Using these references that were cited:

First source:

An article by HRW. The article does not mention Mohammed bin Rashid "ruling an authoritarian regime in Dubai", nor does it state Mohammed bin rashid Dubai regime, where human rights violations are severe and systematic, and Emiratis and residents are forcibly disappeared, arbitrarily detained and tortured etc.." The article clearly states "In its latest attempt to harness the power of public relations to provide a sheen of respectability to its authoritarian government, the UAE..". Mohammed bin rashid is not mentioned to be ruling an authoritarian regime in Dubai in this article.

Source 2: state "Saturday’s announcement by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai who also serves as the autocratic nation’s prime minister and vice president". The article does not mention an authoritarian regime in Dubai. Authoritarianism is not he same as autocratic, to imply so is original research.

Source 3: states "The UAE has forcibly disappeared, arbitrarily detained and even tortured Emiratis and residents for acts as simple as peacefully criticizing the rulers and their policies online." It does not mention Mohamed bin Rashid as forcibly disappearing or torturing people, its clearly referring to the state (UAE), not the individual who's topic this article is about.

Source 4: as per the cited page number states "The scores for the UAE on these measures are not unreasonable; it is an authoritarian regime" No where does it mention Mohammed bin Rashid.

The addition of theses sources together to imply that 1- Mohammed bin rashid is an authoritarian "regime", and that *he* is responsible for the severe human rights violations in UAE is purely WP:SYNTH. Its adding multiple sources together and forming the sentence the wikipedia editor has added. None of these sources explicitly stated the added sentence.

The last 2 sources are book titles that were cited with no reference page number, in which I think is the wikipedian editor's doing to discourage any further editing or correcting his or her added statement and means to show the credibility of the statement, causing a WP:CITEKILL.

As for my first edit, adding this poorly sourced controversial statement in the lead is definitely a WP:DUE issue and not with MOS:BLPLEAD guidelines. This is clearly written in the wrong tone for a BLP. Other important controversial information such as the daughters kidnapping are already added. Going further to state he is an authoritarian regime and he tortures people is way overboard. HRW calls George Bush a war criminal and Donald Trump a human rights abuser, we don't add those labels in the lead of their pages in wikipedia without attribution. This article falls under WP:BLP, its imperative it is written in an neutral and proper manner. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion as per WP:BLP. Thanks Gorebath (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Jones, C. (2017). Enlightenment under Autocracy. In Bedouins into Bourgeois: Remaking Citizens for Globalization (pp. 68-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316800010.004 and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/unitedarabemirates/12148417/UAE-to-have-ministers-for-tolerance-and-happiness.html Are you @Gorebath: going to restore the article or should I do it? It's a thin cup of Tea, removing content due to missing pages in citations, without yourself spending 2 minutes looking for the page numbers. And who rules in the authoritarian state if not Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, hence he is an authoritarian autocrat. Best regards Ip says (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Removing content due to missing pages in citations, without yourself spending 2 minutes looking for the page numbers." Its an improperly cited source. Citations in Wikipedia means users can look up the source. I am not going to read a whole book to find that exact statement. Its up the editor who added it to specify the page number as per Template:Cite book. To suggest I read the entire source to find this statement is ridiculous. "And who rules in the authoritarian state if not Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, hence he is an authoritarian autocrat." Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources, not your opinion. Find a neutral reliable source the explicitly state that Mohammed bin Rashid is an authoritarian autocrat and can be added, to simply pull this out from your own is against wikipedia policies, specifically in WP:BLP. thanks. Gorebath (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The entire peer-reviewed book that you scrubbed from the page is about the authoritarian political system of the UAE. Adding specific page numbers was entirely redundant. If you want pages, 68–69 on Jones (2017) should do: "UAE leaders see themselves as cultivating a kind of enlightenment. As Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, the ruler of Dubai, has said, progress will occur only “if we are enlightened and prepared to embrace globalization”... In their commitment to a vision of enlightenment, UAE leaders are recent additions to a long list of authoritarian modernizers... This is not to say that ideology is not involved, or that these autocrats are becoming less autocratic." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Per source, "In their commitment to a vision of enlightenment, UAE leaders are recent additions to a long list of authoritarian modernizers. As with Atatürk and Japan’s Meiji-era reformers as well as Frederick the Great and the other “enlightened despots” of the eighteenth century, UAE ruling elites are doing a great many things that people around the world find impressive and praiseworthy." The author clearly writes about UAE leaders. She did not specify who's the leader here, she did not name Mohammed bin Rashid specifically. You can add a following statement: "According to Jones, UAE leaders are authoritarian modernizers". You can't cherry pick to add authoritarian, ignore the modernizing part, and specify Mohammed bin Rashid as you wish. Clearly, the statement she made is a collective to all UAE leaders, which include the entire Supreme Federal council in the UAE as far as anyone is concerned. We do not WP:CHERRY pick information in Wikipedia to include a specific part of a sentence or target a specific person, to do so is a breach of neutrality. Gorebath (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"The author clearly writes about UAE leaders. She did not specify who's the leader here, she did not name Mohammed bin Rashid specifically". This is extraordinarily tendentious and WP:IDHT. The author clearly describes MBR as one of the UAE leaders in question: ""UAE leaders see themselves as cultivating a kind of enlightenment. As Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, the ruler of Dubai, has said, progress will occur only “if we are enlightened and prepared to embrace globalization”. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly whats written in the source, your WP:CHERRY picking behaviour is very clear. The author finished a sentence about Mohammed bin Rashid then referred to UAE leaders, as a collective, as "authoritarian modernizers". You cherry picked from that source "Authoritarian", and decided to target Mohammad bin Rashid specifically. As I have mentioned before, you're welcome to add "According to Jones, UAE leaders are "authoritarian modernizers" as per WP:WIKIVOICE. Gorebath (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is comical. Just to clarify what this user is saying: Because none of the sources verbatim say "Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum rules an authoritarian regime", the user is arguing that it's original research and synthesis to say so. This means that if a single source says "Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is the ruler of the UAE" and "the UAE political system is authoritarian", it's original research to say that that Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum's regime is authoritarian. The editor also incorrectly claims that there is a difference between an autocracy and an authoritarian regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes its purely the definition of WP:SYNTH. Again, find a source that states Mohammed bin rashid is an authoritarian or don't attempt to rationalize that he is in fact authoritarian using sources that describe the UAE government. UAE is ruled by the president of UAE, most significantly in Abu Dhabi - To imply that Mohammed bin Rashid is the ruler of UAE is verbatim original research as he is simply not. Gorebath (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The head of state of the UAE is Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan whereas the head of government is Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Those are the rulers of the UAE. The text in question did not say that Mohammed bin Rashid was "the ruler of UAE". It said he "rules an authoritarian regime in the UAE", which he does, and all the cited sources specifically mention him when they describe the authoritarian nature of politics in the UAE. There is no dispute whatsoever in RS that the UAE regime is authoritarian and that Mohammed bin Rashid is the Prime Minister (head of government) in that regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The rulers of the UAE include members of the Federal Supreme Council in UAE. The text in question states Mohammed bin rashid rules an authoritarian regime in Dubai, which has specifically never been stated by any of the sources you have provided so far. The state is not the same as Mohammed bin Rashid, and Mohammed bin rashid is not the state. The sources you have provided describe the government of the UAE, not Mohammed bin Rashid specifically. To use these as synonyms is unappropriated in a BLP article. Gorebath (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:OR and WP:SYNTH work, if the source says that Dubai is an authoritarian state and that Mohammed is its ruler then we can say that Mohammed rules an authoritarian state. Are you suggesting that widespread human rights abuses are taking place without the autocratic hereditary ruler’s knowledge? I don’t see that in any of the sources. I would also note that both authoritarian and autocratic seem to apply here but if you want to use autocratic instead of authoritarian I wouldn’t disagree with that. I also think you’re making a distinction between state and ruler which is foreign to the Emirati concept of vested government authority. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"If the source says that Dubai is an authoritarian state and that Mohammed is its ruler then we can say that Mohammed rules an authoritarian state" Firstly, none of these sources state that Dubai is an authoritarian state. Secondly, Mohammed bin Rashid is the ruler of Dubai, not UAE. These sources specifically describe the UAE government, not Dubai. This is verbatim WP:Original Research. "Are you suggesting that widespread human rights abuses are taking place without the autocratic hereditary ruler’s knowledge?" I'm not? And who cares about what I think? This article is based on neutral reliable published sources, not your own opinion or whether you think Mohammed bin Rashid tortures people or abuses people himself. "I also think you’re making a distinction between state and ruler which is foreign to the Emirati concept of vested government authority." Wikipedia isn't based in the Emirates. We follow wikipedia policies here, and per policy the statement I have removed is poorly written and does not follow WP policies. Its an addition made by a non-neutral wikipedia editor combining multiple sources in an attempt to add a shock value statement, which does not follow WP:BLP. Again, this is WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. Gorebath (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is gaslighting about the system of politics in the UAE. MBR is the Prime Minister, the head of government, of the UAE, as well as ruler of Dubai. Dubai is one of seven emirates that comprise the UAE. MBR is not the singular ruler of the UAE and the Wikipedia text under dispute never said he was, so you're arguing against something that no one else is arguing for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Gaslighting? Can you please explain what you mean? The text you added stated "Mohammed bin Rashid rules an authoritarian regime in Dubai", then you proceeded to add citations talking about the human rights abuses of the government of the UAE - without mentioning any "authoritarian" or "Dubai". UAE is not synonymous with Dubai. Mohammed bin Rashid is not synonymous with the UAE. This is purely original research. Gorebath (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the gaslighting again. No one is calling for the inclusion of content that says "Mohammed bin Rashid is synonymous with the UAE." Please stay on point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You refer to gas lighing and once again I'm asking you to explain what do you mean. Do you know what gaslighing means? You state that you didn't replace sources that talk about UAE government and replace it with Mohammed bin Rashid, however you specifically used sources that talk about UAE government and added it as if they are talking about Mohammed bin Rashid. This is not appropriate for a BLP. Gorebath (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Its child’s play to find out what gaslighting means. Might I suggest you also look at sealioning as thats what you appear to be doing now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I am asking on how the hell am I gas lighting by pointing out flaws in the added statement in a BLP article. Instead of talking about the sensationalist sentence synthesized from multiple incongruent sources I am being accused of gas lighting and sealioning, which is classic ad hominem. Please focus on the topic in question instead of creating a diversion to some irrelevant and often highly charged labels, such as gaslighting or sealioning. Thanks. Gorebath (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You asked what gaslighting was... I very politely linked it for you. Neither gaslighting or sealioning is an ad hominem because they are description of the substance of the argument itself not of the person making the argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Accusations on the person making an argument, by accusing him or her of misbehavior such as sealioning, which is a form of trolling, instead of the argument itself definitely falls under ad hominem. Gorebath (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Again those are descriptions of the argument you made not of you. If you don’t wish people to perceive your arguments thusly I would suggest you change up your style a little bit and focus on veracity instead of hyperbole. The arguments you’ve made do not reflect well on you, but that doesn’t mean that accurate and restrained descriptions of those arguments are ad hominem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The intended purpose of wikipedia policy is screwed towards good faith. The continued efforts to remove sourced and objectively observable encyclopedic content, in order to present a certain point more favourable, while citing WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP and representing them @Gorebath:, @Alexandermcnabb: self as subjects of the political environment in question. I for one see a certain amount of WP:COI and disappointing bad faith removal. Inappropriate as it may be, there is little factual value in arguing truth with a bad actor, try seeing the parable in Fox News Chris Wallace interviewing Jon Stewart about POV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYbtUztVctI. Best regards Ip says (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This Ad hominem is uncalled for, whether its directed towards me or the other user you have pinged and may amount to personal attacks. Please focus on the topic in question instead of diverting towards an assumed COI without providing any evidence of such COI. Instead of calling me or anyone else bad actor, you're welcome to talk about the actual topic in question. Thanks. Gorebath (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources

More sources that flesh out the authoritarian nature of MBR's rule:

• The Economist: "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai's ruler.... In an autocratic regime like Dubai"[12][13]
• The Economist: "Dubai is run like a family business by a benign autocrat, Crown Prince Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum"[14]
• Washington Post: "Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum... Dubai, an autocratic city-state ruled by a dynasty"[15]
• Recognized expert Jim Krane quoted in the Guardian: "[Dubai is] about as autocratic a system of governance as you can get – a one-man show."... "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, has governed Dubai since 2006"[16]
• Financial Times: "there has been scant willingness to acknowledge the severity of Dubai’s [financial] problems... One problem, observers say, is the autocratic system of governance in [Dubai] ruled by an absolute monarch that is bereft of democratic institutions... Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler"[17]
• Financial Times: "City officials argue that none of this would have been possible without the rapid-fire decision-making process that comes with autocratic rule. Dubai’s system of government is in many ways unique among the Gulf’s dynastic autocracies... Sheikh Mohamed"[18]
• NY Times: "The ruler of this city-state, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, became renowned as a developer-king, an autocratic visionary"[19]
• The Times: "As prime minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed is in theory answerable both to the president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi, and, to a very limited extent, an elected federal council. In practice, he leaves the UAE’s federal policies, particularly over defence and foreign affairs, to Abu Dhabi and focuses on his autocratic, absolute rule over his own much smaller emirate."
• The Times: "In 14 years as ruler of the wealthy desert principality, Sheikh Mohammed has gained notoriety... as an autocrat who crushed internal dissent and imprisoned two of his daughters when they tried to escape his clutches... Dubai has never been a democracy. It is an autocratic state with a liberal veneer that fooled outsiders, who tended to equate the availability of alcohol to non-Muslims with freedom." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You proceeded to state "flesh out the authoritarian nature of MBR's rule" the you added 9 citations which not a single one of them mention "authoritarian". Authoritarian and autocratic are different adjectives, they're not the same word. I question your ability to add information in neutral tone in this article. Gorebath (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no difference between an authoritarian regime and an autocratic one. All autocracies are authoritarian regimes. But since this is the point you want to nitpick over, do you then agree that we can say that MBR's rule is autocratic? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not all autocracies are authoritarian. Again, they are not synonyms. There's no precedent to use words such as dictator, totalitarian, fascist etc.. to be used in Wikipedia's own voice WP:WIKIVOICE. You attribute the source to its published author, you don't state your opinionated adjective as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Again, judging from your extensive use of wording such as dictator and authoritarian I really question your ability to add to this article in a neutral point of view. Also, to answer your question yes, you may add that Mohammed bin Rashid is an absolute monarch and that the system of governance in Dubai is autocratic. To use wording such as dictator, authoritarian, fascist, totalitarian, human rights abuser, torturer etc.. without attribution is non-neutral, specially when its written in Wikipedia's voice. Your editorial bias towards one particular point of view is very evident. Gorebath (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious to hear about autocracies that are not authoritarian. Please enlighten me on these. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to educate you. You're welcome to read authoritarianism and autocracy, maybe pick up a politics book prior to editing political figures articles on Wikipedia. Gorebath (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Study: "Dubai’s authoritarianism... Muhammad bin Rashid, ruler of Dubai."[20] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is it non-neutral to say that Sheikh Mohammed rules an autocratic regime?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for version A. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lead describe the autocratic and authoritarian nature of Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum's rule in Dubai and UAE in Wikipedia's voice or should it hedge the language by attributing "autocratic" and "authoritarian" as POVs held by some? Should the lead go with version A or version B?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Al Maktoum is the absolute monarch of Dubai. His regime in Dubai is autocratic, as there are no democratic institutions, and internal dissent is prohibited. Al Maktoum is also the Prime Minister of the UAE, which scholars characterize as an authoritarian regime.
2. Al Maktoum is the absolute monarch of Dubai. He is described as autocratic. Al Maktoum is also the Prime Minister of the UAE, which some scholars describe as an authoritarian regime.

Academic sources:

• Study: "Dubai’s authoritarianism... Muhammad bin Rashid, ruler of Dubai."[21]
• Herb, Michael (2014). The Wages of Oil: Parliaments and Economic Development in Kuwait and the UAE. Cornell University Press: "The scores for the UAE on these measures are not unreasonable; it is an authoritarian regime."
• Yom, Sean (2019). Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa: Development, Democracy, and Dictatorship. Routledge: "Regime type: Authoritarian".
• Marozzi, Justin (2019). Islamic Empires: Fifteen Cities that Define a Civilization. Penguin: "There is no free speech in Dubai... criticism of the ruling family, or any other political activity, is absolutely prohibited... Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai"
• Ali, Syed (2010). Dubai: Gilded Cage. Yale University Press, ix: "Dubai is ruled by a benign autocrat, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum... Dubai is a kingdom where essentially the law is what this sheikh says it is. It is not a free society."
• Jones, Calvert W. (2017). Bedouins into Bourgeois: Remaking Citizens for Globalization. Cambridge University Press: The entire book is about modernization under the UAE's autocratic and authoritarian leaders.

News sources:

• The Economist: "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai's ruler.... In an autocratic regime like Dubai"[22][23]
• The Economist: "Dubai is run like a family business by a benign autocrat, Crown Prince Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum"[24]
• Washington Post: "Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum... Dubai, an autocratic city-state ruled by a dynasty"[25]
• Recognized expert Jim Krane quoted in the Guardian: "[Dubai is] about as autocratic a system of governance as you can get – a one-man show."... "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, has governed Dubai since 2006"[26]
• Financial Times: "there has been scant willingness to acknowledge the severity of Dubai’s [financial] problems... One problem, observers say, is the autocratic system of governance in [Dubai] ruled by an absolute monarch that is bereft of democratic institutions... Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler"[27]
• Financial Times: "City officials argue that none of this would have been possible without the rapid-fire decision-making process that comes with autocratic rule. Dubai’s system of government is in many ways unique among the Gulf’s dynastic autocracies... Sheikh Mohamed"[28]
• NY Times: "The ruler of this city-state, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, became renowned as a developer-king, an autocratic visionary"[29]
• The Times: "As prime minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed is in theory answerable both to the president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi, and, to a very limited extent, an elected federal council. In practice, he leaves the UAE’s federal policies, particularly over defence and foreign affairs, to Abu Dhabi and focuses on his autocratic, absolute rule over his own much smaller emirate."
• The Times: "In 14 years as ruler of the wealthy desert principality, Sheikh Mohammed has gained notoriety... as an autocrat who crushed internal dissent and imprisoned two of his daughters when they tried to escape his clutches... Dubai has never been a democracy. It is an autocratic state with a liberal veneer that fooled outsiders, who tended to equate the availability of alcohol to non-Muslims with freedom."

Survey

• Version A. There is no dispute in reliable sources that Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is the head of an autocratic regime in Dubai where there are no democratic institutions and dissent is crushed. There is also no dispute in RS that he is the PM of the UAE, which is characterized by all RS as being an authoritarian regime. The hedging language and attributions in version B mislead readers into thinking there's an active dispute whether he is an autocrat when there is none. Version B also removes language that fleshes out the nature of his autocratic rule (there are no democratic institutions and dissenters are punished), which clarifies to readers that this is not a benign dictatorship. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A, it seems well established in the sources that he is the head of an autocratic regime. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A, I concure that it seems well established in the sources that he is the head of an autocratic regime. Ip says (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A - this reflects the reliable sources, including the academic (political science) literature and high-quality RS. Neutrality^talk 20:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A per reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version B per WP:WIKIVOICE. See 1st bullet point. Opinions such as "dissent is crushed" shouldn't be stated in wikipedia's voice. This isn't a disagreement whether RS call him autocratic or not. Gorebath (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn’t look like an opinion to me... It appears to be a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Version A The reliable sources make it clear enough that these facts can be stated in wikivoice.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A, The point is clear from reliable sources and should be stated. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A - There is no dispute about his status as an autocrat in RSs, so we shouldn't use any softening qualifiers like "described by critics" either. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A The reliability of the presented sources cannot be ignored. Sea Ane (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Version A, based on the reliable sources that have been provided. Idealigic (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.