Talk:Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Additions by 195.229.241.169

The latest additions by anonymous user 195.229.241.169 seem to be copyrighted from either here or here. If no one shows that the info is free to use in the next few days, I'm going to delete this added info.


Ding! Time's up. Deleting. . . – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:56, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

This is a pretty big stub :)

[edit] Removal of objective criticism

As you can see by viewing the history if this article, anonymous user 213.42.2.10 continues to remove all objective criticism of Zayed. A contrastive study will show that this user is not interested in a balanced article, as evidenced by the unscrupulous deletion of any criticism whatsoever. I think it's time an administrator looks into this.

[edit] Bias

Personally, I am astounded by the deliberate bias against Sheikh Zayed that continues to be presented by Wikipedia. A neutral page should replace the current one. --Falcon44 15:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am astounded that you perceive a deliberate bias. Criticism and praise are so equally featured here. If you think there are any criticisms that you are certain are false and a result of bias, by all means remove them. State your reasons for doing so in the article or the edit summery, and speaking for myself, as a contributor, I will research them. If your edits are supportable, I for one will not revert them. --A. S. A. 06:00, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Charitable Contributions

Most of his charitable contributions went definitely unnoticed. For every act that was reported to the public, there bound to be some 40-50 relevant or less important contributions that went unreported in the media. One of his advisors, Dr Ezz Al Deen Ebrahim, mentioned "And what most people didn't know, the money was mostly at Shaikh Zayed's personal expense. But he not only generous with money. He paid $70 million to build a dam in Yemen, in Egypt he helped build a water canal, in Palestine he build residential areas." and "He even funded a project developed by former US President Jimmy Carter to eradicate a worm that would multiply in the body. Nobody had known that Shaikh Zayed funded this project."

According to the British Telegraph he channelled his and his countries wealth to at least 40 countries on three different continents which means outside the Arab world also. Abu Dhabi's bonanza is modest compared to that of Saudi Arabia, yet you won't find any Emiratis starving without water and electricity like many Saudis do in Saudi Arabia because the countries oil wealth was fairly distributed and went where it intended to go.

[edit] Bias cont.

"Personally, I am astounded by the deliberate bias against Sheikh Zayed that continues to be presented by Wikipedia. A neutral page should replace the current one. --Falcon44 15:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)Falcon44"

  • LOL* I see what you mean. The latter part certainly contradicts the main part. It has obviously not been written by anyone who has lived anywhere near the Middle East, let alone someone who has enough knowledge of the UAE and by someone who is biased by his/her Western education.
Obviously this is going to start a long debate so I suppose we should go through it slowly for two reasons, 1)lack of time & 2)to make points absolutely clear.
I've deleted a section about Sheikh Zayed's philanthropy being advertised because it is simply untrue. As it has not been advertised, there are no articles that I can show you to support my statement, but if you meet any Emirati you just have to ask them about it, because they are quite a close-knit community due to the size of their population (less than 20% of the 3.5 million ppl in the UAE are local) so some things are passed along through conversation.

I also think it is futile trying to claim that the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow Up was a vehicle for his ideas, if that was so then why would he close it down? He closed it down because he found out some of the activities that were going on were against his belief in tolerance. It was unfortunate that the centre carried his name, but in reality he was not responsible for it or its actions. I shall add more about the ZCCF issue as soon as I can.

Please if anyone has any questions so far, do not hesitate to ask. --Falcon44 20:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I find, reading these paragraphs, is a decidedly pro-Zayed bias. To assume that anyone who criticizes him in that article must have never went near the Middle East, or the UAE, is preposterous. My own contributions, as well as others, are based on travel and life in the UAE, as well as trustworthy sources like the BBC and Reuters, among others. Also, that he funded all those wonderful projects around the world is not in dispute. To say that it was from his own pocket, however, is ludicrous. As with all the rich Gulf leaders, their personal wealth CAME from the nation's oil wealth. Their checkbooks and the State Treasury were often indistinguishable. Nevertheless, Zayed could have easily chosen to horde the UAE's wealth only for Emiratis, but he didn't, and that is evident. As far as the propaganda pictures and TV footage Falcon44 refers to, I have seen it with my own eyes. It does not negate what he did, but it's important to edify readers that Media in the UAE is strictly controlled, and cult-worship of the ruling families was institutionalized. Again, this does not mean that Zayed was not genuinely liked and admired, but it is important to state all the facts. The simple fact is that there was not one jot of criticism allowed on the airwaves or in print. This is no great slur on Zayed or the UAE. The only 3 relatively lively and free presses in the Arab world are Lebanon, Egypt, and pre-war Kuwait. Qatar is just now experimenting with free media. Regardless, what is more evidence of a pro-Zayed bias then the systematic removal of every scrap of criticism from the article? Why do certain individuals not want the world to know that one of his weddings is recorded in the Guinness Book of Records as the most expensive ever? Why are they afraid to let people know that Zayed's "election" to the Presidency was by a mere group of 6 sheiks and not by a free and popular vote? All these facts were shamelessly deleted several times from the article. THAT is what I call bias. Also, you quoted one of his advisors. It is not very shocking that such a person would be overflowing with praise about his employer and benefactor. I do not consider that an objective source. That doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned. As long as it is made clear who said it, the readers can draw their own conclusions about the possible bias of the quotation. Perhaps you should include that quotation in the article, Falcon. Also, regarding the Zayed Center, that was not my contribution, but I find it very interesting. What you mentioned about it in this talk section is very important. I look forward to you expanding on how he founded the center, and why he became disenchanted with it and withdrew his support.
Oh, incidentally, it would be a great help if you, and all contributors, made use of the "edit summary" section so that the rest of us can more efficiently keep track of who added/deleted what and for what reason. Thanks.--A. S. A. 07:56, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


Two examples of bias in one sentence: the media "enthusiastically" publicised his charity "at every turn". It doesn't matter that you wrote that 'some critics' believe that, you make it appear to people who are looking for information that he only did things for publicity rather than from his heart.

Yes, the UAE press has censorship, but reform is slowly evolving with Dubai in the lead with Dubai Media City,etc.

As for this comment "cult-worship of the ruling families was institutionalized." I think there may be some misunderstandings so please explain, how was it institutionalised?

Aladdin, I'm not afraid of people knowing that elections in the UAE are made through the Federal Supreme Council, which is made up of the rulers of all 7 emirates. Who cares? Democracy does not work for everybody - Russia, the US (low voter turnout) and history can tell you this. Germany voted for Hitler, and the US has been involved in supporting dictators, and in supporting coups against certain governments - the former shows that the majority of people can be wrong, the latter shows that even the 'bastion of freedom' can be a thug. Democracy is not the only form of government, nor the best form of government, for every person on earth.

"Questioned by the New York Times on the topic of the possible introduction of an elected parliamentary democracy, Sheikh Zayed replied:

Why should we abandon a system that satisfies our people in order to introduce a system that seems to engender dissent and confrontation? Our system of government is based upon our religion, and is what our people want. Should they seek alternatives, we are ready to listen to them. We have always said that our people should voice their demands openly. We are all in the same boat, and they are both captain and crew. Our doors here are open for any opinion to be expressed, and this is well known by all our citizens."

His majlis was open for normal people to meet with him, while at other times he would go into town and meet other ordinary citizens. You will probably twist what I have written, but I suppose that it is to be expected under the circumstances.

Please, you may be right - I don't know- ,show me where in the Guiness Book of Records the most expensive wedding is listed.

As for the nation's oil wealth, that opens a new topic that I shall get to in time, hopefully along with the ZCCF.

I'm glad that you are open to hearing other people's opinions, and I hope we both benefit from these discussions. If I have offended you at all, I apologise. Lets keep this serious and leave bias and preconceived notions out of it.

By the way, when were you in the UAE? Abu Dhabi or Dubai? Did you enjoy your time there?

--Falcon44 13:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was Sheikh Mohammed's, Sheikh Zayed's third son's wedding to Sheikha Salama.
What edition of the Guiness Book, and under what heading?

Thanks

Think they got married in 1981.

Hello. I hope everyone had a great New Year. When I logged on today, I was eagerly looking forward to reading about the controversy over the Sheik Zayed Center. Alas, there have been no new contributions. I hope they will be forthcoming. Some quick notes. I believe the wedding mentioned in the talk section, that of Sheikh Mohammed and Salma, was an Al-Maktoum family wedding, not Al-Nahyaan. It did break the Guinness record, and cost some US$ 44 million, and some 20,000 guests were invited over 7 or 8 days and the celebrations were held in a stadium built especially for the occasion. However a record did exist prior to the Maktoum wedding which Zayed held. It was many years ago, I don't remember the exact date, but I did see a copy of the Guinness Book of World Records in a UAE library, and the fact seemed well known and a source of pride for most Emiratis.

As for your pointing out "two examples of bias in one sentence," you are quite mistaken. Incidentally, you misquoted the phrase. The correct quotation is "the state-run media enthusiastically publicized his philanthropy at every turn." It is a grammatically sound sentence expressing exactly one sentiment. There is no duality, either in expressing bias or anything else. While you may have a case for redundancy, "dual bias in one sentence" is quite unfounded. Forgive me, I mean no offense, but your command of English may be lacking, at least in this instance. Even your edit summary notes were inaccurate. You said you "taken out some of the bias." Well of course, we disagree on what constitutes bias. However, your editing did not remove a sentiment, you merely shortened a paragraph without materialy altering what it was expressing. The example of Zayed giving money to schoolchildren was put in by someone else when they obliterated all criticism from the article and filled it with such instances of propaganda. I merely pointed out that it was common to see Zayed, as well as other Sheikhs, doing these things on TV and in the newspapers. The paragraph you edited presented both points of view. I did not revert your cut because the information remains essentially intact.

Regarding your inquiry about institutionalized cult-worship. This term refers to the deliberate cultivation by the State of a desired image using propaganda distributed through tightly controlled media. It is common in all authoritarian regimes and non-democratic governments, without exception. I make a distinction between the two because the UAE is an example of a non-democratic government while, for the most part, it is not considered an authoritarian regime. North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq are prime examples of the latter. What they share, is the extensive adoration of ruling figures espoused by state-run media and the suppression of any criticism or opposition. What I find ironic, is that Zayed was genuinely popular with his own people, and such orchestrated, excessive adoration was unnecessary and only served to tarnish, as propaganda invariably does, his image and the UAE's reputation internationally.

Your diatribe against democracy is well noted, and by no means novel. Dictators, tyrants and oligarchs have been making some of those same points for Millennia. If you haven't already, I recommend you read Plato's "Republic" and Machiavelli's "The Prince," I dare say you will be engrossed. It's an interesting topic, but this is an article about the life of Sheikh Zayed, so I will not engage is a debate about systems of government.

I have taken no offense, and hope I have given none. My object was and remains to bring some balance to an article that was woefully lacking thereof. If you wish to leave bias and preconceived notions out, I can but applaud such an attitude.

Ultimately, it is for the readers to determine the alleged bias of the article. I am confident in my own neutrality, however. I think when people read the objective criticisms and statement of facts, along with the quite extensive cataloguing of Zayed's achievements and the praise which is justly laid at his mantle, they will have no cause for disapprobation. If they wanted to see bias, they need only click on the history tab to witness the instances of wanton deletion of any fact or opinion remotely critical of Zayed. Before I revised this article, it was nothing but a propaganda bulletin. This is Wikipedia, not the official UAE website.--A. S. A. 19:16, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 128.189.192.97

A note about the edits of anonymous user 128.189.192.97: I have removed his/her injection of the naming of the Persian/Arabian Gulf and the dispute over the Islands. The Wikipedia Persian Gulf article itself has a disputed neutrality tag and there is no reason to drag that controversy into an article about Zayed. Furthermore, the blatant wording of this edit: " Iran's argument has always been based on historical facts" is clearly a POV. The article does not go into the merits of either claim to ownership of the islands, and the fact that Iran seized them from Sharjah's control is not disputed, even by Iran, and does not mean Iran admits "stealing" them. --A. S. A. 12:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on this article

First, I just added various sub-headings as this article was certainly long enough to require them. It still doesn't hang together perfectly and if anyone wants to move specific paragraphs to more appropriate sections, please do.

Wanted to mention in general that the POV is (after, apparently, numerous arguments) quite good. NPOV doesn't mean that for every praisworthy point you have to add a contrary point; if someone is generally more praised than critized than than the article should reflect that. This certainly applies here.

Also wanted to clarify that media in the U.A.E. is not "state-controlled." It's better described as "technically independent but practically self-censoring." The government does not, for instance, provide daily articles to the newspapers or reports to the T.V. news channels as happens in North Korea and China. The media may claim, for example, "the transport ministry must do a better job on highways in Dubai" or "the government is not paying enough attention to the disabled." Asserting "the Sheikh's rulership is illegitimate and democracy should be instituted" is, by contrast, a definite no-go. No paper would be stupid enough to make assertions of that sort, but its not a situation where the government demands x content be present in the media. Marskell 22:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Home improvement

It's difficult to reconcile claims of a "relatively modest and traditional lifestyle" with accomodations like these. Regardless of the nice digs (and humorous ones), what are we claiming his simple lifestyle was relative to? Those of other oil barons? A more specific and substantive claim might be an improvement here, assuming this sort of claim can add anything to the article at all. - toh 20:29, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

That's a hotel. –Hajor 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
So it is. A mention of the house rumour should probably go into the article; the source appears to have been that the hotel was originally intended to be the residence of Zayed as well as being a working hotel (still opulent accomodations, though presumably somewhat less spacious). [1] Either way the "modest lifestyle" stuff still isn't particularly encyclopedic, though a better description will probably have to wait until the apparently in-progress edit war is over. - toh 23:24, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Agree with you on all of that, although I can find no confirmation of the "orginally planned as royal residence" rumour on the official website (maybe the Grauniad got bitten by an urban legend? wouldn't be the 1st time). Cheers, –Hajor 23:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

The Abu Dhabi Cultural Foundation reportedly exhibited childhood photos which I am certain are not copyrighted if they can be found.Angrynight 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citations

This article is almost completely without citations, so no wonder this whole discussion page is a discussion on points of view. I am a westerner who lived in the UAE for 7 years. I have plenty of opinions on HH, a lot of them positive. But they are not relevant in a wiki article, no matter how well informed and neutral I think I am! Statements in the Legacy section regarding his popularity at home and abroad strike me as largely true, but they are not cited at all. We need to remember this is a Wiki article, not a Gulf News, or even Daily Telegraph obituary. There are obviously some knowledgable contributers working on this article, so can we please turn this into a better wikipedia effort? Epeeist smudge 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nahayan vs Nahyan

Is there a particular reason why this article is at Nahayan instead of Nahyan, which seems to be used for other family members, the official site and the article itself? Jpatokal (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed that. I think we should go with "Nahyan" per the points made by Jpatokal. We should probably make sure everthing is written as "Nahyan" and then rename the article. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I changed the only traces of "Nahayan" in the article. I will propose the article be moved to "Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan." Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the page, per the request at WP:RM. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Stamp Abu 1967 40f-170px.jpg

Image:Stamp Abu 1967 40f-170px.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)