Jump to content

Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Rfc: Closing the RfC discussion. There is consensus to use the phrase "on a balance of probabilities" when referring to the fact finding judgment of the civil court
Line 56: Line 56:


=== Rfc ===
=== Rfc ===
{{atop|result=Closing. There is a consensus to use the phrase "on a balance of probabilities" when referring to the fact finding judgment of the civil court about the subject's actions regarding his wife and daughters. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)}}
{{anchor|rfc_AB0ED63}}

{{rfc|bio|pol|rfcid=6D2B16B}}
Should the article use the phrase "on a balance of probabilities" when referring to the 'Fact Finding Judgement' by a civil court that the subject of this article abducted his daughters and threatened his wife? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the article use the phrase "on a balance of probabilities" when referring to the 'Fact Finding Judgement' by a civil court that the subject of this article abducted his daughters and threatened his wife? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


Line 112: Line 112:
*'''Support''' per [[User:MrClog|MrClog]] [[User:Idealigic|Idealigic]] ([[User talk:Idealigic|talk]]) 20:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[User:MrClog|MrClog]] [[User:Idealigic|Idealigic]] ([[User talk:Idealigic|talk]]) 20:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per explanations above. Seems to be factually correct and encyclopaedically appropriate. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per explanations above. Seems to be factually correct and encyclopaedically appropriate. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Page protection ==
== Page protection ==

Revision as of 21:53, 17 April 2020

References

References

Controversies/Allegations

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

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

Probabilities

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

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

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

Please remove all personal attacks from your post. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think any informed reader knows that in civil cases the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities and in criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason to state so specifically, since it is not relevant. After all, in civil cases no ruling will state more than "in the balance of probabilities", even if theoretically it would be "beyond reasonable doubt" as well, since for example, the amount of a fine or compensation does not vary based on that difference, nor does anything else. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't dispute that the statement is correct; and you don't refute that it is supported by both sources cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct. I hold that it is not needed. In addition, it reeks of being a POV edit. The edit seems to try to diminish the verdict, which was a simply and 100% guilty, by qualifying the basis for that verdict, even though that is completely irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you imagine there was a "verdict" of "simply and 100% guilty", then you're not in any position to make any judgment regarding this or any similar article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being so... unpleasant? In any case, any verdict is either 100% guilty or 100% innocent, whatever the basis of verdict. I mean to say, that either he goes 100% to jail, and pays 100% of the fine, or his does neither of these. For example, if 2 judges think he did it and one doesn't, he doesn't go to jail for 2/3 of the time. This seems trivial, and I really don't appreciate the unpleasant tone of your last post, or the fact that you didn't remove the personal attacks from your previous post. By the way, see this, please. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no verdict of "100% guilty" or "100% innocent", nor a fine, nor a jail sentence. I really don't appreciate you making damaging edits regarding a quite basic issue that you clearly do not understand. Your appeal to authority would be laughable even if this did not apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking a bit at articles here on Wikipedia about people who were convicted, but do not see that we usually add such qualifiers as "on the balance of probabilities" (in articles that are not about the legal case itself). This reinforces my conclusion that the original edit was POV-based. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"people who were convicted" And what - you being a lawyer, and all - do you think Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been convicted of? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either go with 'balance of probabilities' or suggest the civil standards in some way. TheGuardian states[1] 'The civil standard is a conclusion made on the balance of probabilities; that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true. It is not a finding to the criminal standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt.' and per Cambridge police[2] "The burden of proof and evidential requirements are significantly different in family court proceedings to that of criminal proceedings, however, in light of the recent release of the judgment, aspects of the case will now be subject to review,"  Ohsin  18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly relevant here to unearth a comment made in an earlier, now archived, discussion on this page: "Debresser and her ips have a very long block log (blocked by over 10 different admins) and topic ban log for this sort of behaviour. Of 19 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well-poisoning. Judge by argument, not editor. But I knew you were up to nothing goo, as soon as I saw you had edited here. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dubai ruler organised kidnapping of his children, UK court rules". Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  2. ^ "UK police to review Dubai ruler abduction allegations". Retrieved 11 March 2020.

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

Please visit the dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mohammed_bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Closing. There is a consensus to use the phrase "on a balance of probabilities" when referring to the fact finding judgment of the civil court about the subject's actions regarding his wife and daughters. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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

Added later: Another suggestion[1] is to leave it out from the lead but have it in the section. I find that suggestion balanced and would agree to it.

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

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


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

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

The disputed text is in:

In December 2019, a UK family court ruled that—on the balance of probabilities—Sheikh Mohammed orchestrated the abductions of Sheikha Latifa and Sheikha Shamsa and subjected Princess Haya to a campaign of "intimidation"; the findings were published in March 2020.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Siddique, Owen Bowcottand Haroon (2020-03-05). "Dubai ruler organised kidnapping of his children, UK court rules". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-03-05.
  2. ^ Re Al M [2019] EWHC 3415 (Fam)

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

This is such a lot of wasted time and effort to deal with one editor who won't accept consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Page protection

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

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

A clear consensus was established a good while ago. A single recalcitrant editor refuses to accept that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go through the process, Andy. It shouldn't take long to see the result of the RfC, and I'm content to take that as binding, to the extent that I will impose sanctions for disruptive editing at that point on any editor who breaches the result. Please humour me for now. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that present text: "he had abducted daughters and threatened his wife", begs the questions whose daughters? Everybody's/anybody's? How many? All on his own? It would be clearer as "he had arranged the abduction of two of his daughters and threatened his Nth wife/one of his wives." Pincrete (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: That's because the sources omit the possessive pronouns in their headlines. The sources read in more detail are nevertheless pretty clear that it was his daughters and one of his wives (their mother). Would you (or anyone else) like to propose an explicit form of words that clarifies any ambiguity, and see if we get any dissent? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that someone had simply copied the headline. I'm not that familiar with the incident but will attempt a form of words (if Wuhan's most famous export doesn't get me first!)! Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum&oldid=951589259"