Talk:Mohamed Al-Fayed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I think that the part of Mohamed Al-Fayed self "styling" himself Al-Fayed, instead of modestly calling himself Fayed should be removed. Al (or El) means "the" in arabic, and hence can be misunderstood by europeans as similar to palcing "of" in front of a family name in english, or "de" and "le" in front of a french family name. However in arabic names it has no honorary meaning and is just a relic of the way arabic societey used to be organised in the pas according to tribe and place of origin. In fact in some cases people use their family name with and without "al-" interchangebly. Ususally they will write the al- when they write their name in arabic but remove it when writing their name in latin script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:51, 22 January 2006

Rather than europeans misunderstanding this or that, I believe you misunderstand the term "styling"... it doesn't imply that Al-Fayed is unmodest, as you believe. It recognizes the fact that upon his immigration to the UK he changed the stylized his name by adding the "Al-" prefix (Such as someone named Lebeouf might stylize their name as LeBeouf or Le Beouf). You somehow associate stylization with european nobility and confuse preconceived ideas about the term "styled" with its actual meaning. BlckTar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

If his birth name was Fayed without the styling then the info box should indicate that. Further, some people have found it interesting that in self applying this styling or whatever you want to call it he chose Al not El which would be more customary for an Egyptian. I don't see anything wrong with including this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


I see my mention of Tom Bower's critical biography of Fayed has been deleted. (Presumably by a Fayed supporter.) So I've put it back. Ben Finn 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Although no doubt Harrods dominated the news story at the time, according to the House of Fraser article, al-Fayed bought the Fraser group who themselves owned Harrods. He later sold the group (who have stores all over the country) but retained ownership of Harrods. I'll modify the article but if I've got it wrong, please fix it (and House of Fraser if need be). --kingboyk 18:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Employment practices[edit]

A paragraph has been added more than once including claims of unfair and illegal employment practices. These claims must be verifiable and accompanied by supporting references. Otherwise they have to be deleted even if the claims are true and part of the editor's personal experience. There was a critical DTI report in 1989/1990 concerning Fayed that could be use to rewrite this paragraph. Curtains99 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


The following version of this page is libellous and should be removed from the page history following the policy laid out in Wikipedia:Libel

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history.

Curtains99 16:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Al Fayed is a public figure. Under American libel law, it is basically impossible for a public figure to prove libel. And thank god for that. I say we ignore curtains99's assertion. The brits can keep their idiotic (and press-censoring) libel law. jackbrown (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am deeply envious for the fact that Kitty Kelley is American. I also envy all the conspiration theories that exist in the States....BTW Do we know any more of Miss Lewinsky? --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of material here[edit]

On the recent significant edit by '' - Obviously there's a lot of material here, which is good as I thought the previous version was very negative and devoid of real fact. Although well-intentioned, I think that this edit has trashed a lot of good formatting and other content that probably was more in the style of a Wikipedia article. Undortunately, I'm in no position to have a go at really editing it in the next year or two, but it would be good to see this one got right. The guy is a bit of a british instituion in a number of ways and it would be nice to see something balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poleydee (talkcontribs) 16:54, 3 October 2006

The point being he isn't an Arab, he's an Egyptian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What? Egypt is an Arab country. Almost all of its people are Arabs. Manormadman (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Manormadman
Poster "Manormadman" is correct, the chief ethnic content of present-day Egypt is Arab: Moslem Arabs invaded the country, then under Byzantine suzerainty, late in the seventh century and have been there ever since -- they're what changed the chief religion in Egypt from Orthodox Christian to Moslem. I'd suppose that the subject of this article is of Arab descent (clearly mixed with other blood, but with the Arab element predominant).
I'm concerned about the subject's use of "Al" or "al" before his surname. As detailled at (which treats of the man's illegal use of another's coat of arms), the use of the article implies a clan headship to which the man is not entitled. Oughtn't this to be brought out? Firstorm (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
''! Perhaps Michael Cole is lurking. Philip Cross (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2008


al vs Al[edit]

Why is the title of this page not "Mohamed al-Fayed" when it is stated in the article that he likes to be styled in this way? Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:01, 9 January 2007

Referring to the definite Arabic article 'Al' as the equivalent of the German "Von" or French "De" makes it sound extremely pretentious, as if it implies hereditary lordship status in the family. Which of course it doesn't in Arabic. Probably a good third of Egyptian last names have the "Al/El" in front of them...that sentence should be removed despite the footnote. Although the fact that he added the Al later in life implies that there was some pretentious motive...I don't know jackbrown (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was being pretentious. "al" and "Al" are transliterations of different Arabic words as explained in Arabic_name. The former normally indicates a name that is derived from a place name. The latter implies a dynastic name (the best known example being Al Saud - the Saudi royal family). Currently the English version of the name includes the "Al" and the Arabic version does not. They can't both be right. Does anybody know whether he legally changed his name? Eggybacon (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
One can add the hyphen in the article's title (absent in the text) to this query. Philip Cross (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fulham FC[edit]

The following word-salad clearly has grammatical and other issues and needs to be rewritten:

Since the disappointing signing of Steve Marlet for £12 million, Fayed grew wary of how wasteful spending money on average players.

I would suggest "After the ..., Fayed became wary of spending money signing unproven players.", but I don't really know enough about the subject. EmmetCaulfield 07:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Four Wives?[edit]

I heard that he had four (Muslim) wives. I remember watching a documentary about Harrods on the Discovery Channel where there was a scene where cameras were following Mohammed Fayed with four women in hijabs/jilbabs following him and a black foreign-born woman told him if he married her, she could help him get a passport and he laughed saying that he already have enough wives. Can someone confirm this? I know polygamy is illegal in the UK unless that person have multiples spouses outside the country and before claiming British citizenship. Media Research 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


The main article says 'Mohamed' - the picture caption says 'Mohammad'. Apart from the al-controversy, can this be made consistent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


The inquiry, involving one of the most bitter feuds in British business history, issued a 1990 report stating that the Fayed brothers had lied about their background and wealth. The bickering with Rowland continued when he accused them of stealing millions in jewels from his Harrods safe deposit box. Rowland died and without accepting responsibility Fayed settled the dispute with a payment to his widow. (Fayed had been arrested during the dispute and sued the Metropolitan Police for false arrest in 2002. He lost the case.)

It seems there is a significant amount of information missing from that paragraph. From Tiny Rowland, he died in 1998, so substantially after 1990 in the rather compressed impression of the timeline I get from the above (though also substantially before 2002). Bickering rarely causes death or arrests, and there is no explanation for why Fayed might be expected to accept responsibility (I assume for Rowland's death). So presumably the inference is that some sort of fisticuffs occurred, but this should be stated clearly with reference to actual facts. --db (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth[edit]

This article has his date of birth both as 1929 and 1933. What is it? Technohead1980 (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The DTI report and his unofficial biographer, Tom Bower, both found conclusive evidence that it was 1929. I think it should be changed to 1929 at head of the article because of this. B626mrk (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It was in two papers today as 1933 and one as 1929, the 1929 report referring to the fact that he shaved four years off in his Who's Who entry, but that this was uncovered by the DTI investigations. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced allegation of "embezzeling"[edit]

I'm not familiar with the history of this article but I was surprised to see this allegation has been unchallenged for two weeks (since revision 208649875 by Bizboy14 on 1st May 2008). Is it supported by one of the general references? - Pointillist (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No reply so I have deleted the allegation per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Pointillist (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Assault[edit]

Is trying to kiss somebody really considered a sexual assault? I thought that there were much worse alegations than that floating around from female Harrods employees. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now read a bit more of it. I don't really like Fayed but it does seem a bit Jordy Chandler. According to the Independent, the girl was shopping with her mother, when he asked her to come back for a private visit which she agreed to. It was on this return that the incident supposedly took place. She is accusing him of fondling her too so it's more than a kiss.DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was 'no move per WP:COMMONNAME. JPG-GR (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mohamed Al-FayedMohamed Fayed — As far as I can see the current title is what he likes to be called, not what his actual name is. Unless he had it changed legally his name is "Mohamed Fayed". We shouldn't be doing his PR work for him. If there is a concern that people will search for Al-Fayed, the re-direct will take care of that. — John Smith's (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: As far as I know he has never officially changed his name. Private Eye continues to mock him for using the spurious "Al". Is there any way to check this to be absolutely sure? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it's verifiable, but as recently as a month ago the Telegraph was still referring to him as Mohamed Fayed. So unless there's an article from a UK broadsheet saying he's changed his name I think it should be renamed. John Smith's (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCCN: "use the most common name of a person", as elaborated in WP:NCP, which mentions nothing about giving preference to official names. Google has 254,000 hits for "Mohamed al-Fayed" versus 43,300 for "Mohamed Fayed" -- a 5.87 to 1 ratio. On Google Books the score is 594 to 86 -- a 6.9 to 1 ratio. Unless you can bring evidence that "Mohamed Fayed" is the more common name (not the official name), then the article should stay where it is. -- Biruitorul Talk 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To change the name of an article on a living person from their preferred name to one used by The Daily Telegraph in a rather sensational and unsympathetic article and other even less reliable sources, we'd need more evidence than an unsourced claim about what is official. Perhaps this means what appears on his British passport? But even if this was clarified and substantiated, Wikipedia:Naming conventions don't support any such standard. See below for some Googling, which also supports the current article name. Andrewa (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Give his son was "Dodi Fayed" that rather suggests the "Al" is an invention, otherwise his son would have been "Al-Fayed" too. The point about common name is noted, though I think that commonname shouldn't be a problem because the re-direct should cover it. John Smith's (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Not quite sure why this comment appears here rather than in the discussion section below. It doesn't seem to address any of the reasons I gave for opposing the move. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Disagree there, "Mohamed Fayed" has references in a host of newspapers in the UK and elsewhere, as well as the BBC News website. John Smith's (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. One could also parody the PR work argument with the reply and neither should we be doing the PR work for his detractors. There's no issue here, other than one that some journalists have invented in order to sell newspapers. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
So you're alleging that people only use Fayed if they're attacking him? Using his real surname is factual, not PR. John Smith's (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Disagree that his real surname is factual... that is, it's a tautology as you've stated it, but I think what you mean is to claim that your version of his name is real in some way that his preferred version is not. You've yet to say why. Andrewa (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It's his birth name and I don't believe he has changed it legally - he just calls himself "Al". Such as if I called myself John "God" Smith's. Would I be "God Smith's"? John Smith's (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It's a very firmly established part of our Manual of Style. I'd advise you to re-read our naming conventions, because your arguments evidently aren't taking them into account. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't believe the MoS would cover that scenario. John Smith's (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
And you're mistaken. That's really all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You might also look at this link and many like it... are the Scottish courts allowing him to use a name that isn't real? Andrewa (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If he calls himself Al Fayed they can use it, unless you can show otherwise. John Smith's (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

I get 155,000 ghits for Mohamed Al-Fayed and only 20,600 for Mohamed Fayed. Your results may differ from mine of course depending on where Google thinks you're located, but it's a big enough ratio to think that he's more widely known in English by the current article name. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

From the survey above: "Mohamed Fayed" has references in a host of newspapers in the UK and elsewhere, as well as the BBC News website. Some URLs would be good to substantiate this claim, particularly as it seems to be a minority usage. A quick look at the The Telegraph article quoted above in support of the move showed it to be a lot less persuasive as evidence than one might have hoped. Andrewa (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide some links to show that some journalists have invented [the issue his surname is Fayed] in order to sell newspapers?
The onus of proof is on those who want to move the article. My comment was a parody of the original argument, which was similarly unsubstantiated... and still is. It suggests that those who use the Al- are somehow supporting the person. I don't think this is true at all. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you make an allegation like "there's no issue here because...." you should back it up. If you want to clarify that you didn't mean it then fair enough. John Smith's (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
As for what I said about many newspapers not using the "Al" look here, here, here and here, to add to the Telegraph. Having had a look, the BBC is inconsistent, as it has referred to him as Fayed, Al-Fayed and his son as Fayed/Al-Fayed too. Please do not complain about the sex assault claim articles because they're the most recent articles on him - lots of people were reporting it. John Smith's (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think my point about the single article used to substantiate the original proposal being unsympathetic is valid, I wouldn't have called it a complaint. I don't doubt that lots of people were reporting it. I note your request not to make such points, but I don't see why not, frankly.
I was talking about the OTHER links that I had submitted. John Smith's (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links... I'll have a look at them. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tone problems[edit]

There are still serious tone problems with this article - unsurprising given the state of the talk page, which I have only just now brought in line with our guidelines on BLP discussion pages. The life and career section which makes up the majority of the article is disjointed and seemingly primarily focussed on the negative. I've added an npov tag to the article until this is resolved. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

reliance on single source which might not itself be neutral in tone[edit]

It appears on the surface that an extraordinary amount of this BLP is based upon a single source whose title would imply it was not intended as a neutral biography in itself. The weight given to such a single source would appear to be a severe problem, and I would comment anyone to remove a substantial portion of the material cited to that source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Tom Bowers biographies are renowned for their authoritativeness, and it is the reliability of the source rather than the weight give to the use of the source that is important. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The titles speak volumes. There is no way that sources so titled can be considered by any outside observer to be neutral in presentation - clearly they are usable but only per WP:WEIGHT and to no greater extent. I think you will find my position here is held by others at WP:BLP/N to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Fulham F.C.[edit]

Can we expand the section on Fulham?

Here is my suggestion:

Fulham F.C.[edit]

Al-Fayed bought the freehold of West London professional football club Fulham F.C. for £6.25 million in 1997.[1] The club was purchased via Bill Muddyman's Muddyman Group.[1] His long-term aim was that Fulham would become a FA Premier League side within five years. In 2001, Fulham took the First Division (now Football League Championship) under manager Jean Tigana, winning 100 points and scoring over 100 goals in the season. This meant that Al-Fayed had achieved his objective of Fulham being a Premiership club a year ahead of schedule. By 2002, Fulham were competing in European football, winning the Intertoto Cup and challenging in the UEFA Cup. Fulham have since continued to play in the Premiership, and reached the final of the 2009–10 UEFA Europa League.

Fulham temporarily left Craven Cottage whilst it was being upgraded to meet modern safety standards. There were fears that Fulham would not return to the Cottage, after it was revealed that Al-Fayed had sold the first right to build on the ground to a property development firm.[2]

Fulham lost a legal case against former manager Tigana in 2004 after Al-Fayed had wrongly alleged that Tigana had overpaid more than £7m for new players and had negotiated transfers in secret.[3] In May 2007 Al-Fayed said he was interested in helping Scottish football team Ross County, following their relegation.[4]

In 2009 Al-Fayed revealed that he is in favour of a wage cap for footballers, and criticised the management of The Football Association and Premier League as "run by donkeys who don't understand business, who are dazzled by money." [5]

A statue of Michael Jackson was unvieled by Al-Fayed in April 2011 at Fulham's Craven Cottage stadium. In 1999 Jackson had attended a league game against Wigan Athletic F.C. at the stadium. Following criticisms of the statue, Al-Fayed said "If some stupid fans don't understand and appreciate such a gift this guy gave to the world they can go to hell. I don't want them to be fans."[6]

Fulham F.C. is owned by Mafco Holdings, based in the tax haven of Bermuda. Mafco Holdings is owned by Al-Fayed and his family. By 2011, Al-Fayed had loaned Fulham F.C. £187 million in interest free loans.[7]

Thanks! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Bose, Mihir (7 February 2003). "Fulham pushed out Hill". The Daily Telegraph. London. 
  2. ^ BBC News Online (15 September 2003). "Fulham's future hangs in balance". 
  3. ^ BBC News Online (12 November 2004). "Fulham lose Tigana court battle". 
  4. ^ "Al Fayed offer interests County". BBC News Online. 18 May 2007. 
  5. ^ Charles, Chris (29 April 2009). "Sport quotes of the week". BBC News Online. 
  6. ^ "Michael Jackson Fulham FC statue defended by Al Fayed". BBC News. 3 April 2011. 
  7. ^ Conn, David (19 May 2010). "Record income but record losses for Premier League". London: The Guardian. 


  • - Hi, it looks pretty good, it could use a trim imo , I would say at first glance it seems a bit large considering there is a main article, and the stuff about the M Jackson statue seems a bit...well just wrong somehow, the quote seems undue even if he did say it - its is already covered and sits well in the craven cottage article in the trivia section. Craven Cottage#Trivia - I am logging off now but I will have another look tomorrow, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Al Fayed's Charitable Foundation has an official website - should this replace the existing charity link in external links? Latika1976 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Source[edit]

In the Harrods sale mention, a sentence says that 'after repayment of about £625m in bank loans Al-Fayed received in the region of £900 million' - it references an article written by Tom Bower (author of the unauthorised biog). The author is clearly anti-Al-Fayed, which is fine, but is this statement reliable? I can't find mention of this supposed repayment anywhere that doesn't orginiate from Tom Bower's article. If there's no reliable material to back it up, shouldn't this assertion be removed? Latika1976 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


I want to expand the line on Al-Fayed's Scottish interests with the following section:


In 1972, Fayed purchased the Balnagowan estate [1] in Easter Ross, Ross, Northern Scotland. From an initial twelve acres, Al-Fayed has since built the estate up to sixty five thousand acres.[1] Al-Fayed has invested more than £20 million in the estate, restored the 14th century pink Balnagowan castle, and created a tourist accommodation business.[1] The Highlands of Scotland tourist board awarded Al-Fayed the "Freedom of the Highlands" in 2002, in recognition of his "outstanding contribution and comittment to the highlands".

As an Egyptian with links to Scotland, Al-Fayed was intrigued enough to fund a 2008 reprint of the 15th century chronicle Scotichronicon by Walter Bower. The Scotichronicon describes how Scota, a sister of the Egyptian Pharoh Tutankhamen, fled her family and landed in Scotland, bringing with her the Stone of Scone. According to the chronicle, Scotland was later named in her honour. The tale is disputed by modern historians.[2] Al-Fayed later declared that "The Scots are originally Egyptians and that's the truth" [3]

In 2009 Al-Fayed revealed that he was a supporter of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, announcing to the Scots that "It's time for you to waken up and detach yourselves from the English and their terrible politicians...whatever help is needed for Scotland to regain its independence, I will provide it...when you Scots regain your freedom, I am ready to be your president" [3]

  1. ^ a b Kelbie, Paul (4 July 2005). "Al-Fayed to fill Highland estate with jet-set homes". The Independent. London. 
  2. ^ Wade, Mike (19 May 2008). "Al Fayed, a Princess and another theory the establishment denies". The Times. London. 
  3. ^ a b Horne, Marc (25 October 2009). "Forget Salmond: Make me your ruler". The Times. London. 

Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing seems to be a myth, that thing of Scottish people being direct descendants from ancient Egyptians. Had it been backed up by science, Al-Fayed would never put any effort in to reminding of that story. He would have done that thing we dont do on cooking spaghetti. No not not that....he would provide with one or two citations. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nationality and Tax status[edit]

I want to expand the article with the following sections:


Al-Fayed was born an Egyptian citizen, entered Haiti on a Kuwaiti passport, and left Haiti with a Haitian diplomatic passport with which he entered the United Kingdom in 1964.

In 1970 Al-Fayed informed Mahdi Al Tajir that his and his brothers Haitian diplomatic passports had expired, and their Egyptian passports made it difficult for them to obtain visas in many countries.[1] Tajir secured Emirati passports for Al-Fayed, but not Emirati nationality.[1] On the passport documents Al-Fayed had his date of birth changed from 1929 to 1933, making himself four years younger, and added the prefix "Al-" to his last name, which was to afforded him importance in the Arab world.[1] His two brothers reduced their ages by ten years on their new passports.[1] Max Hastings, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, wrote that Al-Fayed had "harried" Conrad Black, former owner of the Daily Telegraph, "in pursuit of his demand to be referred to in our newspaper as "Al Fayed". I sent the chairman a note, explaining that this was a long-running saga: "The Fayeds have been seeking for years to call themselves Al Fayed, just as a socially ambitious Frenchman might seek to style himself de Fayed, or a German von Fayed ... At one level, it is harmless if the Fayeds wish to call themselves kings of Sheba, but I always feel determined to demonstrate that we will not be threatened." [2]

Fayed's adding of Al- to his surname earned the nickname "the Phoney Pharaoh" from Private Eye magazine.[3]

The rulers of Dubai, the Al Maktoum family, had refused to renew the Fayeds passports in 1993, and so they reverted to travelling on their original Egyptian passports. Mohamed and Ali Fayed applied for British citizenship in early 1993. Ali's application was supported by Gordon Reece and Peter Hordern, and Mohamed's by Lord Bramall and Jeffrey Archer.[4] The Fayed brothers application for British citizenship was rejected in December 1993, on the basis that the DTI report disqualified them from citizenship.[5] Michael Howard, the Conservative home secretary, asked for the decision to be reviewed, fearing renewed embarrassment over his connections wth alleged fraudster Harry Landy, which surfaced during the DTI investgation.[5] The application was rejected again in February 1995,[6] and in 1996 the High court declared that the home secretary could not deny, without explanation, the Fayeds citizenship requests.[7] The Home Office later abandoned its appeal to the House of Lords against the High courts decision.[8]

In 1997 Jack Straw, the home secretary in the new Labour government, reconsidered the Fayeds citizenship request,[9] but rejected Mohamed Al-Fayeds request in May 1999.[10] Ali Al-Fayed had had his request for citizenship granted in March 1999. [11]

The rejection was attributed to Al-Fayed's admittance that he bribed politicians and his breaking into safety deposit boxes in Harrods.[12] Al-Fayed described the decision as "perverse" and said he was a victim of the British establishment and "zombie" politicians.[12]

Tax status

In 1989 Al-Fayed announced that despite living in the United Kingdom since 1964, he had not been 'domiciled' in the country, a status which requires a minimum stay of 180 days.[13][14] A settlement on his global taxes was negotiated with the Inland Revenue, with Al-Fayed, his brothers and Dodi paying £20 million in past taxes. To limit British income tax, the dividends from Harrods would be paid to an offshore company based in the tax haven of Liechtenstein; this company was itself a subsidiary of two other companes, based in Panama and the British Virgin Islands, also tax havens.[14]

Following a ruling by Scottish courts in 2002, Al-Fayed lost a legal battle to retain his special tax status that had dated from 1997. The Inland Revenue had agreed a deal with Al-Fayed whereby he would pay £240,000 per year for five years. The agreement avoided an expensive investigation of Al-Fayed's foreign income, and Al-Fayed was able to bring as much cash into the UK as he wished. The agreement was abandoned by the Inland Revenue following the Neil Hamiltion libel case in 1999, in which Al-Fayed admitted he had access to large sums of cash and employees received cash presents.[15][16]

Less than a year later, Al-Fayed announced that he was leaving the UK for Switzerland,[15] announcing that "The grossly unfair treatment finally convinced me that, for the sake of my family, the time has come to leave. I am leaving with a heavy heart."[16] In a 2004 interview with CNN Al-Fayed revealed that he had left the UK after his tax arrangement was cancelled.[17] Al-Fayed later returned to the United Kingdom.

The Fayed family collected £368m in dividends from Harrods between 1999–2009, with the money paid into a holding company, which filtered into a web of sister companies ultimately based in the tax haven of Bermuda.[18]

  1. ^ a b c d Bower 1998, p.40.
  2. ^ Hastings, Max (7 October 2002). "Citizen Black". The Guardian. London. 
  3. ^ Lindsay, Robert (10 May 2010). "Mohamed Al Fayed — the outsider with a taste for confrontation". The Times. London. 
  4. ^ Bower 1998, p.304.
  5. ^ a b Bower 1998, p.330.
  6. ^ Bower 1998, p.360.
  7. ^ Bower 1998, p.399.
  8. ^ Bower 1998, p.449.
  9. ^ Bennetto, Jason (23 December 1997). "Straw to reconsider Fayed citizenship request". The Independent. London. 
  10. ^ Bennetto, Jason (21 October 1999). "Fayed fails in citizenship appeal". The Independent. London. 
  11. ^ "Fayed brother gets UK citizenship". BBC News online. London. 11 March 1999. 
  12. ^ a b Burrell, Ian; Buncombe, Andrew (7 June 1999). "Fayed fumes over passport decision". The Independent. London. 
  13. ^ Bower, Tom (1998). Fayed: The Unauthorized Biography. Macmillan. p. 188. ISBN 9780333745540. 
  14. ^ a b Bower 1998, p.250.
  15. ^ a b "Ruling 'could cost Al-Fayed millions'". BBC News Online. 31 May 2002.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ruling-cost" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  16. ^ a b McSmith, Andy; Morrison, James (30 March 2003). "Mohamed al-Fayed leaves UK 'with a heavy heart' (and best wishes from the Hamiltons)". The Independent. London. 
  17. ^ "Business Traveler". CNN. 11 July 2004. 
  18. ^ Finch, Julia; Wood, Zoe (12 August 2009). "Harrods: the store where you can get anything you want – except a payout for the boss". London: The Guardian.  line feed character in |date= at position 10 (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, your additions come from part of the content highlighted as contentious/contravening BLP policies on the BLPN last year; it doesn't read in a neutral or encyclopedic way, the Bower references were deemed unreliable, and should be removed; and this section be rewritten and cut down. Latika1976 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The outcome of that discussion was to put proposed changes on this talk page, and discuss them. I have since done so, and no discussion has arisen. They read in an entirely neutral and encyclopaedic way. Bower is a reliable source for the page, his book remains the only book written on Al-Fayed, and has received excellent reviews. I had a brief discussion on the reliability of the sources in February, and was heartened by the response. [2] Bower's thorough research into Al-Fayed's life has not been replicated by anyone else, (perhaps Maureen Orth) and am citing facts not opinions. Bower is renowned for his attention to detail, his successful legal battle against Richard Desmond, and the reviews of his new book on Simon Cowell are evidence of this. Let's go through the tax status point by point together. What do you think should be removed from the section? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Simply because it is the only book on Al-Fayed, doesn't make it reliable. Bower's books are known to be nortoriously hostile - look again at what was said about it, in some detail, on the BLPN. Is this level of detail even relevant to the article? Latika1976 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This level of detail was not out of place when the whole of my rewrite was intact. These are both areas of immense importance to Al-Fayed. It is irrelevant whether or not a source is hostile, as I am citing facts rather than opinions, we would not disregard a puff piece on the same basis. At times Bower is quite sympathetic to Al-Fayed especially regarding his treatment by Rowland and the establishment. Can I ask what sources you relied upon when you wrote your thesis? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You may feel that the level of detail you have added was not out of place in the context of your former rewrite; but that rewrite was deemed inappropriate, as were the sources of Bower and Orth. Some authors have different motivations to others. Why not find alternative sources to support the main points you think should be made. Latika1976 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed the BLPN discussion and don't agree that there was consensus that Bower and Orth were inappropriate sources. There was consensus that if an issue wasn't covered anywhere other than the Bower biography, it may not be appropriate for the article. There are many other reliable sources used in these proposed sections (The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, CNN, BBC). With a bit of copy editing I don't see why they can't be added to the article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Espoo, Tapiola Finland garden city construction plan[edit]

User:Gareth E Kegg, you removed my addition with the argument This does seem to be marginally important, if at all. Reliable citations in English would be desirable as well

According to WP:CIT relaible citations in Finnish are acceptable. In my opinion it deserves place since the chidren of Mohamed Al-Fayed own a real estate close to this place in Westend, Espoo are protecting the valuable cultural heritage. This beach is in the borderline of Tapiola and Westend.

This deserves place since Finnish National Board of Antiquities (Museovirasto) that try to protect the valuable cultural environments in Finland has written that the high construction plans endangers the valuable cultural heritage. The statement criticize the high construction plans which is also the case in this of this beatch.Liian korkea lisärakentaminen vaarantaisi Tapiolan keskustan valtakunnallisesti merkittävät kulttuuriympäristöarvot and statement 29.12.2011

Family of Mohammed Al-Faued has tried to protect Tapiola garden city against 18 floor high hotel building in the public swimming beach. The case was lost in the supreme court. In March 2013 there is still some days time to make an appeal of the constraction plan. The leader of the town planning was convicted of bribery but he continues as usual in his job. Place is flooding area but town has labeled only the puclic beatch as flooding area. Land was owned by Espoo city and Royal Dutch Shell. Majority of citizens are against the hotel. 75 % of people in Tapiola did not want to be part of Espoo but the state government forced this. Traditionalluý garden city has no high buildings. [1]

Watti Renew (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the links you supplied mention Fayed or his family. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference was given. It does mention Fayed and his family. In my opinion they made an important juridical claim that has wide support in Espoo. Thank you. In Finnish Wikipedia: fi:Camilla Al Fayed, [[fi:Mohamed Al-Fayed], fi:Heini Wathén.
REF: Valitusten torni alkaa kohota Helsingin Sanomat 28.2.2013
I truly hope someone will prevent this skyscraper. It can be regarded as a symbol of fossil energy consumption which is opposite to the values of garden city. There is still some days time. I feel corruption in Finland in regard to politics and construction is a problem. I ask how can politicians build in the sea shore that is so close to the flooding area and public beatch? There are a lot of points that could be included in Tapiola. Does it influence that Royal Dutch Shell ownes part of the land? Old petrol stations are not easy to sell since the potential cleaning costs are huge. This is not valid excuse to distoy the area.
Watti Renew (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Your edit mostly concerned the proposed development rather than the Fayeds reaction to it. All that is required is a single line stating "The Fayed family has expressed opposition to X", but even that I feel is unnecessary for a BLP. Please read Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral Point of View. Phrases such as "still some days time to make an appeal" and "state government forced this" suggests that your avowed opposition to the plan hampers your ability to convey information in a neutral and unbiased manner. Please highlight the parts of the documents that mention the Fayeds by name. I have read them through Google translate and cannot find them. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference 20 source[edit]

Reference 20 is a pay-to-view, subscription based news website run by News Group International. Since this source of information cannot be accessed without payment of a fee, it should be substituted for a freely accessible credible reference source. Linking or citing News International Group websites should be discouraged, as the organisation has a tendency to make news freely available, then restrict access to it later, frustrating anyone wishing to verify facts or research further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Latika1976 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom Bower biography[edit]

The earlier discussion notwithstanding, the fact that the article contains no mention at all of Tom Bower's biography (the only one there is?) seems quite wrong. At least mentioning the existence of the biography, and indeed summarizing it briefly (without endorsing it), seems entirely appropriate. So I have put this back in.Ben Finn (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Fayed himself was the source of much of Bower's information. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The biography should be mentioned, but the current section is not appropriate. If he is alleged to have lied, give some examples. Fantasist? Please be specific.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. My above section on Nationality and Tax status is well referenced and appropriate.Gareth E Kegg (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Tom Bower's books are, as previously mentioned, notoriously hostile - compare his style to someone like Ackryod, whose books offer a far greater balance in tone and reference. Tom Bower's book is an 'unofficial' and 'unauthorised' biography. Latika1976 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
They are throughly referenced, what's not to like? In fact Fayed offered much cooperation to Bower in the writing of his biography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact that it is an 'unofficial' and 'unauthorised' biography makes it a good source, not a bad one. Authorised biographies are inevitably hagiographies - is Fayed likely to authorize extensive criticism of himself? There is no Wikipedia rule that I know of against unauthorized biographies. So I have reinstated the reference to it. But if Peter Ackroyd has written a biography of Fayed, why not add that too?! (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that once again the reference to Bower's biography has been immediately deleted, this time with the incomprehensible explanation 'not a third party source'. I believe there was consensus established above that there should be at least some mention of the biography (and it would be frankly bizarre if the only biography of Fayed were not included!); so once again I have reinstated it. The speed with which these deletes to this otherwise little-edited article are made is decidedly strange. Please discuss further changes to this bit here first. (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
At the same time the editor deleted a reference to a portrayal of Fayed in a film, stating that its mention in IMDB does not establish notability. However the film has its own Wikipedia article. (It also incidentally received 115 published reviews from critics, and was directed by Madonna.) So I have reinstated it. (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I am the editor IP refers to. I quite agree that Tom Bower's biography should be mentioned, but the way to do this is to use it as a source in the body of the text, and for any contentious details added to be introduced by the "according to Tom Bower..." construction or similar. Apart from the citation coming from a commercial books site which is considered unusable spam on Wikipedia, the citation is not WP:3PARTY as the attempt to establish the notability of Bower's book, that it is worth mentioning, is from the source itself. The book is cited a few times anyway.
References online in reliable sources to the actor Haluk Bilginer playing Fayed in the Madonna film W.E. are scarce. Therefore it is be doubted that the portrayal is particularly notable, and the film itself received negative reviews. For the purpose of this site, IMDb is of mixed use, see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Philip Cross (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Dodi Fayed's romance with the Princess of Wales[edit]

While Mohamed Al-Fayed's involvement in the conspiracy theories about their deaths needed to be developed, details about this love affair itself belong in his son's own article, and Diana's, not in this one. We have a case of undue weight here. Philip Cross (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but Mohamed played an important role in their romance, being present at their first meeting, inviting her on holiday, buying the yacht, and owning the Ritz, etc. I'll remove some of the Kelly Fisher detail. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohamed Al-Fayed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Valitusten torni alkaa kohota Helsingin Sanomat 28.2.2013