Talk:Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani

message: Please note that, as this is an article about a living person, any negative material must be scrupulously sourced to reliable, mainstream sources. See WP:BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And these sources do not include websites such as royalark.net and Netty's whatever pages.. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I don't see any reason to merge 2 kings. at the least a link between them should be made but merging them would ruin the information side of things. if the merger still includes a single profile for each king then this will work. I have another idea. how about you make the merger page with all the family and keep the single profiles for each member of the family external from the merger page aswell.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.146.83 (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not all of them, but you created 7 new articles with identical content.  The former emir and the present emir might have separate articles, if we actually found reliable sources talking about them (which haven't been found yet), but wives, children who might be potential future emirs, cousins with no specific positions in any government, etc., should be merged.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I have removed the large chunk of text that you copied from Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani into the articles because it was not directly related to the article's subject.  Any included text should be about the children specifically, not their relations. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the event that some, but not all, of these articles are merged, it's possible that some of the unimportant ones would be merged to the former Emir, rather than the current Emir, so it's important that the merge tag remain in place, even if consensus is established that those articles shouldn't be merged.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

text: (ec) :There are problems with the merge template, and there is no real template to indicate that the siblings should be merged either to Hamad or to Tamim, or perhaps to an (Al) Thani family article.  Please leave the merge templates open, until this matter can be resolved. It's important that there be some merge template at Hamad's article, and I'd rather not use the generic  template, because, among other reasons, there are more articles here than can be handled by that template.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Merging the other children - Abdullah, Dana, Maha, Lulwaa, Al Qaqa and Thani (leaving Tamim aside for now as this is a different issue) - into the article about the father makes sense to me as there appears to be very little content on those pages and a cursory google search shows that they seem to fail the notability test. Merging would be preferable to deleting as it would prevent the pages from being recreated. Is everyone else happy with this being actioned? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep this site (Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani) and that of Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani separated; both are/were heads of state. Also, for the more senior and more well known members of this family, i.e.  Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, Jasim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Al-Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, and Mohammed bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani: also keep separate pages, they are notable enough to justify separate pages for them. Maybe, the pages of the other (more less known ) members  could be merged into that of their father's, the former emir, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. However, only after a proper discussion/voting and according WP:MERGE. The general notability guidelines should be followed here as well: are the persons important enough that separate pages should exist about them? Some of them are notable enough and significant enough coverage exist  about them, to justify separate pages, especially when you compare this with all those pages that exits about (past) members of former European royal families.  Alternative suggestion: a summarizing page describing the family members of the House of Thani? Thus merging some of the pages into that page? (see example Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge). Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to merge in to an article all childrens of Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, but in the page of the current Emir, but in the page of the father or in other page, like said behove to family Catherine.... --Anas1712 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Discussion 

message: Discussion of Qatari policy and politics which does not specifically mention this person does not belong in his biography - it belongs in Politics of Qatar or Foreign relations of Qatar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qatari policy 

message: Has this article been written by the Qatar Ministry of Information? Why is there nothing about his role as the principal funder and sponsor of ISIS and Hamas, or about the scandal of slave labour in Qatar? He is an autocrat and everything Qatar does is because of his decisions. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Intelligent Mr Toad Qatar boasts the fact that it is an autocracy. You can easily read about it on the page Politics of Qatar. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awful that you couldn't remind them that Wikipedia is not a laundromat for canards, especially when it comes to living-people. Simply because you echoed with their take? Disappointing since you are supposed to be more mindful to uphold Wikipedia's 5P. “Autocracy” also applies at Area 51 and most domains of the so-called national security, should the commander-in-chief be a fair-game for trafficking in libels on his article's talk-page, if not within the body? —103.163.124.92 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I conveyed, in brief. Which part got you stymied, precisely? –103.163.124.92 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Bup-bup-bup... Better pay attention to the #Sources on this page to be reminded that regurgitating libelous canards, no matter how immortal and how much they're part of an urban-legend, doesn't override Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia is outside of one's "society". —103.163.124.92 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sponsor of terrorism, slave labour

message: "As of 2013, Tamim is the youngest reigning monarch among the GCC countries[1] and the youngest current sovereign worldwide."
Worldwide? Kim Jong-un doesn't count? 2A01:260:D001:FC6F:21E7:1A5A:8E0C:6CA5 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not a sovereign, is he? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  age 

message: Seeing him on photos in the news he seems to be a giant! How tall is he exactly? --2003:5F:EB15:133D:184C:5CD5:3AF2:57AD (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How tall is this man? 

message: Need to incorporate into article;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/uae-hacked-qatari-government-sites-sparking-regional-upheaval-according-to-us-intelligence-officials/2017/07/16/00c46e54-698f-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_usqatar-640pm-winner%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#
"The hacks and posting took place on May 24, shortly after President Trump completed a lengthy counterterrorism meeting with Persian Gulf leaders in neighboring Saudi Arabia and declared them unified."
--Wikipietime (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacked via UAE during Trump administration 

message: Live press on his visit with Trump.  Hugs and kisses. Wikipietime (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 10 2018 TRump 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: While "absolute monarchy" is precise and accurate, the lead should also clearly inform readers that this is an authoritarian regime (which is an accurate description and much more easily understood by readers). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should also clarify that he is the ruler. As it stands, it's a bit unclear. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Again, there is no dispute that Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani rules an authoritarian regime. It's borderline tendentious to argue that when RS say that Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is the ruler of Qatar and that the regime in Qatar is authoritarian they are not in fact saying that Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani rules an authoritarian regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: RS state that Tamim is the ruler of Qatar. No RS so far stated that as he forbade political parties and participates in elections that are not free and fair. Provide an RS that state that Tamim is an authoritarian leader who limits Qataris rights and forbids political parties, as well as participates in unfair elections or don't include it at all. Thanks. Gorebath (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the cited RS say both that he rules Qatar and that the Qatari regime is authoritarian. It's deliberately obtuse to demand that RS say verbatim "Qatar is authoritarian because of Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani".  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read WP:OR, its exactly the definition of it. We can't state that US, or George Washington, or James Buchanan, were racist because they kept slavery for a while, using sources that describe slavery during that time. You can't analyze or synthesize published material to reach or imply a conclusion that you'd like to make, specially for a conclusion that likely to be challenged by other editors. Gorebath (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your interpretation of WP:OR is bizarre. Your example makes no sense in relation to the content being disputed. The correct analogy would be if a RS said "George Wsshington was president from 1789 to 1797. His administration defended the right to slavery." and you would be arguing against content saying "George Washington's administration defended the right to slavery" because the RS didn't verbatim say that. You're here arguing that when a RS says "Qatar's regime is authoritarian. Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani heads the regime." that it's OR to say "Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani heads an authoritarian regime." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is it bizarre? You're stating Tamim is an authoritarian leader using The Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa which doesn't state that Qatar is authoritarian nor does it state that Tamim is authoritarian. Maybe I missed this part, may you provide me with a direct reference? Then you used the Freedom index, an index that talks about a country - not its leader - to state that Tamim is authoritarian because he holds all executive and legislative authority, political parties are forbidden, and elections are not free and fair. With your logic, I can use a source that state that "George Washington was racist (substituted here for authoritarian), because he owned black slaves and the US defended black slavery in 1789 to 1797" using a source that states George Wahsington owned black slaves in the US. Gorebath (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For the lead section it's sufficient to mention that he is the monarch of an absolute monarchy. This makes clear that he is the ruler of Qatar and that the country is an absolute monarchy, which is precise.--Casatamca (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He is quite a bit more than just running an "authoritarian regime", (lots of people could be said to be running "authoritarian regime", eg Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; alas it is huge difference (IMO) between say, Erdoğan and unelected leaders like Tamim  Al Thani), cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  care to elaborate more please? An absolute monarchy by definition is when a leader is not elected. Turkey is a constitutional republic while Qatar is an absolute monarchy. Do we need elaborate that an absolute monarchy is usually authoritarian where all power is held by the monarch and no political groups exist? Should the Pope, an absolute monarch, also hold a similar description? Gorebath (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Please read the link on "shadow cabinet" you provided. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, “shadow government” of the State of Israel. Nothing less. What's incorrect about that? He headed Jewish Agency, and while it's said to be "just-another NGO" in the Israeli society, it is very difficult to substantiate that they don't wield unparalleled-influence over the Israeli State affairs. In fact, they're even de jure to the Israeli State what Channel Four Television Corporation is to the British State. Now, don't get me even started about the dynamics of de facto ground-realities; a grossly-offtopic subject-matter for here. –103.163.124.92 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should be clarified for readers that the regime is authoritarian 

message: Just learning here by picking interesting or contentious articles to comment on. Thought I would comment on talk pages before making edits and avoid gaffes. One thing that strikes me about this article is the description of the subjects ascent to being Emir seems a bit incredible, like one guy just decided that he really hated being next in line then another guy decided he hated being Emir. It all looks a bit too sanitised. Might edit a
 bit once I see if anyone else has a thought about it here. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Political shenanigans