Talk:Mohamed Al-Fayed

al vs Al

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 81.103.41.71 (talk • contribs) 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)

Tom Bower biography

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. No Swan So Fine (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.No Swan So Fine (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. No Swan So Fine (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?! 90.198.224.197 (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. 90.198.224.197 (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. 90.198.224.197 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor IP 90.198.224.197 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)

Frühes Leben und Familie

"In den vergangenen Jahren zog Al-Fayed (Rem.: Mohamed Al-Fayed) sich aus der Öffentlichkeit weitgehend zurück und lebte mit seiner Frau in seiner Villa in Surrey."

Quelle: t-online[.]de 2023-09-02 /

02. September 2023 Uazt (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations

Now that there's a whole section on this, should it not be mentioned in the lead section? Seems to be rapidly gaining momentum. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lead, but I think there a danger of WP:NOTNEWS here as well in the context of your "gaining momentum' - The BBC are reporting it pretty breathlessly but it's their investigation. I asked for this to be protected yesterday because of the IP RAPIST!!! spam coming in. Also all this is posthumous so the man isn't going to be tried or given the opportunity to defend himself.

May be add something like 'From 1997 onwards Al Fayed has been the subject of media scrutiny and investigations into allegations of sexual harassment and assault, including posthumous accusations of rape.' Golikom (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is BBC led, but it's now very widely reported, with some quite startling headlines, e.g. The Independent, usually pretty moderate, has: "Mohamed Al Fayed ‘combined most horrific parts of Jimmy Savile, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein’". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup. I'm not trying to defend/whitewash for him, just trying to give what seems like a fair report of it when there's nothing in a court of law - looks like there maybe findings in civil courts later though?

Seems like this would have been in the lead before though? the section is longstanding and extensive enough to warrant mention so has this been taken out by someone already? Golikom (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm sure you are not trying to defend/whitewash in any way. There seems to have been an IP edit war which has resulted in some oversight, so I imagine whatever was there has been lost by collateral damage. I will add "From 1997 onwards Al Fayed has been the subject of media scrutiny and investigations into allegations of sexual harassment and assault, including posthumous accusations of rape", as suggested, and we can go from there, if needed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The "al" in al-Fayed is not an aristocrat pretension

The article states that al-Fayed added "al-" to his name to enhance his status and was this called the "phony pharaoh". Al- is the definite article and means "the" in Arabic and it's extremely common for it to be added to or dropped from names. It rarely significantly affects the meaning. It's spelled ألـ correctly, although usually occurs as الـ, joined to the noun.

There is a similar word āl (no hyphen in translation) which is a noun and does mean "family (of)", and is mostly used by royal families these days. It's correctly spelled آل and in names will be in construct state with the following noun, not joined. It is pronounced differently than al-. I've never heard anyone pronounce al-Fayed's name as the latter āl. On Arabic Wikipedia it's spelled "al-". No one who speaks Arabic would confuse the definite article al- the the noun āl.

Unless there is actual evidence out there that al-Fayed was making inflated claims about his lineage, these sentences and the sources in the article just look made up by someone who doesn't know a word of Arabic and should be deleted. 2601:283:4700:94F0:6A2F:255A:35F8:EAB4 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's complete WP:OR nonsense. See the cited sources in the article. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa I looked at the sources, and I looked at the Arabic Wikipedia page. The English sources don't even state very clearly that he tried to change his name to āl. I have a PhD in Arabic and lived in Egypt for three years. This doesn't require original research, this is like pointing out that someone has confused "knead" and "need." 2601:283:4700:94F0:EBC1:3CFA:5D6B:39AD (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@2601:283:4700:94F0:EBC1:3CFA:5D6B:39AD all the source, the Independent, says is "Born Mohamed Fayed he added the aristocratic prefix "al" to his name only at the age of 45." You can look at his name in any Arabic source and see it's al- not āl. The journalist clearly doesn't know Arabic or he wouldn't call āl a prefix, it's a common noun. The al in question not an "aristocrat prefix" it's the definite article. 2601:283:4700:94F0:EBC1:3CFA:5D6B:39AD (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)