Talk:Burj Khalifa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hymenocallis

I removed the portion that claimed that the design of the bulding is inspired by the flower Hymenocallis. The article described it as a native desert flower. All Hymenocallis species are endemic exclusively to the Americas no other continents. Perhaps Hymenocallis has become a popular garden plant in UAE, or perhaps it has even naturalized itself there?

http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/Hymenocallis http://www.amaryllidaceae.org/Hymenocallis/index.htm#gra

There are a few places online that also claim that the building's base is based on the flower. See: [1]. I don't think it's impossible that the Hymenocallis, a common garden plant world-wide, would be used for inspiration for the Burj. And don't forget, it was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, an American firm. -Quasipalm 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

floors

On the official site of the Burj Dubai [[2]], a closeup picture of the inside of an elevator shows buttons next to floors as high as 189.

Yes but they have already stated that it could be 154floors to 189floors anything, look here Burj Dubai

The 160 figure is probably the best estimate at the moment. It's been stated that they increased the height but never added more floors.Rahmalec 19:00, 23 January 2006 (GMT)

There have several interviews and lectures given by the Architect Adrian Smith as well as the structural engineer (whose name escapes me at the moment) which have quoted the building at "around 160 stories." In addition, the leaked building elevation on this page shows 160 or so and has been 100% accurate thus far, as the only part of the building that was altered was the superstructure above the occupied floors, as quoted in the article and its source.

Does Anyone Besides Me

See the obvious connection between Tower_of_Babel and the Burj Dubai? Even the name Babel vs Dubai (baybel dubay) is quite simmilar. The building of the tower is underway, just as the images are.

I just think this might be worth exploring more.--ekimdrachir 07:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. The first thing I thought when I first heard about this was "Huh? Tower of babel again?? Better not anger the big man again, we don't need more languages ;)"

I think the only similarity between dubai and babel is that both are considered to be tall structures. It's perfectly fine to build a big tall building as long as you're not doing it to allude the worship of your God. Apparently the tower of babel was designed to withstand the biggest of floods so that the Lord couldn't cleanse wicked people like he did with the flood again.

The real story behind Babel was not the creation of languages, but the division of people. In that regard, the World Trade Center towers had more in common with Babel than Burj Dubai has with Babel. The WTC was an international symbol of the differences between the haves and the have nots. When the small group of people destroyed the WTC, the destruction of the WTC further divided the people of Earth. It will be interesting to see if the super-buildings in UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain live up to the histories of their predecessors, but that probably depends on the hubris of the countries themselves.

Wow. Just when I thought this section couldn't get more asanine.... The Tower of Babel is a simple story condemning the arrogance of man. It's not about buildings nor about "dividing people" - and the story has no relevance to this article. 208.120.84.99 12:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought the idea of Babel was a tower to reach Heaven. Any truth there? ArdClose 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Burj Dubai's design is to appear to reach into heaven, the same as Babel--Jak3m 13:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The builders of the Tower of Babel were punished for their arrogance. I think the construction of the Burj Dubai is most certainly an act of arrogance. In the wake of the destruction of the Twin Towers by mid-eastern terrorists, building the world's tallest building in an Arabic country adds insult to injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.67.131 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an act of arrogance. You're just being racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.110.216 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good argument guys --71.234.251.108 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV picture?

I think the Image in the infobox (this one) is NPOV. Yeah, a strange claim at first (yet it's an artistic rendering). My point: The clouds, their composition and the skylights on its side (normally not visible in broad daylight) make the building look overly dramatic, as if painted by Michelangelo himself. Can't we choose a less emotional pic? Peter S. 23:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an architectural rendering, presumably created by the developer. Such renderings invariably showcase the best and most dramatic aspect of a building, and quite often at the expense of realism. However, they're also the only renderings which are generally ever made of any building, at least in advance. (The only exceptions I can think of are renderings made by anti-development advocates, which certainly cannot be construed as NPOV). Unless Wikipedia were to adopt a blanket "no renderings" policy, which I believe would be ill-advised, I think that this image should stand. I hope that the public is discriminating enough to understand that any rendering should be taken with a bit of salt. Skybum 08:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What about these renderings: [3] and [4]. They look less dramatic to me. What's the copyright status on them? Peter S. 09:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are indeed less dramatic, but I do feel that they're less realistic as well -- and thus a less-true representation of what the final building will look like. Showing no lighting, sky reflections, or perspective, does not seem preferable, to me, to showing somewhat unrealistic versions thereof. And really, the current rendering, although certainly idealistic isn't that unrealistic. You're correct that the skylights on the side wouldn't be visible during broad daylight, but they would become visible at dusk, and a compression of several events into a single image is pretty standard artistic fare. And in any case, I'm quite certain that (provided I desired to show the building in a very good light) I would be able to take a photograph of the final building that would be every bit as emotional. (Part of my living is as an architectural photographer...) Any kind of artistic representation will contain this kind of emotion.

That said, I would certainly support putting a caption under the image, something to the effect of "Artist's interpretation of the completed Burj Dubai," to make it clear that this is an interpretive image, and not a literal one. And as the building becomes more recognizably complete, in perhaps six months or so, I would support giving the under-construction photographs more primacy in the article. Skybum 18:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this picture, then: [5] Anyway, I added the caption, looks pretty good. Any chance you might add some of your architectural photos to the wikipedia? We're still quite short on those pics and you might have some good ones :-) Cheers! Peter S. 22:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've found some great pictures taken by users on the skyscrapercity.com forums. Sadly, I don't know if any of them are on wikipedia, or if they are, their screen names. Gunbolt 00:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

There are WAY too many pictures relative to the size of the article. It is difficult even to properly read the text since the pictures clutter up the page so much. Despite that, I like all of these pictures and think that they're all relevant to the article. However, until the article is larger, I think we shoudl just move, shrink, or completely remove one of the pictures to make it less cluttered. Thoughts? bob rulz 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel the same way. How about reducing size and move to bottom of page, and/or remove a picture. Shawnc 18:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Another option is to use the <gallery> tag to create a series of small thumbnails that can be enlarged at the reader's discretion. If the images are free, we can also link to the commons, which would contain all images availabe. An example of what i'm talking about is at De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, which uses the <gallery> and commons links. — Fudoreaper 19:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's usually best to remove pictures that don't really add much to the article. Any free images should be moved to the commons, and this page should link to them there, not display them. For the size of this article, I think a single image is fine; maybe two. Keep in mind that the image server is currently very stressed. --Quasipalm 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I changed the layout into a gallery after these comments, so guess the point is now moot. Peter S. 22:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Question of necessity?

Does this question of necessity section strike anyone else as pointless? It would be surprising if any very tall building were built out of "necessity". In such cases the residences in the buildings (if there are any) are, as in this case, luxury appartments for the very wealthy, hardly a way of making extra space for those who are in need of a home. Such buildings are created and occupied for reasons unrelated to limited space, such as prestige. -- cesoid 18 November 2005

Actually, many skyscrapers are built out of necessity, if you use a more colloquial definition of "necessity". They may not provide the essentials of life, but especially in major cities like New York or Chicago, skyscrapers are one of the few reasonable ways of adding more offices or residences to already highly developed areas. Those places have a very high population density and a similarly high demand for office space, and building new skyscrapers is usually the most effective way to satisfy that demand, so they could be considered necessary in that sense. I can see there being legitimate questions about whether a skyscraper of this nature satisfies any similar demand in Dubai. - Flooey 09:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the term "necessity" is a bit too strong, but most big buildings have been built (in America at least) because of a strong demand for office / residential space and a limit on new building locations. Growth then necessitates building up. Not so in Dubai, they have plenty of empty desert in every direction and a small population (again, by US standards), and no real need to increase population density. --Quasipalm 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, the whole 'question of necessity' seems a bit of a question of necessity in itself, driven by a citizen of the US (perhaps residing in the Portland, Oregon Metropolitan area?!). Rather than just remove it, I believe it should be expanded and renamed as the section is correct in that the project is borne out of the UAE's desire to diversify from their core income (oil).--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, the race to build the tallest building is nothing more than a penis-measuring contest: it's immature one-upsmanship. 61.30.11.130 09:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess there is a point there, after all it's just asking for a terrorist to fly a plane into it. ArdClose 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Building the worlds tallest building isn't just a penis measuring contest. Burj Dubai will require groundbreaking new technology, building design and push limit of what we thought was possible only a few years ago. Even a small detail like the elevators will be incredibly sophisticated in order to meet the needs of the tower residents. Burj Dubai is meant to show the world what Dubai is capable of, and of course also what man is capable of. If it were just a matter of penis measuring it would be a typically male venture and obviously it is not. This tower may not be necessary in a short term practical way, but no one can argue that it's very good advertisement for Dubai. There's also the side benefit of proving that Dubai isn't all about oil, it thrives on entrepreneurship above all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.23.6 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the photos. They're helpful. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Population Estimates

In the "Question of Necessity" section, the numbers that are being used are 10 years out of date. This seems inappropriate to me, particularly when the souce that is cited provides a more up-to-date estimate of the population (almost 3.5 million in 2002). Furthermore, the population of Dubai in particular has rather obviously been growing like crazy since 2002, so even using that figure would be something of a distortion. Finally, I must question the honesty of making this argument using the total population density of the UAE as a consideration, since most of the UAE's land area is completely uninhabitable. If there are third-party sources for this argument that we can cite, then I would support keeping it intact; otherwise, I'm sorely tempted to delete it under "original research" policy. Skybum 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the population statistics, but I would recommend using actual census statistics rather than estimates when possible. (How often does Dubai have a census?) It's also important that the numbers are consistent with other wikipedia articles, which use the same numbers as this article. So you might want to correct those numbers first.

And, no, it's not original research; this has been seen as a strange project since the beginning. Here are a few that I found with a minute of searching:

• [6] See: "Past experience in cities around the world has shown that high-rise construction is notoriously expensive and many question the financial viability of building super tall buildings, especially when there is an abundance of flat land to build on, as is the case in Dubai. However, Emaar Properties, the developer, believes that it will not only be financially viable, but also represents a major engineering feat to build to a height not yet attempted by mankind. It believes that the tower, complemented by surrounding structures, will make an attractive proposition for not only the developer and residents, but also bring tourism inflow to Dubai and the country."
• [7] See: "Tower of Babel?" section.
• There are more links on message boards that follow the progress of the building here: [8] and [9]

All of the articles and discussions above, as well as others that I have found via Googling, contain vague, single-sentence questions, pertaining not so much to the Burj Dubai's necessity, but to the necessity of any and every super-tall building. In comparison to any of these sources, the "Question of Necessity" section is far more detailed and Burj Dubai specific, and as such constitutes unsouorced original research. Therefore I have deleted it. The general question of the necessity, appropriateness, and viabiliy of this kind of building would be much better suited for the skycrapers or supertall or megastructure articles.

millennium tower

The end mentions this tower, but the link only goes to a disambiguation page. Which one is being referred to?

Old and new renders

Okay, we have a picture now comparing the old and new renders. As far as I can tell, they're exactly the same (except that one appears to be taller). Do we really need this? bob rulz 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The height difference seems very significant to me, and thus worth noting.Skybum 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That could just be a difference in the scale of the picture. bob rulz 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless we get three or more sources about this precise issue from main stream journalists it'll have to stay out. Ok, I'm being pedantic here, Skybum, but I'm just trying to make a point.  :-) --Quasipalm 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is pretty important since the tower was redesigned and its height increased from 705m to something around 800m. I remember reading an interview with Adrian Smith and according to him it was redesigned in order to give a sense of acceleration. I also remember reading that the floor count has remained the same and that only the top has been redesigned. This is pretty clear from the new render since it looks exactly the same as the old one up to a certain point.Rahmalec 15:30, 22 January 2006 (GMT)

I'm curious how it's possible to add almost 100m without adding any floors? -Quasipalm 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A larger spire? Maybe they increased floor to ceiling heights aswell. I added a source that discusses this. Also you can find an interview with Adrian Smith here that discusses the height.Rahmalec 19:10, 23 January 2006 (GMT)

Trying to Avoid a Revision War...

...However, I do feel very strongly that the "Question of Necessity" section does not belong in this article. The "sources" which are mentioned above contain absolutely none of the information which is detailed in the "Question of Necessity" section, aside from a general apprehension about supertall skyscrapers. As such, it constitutes original research. Secondly, because this general apprehension is something that is expressed about every supertall skyscraper, it is relatively non-notable. Finally, identical "Questions of Necessity" have been directed towards the Shanghai World Financial Center, for example, or Taipei 101 or the Petronas Towers back in the day (especially the latter). Yet none of their articles mention that fact. It smacks of extreme POV to single out the Burj Dubai for such criticism, when its presence is otherwise not considered noteworthy in similar buildings.

Therefore, because the information of this section is 1.) Not sourced, 2.) Not notable, and 3.) Not NPOV, it doesn't belong in this article.Skybum 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

1. While the information in the articles are not identical, this section is based on the same themes with different facts. Wikipedia will never have identical information to its sources, that's not even the point. The fact that I provided to sources in just a few minutes from major news sources makes the notion that this section isn't sourced highly suspect. You're suggesting that this isn't a, well, unique or controversial building in anyway, which simply isn't the case.
2. There are more references out there and I've seen entire discussion boards with architects (some arm chair and some otherwise) questioning why this project is being built. The two I quoted above were the first two I could find given a few minutes. We could find more, but that's not the point, the BBC mention should be enough by itself.
3. Your note that we should have to add this section to all previous tall structures (most of which are well less than half as tall and in much more dense cities) falls flat. If you think they all need this section before we can add it here -- then by all means go ahead and add them. Nobody is singling out Burj Dubai for criticism, it just happens to be what's happening now. This is the same reason why you'll see more "controversy and critisim" on George W. Bush then you will on Abraham Lincoln.

Because of these reasons, I'm reverting. --Quasipalm 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to only be concerned about sources for this section (for which I've already provided two), why aren't you removing other sections such as "race for the top." This all started because you seemed upset that I removed speculation about the height based on nothing but a new rendering with a different vantage point, so you seem to be very biased in your application of demanding lots of varied sources.

--

The discussion of necessity has evolved quite a bit since I wrote the first comment about it. I'd like to clarify at least my own criticism of that section. In general what I meant to question was the internal logic, not something that you can get from research. While it is easy to argue whether there is a real reason to build the tower, and it would be pertinent to note such arguments if they exist, it would not be useful to reconstruct arguments that fail on terms of simple logic (unless you point out the logical shortcomings). As that section currently exists, I would have to agree that it's much better than before, but there are still some points that make it look more like idle speculation than a serious debate.

1. There are virtually no countries where the population density of the entire country has any bearing on the need to build skyscrapers. This article compares UAE to the UK, which, at a density of 246 people per square kilometer, could easily have it's population spread out into sparse one-story buildings. If there is more to this argument, it needs to be further explained in order to make any sense.
2. The population of Dubai as a total is pretty irrelavent without including the size (and therefore density), and other building restrictions of the city (geographic or otherwise).
3. The word "necessity" is far too ambiguous. It lumps together questions of profitability, space limitations, "economic necessity" (long term and short term), which are blurred together rather than separated as they should be.
4. The first sentence tries to link the decision to build the building directly with United Arab Emirates' attempts to diversify the economy, which seems an oversimplification. In reality many decisions by many entities lead to the beginning of its construction, and there could be (and most probably are) different reasons behind the decision to fund it, the decision by the government to approve it, the decision to market the idea in the first place, etc.

In addition to the above, I can't help but offer my personal opinion: The fact is that we're not just talking about the question of necessity for building a skyscraper, but for building a very tall skyscraper, which, despite all arguments presented, still seems difficult to justify in any city on terms of "need for more space". Maybe, for example, New York or Tokyo could gain a lot of space by having many tall buildings, but you have quite a bit of space to use up before you need to build a 160 story building, and, as you are likely to build only one or two of them, it really would hardly add anything to either of those city's total floor-space, relatively speaking.

If we can agree on the points above, I think it would be best to recast this section from an objective question of necessity, to a comparison of Dubai vs other cities with very tall buildings. No doubt there is some significance; Dubai has many projects underway (and some completed) that break world records and could be viewed as "extravagent". But any discussion of "necessity", it seems to me, can only survive if we include discussion of, or reference to, the known debate over whether there is any "need" to build such a building anywhere.

Cesoid 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just like to add some point not raised yet: There is a necessity, and it's to "put Dubai on the map". It will make it as notable as Kuala Lumpur got thanks to the Petronas Towers. And another necessity is "to foster tourism in the region". Just my 2 cents. Peter S. 14:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I know I'm asking for trouble here, but the incorporation of population density as part of an argument for tall buildings is proving ludicrous. I'm thinking about this quote "due to the population density of Dubai, 293.94/km², many feel that there is a justified need for such skyscrapers to be built in the city". As comparison, the city I live in, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA, has a population density of 7,278.4/km², it is 25 times more dense, and yet seems to be doing just fine having mostly buildings of 3 stories or less, and no buildings at all that could be described as a skyscraper. Just try to imagine 293 people in one square kilometer for a moment, they have so much space that if you spread them out evenly they would barely be within shouting distance. Cesoid 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Somerville, Massachusetts has a population of only 77,000 and a total land area of 10 square kilometres. --Jibran1 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So, the argument is that the low population of 77,000 somehow renders the population density irrelavent? Population density is independent of size and total population, and so are the effects of crowding. Perhaps, because Dubai has a lot of land that is impossible to develop (like water or protected nature reserve), the population is crowded much more densely into one area, but simply arguing that a population density of 293.94/km² merits skyscrapers does not make sense on its own. To put this as simply as possible, it is not dense at all, in fact, it is so not dense that I'm skeptical about the number in the first place. I'm removing that argument.

In addition, the discussion of the total population of UAE and comparison to the USA is almost incoherent in terms of relevancy, I can only imagine some very paper thin arguments as to why the total population of a country merits the building of a skyscraper. Cesoid 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

??

madinat al harir (ciyt of silk), it a visionary tower, not a real project like burj dubai. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.130.149.87 (talk • contribs) .

Labor Practice Controversy

I've removed this section, because the article cited does not make any references at all to the Burj Dubai. I also did a search for "Burj Dubai" + "labor", and could not find a single article documenting the labor practices of this specific project. Although I do think that it is very important that this controversy be documented on Wikipedia, it belongs on the Dubai page, not here -- unless evidence which relates specifically to the labor practices of the Burj Dubai can be provided. This is not a general-purpose "Construction Projects in Dubai" page, and this is not the place for general-purpose criticisms of construction projects in Dubai. Not all projects will employ the same labor practices. Thus, without specific evidence to back it up, making such claims, here, could be misleading or actually false. That said, if anyone can find well-sourced information relating specifically to labor practices used in the Burj Dubai, I would welcome including that on this page. Skybum 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of Googling. I found a source here: [10]

Prestigious projects, like the $ 4.1bn airport expansion currently underway in Dubai rely mainly on workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. These workers are cheap, usually earning fewer than $300 a month.

They can be seen operating cranes at the huge Dubai International Financial Centre, digging the foundations of what is billed to become the world's tallest tower, Burj Dubai, and operating heavy machinery on the vast man-made Palm Island.

I'll add the source. -Quasipalm 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sources are good; I'm mollified now. Skybum 02:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to mention that some workers haven't been payed for months on this page. Although it is definitely true that this does happen it doesn't necessarily apply to the burj dubai. This issue deserves a seperate article since it applies to all Dubai (and probably other gulf countries) projects in general and should only get a quick mention (ie, 1 or 2 sentences) here.

This is ridiculous. I disagree strongly with removing the labor controversy section. It is germane to the construction of Burj Dubai, and was exhaustively cited. It appears to me the reason for removing can be construed as whitewashing the article. Abe Froman 05:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- I reverted the removal. -Quasipalm 07:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly appears that someone else removed it anyways.--Patrick 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Labor claims

just for the record, these workers are employees of al naboodah construction , which is building the nearby dubai mall, while burj dubai is being built by arabtec, and its construction has in fact never stopped at all 72.129.170.249 04:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That is contrary to what is being reported in the media. The Toronto Star is reporting that "Dubai tower workers riot over low pay" [11]; the San Diego Tribune reports that "Dubai skyscraper builders riot over low salaries, poor treatment"[12]; the Houston Chronicle reports that "Workers Riot at Site of Dubai Skyscraper" [13]. And so forth. I am open to the possibility that the media has gotten the story wrong, but given how widespread this story is, any information to the contrary will need to be very well-documented. Skybum 18:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

second that. Abe Froman 18:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is due to the fact that Dubai mall is very next to burj dubai. I have friends in dubai and they report that there was not halt on burj dubai site (the construction work went on) -- the halt was on the very next door Dubai Mall 72.129.170.249 19:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The newsspapers got their facts wrong because dubai mall is next to burj dubai site .. I have confirm reports on the fact that there was no halt of work on burj dubai tower ever ... see also: "But the main contractor at the site, South Korean firm Samsung, said the action had not affected construction of the skyscraper." [14] The strike was by Al Naboodah workers. See also this fact: "The builders, who are working on towers next to the tower, are demanding better wages, overtime pay, improved medical care and better treatment from their foremen." [15] 72.129.170.249 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note this:

"The labourers have since returned to the construction site, but have refused to pick up their tools, halting work at building surrounding the Burj Dubai. " [16]

Do not put wrong information in the article ... facts are clear. There is no strike on burj dubai but the very next dubai mall 72.129.170.249 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing the quotes in that article out. You should integrate that first quote, in particular, into the "Labor Controversy" section, since it indeed contradicts the other information that is out there (including the title of the article: "Strike halts work at Dubai tower"). This counter-evidence, however, does not definitively refute the hundreds of other articles which claim that work on the actual tower was interrupted by the protests, so the section itself should certainly remain.

By the way, even if it is the case that the tower construction was unhindered while the surrounding Burj Dubai complex experienced riots, they are all integrated parts of the same development, and I think it's within the scope of this article to touch on issues that aren't 100% tower-related. If the riots had been located at some entirely different development in Dubai, then I would feel otherwise, but they weren't. Skybum 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And more

"B.J. Kim, development manager for Samsung Corp., the South Korean conglomerate that is chief contractor on the Burj Dubai, said construction of the skyscraper was moving ahead, and not affected by the labour dispute, in which builders on adjacent towers are asking for better pay and employment conditions." [17]

Where is the strike on burj dubai tower itself? There is no such thing. Strike is by Al Naboodah workers (not involved in burj dubai) who are buildings surrounding buildings and dubai mall 72.129.170.249 20:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Skybum on this:
"By the way, even if it is the case that the tower construction was unhindered while the surrounding Burj Dubai complex experienced riots, they are all integrated parts of the same development, and I think it's within the scope of this article to touch on issues that aren't 100% tower-related. If the riots had been located at some entirely different development in Dubai, then I would feel otherwise, but they weren't."
I feel that it is relevant enough for us to include the labor controversy information in the Burj Dubai article. However, I feel that it should be noted in the article that, (if proven to be correct), that this has not halted the construction of Burj Dubai, and the the following sentence should be changed till it can be verified: The labor practices used in the construction of Burj Dubai has caused controversy--Jibran1 20:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article, in the New York Times, which contradicts the BBC article: "Hundreds of workers building the Burj Dubai skyscraper chased security guards and broke into offices, smashing computers, scattering files and wrecking cars and construction machines."[18]. Where such information is contradictory, both claims should be presented. You should not simply decide that one side is right, and then attempt to erase the entire issue. You are welcome to integrate your contradictory info into the article, but please stop blanking out that section. Skybum 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As I posted the reference from two newspaper (not

mention eyewitness accounts!) that this information is incorrect. These confusion by papers is due to the fact that Dubai mall (built by totally different company) is next building to burj dubai tower. By the way, where is your proof that Burj Dubai workers are getting $4 a day and no overtime? That fact also relates to Al Naboodah company whose workers are at strike. Al Naboodah is not building burj dubai tower! Basically everything in the paragraph is incorrect. Move this to the right relevent article -- which would be Dubai Malll 72.129.170.249

I feel we are splitting hairs here. The New York Times [19] as well as other outlets claim tower workers were among the rioters. Samsung may be the general contractor, but they are certainly not the muscle. Since the disturbances took place on the Burj Dubai site itself, it is sophistry to claim the unrest is unrelated to Burj Dubai. I feel the passage should be reverted. Also, the Burj Dubai payscale was cited in a previous incarnation of this passage, but 72.129.170.249 removed the citation. Abe Froman 01:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As reported by BBC and Khalij Times (plus eyewitness accounts), the work never stopped on burj dubai and is still continuing. The claim by most of these papers are just flat out wrong. Some of these papers who were reoprting that work at the tower was halted has correccted that claim (example: BBC). The confusion was due to the fact that workers at nearby buildings went on strike -- not on burj dubai itself. How many times do you have to be told this before it sinks in your head?

"The labourers have since returned to the construction site, but have refused to pick up their tools, halting work at building surrounding the Burj Dubai. " [20]

What part of that do you not understand? Confirm eyewitness account has reported the work was never halted on the tower for any period 72.129.170.249 04:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet again: when hundreds of news articles say one thing, and one or two articles say something else, it is inappropriate to simply declare that the overwhelming majority is "flat out wrong", without much more substantial proof. Actually, in any contentious issue like this, it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide which side is correct. Rather, the article should report what people are saying about the issue rather than what "the true facts actually are". I have added some verbiage to the article which does this. Does this satisfy you? If not, then this is an issue for arbitration. Skybum 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

72, thanks for your attention to this page, but please understand that what your friends see and reported back to you is not permissable on a wikipedia. It is considered original research. Right now the majority of evidence points to the labor issues as having happened at the Burj Dubai -- a few articles to the contrary is not sufficient to overturn dozens of other articles.

As for the article being biased -- there are several sections that are highly positive, one section that is neutral (questions of necessity), and one that points out some of the troubles with labor at the site. It seems to me you insist that this article be nothing more than an advert for the Burj. -Quasipalm 07:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and wrong facts

The article has anti-dubai bigotry. Where are the sections "Questions of necessity" for all other tallest towers that have articles on Wikipedia? If no other article has that section, why this article? Also, as pointed out, there was no strike on the tower itself but adjacent buildings (also confirmed by people who see the tower daily) -- but, as we see, the guy insist that that must be included in the article just because newspapers have incorrect reports. Basically, he claims that Wikipedia must not report the facts but whatever is reported by the newspaper, regardless whether it is true or false 72.129.170.249 06:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that this article has 'anti-dubai bigotry'. There was a time that I did feel this in the 'Questions of necessity' section, and so made some changes to the article to attempt to make it more neutral, like adding the statement "However, due to the population density of Dubai, 293.94/km², many feel that there is a justified need for such skyscrapers to be built in the city." This would give a more round view, in my opinion.
Also, with no offence meant and in all due respect to you, I don't think personal eye witness accounts are a legitimate source of information on Wikipedia, as it would fall under the category of original research. The other two sources that you have mentioned seem to be noteworthy. But the fact is that there DO exist many other reputable newsworthy sources that have provided seemingly contradictory information, and I feel that it is vital that we include that information too in order to give a more round view, and so that the article includes all sides of the story.
As for the neutrality, I would just like to mention once again that the article seems fair to me as it is including both sides of the argument (which is mandatory, according to Wikipedia's policies if both arguments are supported by a considerable amount of people), and giving fair representation to each side. I, on a personal note, have lived in UAE for 19 years ((11 years in Sharjah, 9 years in Dubai) and still visit it occasionally, and feel that I have a strong bond with the place. So if there was anything non-neutral about the article, I would be one of the first ones to put a NPOV tag on it.
I truly hope hope that we can resolve this issue in a more amicable manner :) --Jibran1 07:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in the 'Questions of necessity' section, I have also added mention that some feel it is is necessary for Burj Dubai to be built "to put Dubai on the map" --Jibran1 08:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

second that. I do not see a NPOV problem with this article. Abe Froman 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I sure do. It has verifiable wrong facts as evidence was posted. (2) Where are the sections "Question of necessity' for other large towers? 72.129.170.249 18:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In the 'labor controversy' section, it is including both claims, and is reporting accurately that the majority of the papers have said that the construction of burj dubai has been affected while some have said that the construction has not been interrupted. I dont see any POV statements in the section. All claims are cited accordingly. No wehere in the section is it definitely claiming that the construction of Dubai was interrupted.
Also, I urge you to please read through the 'Questions of necessity' section carefully. It is actually more in justification of the tower being built and less criticism. Thanks --Jibran1 18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• This article states that this would be the tallest structure. But looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madinat_al-Hareer I get the following information:

The main attraction of Madinat al-Hareer, the Mubarak al-Kabir Tower will stand at 1,001 m tall, almost twice the height of the current tallest building in the world Taipei 101, which is 509m tall, and considerably taller than the world's tallest land structure, the KVLY-TV mast in North Dakota, which is 629m tall. However it would not overtake the Magnolia Tension-leg Platform, an oil rig under construction in the Gulf of Mexico, which at 1,430m will be the -world's tallest- structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Tension-leg_Platform --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.143.204 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

The Madinat Al-Hareer is estimated to take 25 years to complete, after they start construction and they're still consulting with the Kuwaiti government regarding the construction. So, Burj Dubai will be the tallest building for a loooooooong time (unless someone builds another building somewhere else).

As for the Magnolia Tension-leg Platform, I could not find an estimated completion date for the project. So its possible that it could be completed after Burj Dubai. Also, one must remember that a large position of it could be positioned underwater, which is similarly true for the current world's tallest structure, the Mars Tension-leg Platform at 990.6m. --Jibran1 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As suspected, the Mars Tension-leg Platform has 890 m (2,940 ft) of its height underwater. --Jibran1 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the 200 some of ppsm density quote... There are many cities with that same density, and more, but they have no need for such buildings, and in fact, don't even have demand for anything above 30 floors. --KCMODevin 11:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5