` What I find, reading these paragraphs, is a decidedly pro-Zayed bias. To assume that anyone who criticizes him in that article must have never went near the Middle East, or the UAE, is preposterous. My own contributions, as well as others, are based on travel and life in the UAE, as well as trustworthy sources like the BBC and Reuters, among others. Also, that he funded all those wonderful projects around the world is not in dispute. To say that it was from his own pocket, however, is ludicrous. As with all the rich Gulf leaders, their personal wealth CAME from the nation's oil wealth. Their checkbooks and the State Treasury were often indistinguishable. Nevertheless, Zayed could have easily chosen to horde the UAE's wealth only for Emiratis, but he didn't, and that is evident. As far as the propaganda pictures and TV footage Falcon44 refers to, I have seen it with my own eyes. It does not negate what he did, but it's important to edify readers that Media in the UAE is strictly controlled, and cult-worship of the ruling families was institutionalized. Again, this does not mean that Zayed was not genuinely liked and admired, but it is important to state all the facts. The simple fact is that there was not one jot of criticism allowed on the airwaves or in print. This is no great slur on Zayed or the UAE. The only 3 relatively lively and free presses in the Arab world are Lebanon, Egypt, and pre-war Kuwait. Qatar is just now experimenting with free media. Regardless, what is more evidence of a pro-Zayed bias then the systematic removal of every scrap of criticism from the article? Why do certain individuals not want the world to know that one of his weddings is recorded in the Guinness Book of Records as the most expensive ever? Why are they afraid to let people know that Zayed's ``election`` to the Presidency was by a mere group of 6 sheiks and not by a free and popular vote? All these facts were shamelessly deleted several times from the article. THAT is what I call bias. Also, you quoted one of his advisors. It is not very shocking that such a person would be overflowing with praise about his employer and benefactor. I do not consider that an objective source. That doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned. As long as it is made clear who said it, the readers can draw their own conclusions about the possible bias of the quotation.  Perhaps you should include that quotation in the article, Falcon. Also, regarding the Zayed Center, that was not my contribution, but I find it very interesting. What you mentioned about it in this talk section is very important. I look forward to you expanding on how he founded the center, and why he became disenchanted with it and withdrew his support.  Oh, incidentally, it would be a great help if you, and all contributors, made use of the ``edit summary`` section so that the rest of us can more efficiently keep track of who added/deleted what and for what reason. Thanks. `