Talk:Badr Jafar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Badr Jafar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United Arab Emirates Mid‑importance

	United Arab Emirates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review the proposed changes

Dear wiki-community, please find my sandbox draft for updating the current page. Here is a link Padnetotoigh (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peaceray, @Knatz-12 and @Hocikre, please, review and approve my suggested edits to the article? Padnetotoigh (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Padnetotoigh I’ve cleaned up the draft and made the updates to the page Hocikre (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hocikre, did you take my draft into account when updating the article? Because I can't find some of the data I prepared for the article. Padnetotoigh (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources

I spent more time substituting some primary sources and removed a dozen of them as they were extra and there were enough reliable sources. A small part was removed that was supported only by the primary source. Hocikre (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the content you restored is reliably sourced and none of it meets WP:DUE. This is promotional CV-style content written by PR firms of no interest to any readers. If you want to restore this content, which was authored by PR personnel, seek consensus for it. Thenightaway (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August Updates

@Thenightaway, Per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Restored sourced routine biographical facts; please discuss specific sentences you believe are promo rather than reverting to your preferred version. Hocikre (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not how any of this works. If you want to add specific content to the article that other editors contest, you need to seek consensus for it. You do not repeatedly restore the content in the absence of consensus. The long-standing version of the article should be the status quo until you get consensus for the PR firm content that you keep edit-warring back into the article. Thenightaway (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the draft article carefully in the previous discussion and removed material that could be read as promotional, making the text neutral. I also searched for and added additional sources. I did not copy anything.

No other editors have raised objections to this version. If you would like changes, it would be helpful to explain them here so that consensus can be reached before restoring an alternative version. Please be specific and don’t just restore your earlier version with fewer sources under the claim of addressing puffery. Hocikre (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits

Just to explain: I removed the old tag, which no longer serves any purpose, as the main contributor has kept it on the page for over two years and discouraged anyone from editing it, while also trimming random content and often refusing to engage in discussion. I took the liberty, as a courtesy, to correct this. Hocikre (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the content on this page was written by a string of COI accounts and sockpuppets. The PR content you keep edit-warring into the article (against consensus) violates NPOV. Until the article has been cleaned up, the long-standing tag should remain. Thenightaway (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content was written by a COI disclosed account, and of course, I know it, that's why I took the liberty to rewrite and trim it and make it look normal. I edited dozens and dozens and read thousands of articles, and I cannot find here in the latest version you reverted to why it should not be kept. Only the fact that you like some other version slightly more. It's interesting how you pick the previous history of the COI Edis and justify your current edits with its help. NPOC is not violated, and I will keep insisting until because usage of words like puffery or previous accounts is not helpful. I will follow Wikipedia:Be bold rule. Again, the content you call I keep edit-warring has been cleaned up by me and I see no consensus which I may violate. Interesting thing, I need to highlight regarding the long-standing tag - there is no rule about this, and the fact that you reinstated your version with this tag is not helping the page as you admit the content is not neutral. So why return to the not neutral version with this tag if only to follow this Wikipedia:Gaming the system, which strongly discouraged. Hocikre (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]