Jump to content

Talk:Sulaiman Al-Fahim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calling himself a Dr

[edit]

Someone keeps reverting the criticism section regarding his use of the honorific Dr. It is not just a matter of him calling himself a Dr, it is that he claims to have a PhD in something that doesn't exist. Please stop erasing this, unless you can find something to dispute what the New York Times is saying. TastyCakes (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-CEO

[edit]

Does someone have a source for his being the ex-CEO? It refers to him as the CEO in the Infobox, and the ex-CEO in the lead. Neither claim appears sourced, and all the links I can find are old ones that refer to him as the current CEO. --ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Here's the citations and more information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sanity/Stop the Edit war

[edit]

Yes, Jessica Hoy's version of the article is breaking NPOV in the positive direction, but the original version is doing so in the negative direction and has less up to date information (which is *the* critical point: if she(?) hadn't added new information I'd say we should work from the old version and try to make it match NPOV). Rather than reverting back over and over, will people please rewrite the overly rosy but more informative changes made by Jessica Hoy to a less biased, but just as informative version? I made a stab at it in the Education section which, as you may note, Jessica is leaving in place, because it conveys the facts without a strong negative or positive slant. For those who disagree with the slant of the rest of her edits, please feel free to rewrite them in a more neutral tone, but don't keep reverting. It's not constructive, and it will eventually lead to page protection if this goes on much longer. Please assume good faith here; Jessica does not appear to be trying to damage the article, and there are legitimate gripes to be made about the slant of either version. The solution is not an all or nothing no holds barred edit war; please try and reach a good compromise state. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if anyone disagrees with the information Jessica Hoy has provided, you should feel free to fact check it and rewrite it or tag it with citation needed tags. If it's at all controversial and unsourced, you may delete that portion of the article in line with WP:BLP, but ideally it would be best to find references where possible. But please say why you are doing it, and limit your changes to the offending sections. "I disagree" is not sufficient cause to throw away *all* of the work that Jessica Hoy has done. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is adding some valid information, but there is a lot of NPOV. I actually think it will be easier to work in the information from the neutral version, instead of having to rip apart the POV version that Hoy seems to be blindly reverting to at the moment. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested help from WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN. Hopefully some altruistic editor with more time on their hands than I've got can help clean up the article for NPOV while keeping the new information (the old version of the article is unacceptably out of date IMO). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section regarding the UN in the header blurb is not required. It makes it sound like he is part of the UN, when in fact there seems to be controversy about whether the IMSAM is ratified by the UN at all.

In the ‘Education’ section, the NY Times actually found he only has one MBA from Kogod.

In most of the ‘Arab Union for Real Estate Development’ and ‘Charity’ sections, a blog site has been used as the reference. There is far too much POV used in this version, the version should be reverted back to the previous form and added to in a correct manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bazzinator (talk • contribs)

I think the entire issue was that the original was not neutral and ShadowRanger was helping to tailor both version so it sounded like an encyclopedia entry and not biased either way. If there are editing issues please work on it and we can find a middle ground. Jessica hoy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've given this a bit of a rewrite. Among other things I've removed bits from that blog source, and any WP:SYNTH (i.e. assumed causal relations) and reworded the rest. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with your rewrite and added a few reputable sources that can help to give both sides of the Hydra story. Thank you for your efforts Jessica hoy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop reverting back to your old post instead of working with a reqrite and neutral tone. If you have an issue please explain in discussion instead of just reverting back. Saying things like "claimed" to have a charity when there is no evidence except that having the charity is a legitimate claim sets a biased tone. Also, removing information defending the Hydra position that is in a reputable source (in fact the same article you are quoting to discuss the controversy) is also a blatant effort to only show one side of the argument 173.79.61.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you continue to delete what I enter? Please explain, for some reason discussion has stopped and I am not receiving any response to this. I have entered what the Wiki editor sanctioned from my submissions. Sayin that someone "claimed" to start a charity when the only evidence indicates that they have is spinning a story to not look credible when it is. Jessica hoy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If you note the changes, I did not re-add the "claimed" charity bit in my edit. In my recent edit I removed the two parts.
  • That a "A lawyer speaking for Al-Fahim has stated that he received two M.B.A.'s"
  1. The lawyer was an employer of Hydra (of which Al-Fahim was CEO!)
  2. the passage of text as it stands does not dispute his MBAs, only his PhD so there is no need to affirm it (especially from a dubious source)
  • That part about "These price increases were defended by Hydra as operating both within the law and within the signed investor contracts. Hydra stressed that investors were kept fully informed of project improvements at all times since they signed their contracts"
That bit is an unnecessary repetition of the "but Hydra Properties stressed that all customers were fully informed of proceedings." text that is already present.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An accredited lawyer is in fact an accurate source by law - not at all dubious. Legally the lawyer would need to disclose all accurate information - this includes stating the MBAs and not a PhD.

Additionally, in the Hydra section I have added the extra lines which give greater detail into the other side of the story. If the negative/attack receives a paragraph of explanation/why can't the defense be stated in an extra sentence. As long as your earlier line is removed so as not to be redundant, this is a much more neutral tone and balanced representation of the issue. Jessica hoy (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An accredited lawyer is an accurate source by law and not at all dubious? I'm sorry? There is no indication under what circumstances the lawyer made the comments, where the comments were made or in what context he made the comments. If he made those comments in a court, you might be closer to being correct. But you are suggesting that lawyers never make false statements, in any circumstances, which is just silly. I don't think it's appropriate to take the word of an unnamed lawyer in the employ of Mr. Al-Fahim over the word of more traditional sources (ie the schools he attended). That all said, I agree it looks ok now. TastyCakes (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument has been over relevance more than veracity. It doesn't matter if he has five hundred Master's degrees, he still lacks a doctorate of any kind, so insisting on the title "Dr." is kind of priggish. Since Al-Fahim himself has claimed the Ph.D. and never retracted it publicly, a lawyer that says he has two M.B.A.s is tangential unless he was explicitly saying the Al-Fahim does *not* claim a Ph.D. I'm sure the lawyer was telling the absolute truth, and Al-Fahim has two M.B.A.s. I'm equally sure he intentionally avoided making any statement as to the Ph.D. since his choices were to contradict his boss or to lie.
That said, it's a single throwaway line that takes little space and has no particular POV associated with it (I should know, having written it). If it keeps people happy, and adds information (however irrelevant to the preceding lines), I'm fine with it. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All true, and hopefully everyone is fine with leaving that snippet the way it is. It gets across the important information and does it in a reasonably unbiased manner. TastyCakes (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sulaiman Al-Fahim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Portsmouth F.C Part

[edit]

Hi, can you please change this part - Al Fahim was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail for stealing £5 million from his wife to fund the purchase of Portsmouth. He doesn't have penal provisions and is not wanted.

Attached are some proofs that simply state and prove that Al Fahim is not wanted and don't have cases to date. [1] Cristina0987 (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Uploaded pdfs are not reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ شهادات لمن يهمه الأمر من النيابات الإتحادية -trs

Portsmouth material about reported theft.

[edit]

There seems to be a dispute going back years on this. I wouldn't call it out and out vandalism. Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)ps, here is the citation [1].--Malerooster (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

[edit]

Article has a long history of being edited by COI editors, probably undeclared paid editors. I am adding the undeclared paid tag and the promotional in tone tag to the article --VVikingTalkEdits 13:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

[edit]

Undo this edit which whitewashes information about Al-Fahim's conviction and turns this into a promotional article. 87.200.229.111 (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's already mentioned in the article's body. If you believe that it belongs in the lead section, then I suggest you start a discussion about it and seek consensus for it. M.Bitton (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sulaiman_Al-Fahim&oldid=1238918552"