Talk:Jafar (Aladdin)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone do something about this

Without the image we won't know how Jafar REALLY looks like.

]

Flight category

Resolved

I placed it here because he practically flew in the animation and video games (as a sorcerer and after he became a genie, not sure about Kingdom Hearts though). The category was removed by TheBlazikenMaster. Since he can fly by some use of power (see category description) I do not understand why the category has to be taken off. Can we get consensus here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain, he is really more floating than flying.

talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think the difference is that huge.

Genie has been seen doing both (if you count the shape-changing). BTW, what powers does Jafar possess in Kingdom Hearts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I still disagree. But we need more people joining this discussion. Only us two simply ain't working.

talk) 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for being month late, but I am getting a third opinion.

talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I undid your edit. You acted as if I didn't give good arguements and examples while never answering my questions. And we'll need thoughts from several editors, not just only one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying your arguments suck, you do make good ones, but this is a whole article, more people need to be in this discussion in order for the problem to be resolved. It can't be solved just by two people. What unanswered questions are you referring to by the way?

talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This one, for starters. Simply put, when he becomes a genie he is seen using the ability moreso than when he was a wizard. If it was something akin to a one-time event like, say, Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell am I going to reply to a question of a game I never play?

talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay,

calm down. A simple "I don't know. I've never played the game, sorry." would have sufficed. And the characters I presented in my edit summary here, can't their levitational powers relate to Jafar's? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I get your point. But I still think more people should join this discussion.

talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yet, may I have an answer to the second question? Even better, make a YouTube video, that is, if you'd prefer. That would be interesting to watch, but it's your decision. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see completely the point now. He is flying when Abis Mal releases him for the first time, maybe not much, but it still counts. I believe this discussion has been resolved. After thinking about it, Jafar can fly, he does more than just floats.

Awww, no YouTube? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can find that myself. Jafar Kingdom Hearts would be the perfect tags for me. If you wanna discuss with me about some YouTube videos, please try to discuss it ON YouTube, my YouTube account is BlazikenMaster, we don't want to fill this discussion page with YouTube discussions, believe me.

talk) 19:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually wanted you to answer my second question on a YouTube video made by you, not link a video game. Sorry for not stating it explicitly. I forgot my YouTube account name and password so I might just make another one. In the meantime, make a video responding to me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been solved, I don't have anything else to say. Neither here or in a YouTube video.

talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I know. It was just for fun but I guess we should go our separate ways. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to tag this discussion, which I am doing in this edit.

talk) 20:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

'Biggest regret' certainly makes it fine to say 'biggest regret in his career' (heck, he may have meant his life too). What I don't understand is the source of the 'top three biggest regrets of his life'. This isn't mentioned at all, where is the source for this? If someone can't find one, I think that last part should be taken out. Saying 'career' is fine I guess, even if he didn't specify it it is probably the context in which he meant it. Tyciol (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is we don't know if he meant it literally. Several people call all sorts of mistakes the biggest mistakes of their lives, how do we know it's REALLY his bigger regret?

talk) 12:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Can't think of a citation for that last sentence so maybe we should leave that out. Any thoughts? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What citations are you talking about? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, how about the ones I just provided. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't citations. This is you looking at the film, taking quotes from the character, and drawing your own conclusions based on them. That is the definition of

secondary sources that have done these kind of analyses of the character, then you can add their findings with citations to those sources. But the film itself is a primary source, and when you insert your own interpretation of a primary source, you're doing original research. It doesn't matter how many quotes from the film you provide. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Furthermore, IllaZilla I haven't included any psychological analysis in the above description. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you have: you called him a megalomaniac, an emotional sadist, and prone to impulsive behavior. And the comparison you're making to stating that someone is male or female is not the same thing. You can say "Jafar is male", "Jafar is the sultan's advisor", or "Jafar has facial hair" because these are objective facts that are explicitly verified by the primary source. However, making analytical and synthetic claims like "Jafar is portrayed as a megalomaniac who will not hesitate to destroy anyone he perceives as a threat to his own sinister designs. He wears a metaphorical mask of normalcy throughout the film, establishing himself as a cool-headed schemer" is different. This is your own analylsis of the character that is not easily or explicitly verified by the primary source. You need to quote some other sources to support those claims. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megalomania is as I have stated before, not a mental illness, it's a personality trait. It's the same with impulsive behaviour and emotional sadism. I really fail to see why we are not allowed to make any comments about his personality, no matter how obvious they are. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because of

WP:VERIFY? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

IllaZilla seems to suffer from a deep-rooted hatred of psychiatry. Personally I think he or someone close to him was given poor or unreliable advice from a psychiatrist in the past perhaps with unfortunate consequences. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do us all a favor and lay off the

WP:NOR exists and why your original research is, and will continue to be, constantly reverted; again, not just by me. The fact is that this is an encylopedia, and while constructive contributions are welcome, it's been made quite clear to you that unsourced analysis & synthesis of primary source material is not only not welcome, but is against one of our core policies. If you choose to ignore this, I'm afraid you're going to find it very difficult to get others to assume good faith on your behalf. Your flippant attitude about it isn't ingratiating anyone to your way of thinking, either. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Firstly you misspelled "favour." Secondly I haven't made any personal attacks against you, I've just accused you of having a hatred of psychiatry which some people do. Furthermore, WP:Synthesis is indeed a completely ignorable and unnecessary policy and if my opinion doesn't represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community then maybe said consensus needs to be changed. Encyclopedias are like intuitive organisms. Sooner or later they need to evolve. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't misspell 'favour', he just spelt it the American way. Don't tell him off for spelling differently! 90.192.200.221 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia has evolved. It has evolved to the point where it excludes original research of any kind. That is a policy that was written and refined over several years of discussion and consensus-building. It's not going to change just because you don't agree with it, and frankly you need to either accept it and work within its guidelines or simply stop editing Wikipedia. Your opinion is vastly in the minority on this issue, and you've been active on Wikipedia long enough, and been spoken to by enough other editors, to be well aware of this. And yes, you did engage in personal attacks. On Wikipedia, personal attacks include "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." One would think that being blocked for personal attacks and uncivil edits due to your above comment would have made that point rather clear. Since you don't seem to respond well to any type of constructive discussion, I'm going to lay this out plainly: If you continue to blatantly ignore core policies which have been explained to you multiple times, including inserting your own analysis or synthesis of primary sources without references, I am going to take the issue to

RfC. With that said, I consider this conversation over. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

All Americans spell favour wrong due to their morbid phobia of the letter "u." Furthermore, the encyclopedia may well have evolved to the point that it excludes original research of any kind but bear in mind that sometimes you have to tear down to rebuild and that's what I intend to do. Tear down. My opinion might be in the minority, but I'm still right. And that won't change because people don't agree with me and eventually they will. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the attitude that's just going to get you continually reverted & blocked: "Everyone disagrees with me, but I still think I'm right, so I'm going to continue to flout policy and consensus until people do things the way I think they should be done." If you continue down that road, you're basically just taunting people to ban you, and eventually they will. If that's really the way you think, then I'm quite certain that Wikipedia is not the place for you and will be better off without your contributions. Arrogance and egotism are detrimental to a collaborative environment and we are all better off without them. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a major editor for articles like this, but it seems to me a pic for his Genie form would help the article along a bit, as his transformation is a big part of the character. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find one. The Clawed One (talk)

About that, I don't see why the style guide have to be ignored. Of course,

Calling those who disagree with you 'ignorant' does nothing but weaken your argument. Please quote the relevant line from that guideline; none of them that I see mandate linking to a (notated) page in a hatnote that only redirects to an unnotated disambig page. seresin ( ¡? )  06:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think it makes much more sense to link to the actual page rather than the redirect. I mean, come now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you folks are suggesting that because the redirect is being "erroneously" utilised in a

I'd be more inclined to accept your precedent, if you weren't the one who isresponsible for every singleoneofthem. Try again. seresin ( ¡? )  07:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's this, which Sesshomaru is not responsible for -- it's my own most recent application of the guideline. Please, use (disambiguation) redirects for intentional links to disambiguation pages, even if the original request to do so was insulting. Using the redirect helps editors who work on repairing links to disambiguation pages -- they can use "What links here" on a base-name dab page and immediately skip over the incoming links to the (disambiguation) link. This is the point of the

WP:INTDABLINK guideline. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

While Sesshomaru's intemperate comments often make civil discussion difficult, he is correct in this case. As JHunterJ describes, this is common practice. older ≠ wiser 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a link of the form [[Ja'far|Ja'far (disambiguation)]] to prevent the redirect and comply with the guideline? Would that make everyone happy? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That doesn't comply with the guideline, mainly because it presents the same problem to disambig-link repairers: piping the link to the base name means that it shows up in "What links here" as a direct link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also

WP:R#NOTBROKEN. Even outside of the disambiguation space, there is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, the rationale is that there should not be any direct links to disambiguation pages (or stated differently, any direct links to a disambiguation page are mistaken). older ≠ wiser 14:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, fair enough. But I would note that there are some cases where redirects should not be linked to; "unprintworthy", I think we call them. But that's not applicable here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, if a link to a redirect should be changed, it's because there's some additional reason beyond "it's just a redirect". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be barking up the wrong tree entirely but just thought to mention: could it be possible that the name 'Jafar' is at all influenced by Mir Jafar of 18th century Bengal, a traitor who, for intents and purposes placed the throne of Bengal into British hands. Really don't know but just thought to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.83.99 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Genie (Disney) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on