Talk:Asmahan

Recent edits

Nefer Tweety reverted the entire article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys edit, not caring about edits made by several people [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Supreme Deliciousness is presently under disciplinary probation for one year for edit warring and other violations specifically related to Asmahan and other articles. On 20 December, Supreme Deliciousness returned to his old ways of making biased and inflammatory edits into Asmahan to promote his POV and Syrian agenda while claiming copyright violation about any text does not suit his agenda. There's no more copyright violation, the article had been rebuilt by Arab Cowboy without any copyright violations while Cactus Writer was closely watching. Supreme Deliciousness's probation must be enforced as well as the probation on Asmahan and he had better leave this article alone. I am dedicating my time on Wikipedia to protecting Egypt related articles from Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism. Nefer Tweety (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was "inflammatory" about the edit SD made? nableezy - 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

administrative prohibition

SD and AC have been warring over this article for a long time and SD took it to arbitration. As a result, on 15 Dec, SD was “prohibited from making changes to any article (specifically this one) about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality.” SD’s edits of 20 Dec. are the same as those he had made prior to his prohibition. SD’s latest edits, exactly as before his prohibition, are intended to dilute Asmahan's Egyptian nationality in favor of a Syrian one, which is a violation of his prohibition. He's inviting more edit wars and he should therefore be blocked at least for the remaining period of his prohibition as stated. He has been advised by the admins to leave this article alone and focus on others, but he is not complying. He's also changing his input on the Discussion page after people have responded to it! Nefer Tweety (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with SDs edit? nableezy - 06:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@Nefer Tweety, the edits by Supreme Deliciousness that you reverted were mostly minor and non-controversial -- and were opened for discussion on the talk page by Supreme Deliciousness as is dictated by their editing restriction. It is proper to first address them there. Although the change of the section titles might be interpreted as a violation of SD's restrictions -- the change (Egypt's influence on Asmahan's career to Egypt's influence) is certainly borderline if not completely neutral. It certainly did not warrant a blanket reversion which reintroduced copyright infringing text, as well as deleted grammar and MOS edits by several editors such as these [2], [3], [4] and [5]. In examining SD's edits, I did not find any of them to be in violation of NPOV.

I want to remind both Nefer Tweety and Supreme Deliciousness that on probationary articles, all editors are expected to take extra precautions to maintain neutrality and civility -- this is especially true for "involved editors" (Nefer Tweety, you are also named as involved in the content dispute). Your statement that "I am dedicating my time on Wikipedia to protecting Egypt related articles from Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism" is pointy. And calling content edits "vandalism" is a violation of Decorum and WP:CIVIL. Please do not make any more blanket reversions here, use the talk page to discuss content issues and refrain from further personal attacks. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cactus, the blanket reversion was inadvertent as I later pointed out in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&action=historysubmit&diff=333743399&oldid=333098076 . I removed the alleged copyright violations before you pointed them out. By "vandalism" I meant "agenda". Because of SD's history, his edits on this and closely related articles will always be controversial and he had better leave them alone. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That is unacceptable. You can not just oppose an edit because of who made it. Say what exactly is wrong with the edit in question. nableezy - 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

corrections

1. This sentence is false "Asmahan was asked to sing in the aristocratic family celebrations, and to get their support, she felt obligated to sing songs of tribute to Egypt and its rulers." In the source (Syrian or Egyptian? section) it says: "since she and other singers were dependent upon the Egyptian elites, as were the recording studios. They were required to sing songs of praise for the king and his line and other songs with republican themes.".. so there is nothing in the source that says that she was "asked to sing in any aristocratic family celebrations" or that she "felt obligated".. the sentence should instead be "To get the support from Egypts highest class, Asmahan was obligated to sing tribute songs about Egypt and its rulers.

1a. I do not see a major difference between the meaning in the source and that in the article. Just leave as is. Medjool (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

SD, the neutral proper way to paraphrase the source is: 'Since singers and studios depended on the elites, Asmahan had to sing songs praising the royal family.'

Your phrasing sounds ever so slightly nuanced towards a critical position with regard to Egypt and its elites.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal looks good.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit: [6] now it seems like something gets lost, "songs with republican themes", (nationalist themes) this means songs about Egypt, and should be added. Also to make clear "Egyptian royal family" should be added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

2. In the "Early life" section the sentence should be "Asmahan later recalled her childhood years in Jabal al-Druze as "untouched by anything truly bad" as had been removed by AC here. The reason for this is because that is what it says in the source p36, "told her friend and admirer al-Tabai about her childhood in the mountains of the druze". AC removed it claiming it was a copyright violation in his edit summary, but obviously it wasn't since the copyright admin who helped out had okeyed it[7] and after suggested it:[8]

Note: It needs to be noted that "her childhood in the Jabal/or Suwayda" has already been agreed over with two previous mediators, with Diaa: [9] with al ameer: 1c,[10][11] and after this, copyright expert admin Cactus had rewritten it [12] [13] and even then AC removed it on the claim that it was "copy violations" [14] and then later at the arbitration workshop, AC presented a half quote from the book and had now changed his previous position that it was a "copyright violation" and instead claimed her "childhood in the Jabal" was "erronoues" - against what several mediators had said: [15] in that link he also says: "the sources state:"... yet he did not ad these sentences from the same page: "p36:"Asmahan told her friend and admirer al-Tab`i about her childhood in the mountains of the Druze." "The family had a servant to help with the children, who were allowed to play pretty much where they willed. A large stone house blended in with the local surroundings, dominated as they were by the gray and stony landscape." p38: "aerial bombardment of the al-Atrash home in al-Qrayya". So this was how AC removed her "childhood in the Jabal" from the article, against several mediations, mediators and inputs from third part admins.

2a. P. 36 is not viewable online (at least I could not see it), so how could your claim be verified? Medjool (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Asmahan later recalled her childhood years in Jabal al-Druze as "untouched by anything truly bad" looks okay. It is not a copyright violation. That one editor cannot view it online is not grounds for removing it. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually he could see it, editing from his sockpuppet he said that he could not see that page but from his main account he had previously talked about that same page: Bottom: [16] 1c: [17] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

3. In the "Early life" section the "and then to Beirut" after Damascus as added here should be removed. The reason for this is because the chronology of the text is wrong that way. As I have shown above, ACs claim of copyright violations in his edit summary are incorrect since it was the copyright admin who suggested it [18]. On page 38 in AS it says that they fled to Damascus and then Fahd ordered her back from there, and then after this they moved to Beirut. In the last sentence of the early life section it is already written that they moved to Beirut after Damascus, that is the correct order.

Note: This sentence was also agreed in previous mediation with al ameer: [19] "Alia fled with her children for Damascus and refused to return". Then later okeyed by plagiarism expert admin Cactus [20] [21] After this AC ads "Beirut" right after Damascus, when Beirut is already written later on so its becomes factually incorrect, on claims that it was a "copyright violation":[22] when it obviously was not since Cactus had cleared it.

3a. The way it reads now in the article does not imply that Fahd ordered her back from Beirut, it's a different sentence. Just leave as is. Medjool (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

4. The sentence "but after finding out the french was looking for them there they went on" (to Haifa) as can be seen removed here should be re added, it is sourced p38 and explains why they moved from Beirut.

4a. I do not find any mention of Haifa on p. 38 that you mention. Just leave as is. Medjool (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"but after finding out the french was looking for them there they went on" This should read: 'but, after discovering the French were searching for them there, they relocated to Haifa.'Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

5. This is a sentence that should be removed from the article: "Biographies of Asmahan suggest she was happier being an Egyptian than a Syrian." The reason for this is because it is not following the source which is: "though her biography insinuates that she was happier in her Egyptian incarnation than in her Syrian homeland" AS p19 ... and also its a pov statement from the author of AS and is not something factual.

5a. You are splitting hairs on all of these points! The statement is properly sourced and is well composed and you should leave it alone. Please look at Coptic Identity where someone had copied almost an entire speech by a bishop, which clearly represents that bishop's POV! Medjool (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

6. In the personal life section there is an alleged direct quotation from the author of the book: "Asmahan Tells Her Story." - ""she loved Egypt and wanted to return to it,"" (the book does not exit in Google books so therefore I cant see the page in that book).. This is a pov statement from the author of that book and not something factual. A couple of sentences before this it is written: "Asmahan missed her career and the life she had lived in Cairo" (I can not see that page in the book) and in the sentence after the one I first mentioned it says "In her final confrontation with her cousin at Mena House Hotel in Giza, she told him, "I stood with you for independence and liberation, I did. But, I was created for another purpose. I prefer the work of Farid, and the work of Umm Kulthum, and of art." So it is almost the same thing repeated at least three times after each other. The first one should be removed based on that it is not a statement from Asmahan but an alleged pov statement by an author, and previously, a confirmed statement from another author was removed based on that: [23] "it was the Jabal Druze that had imprinted itself as "home" on her consciousness"

6a. I cannot tell if there's any violation and I do not see any repetition three times. You are not making a point. Medjool (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

'This is a pov statement from the author of that book and not something factual.' A dangerous thing to argue. We cite reliable sources, which sometimes go astray. If you can find other sources that deny the statement well and good. If you don't personally like it, you can preface it with 'according to...'Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, there are several problems with this, the first one is that the book isn't available to view online, and also considering what kind of person who added this:[24] how can we know if that is actually what is written in the book?, and its an alleged quote, its not paraphrased, and it is already written in the same section that "Asmahan missed her career and the life she had lived in Cairo" and "I stood with you for independence and liberation, I did. But, I was created for another purpose. I prefer the work of Farid, and the work of Umm Kulthum, and of art.", so isn't that really it? why is the same thing repeated three times after each other? And also if that sentence is to stay in the article, shouldn't the sentence as I mentioned above that "she saw Jabal al-Druze as her home" be re added since that sentence was removed from the article based on the same reasoning that I suggested the removal of the "she loved Egypt and wanted to return to it," sentence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid one must take on trust a citation, even if one distrusts the other editor. If you suspect a manipulation, then put on a page, or email around, a request that someoe with access to the physical book check it. Your interlocutor reverted you on the grounds of distrust, which was improper. By the same token, you should not imitate that suspicion in dismissing his edits. If a passage is repeated, then clearly one must simply decide where in the text the statement is to be relocated or fixed, and then remove the other one or two repetitions. There is no problem in removing repetitions, technically. If 'she saw Jabal al-Druze' is in the source, then nothing should stop you from confidently reinserting it there.

I'm neutral on this, I hope, but one word of advice. All peoples claim some special sense of identity, which makes them sensitive to anything that might sound as though it were underplaying their local, national dignity. That is a wholly human sentiment. But the world has 6000 tribes, and they interact. Many, indeed the most creative people, embrace many identities, that of their past and others they acquire in a cosmopolitan life. Identity is, in such people,never parochial and cannot be reduced to the chance circumstances of birth. James Joyce was Irish to the core, but he adopted, among many others, a Triestine identity, wrote the dialect, and we of Irish descent do not feel as though this added dimension diminishes his origins. Shakespeare was a provincial from Warwickshire with no notable class about in his origins. He rose to imitate, articulate and perhaps, in his manners, embody the rich court culture of the London metropolis. Nature gives us a provincial origin, culture allows us to embrace a larger world.Nishidani (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If I see no objections to my proposals on your edits in a few days, I will, if you make a specific request for each on my page, proceed to edit them in, unless Peter or Nableezy steps in in the meantime to edit them on your behalf. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Late me make this very clear, what ever edits you or Peter or anyone else does is edits which you will have to undertake of your own volition. I can not ask you to do anything. I was blocked previously for a misunderstanding when an admin thought I asked Nableezy to carry out edits for me, and I do not want that to happen again. I have now asked the drafter of the arbitration case if I can invite a neutral editor to take a look at these corrections, so whatever changes you or anyone else wants to do, is what you yourself see as the correct change and you will have to do it on your own behalf. I will reply to the proposal issues later today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the sentence "she loved Egypt and wanted to return to it," is a repeat of two other sentences next to it, what do you suggest should happen with that sentence? I suggest that because it is a repeat, that it is to be removed, I would also like you to reply to nr 3, nr 5 and nr 8 of these corrections. The nr 5 is also a statement from the author and I do not believe it has been copy edited correctly, if either one of the nr 5 or nr 6 sentences is to stay, then I suggest that the sentence that she saw Jabal al Druze as her home to be re added to the article in the early life section, and that it is to be sourced from p36 in the Asmahan Secrets book: [25] as it was removed on the reasoning that: "That is an interpretation by the author" while other interpretations by authors (5 and 6) would not be removed on the same basis. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

7. This sentence is false and should be removed, in "Egypt's influence" section: "Asmahan was regarded as "a sophisticated foreigner, a binational, or a trans-national" by her own clan" on p95 in AS it says: "For the singer was in many ways a sophisticated "foreigner" to her own home province-a bi national, or a transnationals we might now say."... it is a sentence straight from the author and is not something of any factual value. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong on this. The sentence is of factual value. Of course, 'clan' for 'home province' is unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So what do you suggest here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

7a. Obviously this sentence is not false as it is supported by the source and you mention that yourself. You are either not telling the truth or there's something fishy here. I will look at the rest of the comments later. Medjool (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

8. In the early life section just before the "Following the Adham Khanjar incident" there should be something about that the family returned to Jabal al-Druze after king Faysals defeat: p81 [26] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

These replys here above were made by Arab Cowboys sock puppet, the strike out of them shouldn't be removed, it must be shown what kind of account that has made these edits: [27] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy has no sockpuppet. Arab Cowboy attempted a clean start using a new account to get rid of you and your sick stalking. It’s not for you to delete other people’s edits. Nefer Tweety (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins have already concluded that the Medjool account is ACs sockpuppet:[28][29] the Medjool account is still labeled as such and ACs extended restriction has not been lifted. So please, do not continue to remove the strike outs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, there has been a very long dispute on this article and it ended up in arbitration. If you or Peter would like to edit Asmahan again on behalf of SD, then let's open this whole issue for public debate again... or it will be another round of meatpuppetry. Nefer Tweety (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is editing on my behalf, I am presenting corrections with sources, neutral editors can review and take responsibility for, and do whatever edits they themselves feel the sources support. Many of these corrections are things that has already been agreed repeatedly during past mediations but has been edit warred away to the wrong version.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is public. SD is entitled to edit this talk page and present sources, any other editor is free to make any changes they feel the sources support. Stop focusing on SD and start focusing on the sources. nableezy - 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made three edits, after looking at several issues raised by SD. Some others may also have merit, but my admittedly brief examination of the material via googling does not permit me, as yet, to venture an opinion either way. James Joyce was Irish, and became cosmopolitan. Eliot an American, who tried to be English. Who gives a fuck? We read them for their fiction and poetry, which is above both their culture of origins, and their assumed identities. Anyone whose sense of national identity is stronger to his or her individual curiosity about the world should ponder the question whether an Englishman, merely by that token of chance birth, has greater claims on Shakespeare than an a Japanese (Tsubouchi Shōyō, for example). Don't be so insecure about yourselves as to stake claims on such trifles. An Egyptian should edit in a way appreciative of the Syrian contribution to its song history, and a Syro-Lebanese/Druze edit recognizing the importance of Egypt as a launching pad for Asmahan's larger career. Culture is generous, not possessive.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

ps. who stuffed up the birth and death notices, about her being born in the Mediterranean sea and dying in the Nile? This is not supposed to be a venue for editors with a genius for comedy. You can say 'born at sea' ion English, you cannot say 'born at Mediterranean sea', except if you have an ear fashioned out of a sheriff's tinbadge. Adding that she died 'in the Nile' is ridiculous. Just eliminate the river, otherwise the whole intro sounds like it is striking up a water motif.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone might like to add her name to List of people born at seaNishidani (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy

Arab Cowboy has been banned from editing both this article and this talk page, as well as all pages under the scope of the article's arbitration. This ban shall last until 15 June 2010. NW (Talk) 21:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness

Supreme Deliciousness has been caught using meatpuppetry to edit this page as confirmed on this page in violation of his topic ban. Users are cautioned to not edit on Supreme Deliciousness's behalf. Nefer Tweety (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I talked with the drafter of the arbitration case Wizardman, I explained to him that when I previously got blocked was because of a misunderstanding. He has now told me that I am allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at points of correction I have posted at the talkpage.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not editing on his behalf. nableezy - 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's please focus on the subject and stop accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. A very recent CU revealed no single sign of sockpuppetry from anyone (Medjool's case excluded). Also, there's no apparent "editing on anyone's behalf" although I could notice a problematic persistence on the ethnicity/nationality of a couple of singers. Those are signs of wp:SPA. At least, if you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources and stop accusations.

So please, why not discuss your sources, arguments and everything you have here and let other experienced contributors such as Nishidani, Nableezy and others help with advising and editing? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)