Talk:Asmahan

some issues

Hey cactus, I have added some texts, but there are problems with sources nr 7, there is some kind of error.

Also there are two things I would like to ad, they both resemble the source very much and I cant figure out how to rewrite them any better so I wanted to check with you first and maybe you can come with your own suggestion. My example: "The dependence on the Egyptian elite forced Asmahan and other singers to sing praising songs for the king and of national themes."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 13: quote "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."

my example "She always mentioned her father and Sultan al-Atrash to clarify her ancestry—once saying to a friend: "Don't you know who I am? Why I am the daughter of Fahd al Atrash and cousin to the Amir al Atrash and the Druze revolutionary hero Sultan al-Atrash."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 37: "Later in her life, Asmahan always refereed to her relative, Sultan al-Atrash, along with her father, to assert her lineage and status, and to substantiate her ability to act for the British. She told a friend, "Dont you know who I am? Why I am the daughter of Fahd al-Atrash and cousin (although she was actually a third cousin twice removed) to the Amir al-Atrash (Hassan) and the Druze revolutionary hero Sultan al-Atrash""

Is this ok? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you work on rebuilding the early life section first. After that is complete, then move forward to the next section, proceeding in a linear fashion. The reference error is caused by a broken link. I changed them to Harv style. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the early life section. Can you answer at my suggestions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The first passage is plagiarism. It is a close construct of the original sentence and idea. More problematic, the word "forced" alters the meaning and creates a negative connotation that is not in the original source. Most importantly, you should stop picking random sentences from a source, altering their structure and adding them to the text. Why do you want to include that single sentence? It was part of an entire chapter explaining the author's idea. You should to read the entire chapter, understand what the source is saying, and then summarize it in one or two sentences using your own words. It s best to ask yourself, "what was the author's conclusion?", and that write that.

I am surprised that the early life is done already. I recall there was a lot about the immigration to Egypt and the family's early life there. Isn't the early life incomplete without that? — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw you deleted the page Diaa had created, here is something else. I don't know if this is the same page or something else and you maybe missed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan/temp

That sentence about her "being required" to sing fits in the "Asmahan and her debut" section about her singing. You said that the author's idea in that chapter was awkward pov and did not belong in an encyclopedia so why should I summarize it? But she "being required" to sing is a fact, and fits in anywhere about her signing, so that's why I would like to ad it. Do you have any rewritten suggestions for it?

I have already added that they emigrated to Palestine and then to Egypt. Something should indeed be added about they're early life there but I did not ad that text from the beginning and I am not able to rewrite texts in a good way. (I am not a native speaker of english) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with emphasizing only a single sentence is that it misses the overall point the author was making in the chapter. The way I understand it the point of the entire chapter entitled "Syrian or Egyptian?" is that Asmahan was proud of her Syrian heritage, but it was the freedom of being Egyptian which allowed her to flourish as a singer and actress. Of course, I have only read a few chapters and am not an well-versed on her life. I am moving this entire conversation to Talk:Asmahan so that more knowledgeable editors can help you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Understand the source

The following sentence is out-of-context and a misunderstanding of the source material:

To get the support from Egypts highest class, Asmahan was obligated to sing tribute songs about Egypt and the rulers of Egypt (p 13 Zuhur 2000 )

It appears on page 13 of Zuhur's book. That is the introduction in which Zuhur is making generalized statements about the author's own difficulties in trying to assess the life of Asmahan. It is not the author's intent to describe Asmahan but rather a generalized statement about Egyptian culture. The biography of Asmahan doesn't actually begin until Chapter 1 on page 24. The inclusion of that sentence makes as much sense as including the following sentence which also appears in Zuhur's introduction:

Biographies of Asmahan suggest she was happier being an Egyptian than a Syrian. p. 19 Zuhur 2000

Please read and understand the entire book before summarizing the source. Simply cherry picking sentences is inappropriate. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a factual statement that was made on page 13, the rest of that section is zuhurs own opinions and not facts. : quote: "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." The second sentence you mention is the author Zuhurs own interpretation of texts and can not be compared with the fact that she was "required to sing songs of praise" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Understand that the entire book is an opinion. It has the author's POV as do all biographies. It is a secondary source -- an analysis and interpretation by the author. Summarizing that analysis requires understanding the entire context -- that is fair to the author as well as the subject -- and, unfortunately, requires more work than simply cherry-picking single sentences, paraphrasing them and sliding them into a article. Because the principles of fact and tone of writing work hand-in-hand, not all facts are equal. The sentence you cite is a throw-away line in the introduction. Do panegyrics play an important role in her career? If so, then the author will certainly have expanded on this in greater depth in the actual biography. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How is "They were required" a POV from the author? You want it removed?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it seems to pop out to me as a generalized negative bias towards an old Egyptian custom without imparting anything significant about Asmahan. So I'm trying to get a grip on how the idea of panegyrics was important specifically for her. It isn't as if we are talking about the singers and actors who collaborated with the nationalism instituted by Nasser. I would think that Farouk's 1930s push for preservation of traditional Arab music and the westernization of Egyptian music in 1930s would be of far more significant impact on her career than the ancient institution of panegyrics. It seems Asmahan's dislike of singing to public audiences and her willingness only to accept payment for singing on film were much greater factors as well. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why he removed Beirut and Palestine, they were both referenced. Relocated or returned - either way -- because the reader will already understand that she lived there as a child. The "required to sing" was still being discussed, but as you know, I found it fairly meaningless anyway. And if you are talking about the "princely family" paragraph, not only is that meaningless to the biography, it appears to be an extreme fringe viewpoint. The Al-Taba'i book (which was written in 1965, only republished in 2009) was mostly discredited by Zuhur. Any other source lists Al-Atrash as Amir, Prince, Druze leader, etc. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt. She passed through Haifa to board the train. These were not immigrations, so how are they of any significance? Moreover, my understanding of multiple sources is that Asmahan did not live in Syria as a child, but only went there for visits. I think that the comment about the Atrashes not being a princely family is extremely important and corrects a lot of misconceptions. Most people think that they were. Al-Taba'i affirms that they were not, and their "Ameer" title was a manipulation of the word "Le Maire". I give much more weight to Al-Taba'i's biography than Zuhur's. He was Asmahan's best friend and one-time fiance. She relied on him on an almost daily basis and in her most difficult times. He wrote from first hand account. I have read his book and I find it factual and very credible, unlike Zuhur's which is mostly POV. On the contrary Zuhur was herself quetsioned as an academic. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed them without asking at the talkpage, and its not true what you say. On page 38 in Asmahans secrets you can clearly see that she moved to Beirut and the only reason she left Lebanon was because she found out the french was gonna arrest her to force a ceasefires in Jabal al Druze. link You also removed that she was "required to sing" without an agreement reached at the talkpage for its removal. The part you added about "Asmahan's Atrash family was not princely" has nothing to do with the early life section and has been called "meaningless to the biography, it appears to be an extreme fringe viewpoint." by admin cactus.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Has Cactus read al-Taba'i's book to be able to make a judgment on this comment? It is also his own opinion. I find it extremely important in telling who Asmahan really was; not a real princess. It may be out of place now, but it will moved later to a more fitting one. Again, 'Alia's brief stop in Beirut and Palestine was not an immigration and has nothing to do with the Immigration to Egypt section. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with early life so it shouldn't have been added there from the beginning. And you have two people saying it shouldnt be in the article at all. Nothing in the sources say that it was a "stop" on her way to Egypt, she moved to Lebanon and because the french was looking for her she left Lebanon, if you didn't like it you could have asked at the talkpage before you deleted it and if you felt it had nothing to do with immigration to Egypt it could have been moved to the early life section. You have not answered to why you deleted that she was "required to sing". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The "required to sing...." statement was not only out of place and meaningless, but also a copright violation of the same standing as all those deleted by Cactus. It was a paraphrasing of the original source and you know that. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you felt it was out of place or meaningless you could have taken it to the talkpage instead of deleting it, I do not feel it was out of place or meaningless so until an agreement would have been reached about it you shouldn't have deleted it. And until Cactus says its a copyright violation , its shouldn't be deleted on that basis. You could have taken it up at the talkpage. And now when you have brought back the "When Asmahan was asked to sing of cultural patriotism and love, she sang of Egypt." it fits perfect after to explain it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you now seriously trying to impeach the major secondary source of the article, the source you have used for most of your references, the source which was good enough for you to copy passages from? The controversy of Zuhur which you cite has nothing to do with her published work. Just a quick search [1], [2], reveals Zuhur is well-published and well-cited in academic journals. As expected, "Muḥammad Tābiʻī" [3] has no academic scholarship. Worse, as you say, he is a close friend, which makes him a primary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY. This requires he be treated as a source of questionable reliability.

The sentence about the Palestine, Beirut, Egypt sentence doesn't concern me. You could have changed "moved to" to "traveled to" and that would have been a reasonable compromise, but I agree that it does seem like a minor point to me. The relocated/returned issue was decided long ago when Al Ameer son said you should use "moved to" instead of either word. Is the title of Mayor found in any source other the Taba'i. If not, it is outweighed from the multitude of sources which mention otherwise. The word "falsely" is an OR POV -- either the people called her "Princess of the Mountain" or they didn't. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not impeaching Zuhur's book. I have used it. I am responding to your attempts to impeach al-Taba'i's book on the basis of Zuhur's opinion. You have stated that Zuhur discredited him, when she is no position to do so. The controversy over Zuhur seems to have to do with academic integrity. On of th elinks you posted in reference to her work goes nowhere. On the contrary, I believe al-Taba'i's first-hand account of the events, and he is a credible, published journalist and author. The google search that you made shows at least 15 different books that he has authored and published. I do not know about his academic scholarship, especially in the English language, but he was the Editor-in-Chief of an important Egyptian newspaper for a long time; he was dubbed the Prince of Egyptian Journalism. Zuhur herself relied heavily on al-Taba'i's book in writing her own, as did other biographers of Asmahan, including Mahmoud Salah, the author of "Who Killed Asmahan?". --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course Zuhur used Taba'i -- she provides the necessary secondary source interpretation. That is the function of scholarly analysis. Once again, you have already stated that Taba'i is a primary source -- so it cannot be considered reliable for any controversial comments. As policy states: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Additionally Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. Zuhur is the most recent and reliable secondary source. Please remove the "falsely" wording as well as your latest addition addition in which Taba'i calls Asmahan a liar. This is unsuitable as currently sourced and possibly defamatory. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I had removed "falsely" before you asked because it was my interpretaion. Please go ahead and modify the other statement as you see fit. however, it is properly sourced in al-Taba'i's book. Al-Taba'i calls her a liar in countless places in the book; he refers to it as a psychological illness, though he was her best friend. He does not mean it in a deragotory fashion. Chapter 2 of the book is labelled "The Psychological Complexes That Controlled Her Life". It is a matter that cannot be ignored in a biography on Asmahan. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is a prominent concept in a biography of Asmahan, than I would suggest you address it however Zuhur or other reliable secondary source address it. If it is only Al-Taba'i's belief, than it can't be given much weight. Regardless of how he means it, it is derogatory and accusations like that require only the best reliable sources. As I have already suggested to SD, you should request a WP:3O or WP:DRR as well as a mediator who understands Arabic. I have neither the time nor the desire (nor any Arabic skill) to expend on mediating this dispute further. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Correcting sections

I have in this edit corrected the sections of the article. The natural development of previous mediations was a "career" section and in that section a subsection of "Egypt's influence", and "immigration to Egypt" was a subsection of "early life", as can be seen here. Texts about her career that has nothing to do with any influence connected to Egypt, should be in its right place.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nefer Tweety re adding copyrighted material

I had made a copyright violation report and a copyright admin removed the copyrighted material here, the exact copy righted text has been re added by Nefer tweety , personal life, section: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Nefer Tweety

Nefer Tweety reverted the entire article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys edit, not caring about edits made by 11 people [5] --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)