Talk:Asmahan

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)

Re-addition 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: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nefer Tweety has now self-reverted their own edit so as to remove the inadvertent re-introduction of the copyright infringing text. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Nefer Tweety reverted the entire article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys edit, not caring about edits made by several people [2] --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 [3], [4], [5] and [6]. 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)

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"

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)

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. 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.

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)

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 a direct quotation from the author of the book: "Asmahan Tells Her Story." - ""she loved Egypt and wanted to return to it,"".. This is a 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.

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)

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)

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)