Talk:Asmahan/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Oh My God!

I can’t believe this debate/argument is still going on! I was away and I thought by that time the disagreement would be resolved! At first, I found it very interesting to see people trying to prove their points of view but now I can see it is taking a lot of time! I wonder how you are not tired yet! You are going over the same discussions, over and over again. Is this going to end, ever? -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Real Concerns

Ameer: It seems to me that you are not checking the article before responding to SD's repeated complaints. He's removing reliably sourced paragraphs and even bringing back spelling errors, so it is he who is blanket reverting. I had taken care of some of the words that were too close to the source in my own edits. He should do the same with his own edits, not mine, and point out where I have missed any in mine, not blanket revert. This is not acceptable. The Role in WWII section has now been significantly expanded. He cannot just blanket revert it for no reason. Zuhur states, in Images of Enchantment, about Asmahan's marriage, "She relocated to the Jabal", which according to SD's own definition of the word, means that she had not lived there before. I have accepted a compromise and used the neutral words "moved to" and "residence in". If SD will not accept the compromise, I will insist on using "relocated" in both instances. Please pardon my tough stance, but this is beyond ridiculous. Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's ok AC, I know this is getting on everyone's nerves. I just took a look at the most recent change. Now SD, what's wrong with AC's changes? Which edits in particular? One that I personally found that might be of a concern is the removal of "allegedly" and the reinstatement of "handsome". Handsome because it's a POV, and "allegedly" because SD had told me that the source says that. Also, this should be kept: "decision to try and terminate her pregnancy". it maintains the meaning of what the source says in a rewritten form. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, the source does not use the word "allegedly" and I quoted that source as "one source states, while other sources state"... etc. with reliable references. Again, please do not believe SD; he's misleading you. I know I had copied the word "handsome" from some source, but it is ok to remove it in the meantime. I reworded "decision to try and terminate her pregnancy" to stop all the nagging about plagiarism. Which way does he want it? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, This is my problems with ACs edits:

1.He removed the "return" and "moved back" on several areas, you said it was okey to keep when I did that list yesterday, also notice that he said that Sherifa Zuhur used "relocated" but in Asmahans Secrets she used "returned" so hes claims that it was not a "return" is false because the same author uses this word, and therefore is deletion of it is not acceptable, especially since I have not agreed to this.

This is the compromise, that Ameer has called for, between "relocated" (from Zuhur's Images of Enchantment) and your "returned". I used "moved to" and "residence in" as neutral words. If you do not accept the compromise, I will use "relocated". --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not decide this, this is not your article and you do not own it. Sherif Zuhur used "returned" in Asmahans Secretes and that was what Asmahan did. You have no right to delete this when there was no agreement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And Zuhur used "relocated" in Images of Enchantment, hence the compromise. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war is not compromise, and Ameer was not told that the word "returned" was used in Asmhans Secrets "Her family fled her homeland, Syria, and she grew so accustomed to Cairo that she longed for it after her marriage and return to Syria." http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exzuhasp.html--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, go with the compromise. I said "went to", but "moved to" is actually better so use the latter for a compromise. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, this is an important word and AC demanded its deletion on false claims, why should this so called compromise be when the same author uses it for her return to Syria? "she longed for it after her marriage and return to Syria." You said before if I remember correctly, that he should ask for a third opinion, he did not and just removed it, he forced it his way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought she also uses "relocated" in the other book? Because of this, I suggested that instead of using either word, we compromise. Now, whoever disagrees with this compromise could go to another admin (with virtually no editing history on this subject) for guidance completely on par with Wikipedia policy. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

She says relocate in one book, and she says return to Syria in Asmahns Secrets,, Ameer right now it says in the article "During two bouts of marriage to her cousin and residence in Syria, Asmahan's musical career would come to a complete halt" this imply that she only lived in Syria twice, since Zuhur used "return to Syria" this goes against what the author has said.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This, I okay'd, right? The compromise I suggested was confined only to this sentence where it now says "So, she moved to Syria, at which time she was nineteen." It's not a big deal to me whatever you guys use, but I suggest compromise to prevent edit wars in this article, maintain its stability. If either of you continue to have any concerns about the usage of those words, there's really not much more I could say about it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AC changed other sections from "During two bouts of marriage to her cousin and moving back to Syria" to "residence in Syria" and then to "relocation in Syria" .. not only goes this against the mediation as you said to only change that sentence when she was 19, but it also goes against what is written in Asmahans Secrets, quote "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." .. a large stone house.. so her residence in Syria was more then those two times she was married --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this was changed from my original "relocation in", according to Zuhur, to "residence in" as a compromise. If you do not like it, we can also say "move to". --Arab Cowboy (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, refers to all instances about Asmahan's marriage in Syria. SD, please stop cluttering the conversation and misleading Ameer with your continuous nagging. You're welcome to accept the compromise of neutral word (move to, residence in, etc.) in these instances or continue to ask for another admin's judgment if you do not agree. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2. "told Muhammad al-Tabaʿi" .. its not appropriate to say this because no one has any idea who this guy is. Original sentence that Diaa had added was "Later in life, when Asmahan spoke about her childhood "

This is copied from the source. al-Taba'i was Asmahan's biographist. Do not truncate to suit your agenda. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The reader of the article have no idea who he is. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He can be defined, but the context of the statement must be maintained. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a problem, just say in the article "Biographer Muhammad al-Taba'i...". --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, AC changed it so it can now be counted as plagiarism, he changed it to "Later in life, Asmahan told her friend Muhammad al-Tabaʿi about her childhood in the Jabal." and also added "family's" to the section which is also in the source, this resembles the book so much that it is plagiarism, compare this to the book which says: "In her late twenties, Asmahan told her friend and admirer al-Tab`i about her childhood in the mountains of the Druze. She remembered a happy and carfree period. She did not actually spend much time in the Jabal itself and probably remembered visits in early 1920s. Still, it was the Jabal Druze that had imprinted itself as "home" on her consciousness, rather than her family's residences in Turkey and in Beirut." Therese a reason why Diaa changed it to "Later in life, when Asmahan spoke about her childhood in the Jabal, she remembered it as a happy and carefree period. Although she did not spend much time in the Jabal and remembered only visits in the early 1920s, the Jabal was what she saw as her "home" rather than her residences in Lebanon and Turkey" please go into the article and compare. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

SD, regarding plagiarism, please concern yourself with the text that you added only, not what I did. You've copied straight from the source and insisted that words I added matched the source exactly on many occasions. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

3.In the Egypt influence section the sentence expanded in the source, he removed it. "But that loyalty is difficult to measure, since the dependence on the Egyptian elite...." In the source this is right after "the other side of her patriotism belonged to Egypt." part.

This is clearly Zuhur's opinion, not fact. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Authors opinions must be put higher then your own views and the context of the statement must be maintained. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no need for the author's opinion. Just state it plainly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, in the book it says "The other side of her patriotism was to her adopted country, Egypt. That loyalty is hard to measure"... so if the "That loyalty is hard to measure" is authors opinion.. isn't also "the other side of her patriotism belonged to Egypt." also authors opinion? This is in the article right now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

4. The role in WW2 section, the only source anyone can read says this "Some claimed that she was rewarded with 40,000 pounds (roughly US$72,000) for her service to the Allies, but there is no evidence in any of the sources on her life, or the British documents on the period, to show that she actually received money for the mission" the links AC brought can not be viewable and he has written this section in a very unprofessional way.

You do NOT have to be able to read the sources online. However, some of the sources I used are indeed online and you can go see them. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since some of the sources dispute it, put "allegedly" (like we do in tons of articles on Wikipedia, nothing new). --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AC has changed that whole section to the extent with his obscure sources (That no one can read) that it have to be rewritten, could you please read that section and come up with a solution? The source I brought is viewable: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JI20Ak04.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you do not have to be able to read the sources online. However, here are quotations from what you call "obscure sources". From al-Raida, p. 42: "She received a great deal of money for this mission, 40000 pounds according to one source. The British and the French were much less interested in Asmahan ...", and from Mardam Bey's book: "Collet mentioned British inteference in the Jabal Druze, how they used the wife of Hasan al-Atrash, the famous singer and actress, best known by the name of Asmahan, he said that they gave her money and sent her to the Jabal before the invasion to enlist the support of the Druse. He also recounted the occasion when the British had paid cash to several men (in his presence) to advance their interests." What else do you need to stop your nagging? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

5. And I had re written two sections and removed plagiarism that he reverted:

"The Allies expelled the Vichy forces from Syria, however, during her stay at a Damascus hotel, Asmahan got death threats from what was believed to be pro-Vichy Druze. She managed to flee on horseback, in disguise as a cavalier and rode to the Palestinian border. After the Allies secured Syria during the Syria-Lebanon Campaign, she went back to Damascus where she participated in the parades, and when General Charles de Gaulle visited Syria, she sat behind him during the celebrations.^[1] "

"The Allies failed to carry out their promise for Syrian independence and Asmahan, displeased, headed for Ankara, where she wanted to meet Nazi Germanys ambassador to Turkey. But she was stopped at the border by the British and was deported to Lebanon.^[1] " --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those were my sentences. I reworded some to stop your nagging. If you have concerns about specific phrases or statements, list them here. I do not see plagiarism in them as I wrote them. They are properly sourced. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No those were sentences copied almost straight from the source, and I re wrote them.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was I who had introduced those statements into the article. I do not see any plagiarism in them. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, check the source, they are almost exact copy to what AC had written--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I will read the source in a minute, but let me just state right off the back that it's best to rewrite text as much as possible to avoid plagiarism while keeping the source's intended interpretation so as not to drift in original research. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

so? if you have not read it yet you can compare them with the source here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JI20Ak04.html The quotes here are mine, and the quotes in the article now is his. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

After reading all of this, I've become a little dizzy. So I decided not to answer underneath each statement. To reply to concern #1, I'm sticking with my original response; compromise with that one instance, leave the rest alone. It's really not a big deal at all whichever word(s) is used. For #2, I thought al-Taba'i was her biographer. In any case just put "her friend Muhammad al-Taba'i ..." For concern #3, either use no opinion at all, or keep both but attribute them to the author i.e. "According to biographer Sherifa Zuhur..." For #4, as a personal policy, any time one source is contradicting the other I use "allegedly". This won't be necessary if we use attribution instead i.e. "According to such-and-such, Asmahan loved hummus-wa-ful, however, such-and-such2 claims she only liked it because she was trying to befriend the cook." Sorry if that sounds goofy, but you guys get the picture. As for #5, I support rewriting (that's the norm on Wikipedia) especially to word it differently than the source. AC, if the text in question is indeed your original work, apparently it is very close to the source. Therefore, I suggest you make some rewording adjustments. Be patient SD, and just let AC rewrite that bit. If he doesn't, kindly remind him to do it.

Brothers, I will not continue to mediate between you on this article (and probably won't participate in the discussions on other Arab singers). I hope I've done more good than bad and if you are not willing to adhere to what I suggested above, the only other alternative I see left would be filing a request for comment. Salam, --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ameer. Yes, you've done more good than bad. I will rewrite my sections in the weekend to word more differently than the source. I am busy till the weekend, so no pressing me on this till then. Salam, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem AC. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ameer, I meant to say that you've done no bad at all... As for the specific suggestions: 1. The second sentence that you would like to leave alone also refers to Asmahan's marriage to Hassan and relocation to Syria. One Zuhur source said "relocated" and another said "return". I compromised by saying "residence in" Syria. It's your call. 2. al-Taba'i was Asmahan's friend, admirer and biographer. In the specific instance where that quotation was made, Zuhur used "friend and admirer". But he also wrote a biography (book) on Asmahan. 3. I do not care much about that one. 4. I used your preferred method: one source said such and such and the other said so and so. All is reliably sourced, so I think no change is warranted. 5. I will re-rewrite as much as possible, but then SD will come back and say these are not the words used in the sources... It's a dilemma. But please all be patient on this one as my time is limited. Salam, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Number 3. SD has just removed the wrong sentence. I restored it. The sentence in reference was "whether her patriotism was hard to measure or otherwise", to which I commented was Zuhur's opinion. If SD will stop being so smart, we can bring this matter to an end. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

N3 3, Old: Actually, no need for the author's opinion. Just state it plainly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, in the book it says "The other side of her patriotism was to her adopted country, Egypt. That loyalty is hard to measure"... so if the "That loyalty is hard to measure" is authors opinion.. isn't also "the other side of her patriotism belonged to Egypt." also authors opinion? This is in the article right now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

'Ameer' New:For concern #3, either use no opinion at all, or keep both but attribute them to the author i.e. "According to biographer Sherifa Zuhur..." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop messing with the sentence about her patriotism to Egypt. The sentence in reference was whether her patriotism was difficult to measure. Ameer's statement was to state it plainly. I prefer removing it altogether. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism issues

This article was listed at WP:CV for copyright violations in the "Role in World War II" section. A quick review reveals the text is a direct plagiarism of this source. The entire section is a close paraphrasing of the original newspaper article. For example:

The article text reads: The Allies reneged on their promises for Syrian independence and Asmahan, disgruntled, shifted allegiance to the Nazis.

The source states: The Free French reneged on their promise of independence and a disgruntled Asmahan shifted her allegiance to the Nazis in revenge.

The next sentence in the article reads: Asmahan embarked on a train journey to Ankara, where she wanted to meet Hitler's ambassador to Turkey and master of Nazi espionage in the Middle East.

The next sentence in the source reads: She boarded a train and headed to Ankara, where she wanted to meet Franz von Papen, Hitler's ambassador to Turkey and master of Nazi espionage in the Middle East.

It should be noted that simply altering sentence structure or using synonyms does not relieve text of plagiarism. A finding of plagiarism doesn't require exact wording, but takes into account the structure, format and content of the presentation of an idea -- as well as the quantity of similarities. Please read WP:Close paraphrasing for further information. I have currently blanked the section to avoid the problem of copyright violation and recommend that it be rewritten, from scratch, using only original language, without the direct benefit of the source text. I have not yet checked to see whether other portions of this article have the same problem and will need to be resolved in the same way. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Further review

At this time, the earliest addition of copyrighted material that I find is this dif made by User:Al Ameer son on 5 July 2009. The excerpt Fahd suggested naming her "Bahriyya" (meaning "of the sea" in Arabic), but her mother objected and decided to name her "Amal", meaning "hope". is taken directly from this source. Unfortunately, because of subsequent additions of copyrighted text throughout the article, and further edits on top of those, it will be almost impossible to weed out the plagiarism in the current version. To save as much of the original article as possible, it will need to be reverted to this dif from July 3. The text from the current version will still be in the history for some days before being purged. In this way, if some sections are certain to be free of plagiarized text, they can be copied and returned. However, any editor who restores copyrighted text or plagiarized text to the article will be held responsible for violating Wikipedia copyright policy. I am sorry to see the hard work of so many editors undone, but it appears the only solution. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok cactus, thanks, Ameer is an administrator so im surprised at that.

Everyone makes the occasional error. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Im pretty sure this is not plagarism: "Asmahan was born to Fahd al-Atrash, a Syrian Druze from Suwayda, and 'Alia al-Mundhir, a Lebanese Druze from Hasbaya.[7] Her father—who came from the Druze al-Atrash clan, well-known in Syria for its role in fighting against the French occupation["

And this one may have some similarities but I don't think its plagiarism, could you check so I can be sure?: "Following the 1922 Adham Khanjar incident, fighting between French and Syrian forces erupted in the Jabal al-Druze. During the hostilities, the French shelled the al-Atrash home in the town of al-Qrayya, near Suwayda. Due to the conflict 'Alia fled with her children for Damascus and refused to return. Fahd sent his cousin Salim al-Atrash to return her and their children to the Jabal, but 'Alia refused to come back, stating Fahd would be cursed for the deaths of their children, who might be killed in the fighting there.[15] Asmahan later recalled her childhood years in the Jabal as "untouched by anything truly bad"." source: [[1]] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, neither of those is a copyright violation from that source. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First line have this as source p 81: [[2]]

For the second part, small correction, it is the page under this, p38 source: [[3]]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the sourced page, your second statement is false. The source does not say that Alia cursed Fahd. She cursed Salim saying that Salim's children would die. It is all very trivial anyway. The passage could simply state: Following the Adham Khanjar incident in 1922, the al-Atrash home in al-Qrayya was bombed by French forces. 'Alia fled with her children to Damascus. Despite orders from Fahd, 'Alia refused to return. Asmahan later recalled her childhood years in Jabal al-Druze as "untouched by anything truly bad". — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Temp

I suggest working on Asmahan/temp, rephrasing and changing structures to remove the copyvios, instead of just starting over.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Diaa abdelmoneim. Wikipedia does not permit the recreation of any page which has been determined to contain copyright violations -- this includes any userspace as well as the the page you just created. I am required to delete it. Sorry.

As I said above, our copyright violations policy suggests that in cases where there have been multiple infringements over many edits, try to restore the article to the last version in which there were no violations. That is what was done. Additionally, I returned some obviously original writing like the recent consensus version of the intro, infobox, refs, etc. Again, I find it sad that so much hard work during that past month must be reverted. However, Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously and this was the necessary solution.

I suggest looking into the history at recent versions, and work on sections one at a time. After rewriting to remove plagiarism, copy it into the new article. (A word of caution: editors can be held responsible for re-adding any text which still has copyrighted or plagiarized text) I suggest reading WP:Close paraphrasing to understand that rephrasing and altering sentence structure does not relieve text of plagiarism. A finding of plagiarism doesn't require exact wording, but takes into account the structure, format and content of the presentation of an idea -- as well as the quantity of similarities. I hope you and the other editors will be able jump in and restore the article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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 [4], [5], reveals Zuhur is well-published and well-cited in academic journals. As expected, "Muḥammad Tābiʻī" [6] 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)

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: [7] --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 [8] --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 [9], [10], [11] and [12]. 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: [13] 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[14] and after suggested it:[15]

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: [16] with al ameer: 1c,[17][18] and after this, copyright expert admin Cactus had rewritten it [19] [20] and even then AC removed it on the claim that it was "copy violations" [21] 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: [22] 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: [23] 1c: [24] --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 [25]. 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: [26] "Alia fled with her children for Damascus and refused to return". Then later okeyed by plagiarism expert admin Cactus [27] [28] 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":[29] 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: [30] "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:[31] 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)

Let 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: [32] 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)

Your edit: [33] the "clan' for 'home province'" which you pointed out as unacceptable is still not dealt with. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:07, 30 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 [34] --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: [35] --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:[36][37] 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 sea Nishidani (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)

Continuing disruption

I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: [38] I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article, now the Newer Tweety account has changed that sentence to "stopped in" against what we talked about, and against what the source say, [39] Nefer Tweety has done this without participating at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about typing "corrections" in the edit summary. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Per your request on my talk page, I took a look at the minor change of "relocated" to "stopped in" made by Nefer Tweety. I find that NT's correction better reflects the cited source. Here is the text is from Sherifa Zuhur, Asmahan's secrets: woman, war, and song, University of Texas Press (Mar 2001), pg.39

She drove south with the children all the way to Haifa, but was afraid the British in Palestine could force them to return to French territory. Fu'ad advised his mother to sell the car, which she accomplished, and they boarded the train for Egypt."

There is no other mention about Haifa there. The stop there was obviously brief.

Furthermore, the other part of the sentence which you mention in Number 4 of the corrections above, after discovering that the French were searching for them there is also not confirmed by your source. Here is the text from Sherifa Zuhur, Asmahan's secrets: woman, war, and song, University of Texas Press (Mar 2001), pg.39

"She fled the Jabal during aerial bombardments, incidents which can be confirmed. Labib's account embellishes, adding that the little family (without Fahd) was in danger even in Beirut; that the French might have taken action against them, for the Druze were holding French hostages down in the Jabal. The veracity of this threat is impossible to verify one way or another."

Zuhur specifically states that it is unverified and she treated it as an "embellishment". Being unverified, it should not be placed as a fact in the article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On p38 she did not treat it as an "embellishment": "Alia went on to Beirut, to her family's home. But once there, she was informed that the French had learned of her presence in Beirut and, furious with the Turshan, intended to arrest her and the children so as to force an armistice upon the Druze." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On Pages 38-39, Zuhur relates the story as written by Labib, at the end of which she refers to it as an embellishment which could not be verified. It is not a fact. The best that could be said is "According to some family accounts,...". Given its insignificance to the bio, it is not worth adding more conjecture. It can be left out. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference asia-times was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[asia-times-1] Cite error: The named reference asia-times was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]