proposal for word change |
→Changing "the Devil's wife": ::Seriously or is this an attempt at humor? ~~~~ |
||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
I propose changing the quoted characterization of Asma as "the Devil's wife" to "a woman on message like a banker"[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/29/joan-juliet-buck-my-vogue-interview-with-syria-s-first-lady.html] |
I propose changing the quoted characterization of Asma as "the Devil's wife" to "a woman on message like a banker"[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/29/joan-juliet-buck-my-vogue-interview-with-syria-s-first-lady.html] |
||
[http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/outfront-7p-et-joan-juliet-buck-on-assad-interview-i-met-the-devil-and-his-wife/]. The former doesn't really mean anything, may be sexist (she is a function not her own person), and the latter is more understandable and specific. --[[User:Aichikawa|Aichikawa]] ([[User talk:Aichikawa|talk]]) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
[http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/outfront-7p-et-joan-juliet-buck-on-assad-interview-i-met-the-devil-and-his-wife/]. The former doesn't really mean anything, may be sexist (she is a function not her own person), and the latter is more understandable and specific. --[[User:Aichikawa|Aichikawa]] ([[User talk:Aichikawa|talk]]) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Seriously or is this an attempt at humor? [[User:Veriss1|Veriss]] ([[User talk:Veriss1|talk]]) 08:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:18, 23 August 2012
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Syria Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Muslim??
It would be interesting to know if she is a Muslim or converted to Islam 99.149.195.30 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Cara Hyrie
Revisiting How to Deal with the Leaked Emails
I originally advised against discussing or including the contents of the leaked emails with this rationale:
I think the disclosed emails controversy is a porcupine. Rub it one way and its soft and the other way you get poked. All of the "analysis" articles about them that I have read seemed to be stuffed with caveats and disclaimers that they have not been fully verified. So much of it seems to be so "gossipy" that it makes me feel uncomfortable with the whole affair. The affair however has been big news so perhaps it should be mentioned but with as many caveats as The Guardian uses. I still think that nothing should be quoted from the emails. The big concern here is that they were provided to The Guardian by the opposition. They very well could be unadulterated but could just as well be a well crafted propaganda operation. The NYT stated "The Guardian said its extensive efforts to authenticate the emails suggested they were genuine, although it had not been possible to verify every one." Our challenge here is determining which have been authenticated and which have not been. That is not a road we are equipped to go down.
At the time, I thought we would reach a point down the road where we would have to address it but could do so from the comfort of a historical point of view rather then a "breaking news" point of view. Since so many major newspapers, including many newspapers of record, have directly or indirectly addressed the issue in important articles (namely EU sanctions and travel bans), I think this position is getting in the way of addressing other important concepts. The important concepts waiting to be addressed are the effects of the news discussion of the leaked emails on her public image and related issues.
In light of this, I would like to take a fresh look at it and I invite fresh views on the subject though I still think we should move carefully and select the highest quality sources possible. Veriss (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think a little further elucidation of the content of the comment and criticism , the nature of the blow dealt her public image - the contrast between what might be presumed to be obsessing her thoughts at this time, and the apparent reality of what was obsessing her thoughts - that kind of thing - for me, the authenticity is not a crucial matter because the change in perception is real - they are almost certainly authentic I guess - when etoiles lectured me that the british royals were extravagant , thats what royalty do, that seemed to imply she thought it was an accurate picture of what was obsessing asma too - I've not come across any caveats warning ' they look like fakes designed to traduce a frank and fearless woman of simple tastes' kind of thing - anyway - . its such a short article it could manage a sentence or two more to explain the nature of her current fame/infamy i think, reminiscent of the way perceptions of Saif, gaddafi's son, changed during an Uprising. if they prove to have been fakes - then the article reads thusly - 'her image suffered a blow when --blah blah - this was quickly reversed however when the opposition admitted they had faked..etc' what unfolds, what perceptions changed, what comment dominated - this is a matter of record - you can't erase reality because you hold to higher standards - 'reality is the master' (Lawence Durrell). thats my thought anyway. the guardian/independent/ telegraph are quality sources i think, if they are not personal comment pieces, but from the news sections.Sayerslle (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I had hoped for more comments and was waiting for the most recent active editors to offer their opinions before I offered more commentary but it appears that is not forthcoming. I signaled earlier that I felt that my earlier advice, though offered honestly and in good faith, was overprotective of the "Wikipedia Project" and that a change of course was needed.
I would like to reconsider my position and would like to offer as a start the phrase that I had initially reverted due to what I felt at the time was inadequate sourcing.
"The [[2011–2012 Syrian uprising|Syrian uprising]] has, however, dealt a blow to her public image[1], amidst reports of extravagant spending, and a picture had emerged "of a woman closer in spirit to [[Imelda Marcos|Imelda Marcos]] than the moderating counsellor to her husband's excesses that she might have been." [2] "
Are their any thoughts about restoring this statement and it's source? If you would prefer a different wording or a stronger source, can you please provide one? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think the clause should be restored or a variation of it. It helps to clarify what public image is being discussed. Specifically, the public image before of being a moderating, westernizing influence and the new unfavorable public image which has emerged since the uprising and the disclosed emails which are pretty well verified [1]. And, I do feel that this one sentence is being protected a bit too much.--Guest2625 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Foreign Policy Magazine is an excellent source, an interesting read, and I thank User talk:Guest2625 for providing it. I wouldn't be surprised if the email controversy gets a seperate article some day. I think we can go ahead and restore that sentence though I think it could be tweaked and adding a few more sources would be helpful. Veriss (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
add vogue controversy
im adding some information about the recent Vogue (magazine) controversy and in particular the mention about it in wapo. Happy monsoon day (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed. There are problems with your material. First, although the article in the Washington Post just appeared, the problem occurred in 2011, and, yet, it appears in our article out of chronological order. Second, it's worded poorly. Too much detail (3,200 word article?), too much coatrack material ("bloody crackdown"). Third, it doesn't really capture the essence of the criticism, which is as much about Vogue magazine as it is about her and Syria. I first thought about removing the material, then I thought about editing the material, then I figured I'd just see what others have to say and leave it alone for the time being.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- We discussed the Vogue article about a year ago at [2] I suggest we confine ourselves specifically to the topic of Assad and not diverge into analysis of Vogue's editorial issues. It does have some tangenital bearing on her public image but to introduce it will require some very careful wording to keep it on topic, NPOV and avoid coatracking. Veriss (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- If Happy monsoon day or others do not contribute to this discussion within the next day, I will remove the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I also had trouble figuring out how to reword it and felt that it was best to just remove it. I don't think that an article that has been retracted by the publisher is really relevant to a biography since the publisher is implying that the article was faulty to begin with. Veriss (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
whoops apologies guys i didn't have internet for a while. i'm not exactly sure what the major problem is because this has received editorial coverage and it was a notable and no doubt interesting development associated with her public persona. if there's a big problem then fine we can drop it. mentioning it a few sentences seems perfectly reasonable though. it was a major, notable controversy in a major western media outlet. why isn't it being mentioned again? note: issue is not to cite the actual vogue piece, but to refer to the reportage about the piece. Happy monsoon day (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- so wait a minute, were in a situation where the biggest article that has been written about this woman so far in the western press is not at all cited in this article. and why is that again? no one answered my question from a week ago, only pointing me to previous remarks. do not see the "coatrack" (i read the article, dont see how related) and how it supposedly violated npov? please enlighten. Happy monsoon day (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- The text that you wanted to add read to me as much as a commentary about contemporary media issues then about the subject of this biography. I said above that I thought it may have some bearing on her media image but would need to be carefully be reworded. Also, another concern is that at this point 76% of the lines dedicated to her tenure of First Lady is about her media image and the Syrian revolt. Your text as quoted below could be cut back significantly and focused more tightly on our subject:
- al-Assad was the center of a media controversy when [[Vogue (magazine)|Vogue]] magazine in March 2011 published a highly positive 3,200-word article about her just before there were attacks by her husband on Syrian citizens.[3] According to the [[Washington Post|Washington Post]], the article by Joan Juliet Buck was removed from Vogue's website, after al-Assad's husband began a bloody crackdown on his opponents, after it had embarrassed the magazine.
- I will be happy to collaborate with you on it rewording it. Veriss (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thanks for getting back about this but whats wrong precisely with the above?i think that is short enough and quite fine.and so what if the article is mainly about those topics;;thats probably a function of what information is currently available. im sure if she were a renowned opera singer who won the nobel peace prize wed include that in the article because thats what the news reports would say right???Happy monsoon day
- It appears to have found its way into the article. Veriss (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah. I didn't like the original wording, and I reworded it to give it more context. You reworded my rewording, and I like yours better than mine. As to whether it belongs, I think it does, although I have some misgivings about it. It has a small amount of WP:COATRACK quality to it because, ostensibly, it isn't clear whose "fault" it was that the puff piece was published in the first place, but I think it has enough relevance to outweigh that.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to have found its way into the article. Veriss (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is a collection of sources related to the controversy. But we cannot put too much prominence on it. If you want to expand information about the Vogue controversy, other aspects need to be expanded first.
- Buck, Joan Juliet. "A Rose in the Desert." Vogue. February 25, 2011. - Stated by the "Vogue Defends Profile of Syrian First Lady" article that it appeared in the March issue of 2011
- Alternate on PresidentAssad.net (discussed in RSes) - Archive
- Buck, Joan Juliet. "Joan Juliet Buck: Mrs. Assad Duped Me." Newsweek. July 30, 2012.
- "Tweets mock ex-Vogue writer who wrote puff piece on Asma al-Assad." CNN. July 31, 2012.
- "Asma al-Assad no longer en vogue, Anna Wintour says." CNN. June 12, 2012.
- Fisher, Max. "Rose in the Baekdu: A Satirical Vogue Profile of North Korea's New First Lady." (satirical article) The Atlantic. July 26, 2012.
- Fisher, Max. "Vogue Defends Profile of Syrian First Lady." The Atlantic. February 28, 2011.
- Sullivan, Amy. "Vogue's Suck-Up to Assad: Blame the Editor, Not the Writer." The New Republic. July 30, 2012.
- Carter, Bill and Amy Chozick. "Syria’s Assads Turned to West for Glossy P.R." New York Times. June 10, 2012.
- Khaleeli, Homa. "Asma al-Assad and that Vogue piece: take two!." The Guardian. July 31, 2012.
- Adams, Guy. "I was duped into writing Asma al-Assad profile, says Vogue writer Joan Juliet Buck." The Independent. Tuesday July 31, 2012.
- "The Only Remaining Online Copy of Vogue's Asma al-Assad Profile." The Atlantic. January 3, 2012.
- Cowles, Charlotte. "Former Vogue Writer Joan Juliet Buck Claims Asma al-Assad ‘Duped’ Her." New York Magazine. July 30, 2012.
- Jacinto, Leela. "How Asma al-Assad’s Vogue profiler duped herself." France 24. Wednesday August 1, 2012.
- Baker, Katie J.M. "Vogue Writer Tries, Fails to Successfully Justify Fawning Asma al-Assad Profile." Jezebel. July 30, 2012.
Also there is a source about the shopping spree:
- Taher, Abdul. "As Syria burns, Assad's British-born wife goes on £270,000 online shopping spree." Daily Mail. July 14, 2012.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- What has already been injected about the Vogue issue drips breathy, gossipy tid bits into this otherwise serious article about the wife of a sitting president. Seriously, this is by far the longest paragraph in the section about her entire twelve years as first lady. Unless we need to feed our celebrity fixated society, break out the long knives, it is already too prominent. Veriss (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- There's more to it than the tabloidy stuff - It revealed the allegation that a PR firm had liaised with Vogue to make a positive article. I am well aware that there should be no undue weight on an issue... WhisperToMe (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
New CNN Profile
I only had time to read part of it. Perhaps someone could find something interesting in it for the article. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/25/world/meast/asma-al-assad-profile/index.html?iid=article_sidebar. Veriss (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I read through the article and felt much of the content has been echoed before. The article focused on the testimony of Andrew Tabler; someone who has popped up in many previous articles due to his close working relations with al-Assad. If anything, I felt that the article was more kind to Asma al-Assad and not as "hard line" as previous articles in the past. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
conclusion regarding whether to add or not?Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Merger proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of the discussion was don't merge. Consensus from earlier premature close hasn't changed. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Very related to the discussions above on the Vogue article. It has taken a life of its own.
I propose that the Controversy section of Joan Juliet Buck be merged into Asma al-Assad. I think that the content in the Buck article is more easily explained in the context of press on Asma, and that the attention should be put back on al-Assads, their atrocities, or on Vogue, at least, not the fashion writer commissioned by the magazine. The Asma article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Buck will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. --Aichikawa (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The current section covering al-Assad's entire 11+ year tenure as first lady of Syria is only 12 lines on my screen while the controversies section for Buck (which is only about that one article) is twice as large at 27 lines. I think it is much, much, much too large in the Buck article to begin with and even if it whittled down to half its current size, that section would dominate this article and take it off track. The brouhaha over the Buck/Vogue article seems to be more about editorial policy, objectivity and credibility with some hints of conspiracy give it some legs then about the life of al-Assad in my opinion. Keep the blow-by-blow over in Buck's article, we can provide a link to it for those who care to learn more. Veriss (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. It has a lot more to do with Buck and Vogue than Al-Assad. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per both Veriss1 and Daniel. As Veriss1 already said, I can't fathom why it takes up so much space in the Buck article. It has more WP:COATRACK than substance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The proposed merger is too large and lopsided. It gives undue weight to the Vogue article and the controversy behind it. If someone wants to add some relevant material from the subsection they can but should add only a few sentences. Guest2625 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments about my unfortunately premature closing
|
---|
Is it common to close a discussion after less then a day and a half? Just curious. Veriss (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
|
A apologize for jumping the gun on closing this. Please continue to comment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Journalist speaks out
The journalist who wrote the Vogue article on Asma al-Assad speaks out to The Daily Beast.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/29/joan-juliet-buck-my-vogue-interview-with-syria-s-first-lady.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.19 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Detail on Assad's house
I put in a detail about the family's strangely transparent house in Damascus from Joan Juliet Buck's Newsweek piece but an editor keeps deleting it feeling it off topic. Why? Sure, it's not as pressing as the number of people killed since the regime clamped down but since this is an article is about Alma al-Assad I think it completely appropriate, even illuminating: As first lady she represented the domestic sphere of the people in power. Designing one's house to be transparent house is weird as well as completely vain... because these people are weird!! There are other interesting details about the Assads from Buck's articles that could also be used, evidence of Alma's sadism in dealing with other people's children, the fact that even though they couple used an American PR company to liaise with Vogue, they were paranoid enough to have stand-in's photographed as their children.--Aichikawa (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- This kind of material is odd without explaining at some length what it means. Even putting it in without giving it more context would be giving it more merit than it deserves, but giving it context would be even more WP:UNDUE. The Buck opinion piece is not something we should be using to slam al-Assad. It is Buck's opinion, and given its background and history, is hardly neutral. It may belong in the Buck article, but it doesn't belong here any more prominently than it already is. Some of your comments also indicate that you have trouble being neutral about the material in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Buck lost all credibility as a reliable observer regarding this subject long ago. If the material is not directly relevant, verifiable, reliable or notable it does not deserve inclusion. Buck's most recent article is as suspect as her original piece for many of the same reasons and she should not be referred to here any more then absolutely necessary. Veriss (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Changing "the Devil's wife"
I propose changing the quoted characterization of Asma as "the Devil's wife" to "a woman on message like a banker"[3] [4]. The former doesn't really mean anything, may be sexist (she is a function not her own person), and the latter is more understandable and specific. --Aichikawa (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
AFP
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ [[The Independent|The Independent]] 'Syrian first lady's caring image unlikely to recover', 16 March 2012 [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-first-ladys-caring-image-unlikely-to-recover-7574585.html]
- ^ {{cite news|last=Farhi|first=Paul|title=Vogue’s flattering article on Syria’s first lady is scrubbed from Web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vogue-profile-on-assads-wife-disappears/2012/04/25/gIQAgMWthT_story.html|accessdate=April 27 2012|newspaper=Washington Post|date=25 April 2012}}