Talk:Jean Sasson

Untitled

This article reads like a press-release. "She is best known for her ability to bring her readers into the story"? Encyclopedic articles don't gush like this for even the great authors. DParvaz (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat uncomfortable with this article. I feel like it is not written neutrally and am also concerned about the lack of citations for verification. Thanks! Monacat (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. A good friend of mine who is a member of Feminists for Life told me that Jean Sasson is a member. I do not have citations and therefore this is unreliable. Sorry for the unsourced edit. Boromir123 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairness of content on the Jean Sasson Page

My name is Jean Sasson and I'm the author being written about. In the past when I would read incorrect or unfair remarks on this page I would ask my secretary to please log on and make the correction or to add new information. Because I have had four different secretaries over the past 6 years, this has created a question mark about the entries.

So, that is the simple explanation for various names of people who have corrected or added new information from the same computer and office. I never had time to do much with this but was happy to have my staff do on my behalf.

What is troubling is that I have been harassed for years by a person who filed a frivolous lawsuit against me. This person and the person's attorneys intentionally supplied false information to journalists who did not bother to check out what was told to them. Instead, they printed it. Now, years after the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge for being frivolous and for having NO merit (everything said about me proved to be untrue). In fact, the judge found the lawsuit to be so frivolous that the plaintiff was actually fined, making legal history.

Now this person, or others, spend their days harassing me online. For several reasons, I tend to ignore this person most of the time. I am busy writing books and helping other women while this person does nothing but tear down.

Sadly enough, there is a second person who might be responsbile, a person I knew well in Saudi Arabia and who has self-published a book. That person has a history of writing malicious book reviews about my books online.

I am hoping that one of the editors at WIKIPEDIA will respond to my email so that I can show evidence that the lawsuit was dismissed, the person bringing the lawsuit fined. It seems unfair that this person intentionally trying to harm me and my work is allowed access to this site. If the editor named soul would care to write to me at wbbooks@hotmail.com, I would greatly appreciate it, UNLESS this editor happens to be one of the two people I mention in this talk page.

Meanwhile, I will await a reply. I'm addressing the fairness of who and what is allowed to be put on the page about me, Jean Sasson.

Thank you very much... 71.59.34.251 (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Jean Sasson wbbooks@hotmail.com

Hello. For a context to other readers see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jean_Sasson. Some history:

• Boromir123 (talk · contribs) inserted unreferenced statement to the article claiming that Sasson is a member of a feminist group [1]
• The claim was removed by the above IP-address user [2].
• WikiKing1234 (talk · contribs) re-inserted the statement with a bogus ref [3].
• Terri Brown (talk · contribs) (Sasson's secretary?) removed the statement again [4].
• I opened a sockpuppets investigation against Boromir123 and WikiKing1234 in which they confessed about a relation and apologized about the incident.
• I added COI and Advert tags to the article after I reviewed the article history [5] [6].
• After more than a month I removed the promotional parts from the article.
• Tome Price (talk · contribs) (another secretary?) re-added promotional info [7].
• I opened a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jean_Sasson against the editors who had added promotional info.

It is obvious that your aim was not only to remove unfair remarks in the article, but also, to promote yourself and your books. Anyone can see that when they read the article in its early version [8]. I assume that you are talking about the NY Times reference when you mention the lawsuit. The link was added to cite the best seller list statement, please assume good faith. Claims in Wikipedia have to be cited with reliable sources. Please familiarize yourself with our policies in SOAP, COI, SOCK and MEAT. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gonzo84d's concerns

The following is copied from User_talk:Gonzo84d

I find the Sasson page to be a clear case of undue weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Her page is accurate, I'm not disputing that. But it's only focused on negative and long-ago events in her life. I was trying to fix that, and would appreciate if you would put a request for this on her talk page, since I can't do it anymore.

Furthermore, There a couple of weasel words ("claims to be") used in describing Princess. All this has the effect of biasing a visitor against her. As a court of law has found that she wasn't guilty of plagiarism, why should there be any doubt placed on this? Example here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Sasson&diff=prev&oldid=331856745

There are plenty of claims we could make the same thing about. In short, we'd have to put "claims to be" (which carries negative connotations) in front of nearly everything. This is clearly impractical.

How is this promotion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Sasson&diff=prev&oldid=331856072 It's a mere descriptor of her books, which are noteworthy.

I agree with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Sasson&diff=prev&oldid=331855800

I'd appreciate if you or SoleSoul could fix or improve my edits, which are of value to Wikipedia, so they are bet er in line with policy. As opposed to simply and rudely deleting them. An example would be finding a non-partial link to the above. Copied by Sole Soul (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

My response:

First of all, because of the history of promotion from the author in this article which coincided with the publishing of her new book Growing Up Bin Laden in October, I've to be suspicious about any hint of promotion, especially concerning her new book. The article is about the author, so only notable events about her and notable works by her should be covered , whether they are current or long ago events. The 2 books that had generated the most headlines are already covered in the article, other works are listed. I'm open to suggestions to address your concern about undue weight, but please provide reliable sources with them. I've already removed a sentence [9] because I felt it may amount to guilt by association, although it was mentioned by reliable sources. Concerning the words ("claims to be"), it was mentioned in the source which was published before the lawsuit was filed, so there is no connection. Even if nobody disputed the story or the existence of the person (which is not the case, [10] [11]), we cannot state this as a fact because no independent source confirmed it. So, although the words "claims to be" may have negative connotations, it is factually accurate. The story itself paints a negative image about a whole country, some of that is accurate but there are better sources and better places to prove that, see Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Finally, I provided an explanation in the edit summaries of every sentence I removed, I don't consider that to be "rude". Sole Soul (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and it (COI) was a mistake on my part. I apologize. I do promise not to edit again, although it looks like that's not going to affect anything. I can't respond to your comments on Sasson's talk page, so I'll do that here.

1) Notable events: Her other books may not qualify, but I think that judging by the great attention given to Growing Up, it should be included. It is, after all, a unique, first hand account of life with one of the world's most notable figures. If that's not notable, I'm not sure what is. Included it would also help the undue weight problem.

2)"So, although the words "claims to be" may have negative connotations, it is factually accurate." This is correct. But surely there's a way to say without that doesn't have those connotations. Again, you could put "claims to be" in front of anything and it would still be factually correct, but untrue to the spirit of whatever you were saying. For instance, "George claims to be an honest person." He might be the most honest person in the world, and he might claim it if asked (this would be more evidence of his honesty!). But though there isn't anything technically wrong here, anyone reading that would get the sense that George wasn't honest.

I'd love to provide reliable sources, but aren't allowed to edit, which is why I requested that somebody in the community help out.

As for the merits of the story, I haven't read it and can't speak to it. In any case, I don't see how that enters in here.

As for rudeness, it wasn't necessarily the individual edits. It was the wholesale erasing of my changes because I was assumed to be a sockpuppet. There was no dialogue. Anyway, it's not a huge deal.

If you could post this to the Sasson talk page I'd appreciate it. Cheers,

Gonzo84d (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Gonzo84d Copied by Sole Soul (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be tired of hearing this, but the keywords here to save our time, are reliable sources, you need them to write about Growing Up.

If I have to choose between "George is an honest person" and "George claims to be an honest person". I will certainly choose the latter, unless the former sentence is well-sourced. The better of course, is not to add such an inherently biased sentence at all.

Although I assumed you were a sock, I didn't base my edits on that assumption, because the investigation was not closed yet at that time. If it was, I probably would have removed all of your additions at once and wrote that as a reason in the edit summary. Sole Soul (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly Unprofessional, Substandard Biography

I don't know Jean Sasson and have never heard the name until today, so I came to Wikipedia to find out more. Unfortunately, I still know little to nothing of Jean Sasson having read the entire Wikipedia entry. PLEASE check out other biographies of people (Faulkner, Steinbeck, Capote...almost anyone)and see how to write a biography. This entry reads like the personal webpage of the subject. In the meantime, could anyone provide any real information about the subject: Who are her parents? Where has she lived from birth to now? Where did she receive her education? What were her early interests and accomplishments? Just, basically, answer the question WHO IS JEAN SASSON? After answering that question you can list her books/movies/inventions, etc. But we don't need book reviews in the main entry about her life.

I use Wikipedia constantly and find most entries to be sterling, so I rarely feel the need to write anything negative. This entry is just so sub-standard that I'm hopeful someone can gin it up to the gold standard that is Wikipedia.

N0w8st8s (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)n0w8st8s

In Ms. Sasson's book, "Princess" pg 57, she quotes the narrator as saying "Muslims weep bitter tears at the mention of Jerusalem, for it is a city now occupied and no longer free and open to our people."  Assuming that the princess doesn't know of the Muslim population in Israel and Jerusalem, how is it that the author doesn't correct her?  Is is possible that Ms. Sasson also isn't aware of the arab population and, indeed, their civil rights, in Israel?  This one misstatement makes one wonder about the credibility of the entire book and should be corrected.

174.67.194.57 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Martin Keyser

Whitewashing

I was surprised to discover how sanitised this article is. Sasson's book, The Rape of Iraq has long since been shown to be a work of black propaganda funded by the Kuwaiti government: apart from the 200,000 copies paid for by the Kuwaitis to be issued to troops, they also funded the production of an additional million copies for general publication. But more seriously, not one of the accounts of atrocities in it has ever been corroborated; Doug Kellner of UCLA went so far as to call the book "One of the biggest lies in history."

QuipQuotch (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Very Uninformative Biography

This biography is one of the most uninformative biographies I have read on Wiki. It just promotes the works of the author rather than giving details of the biography. The biography doesn't even give the date of birth or other information of the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.126.10 (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)