Talk:Severina Vučković

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Severina Vučković article.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

OK, so the controversy around Severina's entry in the ESC has completely waned so I brought it down to deserved levels of explanation. I hope that there are fans out there who can expand Severina's page with actual information about her career, rather than absolutely disgraceful and unnecessary descriptions of her sex tape. We all have sex, hopefully, and we all know what it looks like, hopefully!!!

I don't know enough about Severina, but she's had a career span of about 18 years, and she deserves a bit more than just two paragraphs about her song sounding like Serbian music (which is just pathetic -- so what if it does sound like Serbian music -- dear God, if it sounded like Cuban music no one would say a thing, and Serbs make a decent minority in Croatia whilst there's very little Cubans!). So please, people, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for us to express our frustrations and intolerance. The only intolerance should exist toward bad English and biased information!!!

Thanks! --Ogidog 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


- - Ogidog, How much is Severina paying you ???? Your BLATANT CENSORSHIP of information on this page is the REAL DISGRACE !!! Who are YOU to decide what information is suitable and what is not ??? Who are YOU to decide what is unnecessary or what can or can't be put on this page. How Dare You act as if you own this page. What you are doing is nothing short of abusing the system to fulfill your personal agenda, which seems to be "damage control" on behalf of severina. Wikipedia is about free, limitless, truthful information, by the people - for the people ! Your contemptible actions of censoring and deleting truthful, accurate information to serve your own agenda goes against everything wikipedia stands for and is absolutely despicable !! The Sex scandal information you delete is not only accurate, its is also highly relevant. The Sex scandal itself is the only reason why 90% of people outside croatia know severina at all, as it was a world wide reported scandal, increasing her fame significantly in a matter of days ! But also, it is very important to get across the exact graphic nature of what the tape containes as it is only then can we get a REAL grasp of WHY this tape was such a BIG DEAL, and also on WHY it impacted her image SO MUCH ! The relevancy of this information cannot be denied by any fair person who knows anything about this story. Even the press had more details than this ! Relevant truthful information cannot be denied, and WILL NOT BE DENIED, especially by some self serving, information suppressing, disgrace of a user like YOU !

It defies good taste! One of the Wikipedia guidelines for you, 86... (as you don't seem to want to log in!) is: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."


EurowikiJ, Some of the Wikipedia guidelines for you:
  • ...is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views given a somewhat lesser priority, while at the same time giving enough information and references for the reader to find out more about any particular view.

Your addition lacks neutrality, as it portrays only the negative part of the acceptance of the song. One would get the impression that beyond this last week, and the porn tape (as well as the use of the word infamous!!!), there is no career to Severina. I don't like Severina that much at all personally, and I may be annoyed by her existence, however, it's only fair to respect that she is a star, and if she doesn't have a full-blown entry, the people who are annoyed by her, yet do not think that her career deserves the space, should list the problem in one bullet -- something like "the win casued controversy in the purist part of the Croatian public".

  • ...is an appropriate length; article size is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be better suited for a child article ("subarticle"), related article, or sister projects.

Your addition is inappropriate in length due to the length of the entire entry. Write the whole article appropriate to her career, and then point out the two dark spots that overshadow the whole decade-worth of someone's career.


  • ...reflects expert knowledge; fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles.

Where is the expert knowledge: Sanja Dolezal? Vecernji list? Please...

Ggidog 24.2.242.93 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't particularly care for Severina, but I endeavored to edit this article because I don't think that it presents an encyclopedic view of the entry. Severina is far more popular than the what the article implies, and far less scandal-ridden. It's important to note that she's a pop singer, and as such subject to ongoing critique (similar to Britney Spears, Madonna, etc.) so it is redundant to list all of the scandals or all of the criticisms.

It is truly remarkable to see a growing number of contributors who seem not to care particularly for Severina but still, for some reason, feel an urge to register with Wikipedia only to choose her article for their first endavour at editing - by editing I mean removing almost the whole of the Moja stikla section. FYI, there is nothing encyclopedic about it. It is plain censorship. I think that the magnitude of the whole story should be accurately conveyed. If you feel that the achievements of her music career have been under-represented in the article, feel free to redress the imbalance by writing about it. Please, refrain from erasing the Stikla section. EurowikiJ 09:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I specifically removed it because it's something that is going to be talked about in through May 2006, and has nothing to do with Severina. A true fan, unlike me, would expand her section to include albums, concerts, et al. All people talk about is her sex tape, and I find that tasteless. OK, mention it once, and that's fine. But she's been around far longer than the 11 minutes tape, and that takes up way more space. That was my point. Also, the paragraph was written in poor English. I wil not refrain from deleting stuff that I think shouldn't be there. If you think that you should contribute, expand her section with a picture or something like that. Who cares if a bunch of people, including Sanja Dolezal, herself not the matron of quality, consider one song "turbofolk", notion unfamiliar to people who are going to visit this page to see who represents Croatia in the ESC. Also, keep such comments on the discussion page -- they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Ogidog
As far as her tape/sex scandal is concerned, I couldn't care less what you do with that section. However, I will resist any censorship/vandalism that purports to serve "the grand scheme of things". The song is controversial and the magnitude of the popular reaction should be noted.EurowikiJ 12:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The controversy lasted 2 days; give me a break! Ogidog
Please, cite your source. Though, I suppose there is no way that someone from the States (judging by your ip) would actually know. Stop vandalising. EurowikiJ 19:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not central to her character, or the encyclopedic entry. However, I will refrain from deleting it till next Monday. If no newspaper publicizes an article regarding the song (and you know this is ludicrous), i will begin deleting it again, as it is tasteless. It has nothing to do with her fairly long career, so that it should take up so much space. If someone wants to know who she is and what she represents, they would only see two entries -- the one about the porn tape, and the other about the discussion about the song that won Dora. This is why I keep deleting it. If the whole article had the size of the one, say, for Lepa Brena, or something like that, this would be pertinent.
From the United States, Mr. Spy Guy, it is quite easy to get a hold of any news from Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Bosnia. That you cannot hold as an arugment. Another thing that is annoying about your little "contribution" is the mention of Sanja Dolezal -- who is Sanja Dolezal, to comment on Severina? If Josipa Lisac or Gabi Novak said something, then that would be worthy of anything. But Sanja Dolezal, whose only credential was the participation in the ESC in 1987 (not because she wrote the song!!!), is meaningless. Thirdly, nobody cares about the use of Serbian words that much except some Croats, so it gives the impression that there is this paranoia in Croatia, aiming to expunge all Serbian from it. That's just ridiculous and backwards. So think about this before you say that I'm vandalizing anything. Ogidog
You are obviously mean, aggressive and manipulative. I consider this discussion over.EurowikiJ 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please parse out the part of my discussion that is (a) mean, (b) aggressive, and (c) manipulative. I was extremely civilized. I explained myself fully. I provided the guidelines from Wikipedia to support my actions. The same thing you did with poor Severina by adding that long and venomous paragraph, now you're doing to me. Most of all, I didn't insult you or talk about your character -- I just didn't like the tone of the entry -- it lacked neutrality and brevity -- so I fixed it. Sorry for applying the Wikipedia principles. Please refer to them when you're complaining about me next time. PS. Here's another one of the Wikipedia principles for you -- you can find it when you scroll down the page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."
Ogidog --24.2.242.93 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] "ekavian" and "right-wing politicians"

Sorry, you cannot just pick random people to prove your point. Also, there is no such thing as "ekavian" or "jekavian" etc. EurowikiJ 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Then the entire section ought to be removed (which I'd also be happy with). The comments about the song being a 'provocation' weren't made by 'a number of' politicians: they were made by these two named individuals at the instigation of a populist tabloid in Croatia (http://www.24sata.hr/articles/view/17549/).

This in turn was based on an erroneous claim that the song was in the ekavica dialect associated with Serbia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbo-Croatian_language) rather than the ikavica dialect spoken in the Croatian regions from which the 'folklore' used in the song was supposedly drawn. 194.66.92.113 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you can't just pick and choose. 24 Sata is a convenient excuse for you to label the whole thing as a tabloid story, but the truth is that it has been featured by Vecernji list and Jutarnji list (to name just the two most prominent dailies in Croatia) as well as the Croatian TV, RTL and other TV-stations. So it can hardly be dismissed as a tabloid thing.
Also, no one says that the song is in "ekavian dialect" (whatever that is) so please stop inventing things that aren't there. It contains Serbian words and there is no reason why that should not be mentioned.
As for the supposed link between the Crotian folklore and the song I refer you to the reaction of a Serbian newspaper which described the song as "a mockery of the Serbian Turbofolk" (http://www.kurir-info.co.yu/dnevne-vesti/ST-03-06032006.shtml) EurowikiJ 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
My problem is with the wording 'a number of politicians and Croatian Independance War Veterans' Associations', not with the prominence of the story in Croatia (I'm sorry if I gave that impression). Name other politicians/veterans who have been quoted, and I won't object.
Since the descriptions of the song as turbofolk (which isn't necessarily equivalent to Serbian, these days, even though turbofolk originated there) are such an important part of the story, I do feel strongly that the reactions of the performer and composer concerning the use of folklore and turbofolk should at least be acknowledged in this text.
The use of Serbian language in the song has also been contested in the media, e.g. whether one particular word in the lyrics is actually 'devojčice' (as it would be in Serbian) or 'divojčice' (the form used in Dalmatian dialect). In Croatian this distinction is referred to as ekavica/ikavica which I understand it is legitimate to anglicise as ekavian/ikavian (though I'll be guided by whatever is the Wikipedia policy on this). RichmondTW 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but unless I'm very much mistaken, you suggested that "the story (...) was described by some Croatian tabloid newspapers as ..." which as you can find out in my previous reply can only be described as incorrect, or an understatement at best. Also, Turbofolk has indisputably been recognized as a Serbian phenomenon. Should you disagree, you're more than welcome to share your discoveries on the Wikipedia page dedicated to this style of music. "Cupa, ojda, zumba, sojcice" are not Croatian words and no amount of imagination will succeed in croatianising them - "ikavian", "ekavaian" and so on play no role here. The alleged reaction of the authors and singer is contradicted by the fact that there is no work ascribed to the Croatian folklore that features "Africa, peppers, hay, salami, bleet etc". But, perhaps you know something I don't. If so, please share it with me. EurowikiJ 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The singer's reaction is covered at http://www.jutarnji.hr/kultura_i_zivot/panorama/clanak/art-2006,3,5,stikla_seve,15119.jl where she claims the song includes Croatian musical sources including ganga and rere singing and ljerica instrumentation, and at the same time discusses Goran Bregović's involvement with the ojda singing. As you say, it's debatable, to say the least, whether any of this is actually folklore. But if we're going to present the media sensation in the first place, aren't we obliged to acknowledge what the creators of the song had to say?
'Afrika, paprika, etc.' isn't being claimed for any folklore tradition, as far as I'm aware - its authors don't intend the song to be taken seriously in any case (http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20060228/mozaik01.asp ). RichmondTW 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have included a paragraph which, I believe, is a compromise, though it passes all belief that the creators' would dare to describe their work as belonging to or bearing resemblence to Croatian folklore. Nevertheless, their reaction has been noted as well as the reply of the experts on the subject. EurowikiJ 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit war

There seems to be a small edit war going on between EurowikiJ and 24.2.242.93. Any chance we can stop the edits and discuss the matter more fully here? Also, don't forget about WP:3RR. --Yamla 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As it has been clearly demonstrated above, any constructive discussion with the anonymous user 24.2.242.xxx aka Ogidog is impossible. His logic is remarkably unfathomable. He insists the article lacks references to the performer's other career achievements which might lead a visitor to the conclusion that the singer's career is all about scandals. However, instead of correcting the perceived imbalance by adding other information about the singer, he keeps deleting the two paragraphs. Of course, he is not a fan of the singer, he repeatedly adds, which in his opinion gives him the right to limit the scope of his interest in the article to deleting the two paragraphs I wrote.
But the anonymous user 24.2.242.xxx aka Ogidog goes a step further and this is where the whole story becomes sordid. Lacking convincing arguments for his vandalism he resorts to smear tactics to undermine my credibility. He relentlessly implies that the last paragraph about the singer's sex scandal and its explicit references have been written/added by me. Also, he accuses me of nationalism which is I suppose rich coming from someone who downplays the tragedy of the Serbian siege of Sarajevo here on Wikipedia (see Bosnian_War). In a nut shell, I feel it is pointless to try to reason with the manipulator. EurowikiJ 11:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, It is a shame that this discussion page has been turned into the 24.2.242.xxx's private sandbox. EurowikiJ 12:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


EurowikiJ:
Focusing on the issue is the constructive discussion, rather than focusing on the person.
I cannot add anything more about Severina, even if I wanted to.
I am very sorry if you think I implied that you wrote the paragraph about her sex scandal. If you read more carefully, you might find out that I actually never wrote something like that.
I disagree with what you wrote about her, hence I revert it to what I think is tasteful and appropriate. Instead of offending me, you could actually respond to what I wrote about Wikipedia guidelines and your malicious article about the poor woman.
My contributions to Wikipedia have been honest. I have added stuff about the ESC that I know about, and about the Bosnian War that I know about. If that to you is downplaying anything then I can't help you. Actually, whatever I added could not have been taken out because it's based on information from the 1991 Census. That doesn't downplay anything. It actually sheds additional light to the entire conflict. And we all want additional light. Perhaps you should tell me what actually is downplaying of anything, instead of just throwing accusations.
You on the other hand, go on and on about one of Severina's song -- basically, the worst thing there being that it's Serbian turbofolk (which is actually not a Serbian creation at all -- it comes from the Middle East -- and some of turbo-folk songs have been huge hits. Oh and almost every Spanish Eurovision song is turbofolk, according to its definition), and that it has Serbian words. Well, there is a ton of people (including myslef) who think that that's just sensationalism -- and I told you that the controversy was going to last a week. And so it did! What more do I need to tell you?
I mostly defend myself here, and you keep pouring insults on me.
I simply disagree with your depiction of Severina, bottom line. I don't think she's a pop-folk singer. Everyone has folk influences in their pop music -- including Madonna, including Sting. --Ogidog 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Read carefully Ogidog because I am only willing to go this far! It is a compromise. As for the duration of the scandal there is a link to the articles that appeared recently: http://www.vecernji-list.hr/header/search/search.do?resultsPage=0&detailForm=false&searchText=severina EurowikiJ 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the last article in which the revered "Vecernji list" wonders whether it's turbo folk or not is from 3/9. This just proves my point! Did you suddenly cross over to my side of the feud? Oh, and "Vecernji list" also states: "I pošto je tobože na pitanju ukusa podijelila hrvatsku naciju [...]". This is from an article of 3/15, after her performance in Belgrade -- I emphasize "toboze". Thanks for your efforts. Oh, and what is this "I am only willing to go this far"? Are you threatening me? I am closely following the Wikipedia guidelines. You have called me a number of names, and I didn't once offend you. I think you should chill a little! And I like your edits btw. You should have done this in the first place!--Ogidog 20:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, thank you for these gracious words. Indeed, a fitting end to the most stimulating debate. EurowikiJ 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Oh, I didn't do this because I want to cause a war. I am just afraid that the two pieces of information about an artist whose career spans over 17 years (regardless to whether one likes her or not) might bias a reader to think that her career is all about scandals or these two issues (as indeed there are artists who tend to draw attention like that, or become known as such). This is a violation of the NPOV policy I think. As part of a larger article, this much information would be appropriate, but I think that this addition was made because someone didn't like the song that is going to represent Croatia in the ESC rather than because someone wanted an English-enabled reader to learn more about who Severina is or something like that. This is not fair, I think, and it violates NPOV, I repeat.
I don't even want to discuss the deliberate description of a sex act. I think that a reference to a sex tape is sufficient. It was a magnificent scandal period. It's unnecessary to describe whether there were blowjobs or not!!!
This is my explanation of what's going on, and you can also consult the first part of the Talk page for my reasons.
The person adamant to keep this information (about the ESC) EurowikiJ, is unfortunately prone to calling me names and not very much prone to understanding what I am saying. I am all for civilized discussion, and I do think that we do need to resolve this!
One other thing, I wasn't avare of the 3RR rule, otherwise I would have logged on! I do actually want someone to notice what's going on! --Ogidog 23:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have marked the page as protected. I think the reasons are obvious. This is certainly not a permanent measure, I or any other admin can unprotect the page once the dispute is resolved. --Yamla 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Respect! The "Stikla" dispute is resolved between EurowikiJ and Ogidog. The latest revert to the overly detailed description of the sex tape is at issue. --67.172.1.76 07:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Interwiki

Sysops! please, add cs:severina into article, interwiki is important. THX --Aktron 15:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV

explicit language, undocumented article--Greece666 22:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Greece666's BAD and subjective english

It is very obvious that english is not your first language, and it's not your name that gives people that impression, it's your use of english in this article. I will now post every single change you made and show you why they are ALL subjective OR bad uses of english :

1. You changed reported world wide - to - reported worldwidely . If you knew english, you would know that "Worldwidely" IS NOT A WORD !!!! Stop changing it !

2. You changed she was doing all of this - to - she had a sexual intercourse . Several things wrong here; first, "sexual intercourse" is very specificly only 1 kind of sexual act, however severina did MANY kinds of sexual actsin the video, so it would be wrong to only single out the "intercourse" as the only thing she did or the only reason why it was "shocking", because i'm sure even if there was no "intercourse" on the video, as it still had all of the other sexual acts such a oral sex, handjob, etc, it would STILL be "shocking" to the public, so it's not about the "intercourse". Also even if it was, the english again in not correct, you cannot say had "a" sexual intercourse, so again its wrong, so stop changing it !

3. You changed the video was already widely available on the internet. However, while perhaps ruining her religious image.. - to - the video was already widely available on the internet. However, while the video-tape probably ruined her religious image.. There is NO NEED to say again "video-tape" when it is CLEAR that is what the subject is ! Its just POINTLESS REPETITION and is NOT NEEDED SO STOP CHANGING IT !!

4 You changed ..it actually boosted her career, especially internationally as the story was reported around the world and millions who had never heard of Severina now knew of her. - to - ..the negative publicity actually boosted her career, as the story was reported on an international level. Changing "it" (meaning the video) to "negative publicity" is not correct as "it" didn't mean publicity, "it" purely meant the video. and also calling news about the tape "negative publicity" is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE and has no place on a neutral article such as this. News is (meant to be) neutral, opinion articles can be subjective (negative or positive).

5. You Removed The new image has so far been successful for her. When people go through "scandals" and their whole images are DESTROYED, it can mean the end their career. In this case however, Severina has been able to adapt to a different image after the scandal, and this sentence is there to indicate that her career was not distroyed and that she has been able to be successful with a changed image ! Something completely true as she was even representing her country at Eurovision ! So stop changing it !!!

- I-jex 21 may 2006

your comment on worldwide/world widely is correct, but I do not agree with the rest of your comments.

i wont rv any more. anyone interested look here--Greece666 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

i would also like to add, that the changes i tried to make to the article have little to do with language (except from some obvious mistakes, as the repetition of the word "the"). what i essentially tried to fix is POV and comments such as "the nation" referring to the croatian ppl, as if they were the only nation of the world. --Greece666 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I-Jex understands sex

Well, I-jex, I'm sorry that for you sexual intercourse is "very specificly only 1 kind of sexual act", but check entry on sexual_intercourse and it may take your sex life to the new peaks!

[edit] The Sex Tape

I've added an external link to Severina's sex tape twice (and seen it get deleted both times), because it's discussed in the article and is significant enough that I've twice seen it referred to in other material on Severina. Unless there is a policy against linking to porn (and no such policy exists, of course), why isn't this link important to the article? The following is a direct link to the sex video, NSFW: http://www.spankwire.com/articles/29118/Full_Sex_Tape.html

Using any other copy of the whole video would be fine. It's not about this specific source but about linking to the relevant material. --Nick Douglas 08:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This link is inappropriate. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. The site requires proprietary browser plugins (flash) and is a commercial site. --Yamla 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/v/Talk%7ESeverina_Vu%C4%8Dkovi%C4%87_a4e7.html"