Talk:Kurban Said

NPOV tag

Sorry, I should have started a section here yesterday to explain my addition of the NPOV tag. I've re-added the tag; allow me to explain. As currently written, this article basically says that the Azerbaijani International conclusions are definitely correct, and that anyone else's opinion is wrong. Well, that's not how Wikipedia works--we don't take sides, deciding that AI is more credible, more accurate, did better research, whatever, than Reiss. The only reason we would do that is if international opinion on the matter, particularly in the field of literary criticism, has decided that the AI position is stronger. To do that, we'll need references that are independent of both (i.e., no one who was part of that journal issue, not Reiss, etc.), and not things like an article in an Azerbaijani newspaper saying how great the analysis is.

However, I don't want the tag to stay up indefinitely; rather, I want to fix the article so that it neutrally presents all positions. The only reason I didn't is that I had already spent quite a while doing that on the Lev Nussinbaum page, and didn't have the time or energy here (plus, I've got several dozen other things on Wikipedia I'm working on at the moment). I'll definitely get back to this when I can, I promise; anyone else, though, is welcome to tackle it (from either direction--either by making it more neutral, or by giving some evidence here that the journal is the dominant source in lit crit). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Will work to provide more primary sources. They exist. Gizgalasi (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)gizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Hope this will clear up the problem of alleged bias. Thanks for pointing out the problem.Gizgalasi (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)GizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide them to this talk page. You have demonstrated an inability to edit neutrally, and since you have a COI, should not be editing the page directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is important that NPOV and COI templates removed from this article. So how to do it? So many points of view have been expressed for the reader- Lev Nussimbaum, Chamanzaminli, Vacca. So what specifically has to be changed so that the article stands. thanks Gizgalasi (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)gizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV can be removed once we remove the many cases where the article states as fact what is only the opinion of one group of researchers. The COI tag can be removed as soon as you agree to stop editing the article (or are prevented from doing so by administrative actions) and the COI-biased edits you've made are taken care of. Note, though, that this is a fairly complicated issue, and may take a while to solve. It would be great if we had other editors helping, especially since this is not my favorite topic to edit on. If I have to handle all of the NPOV issues, it will probably take me time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So you delete the bibliographic reference to the statement that precedes about the life experiences, the articles, the stories that Chamanzaminli wrote. That statement has been up for months and didn't have the reference. I thought that Wikipedia liked to have references where information came from. Why don't you allow the reference and the link that shows 80 pages of why there is a connection to Chamanzaminli. If this is what Wikipedia is becoming, then people will rely less and less on it. The bibliographic reference should be available for the Wiki reader. Why do you allow the statement but not the source of the statement???Gizgalasi (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)gizgalasi

Post your suggested edit here and allow an uninvolved editor to decide what to do with it, you are too conflicted to edit this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the original bibliographic reference available in a revert. The original statement has been up for a long time but it was not supported. Wikipedia requires bibliographic support which can be found in the major triple issue of Azerbaijan International, Vol. 15:2-4 (2011). Therefore, bibliographic statement should be allowed to stand. Those referenced pages provide support for the following correlations found in the novel of Ali and Nino when compared to the literary output of Azerbaijani writer Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli. For example: pages 254-261 show that YVC's diaries suggest the identity of the main character in the novel. A Jewish girl Berta Maiseyeva was the prototype for Nino (pages 254-261.

Pages 262-333 include 101 reasons in 9 categories that support the idea that Chamanzaminli is the core author of the novel Ali and Nino: (1) life experiences, (2) history, (3) themes in his literary work, (4) reasons that are hard to claim that they are merely circumstantial, (5) names, (6) use of metaphors, (7) prototypes found in YVC's work that match those in Ali and Nino, (8) similar themes, events traditions in YVC's works, (9) life experiences and literary themes that YVC wrote about during the Soviet era. I can't imagine that Wikipedia editors would not want statements supported with bibliographic references. The endnotes themselves for this article are 16 pages long (318-333). Please revert and let the bibliographic reference stand. Gizgalasi (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

One publication, Azerbaijan International, appears to be the major English-language secondary source on the subject, but it's over-represented in this article. The editors request third party input. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Chris troutman, as a general rule, issues should be discussed first among involved editors before starting an RfC. But, in any event, you are correct that the article over-represents the improtance of the AI info. This was because an editor from the journal fought a long battle claiming that the source is the best possible source, and there simply weren't enough other editors who cared to dispute the point. However, if you'd like to start trimming the article, and especially if you'd like to add other sources, that would be great. My biggest concern is that while the AI editor represented this as a major scholarly achievement, they 1) never really demonstrated that other scholars actually recongized it as such, and 2) never really overcome the concern that there was a clear POV involved in the scholarship. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I spoke with Azerbaijan International (AI) editor User talk:Gizgalasi during a recent meetup. I expressed the need to utilize other scholarly references but I couldn't find much on Jstor and don't have the time to invest in doing serious research. As I am no expert in Azerbaijani history, I placed the RfC to get knowledgeable folks who could academically evaluate the AI material and determine which direction to take. I don't think the back-and-forth argument between the two of you has been helpful; besides, many hands make light work. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It is utterly absurd to make a separate article out of this. It should be merged in much shortened form into the article on Ali and Nino It seems obvious to be that it has no separate notability. If there's no agreement on merge, I'll use AfD. FFIW, an rfc can sometimes be necessary to get an outside editor to look at an article. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Because there is such a controversy raging about the authorship of the novel Ali and Nino and because Lev Nussimbaum (Essad Bey) and Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli have both been identified as the real identity behind the penname of Kurban Said and both have their own articles, I think that the separate article on Kurban Said should stand. Until the issue is resolved to the satisfactory of the academic community, I would suggest that the issues are clearer if a separate article is kept for this pseudonym - Kurban Said. Gizgalasi (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Gizgalasi

It would be helpful to mention that there is a second "Kurban Said" novel, Das Mädchen vom Goldenen Horn (translated into English as The Girl from the Golden Horn.) Without any reference to this second novel, we do not know if the editorial history of that book would add anything to the question of the author's identity. At any rate, the existence of a second novel ahould be discussed in this article, which at present is hyper-focused on Ali and Nino. 2601:84:8A00:2860:6C55:F481:7310:5665 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Remaining POV Issues?

I see that User:Softlavender replaced the pov tag I removed. It appears that there was extensive discussion several years ago that has now ended. What do you feel still needs to be done to fix the pov problems? Rather than let the article sit forever on the pov backlog, let's just fix it. You are welcome to make any needed changes yourself, or I would be happy to help if you will give a sort explanation of what the problems are. -- LWG ^talk 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There are concerted and vested interests which seek to coopt the real-life identity of the author of the well-loved tale Ali and Nino, who used the pseudonym Kurban Said. This article was majority (97%) written by those vested interests. This wiki article is therefore dripping with editorialization, POV/UNDUE, innuendo, and false statements. I'm afraid only someone aware of the bitter conflicts can clean it up. I will try to do so within the week. Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be keeping an eye on the article in the meantime. Since you evidently have strong opinions on this issue, make sure as you edit that you keep aware of WP:SOAP and WP:TRUTH. It will greatly help us defend any chances from accusations of bias if you make clear here which statements are false and which ways undue weight is being given. If the cited sources themselves offer different proposed identities for Kurban Said, then the article needs to mentin all of these and make it clear who advocates what so the reader can make their own decisions about possible bias. -- LWG ^talk 21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks LWG, but I'm a much, much, much more experienced editor than you, and a much more experienced content editor, and I'm actually highly knowledgeable about this article and its history and very serious problems all across the board from the get-go, and I don't need any advice or help from you, and your inserting yourself into an article and discussion and situation you know nothing about seems highly inappropriate in my eyes. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for what I see was a condescending tone - I routinely interact with good faith but inexperienced editors and while I did not assume you were one of these, I have gotten in the habit of opening these kind of discussions carefully to prevent myself from being viewed as part of some "Cabal". Had I checked your edit history I would have realized you are experienced enough to be aware of these issues. I do not doubt your competence at all and I hope you will extend me the courtesy of assuming good faith - I have the exact same goal as you here: an accurate, balanced article. If the best way I can help is to get out of the way and let you work I am happy to do so. -- LWG ^talk 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)