Talk:Ali and Nino

Untitled

Yes, that might be a bit too many tags. However, I think they're most warranted. The article goes on about how terrific the book is, and how comparable it is to other classics, but does nothing to make it qualify this. A novel infobox might also be useful, I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All that needs to be changed is to say that it's received a lot of sterling reviews and cite some articles that talk about how great it is and why. There's a bazillion of them out there, including an amazing account of whatsisname's life in the New Yorker, showing the literary detective work that was required to find out just who he really was. --Bluejay Young 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aliundnino.jpg

Image:Aliundnino.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent research

The most recent research shows that the authorship of the novel Ali and Nino is very complex - due to the extremely complex period in which it was written about (1917-1920) and when it was eventually published (1937) in Austria. After six years of in-depth research of documents in National Archives in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Germany and major libraries, the conclusion reached by the staff of Azerbaijan International points to various hands - not one single one - being involved in the creation of this novel. Some of these are mentioned in the Footnotes to this article: (1) Azerbaijani Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli is the core author. It was his original work. (2) Essad Bey got his hands on it (he was well-connected in Berlin and later Vienna) with agents and publishers. It can be proven that Essad Bey added legendary and folkloric material because he was a "copy and paste" writer and entire sections are found in some of his earlier works. Sections in the novel related to Tiflis and Iran were plagiarized from (3) Grigol Robakidze. (4) Elfriede Ehrenfels registered the Kurban Said pseudonym in her own name in German documents.

Given that tens of thousands of immigrants had flocked to the capital cities of Europe, with the collapse of world empires such as the Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire etc, this makes sense that there were writers who were at the mercy of those who could exploit them. See the research produced by Azerbaijan International, Vol. 15:2-4 (2011). 364 page, 1200 photos Gizgalasi (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)gizgalasi See "What People are saying about the research by Azerbaijan International - Authorship of Ali and Nino"

Authorship section

I've tagged the authorship section as non-neutral. The problem is that it assumes that the work of the Azerbaijani Journal is "true", even though there are competing narratives and claims (most notably, Tom Reiss's The Orientalist). Wikipedia cannot present the research from the Azerbaijani Journal as if it is definitive, since the debate, as far as I can tell, is not settled. Yes, I understand that this is a matter of Azerbaijani pride, but WP:NPOV requires that we show all sides of every story, keeping in mind WP:DUE. I just got finished rewriting the Ali and Nino portion of the Lev Nussimbaum article, so I'm not up to tackling this one right now, but I'll come back to this at some point. Other people, are, of course, welcome to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But Reiss came to this research with his own agenda and did not dig deeply. Azerbaijan International started with the premise that Essad Bey was the true author. They dug into the archives and completely reversed their position. Chamanzaminli is the core author of Ali and Nino. One needs to read their research before dismissing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizgalasi (talk • contribs)

Please provide reliable sources independent of both authors that Reiss's research was biased. We can hardly take the AI's word that their work is true, fair, and unbiased, while other investigator's are not. Sadly, I cannot read most of the AI research, since it's behind a paywall; but it's simply ludicrous to think that they set out on a multiyear investigation with no predisposition towards a finding that the author of a book that is allegedly beloved in Azerbaijan was not written by an Azerbaijani author but rather by a German. Now, I'm not saying that their finding isn't correct--I have no idea myself--but Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV specifically) requires that we show all sides of a debate, in due weight to their importance in the real world. As I explained on Kuban Said, if there is evidence that the AI opinion has come to be the widely accepted one in international literary criticism, then we should favor their version. Until then, we need to present both opinions equally. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In our research, we quote hundreds of Endnotes. And our research is very broad and multi-faceted. Please understand that Azerbaijanis consider Essad Bey to be Azerbaijani as well and he happened to write in German. They don't consider him to be German - so it is wrong to presuppose that AI research is biased because they show that Chamanzaminli is the core writer. And it is possible - there is no pay wall - to see some of the articles and to see an extensive Table of Contents. The research is 364 pages. It is much more extensive than Reiss who really did not spend much time on the Ali and Nino question. AI has an article - Frequently Asked Questions - 158 FAQs with 543 Endnotes (about 40 pages). Impossible to present in short Wiki articles. See also _Vacca's Sensational Biographical Account of Essad Bey. Also Was Essad Bey Too Prolific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizgalasi (talk • contribs)

The templates were added in January. It's April now. So can you help us to remove those tags. How to do it? Thanks. Gizgalasi (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)GizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The first step is for you to stop editing the article. Once you agree to do that, then I might be willing to work on it more. I am not interested in trying to edit in opposition to someone whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote your own research and make a series of articles conform to the viewpoint in that research. You're not trying to be NPOV--you're saying "The AI account is well-researched and right, therefore it must be neutral." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So if I stop editing, then what happens. How do you develop the article further. How to change content that exists so that it is in keeping with Wiki requirements. How can I be involved if you say I cannot edit? How does that work? Gizgalasi (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)GizgalasiGizgalasi (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the changing of statement - It is much more accurate at this point to say that "Someone who called himself Kurban Said" - and not to name Nussimbaum at this point. Even the correspondence between the publisher Lucy Tal and her lawyer in the 1970s indicated that she was not sure that Essad Bey truly had written the novel. She was sorry that she had not asked her friend, Essad Bey's wife Erika Loewendahl but thought she might [not - Marshallswift] even know as they had separated in 1935 and the book was published or at least in the works by 1936. So, at this point, it is not accurate to claim with assurance that Lev Nussimbaum was the author. His extreme prolificness of "writing" 16 books in 8 years under the terribly unsettling years of the 1930s in Germany and Austria would preclude his being the original author of so many books. And it has been proven without a doubt that portions of the book - the Tiflis and Tehran sections - are absolutely plagiarized from Grigol Robakidze. And the main story line parallels the writings and life experiences of Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli. So it is misleading at this point in research to write without reservations that Lev Nussimbaum is absolutely Kurban Said. The book that Lev Nussimbaum wrote "The Man Who Nothing About Love" and signed as Kurban Said - is strange fiction and it was advertised as being available in the back of a book "I Was an Ugly Girl" published by Kitchener. Allegedly, Essad Bey gave that book to AnneMarie Selenko. So how is it that Essad Bey gave that book away - clearly it wasn't his in the first place and being male, he couldn't claim authorship. So many of Essad Bey's books have other fingerprints in them. Most of the books that bear Essad Bey's name were ones that he embellished and publishers sold them unders his more famous name - than the original obscure author. Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of refugees had fled to major European capitals from collapsed empires of Russia, Ottomans, Hungarian/ Austria and the German Empire. The statement should be reverted to read - "Someone who called himself Kurban Said." Gizgalasi (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Gizgalasi

Point taken. Identity "Kurban Said" is part of the disagreement over authorship. You do not even mention the claim that Chamanzaminli had also used variations on the pseudonym Kurban Said. Marshallswift ( talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Still showing you don't understand how Wikipedia works. You're arguing the actual research, the academic analysis again. You're trying to show what is "true". That's the job of academic journals. Our job is merely to repeat (in summary) what reliable sources have said. Get some sources, and, ideally, sources that cite those sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, concerning "how Wikipedia works", has anybody else noticed that they are not receiving alert notices when Marshallswift edits this article? Has something been modified behind the scenes so that we don't receive notifications whenever he adds material to this article? It has happened over and over to me during the last 3-4 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenofyoursoul (talk • contribs)

If you mean that it doesn't show up on your watchlist, my guess is that you have the option checked that says "Hide minor edits". Sometimes, Marshallswift has been marking his edits as minor, and, it seems, usually doing so correctly--minor edits are for corrections to spelling, grammar, etc. The thing that makes it confusing, and the reason I never mark changes as minor, is if he does a bunch of major changes, then the very last one is minor, I believe that means it won't appear on your watchlist. However, it's very easy for you to fix: just change that setting in your wachlist (click on the blue link that says "Show" next to "minor edits" in the box at the top of your watchlist). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to go into the minutiae of this vexed authorship question, may I suggest that the "neutrality disputed" tag, while substantially justified, is placed at the wrong position in the article? It now seems as if it only applies to the sub-section 3.2.1 "Assertions that Azerbaijani nationalism motivates the advocacy of Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli's authorship". That appears to target/disput the neutrality of only the anti-nationalist interventions in a debate which is heated and partizan in its entirety. The entire debate triggered by the assertion of Chamanzaminli’s authorship ought to be flagged as "neutrality disputed", so the tag should be placed one paragraph higher up. I am not experienced or wiki-confident enough to do this myself, and hope I haven't broken any rules or etiquette with this Talk intervention.

File:Maiden tower from Baku bay.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Maiden tower from Baku bay.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Maiden tower from Baku bay.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery!

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 was not merged, as the other article has been deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

best discussed as a part of the article on the actual work in question DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made that this article - "Ali and Nino - Literary Robbery" be merged with "Ali and Nino - A love story".

I think the two articles should stand as they are now and maintain their separate entries as they identify titles of two separate books. If the articles are merged, it's likely that more confusion will follow. "Literary Robbery" is the research of Georgian philologist Tamar Injia who goes to considerable length to discuss proof why she is sure that sections in the novel of "Ali and Nino-A Love Story" have been plagiarized from Georgian author Grigol Robakidze. Her separate article has been up on Wikipedia for several years and it seems to me it is correct to make it a separate topic. Her work has been shown to be credible and is one of the important aspects of research about the novel. Gizgalasi (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Gizgalasi

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Ali and Nino. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ali and Nino: A Love Story → Ali and Nino (novel) – The title of this page should be changed to "Ali and Nino (novel)". The novel's original title and standard title in most editions -- to my knowledge -- is simply Ali and Nino. The subtitle A Love Story was added by Anchor Books to its 2000 edition (now noted in the section "Editions," subsection "Other Editions." Marshallswift (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if that's the case, it should just be moved to Ali and Nino; the original novel obviously is the primary topic, and thus should be at the undisambiguated name; we can leave a hatnote at the top for anyone looking for the criticism book. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, could you do that? I don't know how.Marshallswift (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyedit and suggestions

Hi, I just went through the entire authorship section and made a copyedit. My one main sense after doing so is that the Betty Blair section is overly long and seems fairly ludicrous. I took out most of the sarcasm directed at her opinions (Wikipedia is not a debate society), but the section is still too long and headachey and frankly overwhelms the authorship section while being at the same time the least convincing. To remedy this undue emphasis on mere hypotheses and conjectures, I suggest shortening it, preferably considerably. If that's hard to do, I would suggest just making generalizations that her theories are based on conjectures, summarizing them briefly, and then moving the bulk of the conjectures and hypothetical scenarios into textual foonotes. Perhaps that way readers who want to read the hypotheses can do so, and readers who just want effeciency and a summary are not bogged down by wordiness and long tales. Oddly, I think the Betty Blair section crucifies itself by its own wordiness, which might appeal to opponents of her theories, but do we really want that much text spent on them in the body of the article? Also, some of the inline rebuttals to her hypotheses would do better with a citation rather than being merely uncited observations or objections. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way I've cleaned up the External Links, removing all the linkspam and also this 2005 article from The Nation, which is basically a discussion of Jewish Orientalism based somewhat loosely around a review of The Orientalist and also Ali and Nino (which the article asserts was indeed written by Nussimbaum). This article could be used as a citation or quoted in any of the relevant Wikipedia articles, but it doesn't seem to warrant being an External Link on the Ali and Nino article. Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

SoftLavender

Softlavender - why are you reverting my changes? What is the reason? These are facts. They have nothing to do with Tom Reiss who you have constantly defended this past week. The novel "Ali and Nino" opens just prior to the outbreak of World War I. That would make it 1914, not 1918 when the war ends. Ali goes to Shusha so he can be close to Nino's family for the summer holiday when suddenly the war breaks out and everyone returns to Baku. And then there is a big discussion about Ali not being willing to go to war to fight for the Czar because this war is not his war - it is irrelevant to Azerbaijan. The point is critical to the development of the narrative because Ali disappoints his father by refusing to get involved in this war. Furthermore, Ali claims that it doesn't matter who might win this war - Czar or the Kaiser (both are Christian monarchies) and both would result in oppression for his countrymen. The 1914 date should be reverted. And why wasn't I alerted to this change via email? And why doesn't this reversion show up in the WATCHLIST? So many of the changes that have been made to this article this last week - especially by Tom Reiss (Marshallswift) have not shown up in the WATCHLIST CHANGES. Why is that? And no, I am notified of all changes - even Minor edits.

Also, the copyright page of the original 1937 German Edition of "Ali and Nino" clearly shows that it belonged to E.P. Tal Verlag who owned the copyright. In addition the first US English edition 1970 by Random House shows Lucy Tal to be the copyright owner (her husband had died). Also the 1970 British edition by Hutchinson also shows Lucy Tal as copyright holder. It was not Elfriede Ehrenfels or Leela Ehrenfels (born 1965). The book's copyright page reads Tal. In fact, all editions of Ali and Nino indicate that the Tals held the copyright until This is relevant as a NOTE because contemporary editions try to show that Leela Ehrenfels has owned the copyright since 1937 when she wasn't even born. And this is not what the copyright shows in the original German copy. Shouldn't readers know this now that a major film about this novel is in the works? I think it deserves at least a footnote.

What is the problem with defining the dates of the short-lived independent Republic of Azerbaijan (23 months: May 28, 1918 to April 28, 1920)? The whole book centers around Azerbaijan trying to hold on to this independence. And many readers will not know these dates which help to clarify the time frame. These dates should be left in to help readers more clearly understand the chronology. Not all readers will know that for Azerbaijan, the occupation began in 1920 as it was different for the various Republics that later made up the Soviet Union. Gizgalasi (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gizgalasi: Those were distracting and unnecessary and excessive and repetitive or redundant details and footnotes which only cluttered the article and made it more confusing. Anyone can click on the wikilinks if they want to see further details. You have been warned about editing these articles, and therefore any edits you make will be under scrutiny, and if substantive will probably be deleted and/or lead to further blocks. If you want a substantive edit made to the article, request it here on the Talk page, and editors without a COI will decide whether to make it or not. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ali and Nino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100224182924/http://www.ou.edu/worldlit/onlinemagazine/2009september/Masud.htm to http://www.ou.edu/worldlit/onlinemagazine/2009september/Masud.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ali and Nino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216115657/http://mirzexezerinsesi.net/articles/search?q=ali+ve+nino to http://mirzexezerinsesi.net/articles/search?q=ali+ve+nino
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904083308/http://www.princeton.edu/piirs/people/visitors/ to http://www.princeton.edu/piirs/people/visitors/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)