This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)