Talk:Hanna Diyab

Massive stretch about Hanna, the references do not say that he was definitely the one to write alladin and Alibaba and the rest. And it's not clear if his autobiography at the age of 75 is accurate. In fact it's more plausible that his own autobiography is inspired by the stories that he grew up on. Rather than his stories are inspired by his life. This is a gross false retelling of history. Hanna would have definitely mentioned that he made up the stories of alladin or Ali Baba in his autobiography however he doesn't. Purple Hyena
 * The scholarly secondary sources cited do make it clear that Diyāb was Galland's source for Alladin (in writing) and Ali Baba (orally). It's not always certain, however, how much Galland's telling of the stories owes to Diyāb and how much it owes to Galland's own intervention. So I'm not sure what the basis for this comment really is. Alarichall (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the "scholarly secondary sources" seem to support (or bear on in any way) on the authenticity of Diyāb's autobiography. Not counting literary reviews, obviously. On the face of it it seems rather unlikely that it is anything other than a historical novel. Although it would indeed be wonderful if it were true, on the face of it there is no real independent support. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Diyab's autobiography is not the basis for the claim that he was Galland's source: Galland's diary is. (Which is what the Wikipedia article, and its secondary sources, say.) Diyab's autobiography is important not because it's evidence for Diyab telling Galland the stories, but because it enables us to know a lot more about the rest of Diyab's life than we otherwise would. By the way, I recommend that before you issue speedy deletion notices on articles in future, you have a read of the Criteria for speedy deletion! Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally agree that "Diyab's autobiography is not the basis for the claim that he was Galland's source" - but as I'm sure you are very well aware, that is not the point. As stated on the next thread - "the claim that he [Diyab] was Galland's source" is very long established fact - the matter connected with the (totally unsupported) authenticity of a highly unlikely "biography" is altogether another matter. All we have from you thus far is attempts to change the subject - if you have any "non-internal" support for the biography being anything other than a load of clumsy fictional "historic reconstruction" then pray lets have it! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just added a paragraph under Reception about the literary style and importance of Diyab's autobiography. Just as any autobiography, it cannot be taken as a 100% historical account, but rather as a work of fiction. It does, however, mention his travels with Paul Lucas and his meetings with Gallard. The diaries of both exist and corroborate some of the events during the journey. Gallard mentions in detail that "Hanna from Aleppo" told him several stories. - The literary scholars mentioned in the article have studied these documents and come to the conclusion that Diyab must be considered as the author of several stories, and that the travelogue provides enough evidence for regarding Diyab as the author. I think this is all the article says, and this is in accordance with WP guidelines. Munfarid1 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... Hanna Diyab was a real person who is notable. The suggested reason for speedy deletion does not, therefore, address Wikipedia's criteria for who should and shouldn't get entries. Incidentally to this, the stated reason for deletion seems not to have paid attention to the secondary sources cited, which analyse Diyab's identity as Galland's source in detail. Editors who are sceptical that Diyab was Galland's source for the stories listed in the entry can of course edit the article to reflect scholarly debate (hopefully citing scholarly sources as they do so) rather than deleting it. I rather doubt that they'll find much research contesting this, though, as Diyab's identity as Galland's source seems well established in the secondary literature. --Alarichall (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a matter of Diyab being Galland's source (which has long been well established quite apart from the (very probably) "novelised" autobiography. This page goes way way beyond that with (probably) fictional matter. Scholarly sources unsurprisingly do not bear on authenticity of the "biography" and are therefore quite irreleant to the reason for the proposed deletion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant Wikipedia policy here is Neutral point of view. We might get into discussing some of the intricacies of that policy, but the lead says: 'All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic'. This article indeed draws on most of the English-language scholarly sources regarding Hanna Diyab. At the moment, you're asking Wikipedia editors to weigh, on the one hand, the considered opinion of scholars writing in peer-reviewed publications about what we confidently know about Diyab against, on the other, your personal assertion that Diayb's autobiography is fiction and that that invalidates most (all?!) claims in the Wikipedia article. What you need to do is show that other reliable sources present a different point of view to the ones cited here, and then their points of view can be integrated into the article. I hope that makes sense OK! Alarichall (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, if truth were known, I'd love that book to be authentic - in fact this is one of those times when it would be really good to be wrong! Next year (over twenty years since the alleged manuscript "came to light" we are to have an English translation, and IF this eventuates it will be possible to have a better look at it (if only my own poor French wasn't so weak and rusty). In the meantime the case "feels" very weak. There hasn't been the "rush" of scholarly controversy you'd expect if the thing was genuine - not a peep either way, for instance, from the several Eastern critics who have taken a lot of interest in the Nights in general and the orphan tales in particular. Nothing very much from the Western critics either - just one or two ordinary "reviews" from non-scholarly literary journalists (who can at times be abysmally ignorant). One or two details are very cutesy; the thing as a whole dovetails a little too closely with Galland's diary (you'd expect a lot MORE discrepancies, actually). Even the alleged place they are supposed to have "found" the manuscript: (the Vatican Library - same place the infamous "Arabic" versions of Aladdin were "found"!) - just lots of little things adding up to an overall impression that we're having our legs pulled. I think a certain healthy cynicism is called for - at least until there is a real scholarly consensus that the autobiography is authentic and reliable (not quite the same thing - the real Diyab was no doubt, like all of us, given to the odd terminological inexactitude). In the meantime, it would be nice if this article could lean a little less uncritically on the matter in the biography - especially when it comes to speculative stuff like Diyab's life having parallels with Aladdin's! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the lead has been greatly improved by your recent edits. Even better perhaps if we were just a little more equivocal about the authenticity of the biography? That wonderful word "alleged" may be useful? - very best wishes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article cites academic research published in several different academic journals and by several different academic book publishers. The reviews of the translation of the autobiography don't register any doubt that it is genuine. It even sounds like you think the MS wasn't really found in the Vatican Library, but the Wikipedia article links through to the digitised version of the manuscript on the Vatican Library's online archive as well as to another manuscript that seems to be in the same hand, also in the Vatican Library. I just don't see any basis in the published research to support your belief that the MS is a fraud. As I say, if you want the Wikipedia article to say that the MS is not real or that it's not by Hanna Diyāb, you need to find some published research to this effect, or do the research yourself, publish it in a reliable source, and then we can come back and edit the article. Alarichall (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The RS cites significantly have little or nothing to say about the MS - the uncritical reviews are mostly not RS. But in the last analysis "belief" that the MS MIGHT be a "fraud" (actually more likely not strictly a fraud at all - but a "historical novel" that was never really meant to be taken so seriously) is not the same as "believing" it is. Belief really doesn't come into it. The article has already been improved - leave it up to you to possibly make it even better. Even if it's just a matter of a little less uncritical acceptance, not to mention wild and woolly speculation - an encyclopedia article should always err on the side of caution about things like this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)