Talk:Qul Ghali

The authentity of Qol Gali writings is very questionable. Are there any reliable historical sources/cross references besides the 19th century Tatar nationalist publishers? Did any non-Tatarstan scholar studied the Qol Gali case?

The article lacks any reliable references!
 * The question lacks asker to response him. ((
 * So, my counter-questions to the vacuum.: Why do you stamp 19th Tatar scholars as nationalist publishers? Prove this? Or every Tatar, publishing a boo, is a nationalist for you? Doubtless, no non-Tatarstan studies of Qol Gali were realized, as no interest to the Tatar-Bulgar legacy is shown among other scholars.

--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ ( see also: ә? Ә!) 11:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Kul Gali?
Dear friends, I checked various spellings on Google, and saw that in English, the most popular spelling is Kul Gali. I have no doubts that each Turkic language and dialect may have its own way of saying and spelling that name, but the article heading should follow what is an accepted English form, and the alternate forms be listed within the article. This will also help WP to be more useful in searches. I vote for renaming the article to Kul Gali. Barefact (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In other turkic countries Qisseyi-Yusif is not known as a tatar poem. And in the last part of the poem we see the name Ali or at least Qul Ali, not Qol Gali. And the language of the poem is more like to Oguz turkic language than the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.98.54 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)