Talk:Abdulrazak Gurnah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Expanding required[edit]

This is information is not sufficient enough, It should be more, try to expand article according to Wikipedia policies with proper citations, and if you allow my self I can certainly help you in expanding it.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdulrazak Gurnah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

Two points. First, Starple, we need WP:RS, which do not include blogs, for any claims in this article, including claims about Gurnah's nationality. Second, there is an edit war going on regarding Gurnah's nationality. I have posted on WP:BLPN about this—see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Abdulrazak_Gurnah. Does anyone have good sources to indicate his nationality? The available ones seem to conflict. I suggest that we avoid ascribing a particular nationality to him without clear consensus among the sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hassanjalloh1 (and anyone else), please establish WP:CONSENSUS here for any changes you wish to make to the first sentence. Clearly there is controversy about which of "Zanzibari", "Tanzanian", or "British", if any, should be used. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your first claim is your defense then why you too can't provide clear evidence or citation to support your own claim and edits. All the credible sources I have checked including the BBC, the Guardian and NYT, listed him as Tanzanian living in the UK. If you have a source that says otherwise why cant you reference it then I will trust you handsdown. Why do you keep on reverting my edits while you're providing bogus claims?! Can you provide proof that he's British citizen ONLY, and he has no Tanzanian citizenship? I'm sure he might have acquired British citizenship given the length of time he has spent in the UK, but he's naturally Tanzanian like all those born in Zanzibar. And I have never heard or seen anything about this of him to the contrary. So the best way to say is 'Tanzanian-British' except you have clear reference indicating that he's not Tanzanian then I can understand your point.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making bogus claims. In fact, I personally have no view as to the appropriate name to use. However, the news sources disagree: Guardian and WBUR (NPR affiliate) say "Zanzibari"; Reuters says "Tanzanian"; CBC has the inelegant but more fulsome "U.K.-based Tanzanian writer". You insist on selecting one of these, against a number of other editors who disagree. That's why we need to establish consensus about the appropriate term. I have no idea if he's a British citizen or a Tanzanian citizen—it's on you and anyone else who wants to add a nationality to show sources that clearly agree about his citizenship or nationality. See WP:BURDEN, WP:BRD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, one thing I would like to clear is that by default (naturally) he's Tanzanian. Although he moved to the UK before Zanzibar technically merged with (became a part of) Tanzania, everyone born in or from Zanzibar became Tanzanian. Think about people born in East or West Germany becoming Germans, or people born in British India becoming Indians, Pakistanese or Bangladeshes. There's no evidence indicating that he's denied being Tanzanian. So why would any reasonable person would deny that he's not Tanzanian? Second, Unlike countries like Japan, the UK allows for double citizenship. And given the length of time he's spent in the UK (50 or so) I believe he has British citizenship as well. So my own advice is, if there is no other credible source that contradicts all what I just mentioned, is better to list him as either 'Tanzanian' or 'Tanzanian-British' in such order given that he was born in Tanzania and then became a British citizen later in life.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything stated in any Wikipedia article, particularly a WP:BLP, must have a source. Assumption or conjecture based on nationality law is not enough. If the majority of sources describe him as Tanzanian, great—but they don't, as I noted above. Hence our problem. We need sources to ascribe a nationality to him, regardless of what citizenship or nationality law says. See WP:V. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised the kind of point you're trying to make here. I pointed out that the BBC alone mentions it categorically clear that he's Tanzanian. How many claims of other people's nationality need a substantial number of citations? Why only this one? The last time I checked, you only need once source to validate a point or support a sentence you make. And there is more than one source that have indicated that he's Tanzanian. So what else do you need to believe this? Can you prove that he wasn't born in Zanzibar? Cn you prove he ever renounced his citizenship?Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only this article that needs substantial citations for nationality. It's every article. I'm focussing on this one because it's in the news and apparently his nationality is controversial, as evidenced by the fact that (1) news sources report different nationalities; and (2) people keep changing it. As for "can you prove", please see WP:BURDEN—it's on the person adding information to provide WP:RS for it. Also, please WP:INDENT your responses when continuing a conversation. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm sorry about the indentation - I'm relatively new here :). I understand that he doesn't discuss much about his personal life. So I'm guessing it would be dificult to get technically verifiable information about his nationality. However, it's clear that all the sources out there say either Zanzibar or Tanzania. And if someone says, 'I'm from Zanzibar', their nationality is automatically Tanzanian (Zanzibar is part of Tanzania). This is similar to someone saying 'I'm from Northern Ireland', in which case their nationality will be listed automatically as British (not Irish), except there is verifiably confirmed information that shows that such person renounced his British nationality or it was revoked.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laws are what determine nationality. If it's clear in a country's laws who is a citizen and who isn't, then there is no much argument regarding this. If the Tanzanian constitution states that anyone born in Zanzibar before Union Day (as this applies to our subject of discussion) automatically becomes a Tanzanian citizen when Zanzibar became a part of Tanzania, then what reasonable argument do you really have against this? For example, if someone born in country "X" and lived until before country "X" merges with country "Y" to form country "Z" will not be listed anywhere as a citizen of country "Z" (the newly formed country), but rather will be known as a citizen of country "X". However, if someone was born in country "X" and lived until the day country "X" merges with "Y" to form country "Z", that person will become an automatic citizen of country "Z". This is a universal truth, and we've seen it in history. Someone born in Istanbul during the Ottoman empire, but didn't live to witness the formation of Turkey, will not be referred to as Turkish, but rather Ottoman. But if someone was born in Istanbul and lived during the formation of Turkey, he will be known as Turkish. An East German who lived during and after the reunification of Germany will be referred to as a "German". But if such an individual didn't live up to reunification, they will be referred to as "East German" and not German. So now apply this to our subject, who was born in Zanzibar and lived up to the day and after Zanzibar united with Tanzania to form the new country known tody as Tanzania. He should therefore be listed as Tanzanian, except there is clear evidence that shows otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanjalloh1 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Tanzanian novelist Gurnah wins 2021 Nobel for depicting impact of colonialism, migration', 'Tanzanian novelist Abdulrazak Gurnah wins Nobel Prize in literature', "The Tanzanian writer, the first Black winner since Toni Morrison, was honored for his “uncompromising and compassionate penetration of the effects of colonialism.”" - need I go on? He is in Category:Tanzanian novelists and should be described as such. This is not difficult or controversial. GiantSnowman 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, Guardian and WBUR (NPR affiliate) say "Zanzibari". Why not Zanzibari? Being in a cat is not evidence for that cat's being appropriate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Zanzibari" is not a nationality! Just because it's been used by some media outlets to describe him doesn't mean that's his nationality. All your points make zero sense. You arguing on this makes it sound so silly as if you don't know how to simply ascribe nationality on a subject, given the recognisable countries of the world are available at your fingertips. You check the list of recognisable countries in the world you will not find Zanzibar exclusively listed as a country, but rather you will find Tanzania there. I bet some people will even start suspecting that there might be a hidden motive or agenda behind this. And this is appearing to be very much disrespectful for the distinguished image of Abdulrazak Gurnah himself. Or maybe it's because he's African - information about him has to go through some different level of scrutiny??? THIS IS TOTALLY DISRESPECTFUL!!!Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Zanzibari is not a nationality—according to you. According to the news sources, it is. We go by the sources, not by editors' opinions. I'm not being disrespectful to Gurnah, and it is irrelevant whether he is from Africa. Please assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions. I am simply trying to keep this article up to Wikipedia's editorial standards, which, again, require reliable sources to back up any controversial statement. As evidenced by this conversation and the number of editors who have changed his nationality over the past several days, it is clear that his nationality is a subject of controversy. GiantSnowman has helpfully provided sources favouring "Tanzanian" as a nationality. I am simply asking for a reason why we should go with those as opposed to the ones that say "Zanzibari". If you can find a source saying that Zanzibari is not a nationality, then fine, we can go with Tanzanian. And, by the way, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so list of sovereign states is not helpful. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are some sources of the recognisable countries, in which none lists Zanzibar as a nation: UN Member States, US State Department.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Based on those sources, I do not dispute that Zanzibar is not currently a nation. However, based on [1] ("about to merge with the nation of Zanzibar"), [2] ("once the independent nation of Zanzibar"), and doi:10.1093/obo/9780199846733-0040, which says:
The modern nation of Tanzania formed in 1964 when the mainland country of Tanganyika merged with more newly independent island nation of Zanzibar in the aftermath of a revolution that overthrew the sultan of Zanzibar.
it seems entirely reasonable to refer to his nationality at birth as Zanzibari/from Zanzibar, since, according to these sources, Zanzibar only ceased to be a nation in 1964.
Furthermore, Gurnah calls himself Zanzibari in this article, by the Associated Press and published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, it seems reasonable to follow his self-description. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow agree with the point you're trying to make here. Maybe he sees himself more of Zanzibari than a Tanzanian, a situation similar to Scottish nationalists. However, the fact should be more important than the subject's own point of view. A Scottish nationalist may prefer portraying himself as Scottish rather than British, but the fact is that he is British - whether he likes it or not. So we're not presenting information based on the subject's point of view but rather on an independent and factual basis. I believe that's why WP don't allow subjects to write or contribute to their own pages. When people go over his page they can easily know where exactly he's from. And from a factual basis, his nationality is Tanzanian. That's just the truth.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I don't think him saying "I'm Zanzibari" means he's implying that he's not Tanzanian. I believe he's just trying to be specific. It's similar to when people say, "I'm from England" rather than say "I'm from the UK" when being asked outside the country. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For nationality at birth, “Zanzibari” looks convincing to me. If it really needs to be stated. The birthplace information (as it is currently given in the article) might also be sufficient.
For the rest, the references to Zanzibar in that CBC article are not necessarily to Zanzibar as a (historic) nation. I suspect that an expression like “Also me, as a Zanzibari.” is quite likely to refer to one’s home town, island or region, rather than to nationality.
By the way, who called himself a Zanzibari in the article, Farid Himid or A. Gurnah? Does the line really qualify as a self-description by Gurnah? (But see below. Other sources mention similar statements by Gurnah.)
As to current nationality, obviously it would be good to know if and when Gurnah became a British citizen. Unfortunately, media are not always clear if they are just referring to a person’s geographic origins or to nationality/citizenship in the passport sense. There are welcome exceptions though:
  • “Gurnah, who holds British citizenship and recently retired as a professor of literature ...” (Daily Sabah)
  • “Gurnah ... fled to Britain from Zanzibar in late 1967, later acquiring British citizenship. ... "I'm from Zanzibar, there's no confusion in my mind about that," he explained.” (France 24)
  • “His mother tongue is Swahili, but he writes in English and has taken British citizenship.” (DW (= Deutsche Welle))
  • But: “... der 1948 im damals noch unter britischer Verwaltung stehenden Sultanat Sansibar geborene Gurnah, der heute tansanischer Staatsbürger ist und in London lebt, ...” (FAZ (= Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s major newspapers))
  • Media from India, Nigeria etc. call him a “Tanzanian citizen” (see Google).
In short: Even if we disregard sources that just talk of a “Tanzanian writer”, there still is contradictive information. Double citizenship might be an explanation but would also need to be proven by reliable sources. -- Martinus KE (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibari is not a nationality, it is not a country, it is a region, and it is a regional identity. It would be like sources describing, and people self-identifying, Americans as "proud Californian" or British people as "proud Lancastrians" etc., which they often do - but that does not mean that we should also because it is not a nationality. GiantSnowman 08:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for resolution[edit]

Based on the above points, I think one of the two following proposed wordings would make an acceptable compromise - what are thoughts?:

  • option 1 - "is a Tanzanian novelist and academic, born in Zanzibar and based in the United Kingdom"; or
  • option 2 - "is a British-Tanzanian novelist and academic, born in Zanzibar and based in the United Kingdom"

My preference would be option 1. GiantSnowman 08:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too prefer Option 1. We can't prove the alternative, and no sources to support it.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer option 2, per the sources Martinus KE helpfully provided above. If he has British citizenship and has lived in the UK since 1968, that should be mentioned in the lede. (I trust Deutsche Welle to report such things accurately.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just separate his nationality from his citizenship like how they did for Albert Einstein, because their stories are really similar. Plus I'm not 100% sure he has both British and Tanzanian citizenship because Tanzanian law prevents dual citizenship. In the "Infobox" section can we list "Citizenship: British" and the nationality gap we're trying to establish as "Tanzanian (Zanzibar) born writer". You will rarely find the first few lines of someone's page showing where they reside. So no need to say, "living in the United Kingdom" as this information shoulld be somewhere else in his "Personal life" section and explained well within the page itself. I think at the end of the day the first line(s) is all about identifying him (who is he) rather than the circumstances surrounding his life - similar to Einstein's page. Two points I want to make. One, I would like you to realise that the word "Tanzania" is actually derived from both "Tangayinka" and "Zanziba" - the "Tan" from the former and "zan" from the latter. I'm making this point to emphasise that Zanziba is integral to the formation of Tanzania as we know it. So it's people are very much Tanzanian as any other person from the mainland. Two, Zanzibar is not an autonomous region, but rather a semi-autonomous region of Tanzania. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we followed Albert Einstein I guess we'd have option 3:
"… is a Tanzanian-born novelist and academic who is based in the United Kingdom"
But that wouldn't be quite right because as discussed above Zanzibar was not part of Tanzania in 1948. So then option 4(a):
"… is a Zanzibar-born novelist and academic who is based in the United Kingdom"
Or option 4(b):
"… is a Sultanate of Zanzibar–born novelist and academic who is based in the United Kingdom"
Option 4 seems closest to the truth, although using "Sultanate of Zanzibar" seems pretty awkward. Since "Zanzibar" can (I think) refer to the islands/geographical place as well as the jurisdiction/legal entity, I think "Zanzibar-born" is better than "Sultanate of Zanzibar–born". Plus it accommodates all the news sources that introduce him as being "born in Zanzibar" ([3], [4], [5]). So I now favour option 4(a), followed by option 2.
As for the citizenship point, we have recent sources saying he has British citizenship, so if Tanzania does not permit dual citizenship then he would only be a British, and not a Tanzanian, citizen. I have no problem with mentioning where he lives and works in the first sentence—it's relevant, it's true, and helpful for the reader because so many of his novels describe the experience of immigrants to the UK. Ultimately: getting all of this nuance into a single sentence is very hard, and WP:CONTEXTBIO is not super helpful on this. I leave it to the community to settle on the best option. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to agree with you on Option 4, but the appropriate way to put is: "Zanzibari-born novelist and academic who is based in the UK". It's not "Zanzibar-born", because the right demonym for "Zanzibar" is "WaZanzibari" or for simplicity "Zanzibari". It's just like when you say "German-born" or "American-born". 197.149.243.21 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 is terrible, sorry - Option 3 is OK, I guess. GiantSnowman 10:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, Option 3 is the closest to the truth. George Washington was born in 'British America', but on his page he's stated as American political leader... only and not 'British American political leader'. Angela Merkel was born in 'West Germany' but it is stated as German politician and not 'West German politician'. Amitabh Bachan was born in 'British India' but he's stated as Indian actor, film producer... (note British India is now the different countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka). And finally and most importantly, Alber Einstein was actualy born in the Kingdom of Württemberg (before it merged with other territories to form Germany as we know it today. So why is he simply referred to as German-born...? Abdulrazak Gurnah was born in Zanzibar, so why is it difficult for him to be referred to as 'Tanzanian Writer and Academic'?Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

We seem to have a rough consensus for option 3:

"… is a Tanzanian-born novelist and academic who is based in the United Kingdom"

I propose to implement that if there are no objections. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this long discussion that sometimes seems to go into unnecessary details. But the consensus of calling him a Tanzanian-born novelist is just not true. He was not born as a Tanzanian, but rather on the island of Zanzibar. So why is there no consensus for option 4(a): "… is a Zanzibar-born novelist"? Munfarid1 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary undo action[edit]

@AleatoryPonderings: Would you kindly explain why you consider the insertions of a space character and a colon in the appropriate places “vandalism/useless edits” (as you put it) which needed to be undone? -- Martinus KE (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinus KE, sorry, that was a mistake. Vandalism occurred after your edit and I didn't look closely enough at yours to see whether it was constructive. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – I understand that keeping an eye on all the edits done to this article is a tough job these days. The corresponding German article has had a mere 25 edits (or so) in nine years (2011–2019), and now some 120 edits in a mere two days. -- Martinus KE (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Style and such[edit]

Can anything be said about Gurnah's style already?

Or, on a rather basic level: What do his novels look like? Are they 800-page volumes, or are they rather concise? What should the reader expect when turning his attention to this author? -- Martinus KE (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This not fantastic article is the best I could find on a quick look for specific descriptions of his style. Sources cited in Category:Books by Abdulrazak Gurnah may help with literary analysis. (And the magic of CC-BY means any useful passages can easily be transplanted into the parent article ). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "fiction" a genre?[edit]

Small point: do we consider fiction a genre? That's what's listed in the genre field of the infobox atm. It seems way too broad a category to qualify as a genre. I'd say literary fiction, probably, but I don't have any sources for it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'fiction' alone is generally considered as a genre in literature. I think fiction is just one of the two broad categories of contemporary literature (the other is non-fiction). A piece of literary work can either be fiction or non-fiction. And when it comes down to genre, you have for example: mystery, romance, thriller, fantasy, science fiction (sci-fi), literary fiction, etc. As far as most of Gurnah's work on fiction is concerned, I'd describe his genre as 'Literary fiction'. Literary fiction is normally character-driven rather than plot-driven; and it normally focuses on or include socio-political commentaries and reflection on humanitarian issues. They more/less focus on contemporay issues. However, Gurnah is also an academic, which means he might have done work (published work) in the area of non-fiction as well. So you can't just say his genre is 'Literary fiction'.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swahili[edit]

About my edit here, which was reverted by AleatoryPonderings. That Gurnah is a Swahili is made clear by the fact that it is his first language (stated in the article) and the Swahilis being the largest native ethnic group in Tanzania. I was only adding the cat because the lang is used in his works and he is the first Nobel Prize winner speaking/using one of the largest langs in Africa (right after Arabic). You can be pedantic about it not mentioning ethnicity specifically but it is clear he is a Swahili (other ethnicities in the region have their own native langs). Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pedantic to demand sourcing for controversial claims about ethnicity on a BLP. And, in fact, he writes exclusively in English. If you can find a source describing him as a Swahili person, as opposed to a Swahili speaker, please add that to the article and add the cat back. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Themes[edit]

@AleatoryPonderings: "Each of Gurnah’s novels focus on the stories of those whose stories might not have made it into the archives or who lack the documents that would make them memorable to the larger world. But these shopkeepers, homemakers, askaris – local soldiers serving in colonial armies - students and refugees all matter to him and in the course of his writing, he makes them meaningful and complicated, and reminds us that every single one is worthy of remembrance." This paragraph is from the same article that was originally cited. I read the article and thought to make the addition, and you had to say it wasn't cited... And it's one among others. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:
Most of his novels focus on telling stories about social and humanitarian issues, especially about war or crisis affected individuals living in the developing world that may not have the capability of telling their own stories to the world - or documenting their experiences.
On my reading of [6], the claim about "war" or "crisis" is not supported. That article uses the word "war" once, but not in a way to support the claim you made; and does not use the word "crisis". Nor does it discuss the "developing world". Please do not suggest that I did not read the article. I did, and I view your edit as an original commentary on that source. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually read through the article before making the addendum. That means I knew exactly what I was doing. You don't look for explicit/expressed terminolgies when you're validating a piece from the original. Sometimes the secondary information may contain terms that are not expressed in the original (source) document, but may be a part of a phrase that just act as a description of the subject matter in question - in this case the subject matter is "individuals" not "war" not "crisis". And this is exactly what is happening here. If a central theme in most of Gurnah's work is about refugees, and refugees are generally war or crisis affected individuals, so what's the difference? And most of his stories centre on East Africa, and East Africa is part of the developing world, so what's the problem here also?
Read my statement carefully, OK. I say: "...especially war or crisis affected individuals". Not "war" or "crisis". He does not focus on "war" or "crisis"! That would send him to a different genre of literature, I guess. He focuses on individuals affected by war ot crisis. And by definition, these are known as REFUGEES.
Furthermore, this is the second to last paragraph from the articile you say does not mention "crisis". Not that I care about the word itself as I only used it as adjective to describe the people Gurnah writes about.
"In recent years, as a series of humanitarian crises has forced desperate people to risk their lives in the hope for greater stability and a better future in Europe, Gurnah’s work has gained greater resonance and importance. In a 2001 essay in the Guardian, he wrote: “The debate over asylum is twinned with a paranoid narrative of race, disguised and smuggled in as euphemisms about foreign lands and cultural integrity.” Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such an elaborate justification should not be necessary to show how an edit conforms to a source cited. That leads me to view the edit as WP:SYNTH, not as a faithful representation of the source's contents. Information should be immediately verifiable in sources cited. This will be my last comment on this point. Perhaps others will chime in. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too never wanted to go this length... Anyways I know both of us are just working for the good of humanity. :) Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full name[edit]

Some sources mention his name as Abdulrazak S. Gurnah. If this is correct, what does the “S” stand for? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that as well but I've never seen it expanded into a full name … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrazak Gurnah[edit]

Is not a Tanzanian. He is a British national born in Zanzibar before it become, together with Tanganika, Tanzania. As Tanzania does not allow dual nationality and Gurnah left as a refugee to UK defining him as Tanzanian is totally wrong. Just as an example the present British prime minister is British or an American for the fact that he is white and born in USA makes him only British? We could make other similar examples within the present British prime minister's office. Please do edit as this is truly irritating. Docsavioli (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdulrazak_Gurnah&oldid=1195042290"