Talk:Nizami Ganjavi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Nizami's father?

Ok, the logic people use to classify him as Persian is utter nonsense. Overall, it seems that there are a lot of Persians here with too much time in their hands and more access to internet, so they are winning the contest, which is another reason why Wikipedia has a serious flaw: people with more time at hand get to edit this stuff more often. ok, why is the Persian-Nizami logic faulty? Here is why?

1) They say: He wrote in Persian. Well, if an author in Poland writes in English to reach wider audience and uses the English tricks of literature, are you going to call him English or American or Polish?

2) They say: Just because he lived in Azerbaijan, it does not mean he is Azeri. Well, true. But although it is not a conclusive reason, it nonetheless adds some weight to the Azeri origins scenario. After all, he definitely was not living in Pesia. A big minus for the Persian-Nizami scenario. And if this fact carries little weight, then, my friends, we can attribute no nationality to any historical figure, especially in Europe. Who is there to conduct a DNA test to see if Dante was an Italian, or a Persian living in Italy?

3) They say: his mother was a Kurd. And? How does this imply that he was Persian?! There are a lot of Kurds in Azerbaijan.

4) They say: his father's nationality was not know. Ok, so why not then take the more conservative assumption that he was an Azeri? After all, they lived in Azerbaijan, right? Otherwise, what the heck was Nizami doing being born in Azerbaijan, if his mother was a Kurd and his father some other nationality. Again, if the evidence lacks, then go with the more likely scenario (under Ockham's famous philosophical razor): his father was probably an ethnic Turk. Otherwise, the implication is that this famous Perisan poet somehow was translplanted from hundreds of miles away, right from within the depths of Persia, right into a middle of nowhere in a place called Gandja.

5) They say: many historical sources call him a Persian poet. Listen, back then Azerbaijan was part of the Persian empire, just as later PErsia was part of the Arab empire (and no one calling the real PErsian poets Arab poets therefore). So of course, some English scholar studying Nizami at the time will call him Persian. He did not have internet, or vast libraries. But we should know better, and not stick with old erros. At the same time, literature is not all: he is Persian.

Anyways... I dont have much more time to dedicate to this topic any more (nor did I have time to spell-check... sorry). I am sure the Persian guys will overwhelm the debate and do it their way ... All the worse for Wikipedia as an objective source of neutral information.

Iksus2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iksus2009 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure you think it is utter nonsense, but that is your opinion which is not shared by scholars. Nor by Encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Islam, Britannica, Iranica and etc. written by scientists and not nationalistic users. Ganja at the time was mainly Persian speaking city and the cities name is Persian much like the name Azerbaijan(which applied to below the Aras), Baku, Sherwan, Darband, Beylekan, Barda' and majority of old topoynms. Actually you won't find one toponym from the area that is Turkic during the time of Nezami. So obviously if the place was Turkic, then we would not expect the overwhelming majority of toponyms to be Persian right? Also we would expect a poet to write about Dede Qorqud and Turkic/Oghuz folklores and not Sassanid and Persian/Iranian folklore right? And we would expect ordinary non-court non-scholar everyday people to use Turkic right? But more than 50-100 poets from Nezami's era most of them everyday ordinary people, some even women with lack of education have written in Persian[1] and yet there is not a single verse of Turkic from the time of Nezami fron any writer, author and etc.. There is clear evidence he was not Turkic as he uses the term for his son that refers to a person who is half Turkic (in this case his first wife was Kypchak Turkic who was sent as a gift to him). Actual Azerbaijan-Turkic identity was formed later than Nezami's time. Just like Homer does not become a Turk een though he came from modern Anatolia. Even the area of Ganja was not generally called Azerbaijan back then but Arran. Azerbaijan was below the Aras river and it is of course a Persian name, which at the time the peopel spoke Iranian languages (Old azari language). Also if one goes by fatherline (which in the case of Nezami we just know his fatherline precedes the coming of Seljuqs and if we intrepret verses then he calls himself Dehqan Parsizad (Persian Dehqan)..), then Nasimi, Shahriyar are Arabs (because they are Seyyeds!) and Shah Esmail I is a Kurdish poet. So what is the standard? Cultural identity. I use culture. So the origin of his father whom he was orphaned from and did not know is irrelavant (he was raised by his Kurdish uncle) to culture identity. But one goes by culture specially 800 year ago. Final issue is that it is Persian speakers that read him and understand him. He uses Ferdowsi as his source for three of his epics and not say Oghuz epics. Also note the only source that says in English his father might have been Turkic (since ethnonym or identity Azeri-Turkic did not exist during his time), has just changed her mind and says his father was probabily Iranian. The article though allows for differing opinions [2] within that one sentence in order to minimize (one cannot completely avoid it obviously due to USSR nation building) conflicts. That is why even a scholar that took her word back (see below) is listed. Note there is more than sufficient sources to show the area was in general Iranic(Persian and others) at the time. ( Дьяконов, Игорь Михайлович. Книга воспоминаний. Издательство "Европейский дом", Санкт-Петербург, 1995., 1995. - ISBN 5-85733-042-4. cтр. 730-731 Igor Diakonov. The book of memoirs: ( Nizami) was not Azeri but Persian (Iranian) poet, and though he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja, which, like many cities in the region, had Iranian population in Middle Ages. (russian text: (Низами) был не азербайджанский, а персидский (иранский) поэт, хотя жил он в ныне азербайджанском городе Гяндже, которая, как и большинство здешних городов, имела в Средние века иранское население).).(http://www.kulichki.com/~gumilev/HE2/he2103.htm История Востока. В 6 т. Т. 2. Восток в средние века.]М., «Восточная литература», 2002. ISBN: 5-02-017711-3 (History of the East. In 6 volumes. Volume 2. Moscow, publishing house of the Russian Academy of sciences «East literature»): The multi-ethnic population of Albania left-bank at this time is increasingly moving to the Persian language. Mainly this applies to cities of Aran and Shirwan, as begin from 9-10 centuries named two main areas in the territory of Azerbaijan. With regard to the rural population, it would seem, mostly retained for a long time, their old languages, related to modern Daghestanian family, especially Lezgin. (russian text: Пестрое в этническом плане население левобережнoй Албании в это время все больше переходит на персидский язык. Главным образом это относится к городам Арана и Ширвана, как стали в IX-Х вв. именоваться два главные области на территории Азербайджана. Что касается сельского населения, то оно, по-видимому, в основном сохраняло еще долгое время свои старые языки, родственные современным дагестанским, прежде всего лезгинскому.)(Al-Mas’udi the Arab Historian States from 9th/10th century:“The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.”Source: Al Mas’udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8.)(Estakhri of 10th century also states in his : “In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.” Original Arabic:و لسان اذربيجان و ارمينيه و الران الفارسيه و العربيه غير ان اھل دبيل و حواليھا یتکلمون بالارمنيه، و نواحی بردعه لسانھم ارانيه(Estakhari, Abu Eshaq Ebrahim. Masalek va Mamalek. Bonyad Moqufat Dr. Afshar, Tehran, 1371 (1992-1993))). So the actual conservative assumption is by a man's culture. Not only the language he used was Persian but the cultural content of his works are Persian and relies on Persian folklore, Ferdowsi and etc. But again the issue of cultural identity is different than ethnicity. Ethnically, he would be Iranic (at least agreed his mother was a Kurd, he was raised by his Kurdish uncle and virtuall all evidence point to a Iranic fatherline). But just like one does not call Ismail I a Kurdish poet, or call someone like Nasimi or Shahriyar (a Seyyed) an Arab poet, one can have different cultural identity than origin. Cultural identity of the poet is Persian and he does not have anything in Turkic and his stories are based on Persian/Iranic folklore. But ethnic origin of his father whom he was orphaned from is possibly disputed (the reason possibly is that the only source that does not say Iranic here actually changed her mind per the below message), but I have allowed room for differing opinion because ultimately it is the cultural heritage that distinguishes the civilization (in this case Iranian and not Turkic) the poet belongs too. And one can argue endlessly wether someone by the name Mua'yyad (Nezami's great grandfather who lived probably before the Seljuq era), was of what origin.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

a better picture for infobox

there is another picture in the wikimedia that i think is more suitable for infobox.

File:Nizomi Ganjavi.jpg

. Bbadree (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just remove the inscription from the picture? The picture itself is good. Tājik (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the portrait got changed already. Possibly someone should remove the Cyrilic/Latin inscription. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish origin? (!!!!!!!)

Is the source really serious? --Wayiran (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a good question. I would not worry about attempts to de-Iranianize Nezami since all of his works are in Persian, his mother was Kurdish and he was raised by his Kurdish uncle. He was orphaned from his father early and did not even remember him according to his own words. I have opinions of 5 serious and scholars of Persian languages also on the funny USSR/nationalist misinterpretation of introduction of Lili o Majnoon as well. So if this article is disturbed, I will seek mediation and based on the overwhelming sources that call him a Persian poet, I would put that in the first line(Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, Britannica and any serious scholar) [3][4]. Note Pushkin was partially Ethiopian (through his father) but is considered a Russian poet nevertheless and no one challenges this position. But in the case of Nezami is even further different, since there was no nation states back then (unlike Russia of Pushkin), urban populations of Arran/Sherwan were Iranian and so one can only classify his identity based on his work and background (which in both cases are Iranic) only and all other associations are romantic nationalism. And culture takes supremacy as we move away centuries back, since culture (which poetry is tied to the language and the works of Nezami are simply the hardest to translate due to their symbolism which is tied with the culture and language) is the key. So any serious scholar will have to learn the language of Nezami and can do research based on sources provided and will not reach politicized conclusions in the long term. Some terms associated with Nezami in the 20th century by USSR did not simply exist at the time of Nezami, so eventually (say 100 years+ or so), untruth will disappear.

However, you raise an interesting question. I had a chance to e-mail the person (Dr. van Ruymbeke) who made this claim and this was the response I got (which can be verified by contacting her as well or I can send you the e-mail). Here was the response(note emphasis of bold is mine):

Thank you for your email and your query on Nezami. I am grateful to you for writing to me for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions. As you will notice from my book, I am absolutely NOT taking position on Nezami's origins, I am only mentioning - using the conditional - opinions found in previous scholarly works, one of which (but this is so far away I unfortunately cannot remember who the author might have been) must have mentioned the possibility that Nezami came from a Jewish background. If I remember correctly, no actual proof for this was given, except for his first name Ilyas son of Yusuf. The point I was making was that we have no biographical details on Nezami's origin, family background and education and thus need to look at his verses to understand who he was. I have not researched his background and all I can say is that no, there are no known works in Hebrew written by him, nor any traces of ties to a Jewish community, nor any mention by him that I know of that he was of Jewish origin. As to the opinions you are quoting, I would like to remark that this is a dangerous and pointless debate, as we have no biographical details about this or about most other medieval authors who wrote in persian. There was no definition of political nationalities in the large Saljuq Turkish Muslim empire in which Nezami was living. Nationalities, as Soviet and present-day Azarbaijan or Iran refer to, is not a concept that is relevant for those times. People who call Nezami a Persian poet are perfectly right, as the language in which he chose to express himself was Persian, whatever his family background might have been, and it was most probably Iranian. The area and town in which he lived has become Azerbaijan nowadays, so Azerbaijan is perfectly correct in claiming him as a local man - this might also be correct for the Soviet Union at one time. In my eyes, this does not rob Persian culture from one of its greatest man either.

Anyhow, the reason I included was not to say it is the correct opinion. As you see even the author of that quote now has a different opinion (and I did send her my own article) and she was not saying anything certain. But I just included variety of opinions (excluding USSR era and Iranian and Turkish (Turkey, Azerbaijan) sources), since it is now impossible to simply they exist outside of Wikipedia and also I gave my reasoning above after name of a certain place. To be fair, in the external link also I gave varying opinions. Basically it is very hard to find 100% the full background (what about Grandparents and parents of Grandparents and etc.) of most peoples who lived 800 years ago, so it is culture that comes first, which in this case was Persian (not just language but the themes and symbolism and sources(Shahnameh) of stories besides the fact that a poet is great due to the way he uses the language). Sometimes a group leaves genealogies like Safavids did, which makes it easy and ends all dispute. Other times though, they do not and just name partial (although I believe the evidences I cited in my article is sufficient). Then there is the issue of culture, language and etc. So without making the article complicated, I gave varying opinions which meet simple WP:verifiability and in this case neutrality (being Western or critical post USSR - Russian oriental sources).

I hope that clarifies why I included it. It is not correct, but I am just putting variety of opinion since thats how it works with some of these articles (for another example: Safavids).--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nezami ye Ganjavi

The title of the article should be moved to the full name of the person that is Nezami ye Ganjavi or Nezami Ganjavi. Baku87 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually his full name is Jamal al-din Abu Muhammad Ilyas. The Abu Muhammad is actually a title as well, so it is Jamal al-Din Ilyas. Ganjavi is his designation because he lived most if not all of his life in Ganja. I don't have a problem with Nezami Ganjavi, since it is indeed popular and it is also in Persian Wikipedia too, and there are a lot of other people with the name Nezami which can lead to confusion. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone had removed category Persian poet and I addressed them here in long essay: [5]. I urge that person to read it. But to make it short, please note google books overwhelmingly [6], Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica and etc. We have already mentioned Nezami's fatherline is disputed so there is no ambiguity, and Persian poet is cultural/linguistic phenomenon and furthermore note the message of the scholar Christian van Ruymbeke above who wrote:"People who call Nezami a Persian poet are perfectly right, as the language in which he chose to express himself was Persian, whatever his family background might have been, and it was most probably Iranian.". So he was at least half Iranic and most likely hundred percent. But Persian poet is simply scholarly convention. Pushkin being a Russian poet or Shah Ismail despite contested background (which was Kurdish according to scholars who actually research the Safavids) is an Azerbaijani-Turkic poet. No one for example here would remove Azerbaijani-Turkic poet from Shah Esmail I due to his Kurdish background. Or Nasimi was a Seyyed so he would be an Arab poet (if it was about background) but wikipedia has it differently. In the case of Nezami, he had Iranic background, but had he wrote in Arabic, then Persian poet would not be there. So don't confuse background with cultura/language contribution. I gave a longer response here on why other categories are not appropiate[7] and further removal of this category will lead to mediation (and possibly more) and I can easily put Persian poet in the first section based on the overwhelming amount of sources, which overwhelms any other thing like this[8](compare to this [9]). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Note Persian name comes first because that is the language his name is recorded in from his own time. There was no Turkic-Azeri language/ethnicity/identity during the time of Nezami Ganjavi [10] (and note I mean this in a scientific sense just like there was no American before say 16th century or no Mexican before the Spanish invasion and no Morrocan Arab before Islam, no Armenian identity during the time of Urartu and etc. and no modern Persian language (it was Middle Persian) say 2000 years ago and etc.).

Turkic culture which was the culture of Oghuz tribesmen who lived nomadic lifestyles and had not yet formed an urban culture in that region existed. But sedentary Turkic-Azeri culture, language and ethnicity (with thick layer of Iranian influence) had not formed yet and the language and latin script for it obviously did not exist, so it is actually anachronism to have his name in that script and language. It is not scientific. But I have no problem with it because it is no big deal and he is popular and widely appreciated in your country. But Persian language existed then and Nezami wrote his name in that language: کای جادوی سخن نظامی and it is the only language he wrote his own name in and the only language from his own time that his name is recorded in from that region. گر شد پدرم به نسبت جد - یوسف بن زکی مؤید

So his name is written in Persian like all of his works from his own time and in general it was Persian language and culture and Iranic ethnicity that was prevalent at the time(again just history and nothing more). Because from more than 50-100+ poets of Sherwan/Arran, from simple folks (using everyday idiom) to court poets, all have used Persian [11] and there is not a single Turkic verse nor any Turkic text from the 12th century from Arran/Sherwan by any writer. Note Nozhat al-Majales[12] shows the language and culture of simple everyday people was Persian in urban centers and cultural centers [13] and it was not just a language of the elite. All the rulers at the time were also Persianized like the Seljuqs, Eldiguzids, Shirwanshahs, Ahmadilis and etc. That is because they had to accept the prevalent culture of the people at the time. Note: "Nozhat al-mājales is thus a mirror of the social conditions at the time, reflecting the full spread of Persian language and the culture of Iran throughout that region, clearly evidenced by the common use of spoken idioms in poems as well as the professions of the some of the poets (see below). The influence of the northwestern Pahlavi language, for example, which had been the spoken dialect of the region, is clearly observed in the poems contained in this anthology. "[14]. Else there should be at least one writer relative to more than 50-100 from Sherwan/Arran that wrote even a single line in Turkic, since virtually most of the poets of Nozhat al-Majales had nothing to do with court and wrote freely. So let us not push nationalistic ideas here because if this was an accurate and non-nationalistic Encyclopedia, then only Persian name would be in the intro, but others names are there not to cause conflicts. Obviously Persian comes first as that is the only language the name is written in during his own time in that script and he wrote his name in that language and exact script 800+ years ago. Kurdish in one form might have existed but not in that script, but someone inserted Kurdish and it is fine.

Azerbaijani-Turkic did not exist either as a ethnicity or culture and was proto-Oghuz and did not have a script yet, specially Latin (just like say there was no American 500 years ago or no Mexican before the Spanish invasion or no Modern Persian language 2000 years (it was Middle/Old Persian) and no Morrocan Arabs before Islam (population was all Bebbers) and etc. It doesn't matter in the long scheme of things, some groups are formed later than others and none is better). So we allow such anachronism because this is Encyclopedia where unfortunately nationalism is prevalent. But the issue is no big deal, since it is too much of a waste of time to bring such a minor issue to admins or etc. However removal of Persian name or putting it in the end can bring it to the admins attention and then I will have to mention the same historic stuff I just did. I have no problem with putting his name in any language(German or Russian or Arabic or Azeri Turkic or whatever), but obviously he wrote his name in Persian only like all his work which are in Persian and so how he wrote his own name in the language which he calls (Dorr-i Dari) "Persian pearl" goes first. Note the reason I am sensitive to medieval history is because I am interested in it. The article is fairly generous since Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam, etc. put Persian poet on the first line. I have put external links where differing opinion of another former editor is present and also put the anachronistic latin (at the time non-existent) Azerbaijani-Turkic language). Also to minimize conflict here, I noted his father's origin (whom he was orphaned from) is disputed although my only source in English for Turkic now believes probably Iranian [15] and I can remove it if I wish based on this. Also for example Nasimi/Shahriyar are not Arab poets because of their fhaterline origin which is Seyyed or Shah Esmail I is not a Kurdish poet. All these are legitimately Azeri-Turkic poets and personalities due to their culture. So cultural heritage and origin are not necessarily the same (although they are mostly and given that 99% of Kurds would marry a Kurd, probably Nezami's dad was a Iranic Kurd although other Iranics have been mentioned and his dad's ancestry goes back before the Seljuq took over the area and he came from an urban background). Anyhow, on this poet, one looks at cultural contribution, but if it is about origin we know his mother was Iranic, his uncle who raised him was Iranic and his father was with the utmost certaintty Iranic (based on the sources provided and also population of the time and etc, but even if this point is disputed, the Persian literature/heritage is not disputed just like one does not dispute Azeri-Turkic heritage of the founder of Safavids despite his ancestry going to an Iranic Kurd). But again as I said I have been open with the issue and have not taken a point with having various languages in the intro, as long as the obvious one comes first. Else I would follow Britannica, Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam on the lead and get rid of anachronism, not yet formed scripts/languages of his time and source where author has changed opinion and etc. Thanks for the understanding and my firmness on the issue should not be taken personally as I have nothing against any groups of people, but it is a matter of scholarly/history principle. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested split

I'd suggest it's worth giving Panj Ganj its own article. Comments? Xanthoxyl (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a fine suggestion for the future, however since each of the Ganj's (teasures) are very different, they deserve their own article. That is an article on Haft Paykar will be very different than say one on Layli o Majnoon of Nezami. Else in the current version of this article, if you remove the portion on Panj Ganj, there is nothing that remains since not much is known about Nezami himself. That is he is known by the Panj Ganj really and since the themes of the works vary greatly, it makes more sense to create separate and detailed article on each for the future. Much like the Encyclopedia Iranica pointed above or the Encyclopedia of Islam article on Eskandarnama. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

his heritage

The lead states "His heritage is widely appreciated and shared by Republic of Azerbaijan, Afghanestan,..." I would like to understand what this means? Otherwise I would like to remove "Azarbaijan". As far as Nezami the poet is concerned he had no idea what turkic-language is. This is well explained in the article. Now does the sentence I am criticising try to say "the translation of Ganjavi's poetry"? If so this must be stated explicitly. Because everyone knows that poetry is not translatable and hence translated version of Ganjavi's poetry has almost no relation to Nezami ganjavi. Or does the sentence means "grave of Nezami Ganjavi" is appreciated? If so, this must be mentioned, because appreciation of graves is quite interesting and new. In either case the sentence should become "His heritage is widely appreciated and shared by Iran and persian speaking countries". But to add azerbaijan we should mention either "through modern translation by XYZ" or "because of a claim that his tomb is located there".--Xashaiar (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are right there was no Azerbaijani-Turkish language, ethnicity, culture and etc. during the time of Nezami[16](And I mean this in a scientific sense just like there was no Mexican or American culture or Modern English (it was Middle English and some groups in history appear later than others)). Overall, it seems the attempted political detachment of Nezami Ganjavi from Persian civilization is recognized by authors who write about the former USSR: Yo'av Karny, “Highlanders : A Journey to the Caucasus in Quest of Memory”, Published by Macmillan, 2000. Pg 124: “In 1991 he published a translation into Khynalug of the famous medieval poet Nezami, who is known as Persian but is claimed by Azeri nationalists as their own." However I think the lead is good.. It will keep away vandals and also a good source (Cambridge history of Iran): " Modern Azarbaijan is exceedingly proud of its world famous son". So the USSR nation building did popularize him somewhat. Someone sent me an article from Russian wikipedia about politicization of Nezami from an author name Tamashzivilli and wanted to put it in English. I simply said there is no need for it now. Basically my approach has been to be completely scientific (well not hundred percent for example see the latin alphabets in the intro or the intro itself) and try to maintain a friendly atmosphere for the article. Azerbaijan the country can also be proud of Nezami even if they can't read his masterpieces (translations obviously are poor and the words of the master are so tied to the language that probably Nezami is the most difficult poet to translate from Persian due to his play with words) and it is no big deal if we say he is a shared heritage by the Iran/Persian world (Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Persian speakers, Kurds..) and Azerbaijan the country. He is a Persian poet and he had Iranic ancestry(both mother and father's lineage who go back before the Seljuq era even, so making the change of him being a Turkmen nomad that became an urban Ganja urban dweler from his fatherside zero and he was orphaned from his father), but had he written his work in Arabic, he would be an Arabic poet. Nasimi/Esmail I who did not have Turkmen/Oghuz fatherlines are Azeri-Turkic poets or Pushkin is a Russian poet. This is the general scholarly convention used by Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, and etc, specially in an era when nationalities based on citizenship and state did not exist (Medieval Muslim world). For now the article is peaceful but if anyone pushes some sort of nationalistic pan-Turkism, we can just take it to mediation/arbcomm and permanently settle it and it is obvious administrators will go with what Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, Britannica and even what Azerbaijani officials say about Western Europe"Most in Europe consider Nizami a Persian poet."[17] (the delegate does not know that there was no Azerbaijani-Turkic at the time of Nezami..). Note I say this simply from scholarly viewpoint as I have no ill feeling towards any editor or group due to their background, but simply we should not tolerate nationalistic nation building from any country or group (including ourselves) in this Encyclopedia. The term Azerbaijani itself in the Stalin/USSR (in actually when the USSR said "Azerbaijani" at least up 1970 they meant Medes/Caucasian Albanians where-as these population did not speak Turkic) was modified to mean different thing and now that they are independent, they can start more scientific and fresh historiography and in the end a large literature/history or etc. does not make any individual better although Azeri-Turkic itself has impressive literature (Fizuli, Nasimi..) relative to most languages of the world. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So basically just keep the introduction, it does no harm, but if there are arguments, it can be changed to Encyclopedia of Islam, Britannica, Iranica, even nationalistic Turkish scholars and most references with Persian poet on the first line (that will create vandals obviously but then admins will get involved). So overall the article can serve as an example of how a politicized issue can be peacefully written and some compromises made, specially with the sometimes tense atmosphere. I hope it remains peaceful like it has basically in the past two years and so, as Iranian users are not looking to have conflicts with users of any country, but simply keep their own heritage from politicization (which we criticize actions not human beings and not the vast majority of any citizen of any place and in this case the politicization is due to USSR and even Berteles was forced against his will as described by Tamashzivilli as he had Persian poet up 1935 until USSR nation building started and non-existent terms at the time of Nezami like Azerbaijani were ascribed to him and Azerbaijani it was described as Medes/Caucasian Albanians instead of Turkic (although heavy influence from Iranian languages/dna is present but scientifically it is a Turkic language). The same happened to Babak Khorramdin, Atropates, Medes, Zarathustra which are heritages of Iranian civilization..but this was due to USSR nation building (and the local population had no control) and these characters(such as Babak or Atropates) were not Turks either linguistically, culturallly or ethnically. Hopefully with the demise of USSR more scientific approaches to historiography will take place.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically I second Nepaheshgar here. The fact he had no idea what Turkic languages are does not cancel the fact that his heritage is appreciated in other countries. I see no reason of removal. It's interesting, that from different countries mentioned Xashaiar wants to remove only Azerbaijan. Brandt 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Still the argument stands. If "appreciation of Nezami in republic of Azerbaijan" is through translation it should be mentioned + the translator who made him more popular.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual full translations to Azeri-Turkic were made around the time WWII, but still there is no problem and no big deal with the intro. Since these countries today are the ones that share in his heritage. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Though I meant it "nezami the poet", and made it clear that Nezami as a person from Ganja has certainly a heritage. But over all I agree with you here.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes trust me I have been basically burdened with all sorts of unpleasent folks in this article. Here was one right now: [[18]] who is the typical pan-Turkist types. What simply matters is WP:weight, WP:RS and etc and even Azerbaijani ambassador admits majority of Western scholars mainly consider Nezami a Persian poet and some governments admit it too, will obviously try to change it [19]. There seems to be an inherent hostility towards Iranians in general and Iranics/Persians in particular from the USSR era amongst some of the people of Caucusus Azerbaijan due to political philosophies such as pan-Turkism (although it is not serious as that of the hostility against Armenians but you can detect this hostility in lots of USSR era work and that sort of hostility manifests itself too in Wikipedia once in a while like the user I just mentioned), but I have done my best to simply criticize actions/ideas and not people. So if you see messages like these [[[[20]]]], just delete them from the page. I tried to make it simple as I can, so both sides can share in his heritage despite their different opinions about his father's background (whom he was orphaned from anyhow). That is say his heritage is appreciate by Persian/Iranian world and also the modern Azeri-Turkic speaking country of the republic of Azerbaijan. We all agree on that and it is a constructive statement. And at the same time, based on very politically-motivated and untainble arguments, some nationalists claim his father was Turkic, and so I basically even have external links providing both views, and in the article I have provided a source for differences on his father's origin (with the exception of the fact that the source has changed her mind [21]). Fact is as Christine van Ruymbeke says, there is virtually nothing left on Nezami's biography. Also unlike any major Encyclopedia (Iranica, Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam, and overwhelming sources), I have not put Persian poet on the first line of the entry, but if I am not around and you see constant hostility and insults like these: [[22]] feel free to take it to mediation and arbcomm. The external source or two discussing the issue also leaves it up to the reader to decide the matter of his father's background whom he was orphaned from an early age (and raised by his Kurdish uncle and his mother tongue being Kurdish and Kurds of course being parts of Iranic peoples). Obviously just a simple glance at google books, Encyclopedias and etc., and taking it to mediation and then arbcomm will get a much stronger viewpoint but in reality despite being insulted (just look at the guy I deleted his message), I have kept calm, since we are simply trying to state the truth on what is easily considered Iranian heritage. Inside Wikipedia at least, we need to make sure the atmosphere is always peaceful. Outside of Wiki, I criticize USSR historiography and politicizations without belittling any group. Simply, he is a Iranian poet based on culture/language/ethnic (Iranic ancestry motherside and almost likely fatherside and raised by Kurdish uncle), just like Shah Esmail I is a Azeri-Turkic poet (despite say Kurdish ancestory) In the long term or Shahriyar is an Azeri-Turkic poet (despite Arab fatherline and writing 90% of his work in Persian actually), any serious scholar studying (those that are serious and not looking for nation building stuff) Nezami will have to learn Persian (as the verses are simply lost in translation as his verses are completely tied to the language usage and then it is pretty clear he is part of the Irano-Islamic world based on simply the cultural contents of the work). Of course once the urban Turkish culture developed (say Ottoman empire, and Chagatay Turkish), it was very close and almost identical to urban Iranian culture in terms of religion, outlook, themes of poetry and thinking with the difference of language and also started its own rich culture. Unfortunately though, the Ottoman language was extinguished by force and Chagatay natually died off. Anyhow, not too diverge, if I were to follow simply WP:weight, WP:RS and etc., and even same take it mediation and then arbitration, it will lead to a bad atmosphere where-as the opening sentence is constructive (opens up a friendly atmosphere). So even if it is by translation from the era of WWII, it is fine. A good entry on him is Encyclopedia of Islam one by Peter Chelkowsi who also has a book on Nezami's work. Encyclopedia of Islam sets basically the standard for scholarship on the area and serious scholars will follow it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In Khosrow and Shirin for example Nizami mentions a Barda ruler and a beauty from the same town. Brandt 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is Mahin Banu (Persian for : "Greatest Lady"), mythic queen of what Nezami calls lands of Arran and Armenia in Khusraw and Shirin. Also Nushaba (Persian for Life Giving Water) was also the Queen of Barda'. Barda' is shown 11 times in a search on Nezami's work, Iran is shown 31 times, 'Ajam as a land is shown 15 times (Nezami calling the Eldiguzid ruler as king of land of 'Ajam(Persia)), Arran is shown 1 time, Azarbayegaan (1 time spelled as in Vis o Ramin), Azar Abaadegaan (2 times as in Shahnameh spelling), Armenia is 21 times spelled as ارمن(arman). Overall this shows his culture is regionally appreciated (whatever are view might be about anything else) and so I think the intro captures that. In terms of cities, Barda' is definitely among one of the highest. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I undid user who removed proper category (Kurdish people)[23]. As it is well known Nezami's mother and maternal uncle who raised him were Kurdish (see this [24]). Also the ethnicity of his father was probably Iranic, but since he was orphaned from him early as well as there is no agreement, it was left out. Even the birth city of his father is unknown. However, it could not be "Azerbaijani" as such an ethnonym/ethnic group was not formed back then. One could hypothetize "Oghuz Turk" (the Azerbaijani dialect being later formed from one of its branches and influenced by non-Turkic languages) however Nezami's ancestry goes back before the advent of Seljuqs and was of an urban non-nomadic background, and the culture (as well as what is in his work and the Sassanid stories he chose) makes such a scenario very unlikely: (see Nozhat al-Majales for the culture and language of that era) [25] and frankly irrelevant. However as a region, "Azerbaijani/Arranian" is correct (that is reflected as he was born in Ganja) but not as a people and some sources mention people by region(context and history timeline makes it clear) (eg. is Bahmanyar who was a Zoroastrian Persian). The introduction though has the Azerbaijani language spelling although again that is bit of anachronism, but there is no reason to remove it as his legacy is appreciated. So removal of Kurdish people category is against Wikipedia WP:vandalism policy. See also here: [26]. --Pahlavannariman (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Expand sections on Works

An analysis of four of the five major works of Nezami has been written in Iranica:

• Encyclopedia Iranica, "Leyli o Majnun", A. A. Seyed-Gohrab [27]
• Encyclopædia Iranica, "ḴOSROWO ŠIRIN AND ITS IMITATIONS", Paola Orsatti [28]
• Encyclopædia Iranica, "Haft Peykar", François de Blois [29]
• Encyclopædia Iranica, "Eskandar-Nama of Nezami", François de Blois [30]

The sections describing each of these works can be expanded to two paragraphs probably.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepaheshgar (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Expand sections on Works

An analysis of four of the five major works of Nezami has been written in Iranica:

• Encyclopedia Iranica, "Leyli o Majnun", A. A. Seyed-Gohrab [31]
• Encyclopædia Iranica, "ḴOSROWO ŠIRIN AND ITS IMITATIONS", Paola Orsatti [32]
• Encyclopædia Iranica, "Haft Peykar", François de Blois [33]
• Encyclopædia Iranica, "Eskandar-Nama of Nezami", François de Blois [34]

The sections describing each of these works can be expanded to two paragraphs probably.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepaheshgar (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

a New Book (Key to the Treasury of the Hakim)

A new book is coming [35] which will have a great impact on Nezami studies as it is written by current living experts in Nizami (not from 40-50 years ago who did not have access to Nozhat al-Majales and Safina-yi Tabriz ): [36] Product Description This "Key" to the Khamsa consists of thirteen essays by eminent scholars in the field of Persian Studies, each focusing on different aspects of the Khamsa, which is a collection of five long poems written by the Persian poet Nizami of Ganja. Nizami (1141-1209) lived and worked in Ganja in present-day Azerbaijan. He is widely recognized as one of the main poets of Medieval Persia, a towering figure who produced outstanding poetry, straddling mysticism, romances and epics. He has left his mark on the whole Persian-speaking world and countless younger poets in the area stretching from the Ottoman to the Mughal worlds (present-day Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, India) have found him an inspiration and have tried to emulate him. His work has influenced such other immense poets as Hafez, Rumi, and Saadi. His five masnavis (long poems) address a variety of topics and disciplines and have all enjoyed enormous fame, as the countless surviving manuscripts of his work indicate. His heroes, Khosrow and Shirin, Leili and Majnun, Iskandar count amongst the stars of the Persian literary firmament and have become household names all over the Islamic world. The essays in the present volume constitute a significant development in the field of Nizami-studies, and on a more general level, of classical Persian literature. They focus on topics such as mysticism, art history, comparative literature, science, and philosophy. they show how classical Greek knowledge mingles in a unique manner with the Persian past and the Islamic culture in Nizami's world. They reflect a high degree of engagement with the existing scholarship in the field, they revive and challenge traditional views on the poet and his work and are indispensible both for specialists in the field and for anyone interested in the movement of ideas in the Medieval world. "

I have added the title to the bibliography section and also removed a section on polticization (not interesting right now). Also it was suggested to me to create an article Azerbaijani of Nezami, but I dislike politics intensly, dislike AA conflicts and want to just improve this article. However, I am simply against disassociating Nezami from his Persian cultural and linguistic background (who cares about his father whom no one can agree with and I have left space for any other view that claims it non-Iranic). Also fundamentally, from a historical point of view, I believe Azerbaijanis (Caucasus and Iran) have a strong Persian cultural heritage. Nezami is considered part of Persian literature (he himself calls it Nazm-i Dari (Persian verse)) and that is reflected by overwhelming number of English sources. Someone pointed me to an article recently that tried to link a yet non-precise style of Persian poetry with ethnic-national concepts in another wiki and then make it into a separate "literature". So I had to unfortunately leave my break in wiki and say here, such a connection does not exist. [37]. For example, Khaqani is also a cornerstone of the 'Iraqi style or many Persian poets from Iran wrote in the "Indian style"(none were Indian or from India) or Qatran Tabrizi (who lived before the Seljuq era and was a Fahlavi speaker from the Dehqan Iranian class). The study of these styles has not been yet thoroughly investigated(and their names are not even fixed) but linking of a style with ethnicity, nation, nation-building, or even a separate literature from Persian literature is anachronism and WP:OR. So please, no AA stuff in this article (and no USSR sources (which many wiki admins are now aware of) which are dated from 50-60 years go). Thank you (else I will seek mediation, and I will seek like most references to put Persian poet on the first line but life is too short. Let us not waste each others time). Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the new book above written by current living prominent Nezami scholars, the introduction should cover a vaster area and specifically mention Nezami as a Persian poet. As an example, Nasimi who is a Seyyed (Arab ancestry) is mentioned in its article as an "Azerbaijani-Turkic" poet. Or Pushkin is mentioned as a Russian writer/poet despite ethiopian ancestry on father's side. So culture is the more important elment here. If there are any objections, I would like to seek mediation or eventual arbcomm if it comes to that. Please note I removed for the sake of arguments several quotes from the article as I hid the issue of politiczation of Nezami:

A) Willem van Schendel (PhD, Professor of Modern Asian History at the University of Amsterdam), Erik Jan Zürcher (PhD. held the chair of Turkish Studies in the University of Leiden). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B.Tauris, 2001. ISBN 1860642616. "Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia’" Prof. Dr. Bert G. Fragner (Austrian Academy of Sciences (Vienna): Executive Director (Institute of Iranian Studies)). page. 20 «It was up to the central power to solve these kinds of contradiction by arbitrary decisions. This makes clear that Soviet nationalism was embedded into the political structure of what used to be called ‘Democratic Centralism’. The territorial principle was extended to all aspects of national histories, not only in space but also in time: ‘Urartu was the oldest manifestation of a state not only on Armenian soil but throughout the whole Union (and, therefore, implicitly the earliest forerunner of the Soviet state)’, 'Nezami from Ganja is an Azerbaijani Poet', and so on.»

B) Slezkine, Yuri. "The Soviet Union as a Communal Apartment." in Stalinism: New Directions. Ed. Sheila Fitzpatrick, Routledge, New York, 2000. pages 330-335. ISBN 041515233X. Excerpt: "Indeed, the 1934 Congress of Soviet Writers, which in many ways inaugurated high Stalinism as a cultural paradigm, was a curiously solemn parade of old-fashioned romantic nationalisms. Pushkin, Tolstoy and other officially restored Russian icons were not the only national giants of international stature - all Soviet peoples possessed, or would shortly acquire, their own classics, their own founding fathers and their own folkloric riches. The Ukrainian delegate said that Taras Shevchenko was a "genius"and a "colossus" "whose role in the creation of the Ukrainian literary language was no less important than Pushkin's role in the creation of the Russian literary language, and perhaps even greater."The Armenian delegate pointed out that his nation's culture was "one of the most ancient cultures of the orient,"that the Armenian national alphabet predated Christianity and that the Armenian national epic was "one of the best examples of world epic literature"because of "the lifelike realism of its imagery, its elegance, the profundity and simplicity of its popular wisdom and the democratic nature of its plot."The Azerbaijani delegate insisted that the Persian poet Nizami was actually a classic of Azerbaijani literature because he was a "Turk from Giandzha" and ..."

C) Walter Kolarz, "Russia and Her Colonies" Archon Books, 1967. page. 245. Excerpt: "The attempt to 'annex' an important part of Persian literature and to transform it into 'Azerbaidzhani literature' can be best exemplified by the way in which the memory of the great Persian poet Nizami (1141—1203) is exploited in the Soviet Union. The Soviet regime does not pay tribute to Nizami as a great representative of world literature, but is mainly interested in him as a ‘poet of the Soviet Union’, which he is considered to be because he was born in Gandzha in the territory of the present Azerbaidzhani Soviet Republic. The Soviet regime proclaims its ownership over Nizami also by ‘interpreting’ his works in accordance with the general pattern of Soviet ideology. Thus the leading Soviet journal Bolshevik stressed that Nizami's ‘great merit’ consisted in having undermined Islam by ‘opposing the theological teaching of the unchangeable character of the world’. Stalin himself intervened in the dispute over Nizami and gave an authoritative verdict on the matter. In a talk with the Ukrainian writer, Mikola Bazhan, Stalin referred to Nizami as ‘the great poet of our brotherly Azerbaidzhani people’who must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, despite having written most of his poems in Persian."

The dispute about his father's ethnicity is mentioned in one line very briefly. I will mention simply scholars who have written on Nezami from top sources. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note this: "People who call Nezami a Persian poet are perfectly right, as the language in which he chose to express himself was Persian, whatever his family background might have been, and it was most probably Iranian. The area and town in which he lived has become Azerbaijan nowadays, so Azerbaijan is perfectly correct in claiming him as a local man - this might also be correct for the Soviet Union at one time. In my eyes, this does not rob Persian culture from one of its greatest man either."(Christine van Ruyumbeke) --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I also don't think that it is right to disassociate Nizami with Persian culture, but I don't think that anyone tries to do that. But I also think that is very wrong trying to disassociate Nizami with Azerbaijan, and it is a part of a political anti-Azerbaijani campaign in a certain country of Transcaucasia. In my opinion, it is simply wrong to say that Nizami is either Persian or Azerbaijani. Why cannot he be both Persian and Azerbaijani? It just depends on what meaning you put into these words. If Persian is a linguistic designation, then Nizami is a Persian poet. If Persian means national/geographic designation, then Nizami is not Persian, because he lived in the Seljukid state of Atabeys of Azerbaijan, and in the territory of modern day Azerbaijan. So Nizami can also be called an Azerbaijani poet, in national/geographic sense, as he hails from Ganja, outside of historical Persia. In this regard I totally agree with professor Ruymbeke, who said: People who call Nezami a Persian poet are perfectly right, as the language in which he chose to express himself was Persian, whatever his family background might have been, and it was most probably Iranian. The area and town in which he lived has become Azerbaijan nowadays, so Azerbaijan is perfectly correct in claiming him as a local man - this might also be correct for the Soviet Union at one time. In my eyes, this does not rob Persian culture from one of its greatest man either.

I think that Nizami represents the cultural heritage shared by both Iran and Azerbaijan, Persians and Azerbaijanis, and we should not argue whether he was Persian or Azerbaijani, because he was both, in different senses. For instance, a poet can be both English (in terms of language) and American or Australian (in terms of nationality), or Canadian (nationality) and English or French (linguistically), or say Swiss or Austrian and at the same time German (there are many examples of such shared heritage). I think a lot of disputes here are caused by wrong understanding of terms Persian and Azerbaijani.

Also, nowhere in the world the poetry of Nizami is appreciated better, than in Azerbaijan and Iran. If you look at Azerbaijan, almost all Azerbajani poets and writers were inspired by Nizami. For instance, Fuzuli wrote his Turkic version of Leyli and Majnun. Azerbaijani composers and musicians wrote operas, ballets and popular songs based on Nizami's poetry, some of which have international fame. The monuments to Nizami can be found in every Azerbaijani town, and those in former USSR cities were also created by Azerbaijani people. The people of Azerbaijan preserved Nizami's grave for 800 years, and it survived to present days, while the graves of various rulers of Ganja just vanished. As Prof. Peter Chelkowski said: "So beloved are his poems that his tomb has been a place of devoted pilgrimage for over seven centuries, and he was given the honorific title of Hakim, or learned doctor."

I don't think that Nizami's poetry is ever meant to divide people, quite the contrary, it could help people of Azerbaijan and Iran promote friendship and mutual understanding. Grandmaster 15:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the sources you quoted above, I know where they come from, and I can easily prove that Nizami has always been considered a national poet in Azerbaijan, even before the Soviets came to power, so it does not have much to do with the Soviet state building. But I think it is a pointless argument. Grandmaster 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Let me first say that Azerbaijanis have a Persian heritage component. But there are some points you mentioned that I believe are wrong with respect to history. Note I do not mean to insult anyone, but I think the USSR pushed for a new Azerbaijani identity that tried to disassociate itself with both Iran and Turkey. 20th century nation building has also occured in Iran, Turkey, and all regional countries. Where-as the natural (that is historical) modern Azerbaijani identity is mainly an intersection between Persian and Turkic identity (although due to political reasons, majority now de-emphasize the Persian/Iranian heritage or try to retroactively Turkify its once strong presence). That is there is a strong Persian cultural heritage, as well as a Turkic language. At one time, in the era of Nezami, the Persian culture and language was dominant (e.g. Nozhat al-Majales where 115 Persian poets, 24 of them from Ganja are mentioned during the same era, majority nothing to do with courts and poets from working class backgrounds..). The Caucasian Albania stuff though is almost sourceless. We do not have evidence of an Islamicate Caucasian Albanian culture, nor of any major figures, poets or etc. that had any perceptible influence on Azerbaijanis. So given that Azerbaijani identity is a mixture of the urban Persian culture of the area Nozhat al-Majales mixed with the arrivals of the Turkmen/Oghuz tribes, Azerbaijanis also share in the heritage of Nezami (due to their strong Persian cultural component). However, the term "Azerbaijani" to denote culturally, linguistically or even ethnically someone that lived 850 years ago is not historical. If some feel very strong pro-Turkic sentiments, they need to use "Turkic". Anyhow, I am not interested in any sort of politics(don't like politics and don't like to poison a history article or wikipeda) and that is why I removed all the quotes that you see above. I was informed about all these discussions in Russian pages that still go on, but I am not interested in that either. The main interest is not diassociate Nezami from his Persian cultural heritage and what I believe are ethnic Iranian roots Nozhat al-Majales(we might disagree here and that is where I have brought a sentence for diasgreement although to be fair, the Francois de Blois, Encyclopedia of Islam and etc. are pretty clear he was ethnic Iranian speaking).

However some points.

a) The concept of a national identity did not exist back then. We are talking about the 12th century. National borders and nation states in the 12th century did not exist. So English-American, Arab-American, Australian Iranian, Iranian Australian and etc. were totally foreign concepts back them. What we had was a large Islamic Seljuq empire who sometimes became so weakened that local dynasties asserted themselves. One example is the Eldiguzids who also are called "Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan]]" which is a title not a nation-state. Nizami was born slightly before they took power, lived most of his life when they were a powerful part of the Seljuq kingdom and actually controlled the Sultan and then died after they had lost this power. Article on them in Iranica: [38][39]. There is also a good article on them in Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden) under Eldiguzids. However, the concept of national borders and state based identities did not exist. For example, Ferdowsi lived under the Ghaznavid state. But he was Persian. Many Persians lived under the Seljuqs and local Atabek kingdoms (Eldiguzids, Ahmadilis, Atabeks of Fars, Atabeks of Yazd, Atabeks of Mosul, Atabeks of Kerman..). So Nezami cannot be said to be Azerbaijani in the national sense unless there was such a nationality. Geography and "national sense" are different.

So what can one concentrate on? Culture, language and ethnicity. For examples Armenians that lived in Ganja at that time would not for example be Azerbaijanis. However, since Azerbaijanis have Persian heritage/culture, it might be a different case with the Persian heritage of the region. However, we must go back to the 12th century. We can say there were Iranic peoples, Armenian peoples, Turkic peoples, Caucasian peoples..

Now you said: "If Persian is a linguistic designation, then Nizami is a Persian poet." However, it is not just the language. But also culture. Peter J. Chelkowski, "Mirror of the Invisible World", New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975. pp 6: "Nizami's strong character, his social sensibility, and his poetic genius fused with his rich Persian cultural heritage to create a new standard of literary achievement. Using themes from the oral tradition and written historical records, his poems unite pre-Islamic and Islamic Iran",

Note his rich Persian cultural heritage is shown by the Sassanid stories Haft Paykar, Khusraw o Shirin as well as Persianization of Alexander (see detailed article in Encyclopedia of Islam) and Persianization of Layli o Majnun (see detailed articles from 4-5 sources including Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, English translation).

So Persian here is more than culture.

Now if I you had to define Muslim Azerbaijani in the 12th century, it would either be people with Persian heritage or Turkic tribesmen. Later on they mixed and gave rise to the Azerbaijani identity. However, to use the term Azerbaijani for back then, it is in my opinion non-scientific and anachronism. Just like using the term Iranian for Elamites (who had a great cultural influence on Iranians) is anachronistic.

As per geographical region, I will quote a source and Nezami himself.

I quote the new book[40]: "He is widely recognized as one of the main poets of Medieval Persia, a towering figure who produced outstanding poetry, straddling mysticism, romances and epics" Note "Widely Recognized" from a Wikipedia POV is even stronger than a concensus.

Note I agree with this statement because if you look at the works of Nezami, he addresses the different rulers as rulers of Iran/Persian/Molk-e-Ajam (Persian realm). Khaqani also uses the same. In the Haft Paykar, Nizami Ganjavi, when addressing the Ahmadili ruler (known as Atabakan-e-Maragheh in later history where Maragheh is a city in the Iranian province of East Azarbaijan): The World’s a body, Iran its heart

No shame to him who says such a word

Iran, the world’s most precious heart,

Excels the body, there is no doubt

Among the realms the kings posses

The best domain goes to the best

(Translation by Professor Julia Meysami).

In praising the rulers of Shirwan (who sometimes extended their rule beyond Shirwan), Nizami again mentions:

This book is better to be written

A young peacock is better to have a mate

Specially for a king like the Shah of Shirwan

Not only Shirwan, but the Shahriyar (Prince, Ruler) of all Iran

In the Khusraw o Shirin, Nizami Ganjavi, when addressing the ruler Shams al-Din Muhammad Ildigoz (the dynasty being later known as the Atabakan-e-Azerbaijan and ruling parts of Arran and Azerbaijan and extending further in Western Persia as its height), mentions:

In that day that they bestowed mercy upon all, Two great ones were given the name Muhammad, One who’s pure essence was the seal of prophecy, The other who is the Kingdom’s Seal, in his own days One whose house/zodiac is moon of the Arabs The other who is the everlasting Shah of Realm of Persians

So Nezami mentions three rulers from his own area as rulers of Iran/Persia/Persian realm. So the cultural-border concept of Persia/Iran as opposed to Arabia, Berber lands, India and etc. did exist. However the concept of nation states did not.

Nizami Ganjavi calls upon the Prophet Muhammad:

سوی عجم ران منشین در عرب

زرده روز اینک و شبدیز شب

Do not stay in Arabia, come to Persia

Here are the light steeds of night and day

So I think if a geographical point of view, at least from Nezami's work, his realm is called Iran/Persia. Azarbaijan as another part of this cultural-border realm, was part of it (not separate). Else the ruler of Maragheh would not be called ruler of Iran. Because at that time, the main lands to the people of Islamic world was: "Persia, Arabia, Berber lands, India, Turkistan (did not include Caucasus), China..." etc. It had nothing to do with governments, rulers or national borders. So I think Medieval Persia is correct here as well as modern Azerbaijan is correct. That is what the expert Nezami book states: "Nizami (1141-1209) lived and worked in Ganja in present-day Azerbaijan. He is widely recognized as one of the main poets of Medieval Persia, a towering figure who produced outstanding poetry, straddling mysticism, romances and epics." So in this geographical aspect, both Azerbaijani (modern country) and Medieval Persia do not contradict. For the sake of this article, we have said Ganja (in modern Azerbaijan).

b) As per cultural influence, I note the same book which promises to have a huge impact on Nezami studies (published this year): ""He has left his mark on the whole Persian-speaking world and countless younger poets in the area stretching from the Ottoman to the Mughal worlds (present-day Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, India) have found him an inspiration and have tried to emulate him.""

And also Britannica: "Nezami is admired in Persian-speaking lands for his originality and clarity of style, though his love of language for its own sake and of philosophical and scientific learning makes his work difficult for the average reader."

Ballete, statues, monuments and etc are 20th century concepts in my opinion. They did not exist in the Islamic world beforehand. The translation of Nezami into Azerbaijani Turkish was also done in the 20th century. NO doubt he has a great influence in the region. He has had a great influence on Azerbaijani, Ottoman, Chagatay Turkish as well as Sindhi, Punjabi, Urdu, Hindi (and other Indic languages), as well as Kurdish, Pashtu..and even on Georgia/Armenia. However, the article needs to keep focus on the Medieval period. Also without understanding Persian, one cannot really experience Nezami since his poetry is difficult to translate (due to large number of imagery, symbols and words tied in the cultural context of the culture of the time). Poetry of the top poets of different languages cannot be translated. So in my opinion if someone wants to expand Nezami studies, they need to teach and learn the Persian language since monuments/statues do not really expand Nezami. The Islamic world did not have statues even until recently.

Chelkowski also mentions Nezami as a "Persian poet and thinker". I agree, one cannot disassociate Nezami from Azerbaijan or even Urdu poetry. The influence is there. So that can be mentioned in the article (it is already as well).

My main point is this. As the book has mentioned: "This "Key" to the Khamsa consists of thirteen essays by eminent scholars in the field of Persian Studies, each focusing on different aspects of the Khamsa, which is a collection of five long poems written by the Persian poet Nizami of Ganja. Nizami (1141-1209) lived and worked in Ganja in present-day Azerbaijan. He is widely recognized as one of the main poets of Medieval Persia, a towering figure who produced outstanding poetry, straddling mysticism, romances and epics."

So Persian poet per Nezami scholars Chelkowski, Van Ruyumbeke, Meisami,Rudolf Gelpke, ..should be in the introduction. Then there is the issue of Nezami's father ethnicity which has its own separate space. However, fatherline does not diassociate a poet from the culture-language. Just like Nasimi (Seyyed of Arab descent) or Pushkin (Ethiopian father).

As per the ethnicity of his father, we disagree. So there is a sentence to state both point of views. Ethnicity, if there is dispute should not be in the intro. There is a part about it: [[41]]. I have my sources for Iranic ethnicity such as: "C. A. (Charles Ambrose) Storey and Franço de Blois (2004), "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period.", RoutledgeCurzon; 2nd revised edition (June 21, 2004). Pg 363: "Nizami Ganja’i, whose personal name was Ilyas, is the most celebrated native poet of the Persians after Firdausi. His nisbah designates him as a native of Ganja (Elizavetpol, Kirovabad) in Azerbaijan, then still a country with an Iranian population," "Ian Philip McGreal, "Great Literature of the Eastern World", Published 1996, p. 505):"His mother was an Iranian Kurd and it is possible that his father had the same ethnic origin, though he is claimed also by Turkish Azerbaijanis as being of their stock" and I have my basis in the work of Nozhat al-Majales as well as Nezami's urban background and his family name predating the Seljuq invasion. You you can present your point of view with the sources you have in that sentences. Note I have deliberately made that section small so that it is not the focus of the article. However, the introduction of the article as mentioned should have Persian poet. Just like Chelkowski in Encyclopedia of Islam(Leiden) which is the top source has "Persian poet and thinker...". This does not disassociate it with the country of Azerbaijan as Azerbaijan is a heir to strong Persian cultural heritage. However some Azerbaijani historians of today are trying to create an Azerbaijani identity in the 12th century, rather than accepting that it was their own Persian cultural-linguistic heritage (e.g. Nozhat al-Majales). Even though I hate politics I think this must be said. The transcausasian country you mentioned is using Azerbaijani historiography to its advantage to claim Azerbaijanis have no basis on the land. The Azerbaijani historiographers are direcetly helping them (in the eye of an average non associated scholar) because rather than emphasizing that they have a strong Persian cultural component, instead they are trying to claim a separate ethno-national identity (which did not exist at that time). I mentioned the most important and alive Western Nezami scholars and resources (including this 2010 book). So the introduction should mention him as a Persian poet, since fatherline (just like Pushkin, Nasimi or etc.) is an issue that can be discussed under the part "family". Also it should expand the number of country and region (per the above source). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is fine the way it is. It has been stable for many years, and I (or anyone else) never tried to change anything in it, so I don't understand why you out of sudden started this discussion. My point is the same as Mrs. Ruyumbeke mentioned in her letter: The area and town in which he lived has become Azerbaijan nowadays, so Azerbaijan is perfectly correct in claiming him as a local man - this might also be correct for the Soviet Union at one time. So I think it is wrong to say that Azerbaijan has nothing to do with the poet, as some claim. I think using terms like Persian, Azerbaijani, etc will be misleading, as those words have different meanings, and people will think that they refer to ethnicity (which is not known, as you mentioned), and will always be fighting over that. So the compromise version that existed for years I believe is the best option, and I suggest we stick to that. Grandmaster 18:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, "Azerbaijani" is not historical (linguistically, ethnically and etc.) for 1050 A.D. (Muayyad father of Zakki father of Yusuf father of Nezami). No author from that era at that time has mentioned such ethnic designation. Just like 4000 years ago there was no German, Persian or etc. Iranic/Persian/Kurdic/Turkish/Oghuz/Kypchak however are correct terms. I firmly believe Nezami was Iranic speaking (per de Blois, Nozhat al-Majales), in a sense one of the Iranic subgroups. After I read the Nozhat al-Majales, I believe there is no doubt. Basically, in one anthology only, 24 Persian poets are mentioned from Ganja and the cultural content of his work is clear. Some Anatolian Turkish/Azeri Turkish speaking authors (from Turkey or Azerbaijan or Iran) might claim otherwise, but I believe in the sense the culture that Nezami has produced has nothing to do with Altaic groups (none of the basis of the stories). His ancestry pre-dated Seljuqid era. So it was either Iranic or Iranicized. Ethnicity also overlaps with culture.

As Dr. Ruyuymbeke says: "People who call Nezami a Persian poet are perfectly right, as the language in which he chose to express himself was Persian, whatever his family background might have been, and it was most probably Iranian. The area and town in which he lived has become Azerbaijan nowadays, so Azerbaijan is perfectly correct in claiming him as a local man - this might also be correct for the Soviet Union at one time. In my eyes, this does not rob Persian culture from one of its greatest man either.". I think per the articles of top living Western Nezami experts, the title Persian poet should be in the introduction. You are correct that Diakonov is not a Nezami expert.

However, per wikipedia guidelines, Van Ruyumbeke, Francois de Blois, Meysami, Chelkowski and etc. are such experts and have called him a Persian poet. Chelkowski starts his article in Encyclopedia of Islam with: "Chelkowski, P. "Nizami Gandjawi, jamal al-Din Abu Muhammad Ilyas b. Yusuf b. Zaki Muayyad . Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2008. Brill Online. Excerpt one:"", one of the greatest Persian poets and thinkers. He was born and spent most, if not all, of his life in Gand̲j̲a (called Elisavetpol and Kirovabad during the Imperial Russian and Soviet periods), Niẓāmī being his pen-name. In recognition of his vast knowledge and brilliant mind, the honorific title of ḥakīm , “learned doctor,” was bestowed upon him by scholars. From his poetry, it is evident that he was learned not only in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, jurisprudence, history, and philosophy but also in music and the arts. His work is a synthesis of Persian literary achievements up to his time.""

Note thinkers here can be taken outside of language, since Persian thinker means Persian thinker. Encyclopedia Britannica (which is not an expert source) has also states Persian poet. As per the current version, it is stable, however it hides a major fact that Western Nezami expert-scholars refer to him as a Persian poet and introduce him as such. The only reason it hides this fact is due to modern nationalism. That is what he is known for (his Persian works and culture). Pushkin had ethiopian ancesry but is a Russian writer. Nezami's father we disagree with, however cultural/language/heritage is Persian. I have been open-minded enough to say there is a disagreement on his father whom he was orphaned from early. Since that is mentioned explicitly in the article, then there is no worries for people in confusing his fatherline ancestry (which in my opinion is totally secondary to his Persian culture/heritage/language/stories).

Here are just some of the expert Nezami sources. They are all living scholar (except one of them). By experts I mean they have written books and articles on him: a) Rudolf Gelpke, “The Story of Layla and Majnun”, Translated by Rudolf Gelpke, Omega Publications, 1997. Excerpt from pg xi: “somewhere in the western half of the Arabic peninsula, about 500 years before AD 1188 (584 H), the year in which the Persian poet Nizami wrote his poem” He is translator of Nezami, scholar of Persian literature and a Nezami scholar. b) Chelkowski, P. "Nizami Gandjawi, jamal al-Din Abu Muhammad Ilyas b. Yusuf b. Zaki Muayyad . Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2008. Brill Online. Excerpt one:"", one of the greatest Persian poets and thinkers." c) J. Scott Meisami, “Nizami c. 1141-c1209: Persian Poet” in Encyclopedia of literary translation in English, Olive Classe, Taylor & Francis, 2000. 2nd edition. pg 1005-1006. Well known Nezami scholar. d) Christine van Ruyuymbeke.. ...

The only reason to keep the current introduction is stability (less vandals and thank God with the lock it is closer to zero), also to not get involved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts (where there is actually a cold/hot war spilled into wikipedia), start a new arbcoom, waste my own time and the fact that only Iranian, Azeri and once in a while Armenian users get involved in the article (at least in the English version). This is really unfortunate, since due to conflicts between two groups in the Caucasus, this article cannot have the scholarly introduction (Nezami is signicant because of him being a Seminal Persian poet) that it deserves. One side my perceive it as aiding their "trans-caucasian enemy"! Ideally, following wikipedia guidelines based on modern up to date Western Nezami-expert sources(authors who have written articles about him, or have done major translations and studies and are alive so there is no second guessing) of the last 20-30 years is the best way to proceed. However, since wikipedia seems to be a battle ground of different groups, vandals, nationalists, politicans, polemicist, racists, paid users, propagandist and etc., until the situation is not regulated (and real scholars are not commisioned to write articles for it), I'll prefer the stable version like you mentioned. Much like the modern world, which is not perfect, wikipedia is not perfect. I doubt dab will get involved either. So unless he does, then whatever. I have better things to do with life then go through mediations, arbcomm and etc. And then see two years later the same article being vandalized. So the agreement with regards to the stable version for the introduction is for peace of mind, relatively okay, and very stable. So fine. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, let's keep things stable, and avoid any possible misunderstandings. The into was in this form for many years, and did not cause any major edit wars. Let's not fix things that are not broken. There are a lot of other things in this article that could be improved, since nothing is perfect in this world. I'm sure we can work together on that. Thanks. Grandmaster 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as long as the article is not disturbed by trying to de-persianize/de-iranianize him or AA stuff, modern politics, non-expert sources, and etc. spills in it, I am fine and won't try to change the intro to what I feel is more scholarly. Your argument that lets not fix things that are not broken is good(and frankly your best one ;) ). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On writing Nizami's name in various languages

Please anwser and comment the following:

Nezāmi-ye Ganjavi (Persian: نظامی گنجوی; Kurdish: Nîzamî Gencewî, نیزامی گه‌نجه‌وی; Azerbaijani: Nizami Gəncəvi, نظامی گنجوی ;‎ 1141 to 1209), or Nezāmi (Persian: نظامی), whose formal name was Niżām ad-Dīn Abū Muḥammad Ilyās ibn-Yūsuf ibn-Zakī ibn-Mu‘ayyad, is considered the greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature...

Nizami's name here is written in English, because it is an English encyclopedia, in Perisan, because he was a Persian, at least created in Persian language in within Persian poetic and cultural tradition. But why do we show his name her in: 1) Kurdish. If there was separate written literary Kurdish language in the 12 th c. and Nizami composed in this ancient Kurdish and we have any original source of the 12th c. with his name written in Kurdish? 2) Azerbaijani Turkic. Did this language exist at all in the 12 c. or its written literary form and we have any original writing of Nizami in this language with indication of his own name in this language? 3) Why not to add the writing of his name in any language of the world that mentioned him at all? Thanks for your comments, -- Zara-arush (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Only English and Persian are in my opinion necessary. I support and propose the removal of Turkic language version of this Persian poet. It is also time for us to change the introduction (lead) of this article and mention him as "Nezāmi-ye Ganjavi (Persian: نظامی گنجوی);‎ 1141-1209 CE, or Nezāmi (Persian: نظامی), whose formal name was Niżām ad-Dīn Abū Muḥammad Ilyās ibn-Yūsuf ibn-Zakī ibn-Mu‘ayyad, is considered the greatest romantic epic Persian poet in Persian literature". Xashaiar (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys here is my take on the issue and this has been discussed before. This is a compromise version. Sometimes compromise versions might overtake what is official wikipedia policy. It is designed to avoid mediation and arbcomm, which no one wants (as it wastes a lot of time and would simply make both Iranian and Caucasian users look bad infront of admins). Per your question: Persian is obvious as he wrote his name in Persian and the population of Ganja was Persian at the time. Here is his name in Persian: نظامی که نظم دری کار او اســت دری نظم کردن سزاوار او اســــــت translation: Nezami whose skill is in composing Persian poetry Composing Persian poetry is what he deserves

All of his works are in Persian and he is known as part of Persian literature. Persians can pickup his book and understand him (although his symbolic language and metaphors requires deep thought and often actually, Khaqani and other poets such as Sanai, Attar, Asad Gorgani, Ferdowsi help). So foremost, his heritage belongs to anyone that understands Persian. So attesting a name in the language that existed and the author wrote in the time is valid. Persian culture dominated the region as shown by Nozhat al-Majales and twenty four poets alone from Ganja at that time. The name of Ganja is also Persian. I also received an informative source just yesterday that explicitly mention that Ganja was densly populated with Iranians and some Christians right before the Mongol invasion ([42]). Unfortunately, this source is not known in Iran (There was Estakhri who in the 10th century already states Persian was widely spoken in Arran, and also Muqaddesi who alludes to Arranian Persian). There is also Muhammad ibn Ba'ith from Azerbaijan proper (not Arran) also from the 9th century when Persian poetry is mentioned. However this new source is explicitly about the composition of Ganja and right before the Mongol invasion. I am sure the Soviets knew about it, but hid it, and I am now looking into the original Grabar of this source (hopefully an expertt can help).

It is remarkable, that such a source was hidden until now, specially since it is from an author born in the same city and speicifcally gives the composition of the city right before the Mongol Invasion (Nizami lived 10 years before that invasion). Per Wikipedia rule, one can even mention such a source in this article but not intrepret it with their own research. If necessary, this will be done. Here is what that source states: "This city was densely populated with Iranians(original Armenian states Persian as far as I have researched so far) and a small number of Christians."[43] This is right before the Mongol invasion too.

On Kurdish, because his mother was Kurdish and his maternal uncle who raised him was Kurdish. As per your question, Azerbaijani Turkic was at proto-Oghuz level but later on it became Azerbaijani-Turkic with a heavy Persian and Persianized Arabic layer(all the Arabic influence and words are actually from Persian and many of them are actually not used in the original Arabic sense, but in the sense they are used in Persian. In actuality, the work of someone like Fizuli is more Persianized than even modern spoken Azeri. However, the language Azerbaijani-Turkic was formed later than the 12th century. Just like Dari-Persian was formed from Middle Persian but with Arabic influence as well. My main problem is not with putting any language, but the latin alphabets (for both Kurdish and Azeri) which makes it a bigger anachronism.

However, the people of the republic of Azerbaijan do associate with him (although in my humble opinion, if you do not know Persian, you cannot appreciate his expressions, as the main feature of Nizami is his use of the language in a creative fashion (most of the themes can be found in other works before and after him, but it is how he uses the languages that makes distinct) and the introduction has been pretty stable. There can be a problem, only if some users try to downplay the Persian cultural/ethnic heritage of the region at that time (falsely claim Seljuqs brought Persian in the area, when there already exists Qatran Tabrizi who served in Ganja in the Shaddadid court..or as we see in some websites where even Zoroastrianism is called a Turkic religion or in Soviet sources), or other very fringe theories (which Abbas Zaryab(before him Vahid Dastgerdi) has responded to forcesully), and if such a thing is proposed, then the introduction will be changed. I am not interested in getting involved in AA fights in English Wikipedia, and I think other Wikipedia's should work out their own problems with their own users, administrators and guidelines. For example in Persian wikipedia, there is obviously not going to be any 20th century latin alphabet and I am not sure how it is in Azerbaijani-Turkic wikipedia(I am sure if Atropatene which is a good article nomination in that wikipedia is mentioned with a Turkic population, then other problems exist in that wikipedia.). Ultimately, for anyone that tries to deny the Persian culture/ethnic/language heritage of Nezami, they will lose as time passes by, since no sort of lie can exist forever. Sassanid Bahram Gur, and Khusraw o Shirin, Nushaba, Mahin Banu, Farhad, Barbad, Nakisa, Shabdiz are originally from Iranian/Persian culture and are not going to become transformed into Turks.

Having said all of that,it is not worth the waste of time in order to remove a different spelling. If other more major issues comeup, then yes, the anachronistic name should be removed when dealing with the major issues. Persian comes first (as it should) anyway. There is no problem in having a stable introduction and there are other articles that can use our efforts. Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again, I am not quite a stranger here, at the discussion page devoted to Nizami. The above user wrote: "if you do not know Persian, you cannot appreciate his expressions, as the main feature of Nizami is his use of the language in a creative fashion", and I agree with him or her. Only the lack of knowledge and cultural tradition may explain why the article about Nizami in Russian, demostrating his poetry and rich language and images, should rewrite almost anew not one of the Azeri Turks, who claim him their greatest national poet and cultural treasure. They exclaimed so many times that someone wanted to stole their national gandj that I got extremely interested both in Persian poetry and Nizami. But when I saw a poor writen article with miserable info, many spelling, grammatical and stylistic mistakes, and references to unreliable sources, I was so much surpirsed that I put aside all my plans, relating other articles, and started to study the great world of Persian poetry. Of course, I will not become a scholar, but I enjoy reading the verses and the criticism about Persian poetry. I am very thankful to those users, who created the articles in English for it helps me to get info and realize, what falsifications I escaped from studying in case I were a student in present-day Azerbaijani Republic. And it is the main merit of Wikipedia - it helps to spread the true and reliable information not only free, but boundaryless. Let's enjoy it, -- Zara-arush (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not really the fault of Azeris and I think Armenian and Azeris should get alone in Russian Wikipedia. That problem should not be exported into English Wikipedia which has had its own problems. The Soviet union turned people like Babak Khorramdin, Medes, Zoroaster, Atropatene, Mahasti, Qatran, Nasir al-Din Tusi (from Tus), Masud ibn Namdar (a Kurd), Bahmanyar (a Zoroastrian Persian) and etc. into "Azeris" when such an ethnonym was never used until the 19th/20th century. These peoples were Iranians and Caucasus from Azerbaijan not Turks (except for Tusi who was actually from Khorasan). As for Nezami, Nezami's imagery and metaphors are extremly rich. In other words as Britannica(I think the short article on him in Britannica is written by Professor Peter Chelkowski) states: "though his love of language for its own sake and of philosophical and scientific learning makes his work difficult for the average reader.". So translating his work will basically get rid off a lot of the meanings. There are parts that can be translated okay, but a good portion is closely tied to the language itself. There is no escape from that fact, so if a person does not know Persian, then they cannot appreciate Nezami in the real sense. So after Persian was forcefully removed by the Russians and also local pan-Turk nationalists, the Azeris in the Caucasus in a sense lost a good portion of their common heritage with other Iranians. Now there is actually a extreme pan-Turk movement (probably supported by the same people that claim Nezami was a Turk but cannot understand Persian) that actually wants to remove Persian from official language curriculum in Iranian Azerbaijan. Actually they also burn copies of the Shahnameh in one gathering which Nezami took most of his genre from (and appreciate very much). So such extremists cannot absolutely have any connection with Nezami, and it is all just fanciful nationalist. At the first archive, we had people that claimed thatNezami actually wrote in Azeri. I do not think even the fact that all of his works are in Persian is known by everyone there. There is websites that falsely attribute to him Turkish work. Lots of these sort of mentality is the fault of Soviets/pan-Turkist nationalists. For example up to the 20th century, no one in Iran or Azerbaijan would have known who was Atropates and Babak Khorramdin was even seen as a heretic. Although I do believe the majority of today's Azeris were at one time Iranian speakers, however they have basically converted into Turks (specially in the Caucasus). Identity is a fluid concept and the main factor is how the people see themselves. So if we these people see themselves as Turks today, then they are not really Iranians in the ethnic sense or primary inheritors of Persian culture of the area. Remember at the time, there was no nation-state concepts. Also the Caucasian Albanian theory I do not buy since there is not a Caucasian Albanian substrate in Azerbaijani Turkish where as there is an Urartuian substrate in Armenian. On the other hand, Azerbaijani Turkish does have an Iranian linguistic substrate.

So based on my own research, I believe the majority of these people were actually Iranian speakers at one time (and this is the opinion of some Western researchers). This is true about Turkey as well where the majority of its population is descendants of pre-Turkish Anatolians. It is shame that Nezami article had to have 6 archives to describe his father's background. Anyway I have done some research on this issue and I can gaurantee now that 100% it was not Turkic. I hope (or me) will publish these later or give someone else to publish it in a respectable place (alongside mistakes perpuated from normal scholars like Berengian attributing terms to Safa, Foruzanfar, Shafaq which they did not use, or outright falsehood like the recent claim of a Turkish Divan or Brenda Shaffer claiming Khusraw was the ancestor of Turks in the Caucasus, or falsfication (responded to by Abbas Zaryab and already intrepreted by Vahid Dastgerdi) that Nezami wanted to write Turkish (whose literally tradition did not exist) for the Shirvanshah (who did not even know Turkish).....). Then there is the issue of not understanding basic Persian symbolic poetry[44]. Some of these issues have been eluciated here [45]. Anyhow, there is a verse that completely rules out any Turkic ancestry but this was not picked up in detail scholars (since they usually just are happy to read his work and do not care about these nationalistic quibbles). So in a sense Wikipedia helped by helping me look at this issue in more details. The verses are: " چون ترکان گشته سوی کوچ محتاج بترکی داده رختم را به تاراج اگر شد ترکم از خرگه نهانی خدایا ترکزادم را تو دانی The verse is about Nezami and his first wife which was Kypchak. First Nezami distinguishes her as a Turk (there is no reason to do so if he was a Turk), but more importantly the verses translate to: Like the Turk, she needed migration and in the manner of Turks she plundered my belongings (life) If my Turk has dissapeared from the tent, (note here that Turks at the time were associated with nomadic lifestyle not urban) I entrust my Turkzad (son born of a Turkish wife) to your mercy" The term "Turkzad" in Shahnameh and the literature context at the time, meant a son whose father is Iranian but whose mother is a Turk. This has been used three times in the Shahnameh for exactly the people that had such an ancestry (half Turanian (which was considered Turk then although Turanians do not have any linguistic connections to Turks and it was simply due to geography they got intermixed) and half Iranian). What is important for understanding the meaning of the term, is to cross-reference with the literature that the poet was familiar and used. The best to cross-reference with is Sanai, Khaqani, Ferdowsi, Asadi Tusi, Gorgani, etc.

Be that it may, what is important is that one ultimately cannot appreciate Nezami without knowledge of Persian language, so in a sense, the sort of nationalistic nation bulding will only produce an artificial and shallow appreciation of his poetry. The Kirakos Ganjakets'i's source would not have been found for me, had it not been for Wikipedia. It is the only source I am currently aware of that describes Ganja's population right before the Mongol invasion. Basically it says it was densly populated with Persians and some Christians. The author himself is also from Ganja which makes it double valid, since he was born in the city and lived in the city (rather than travelled there). Then there is the study of Nozhat al-Majales. Quatrains are not court poetry, but they are meant for average people. The quatrains are about the most spiritual to the most mundane subjects. Quatrains in a sense are the opposite extreme to epic poetry. They are short and are meant to be memorized quickly. They are the art of both scholars and ordinary people. Overall, you put all these together, with the themes that Nezami chose (all from the Shahnameh rather than say Turkic folklore like dede qorqud or etc.), and it is apparent that his culture was Persian, and his ancestry was Iranian. Farhad, Khusraw, Shirin, Bahram Gur, Eskandar (the Persianized Eskandar of the Shahnameh) o Dara, Barbad, Nakisa and etc. are from totally different world than authentic Turkic folklore (say Dede Qorqud or the Manas). But since this is wikipedia, the issue will be a problem. Probably a good approach is the one provided by Prof. Ruymbeke here [46]. There is no big deal if Azerbaijan wants to also claim him as part of their heritage, the problems occurs in my opinion if they deny his Persian culture(encompassing both themes of history, prevalent culture of the time, language, and tradition) and heritage. Or falsely even attribute Turkish works too him (where as there is not a single piece of Turkish poetry from the Caucasus in the time of Nezami and yet easily one can point to 115 poets from Nozhat al-Majales with Persian works). It might take a 100 years to filter out the nonsense parts that the USSR (and scholars living there) wrote about Nezami, but it will happen since lies cannot be pertuated forever. And even if we say his father was a Martian, the Martian was Persianized and the Persian culture/heritage is what counts, and what counts in the end, is that without knowledge of Persian, the only understanding one might obtain on Nezami is in an artificial sense. Because what is NezamI? Essentially and directly, he describes himself as the verses he composed. So without understanding the language of those verses, you basically are not connect to Nezami. That is , in a translation, you have basically filtered his work through a mind of a translater, and in a sense, you are starting limited. So anyone that does not know Persian, cannot even really study him, let alone talk authoritatevily about him. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Christine van Ruymbeke and conversation

In her book (Christine van Ruymbeke, "Science and Poetry in Medieval Persia: The Botany of Nizami's Khamsa", University of Cambridge Oriental Publications (No. 65), 2008.) Dr. Christine Van Ruymbeke mentions: pg 9: "He might have been of Jewish background, or maybe Turkish." while not disputing the culture and heritage of the poet. pg 18: "Before submitting the tree imagery in the Khamsa to a scientific examination, we first need to define closely as possible what is understood by "botanical knowledge", or more precisely, by "knowledge about trees and fruit", when this is applied to a twelfth century Persian poet." pg 236: "As a result, this study not only proposes a better understanding of nature imagery in the work of a seminal Persian poet, but provides a useful insight into the breadth and depth of education of Medieval poets and their readers."

I asked her the following question:

“ Hello Dr. Van Ruymbeke

" Christine van Ruymbeke, "Science and Poetry in Medieval Persia: The Botany of Nizami's Khamsa", University of Cambridge Oriental Publications (No. 65), 2008. pg 9: "He might have been of Jewish background, or maybe Turkish."

However there was other contrarian viewpoints:

C. A. (Charles Ambrose) Storey and Franço de Blois (2004), "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period.", RoutledgeCurzon; 2nd revised edition (June 21, 2004). Pg 363: "Nizami Ganja'i, whose personal name was Ilyas, is the most celebrated native poet of the Persians after Firdausi. His nisbah designates him as a native of Ganja (Elizavetpol, Kirovabad) in Azerbaijan, then still a country with an Iranian population, and he spent the whole of his life in Transcaucasia; the verse in some of his poetic works which makes him a native of the hinterland of Qom is a spurious interpolation."

I.M. Dyakonoff (1915- 1999). The Book of Memoirs, Publisher: (European House), Sankt Petersburg, Russia, 1995 (Russian). excerpt pg 730-731: "There were slight problems with Nizami - first of all he was not Azeri but Persian (Iranian) poet, and though he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja, which, like many cities in the region, had Iranian population in Middle Ages.""

Did Nizami also write in Hebrew? Would you know other authors who had Jewish affiliations as well? Was he Persian Jew?

”

Here was her response (note I have bolded some of her words):

“ Thank you for your email and your query on Nezami. I am grateful to you for writing to me for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions.

As you will notice from my book, I am absolutely NOT taking position on Nezami's origins, I am only mentioning - using the conditional - opinions found in previous scholarly works, one of which (but this is so far away I unfortunately cannot remember who the author might have been) must have mentioned the possibility that Nezami came from a Jewish background. If I remember correctly, no actual proof for this was given, except for his first name Ilyas son of Yusuf. The point I was making was that we have no biographical details on Nezami's origin, family background and education and thus need to look at his verses to understand who he was. I have not researched his background and all I can say is that no, there are no known works in Hebrew written by him, nor any traces of ties to a Jewish community, nor any mention by him that I know of that he was of Jewish origin.

As to the opinions you are quoting, I would like to remark that this is a dangerous and pointless debate, as we have no biographical details about this or about most other medieval authors who wrote in persian. There was no definition of political nationalities in the large Saljuq Turkish Muslim empire in which Nezami was living. Nationalities, as Soviet and present-day Azarbaijan or Iran refer to, is not a concept that is relevant for those times. People who call Nezami a Persian poet are perfectly right, as the language in which he chose to express himself was Persian, whatever his family background might have been, and it was most probably Iranian. The area and town in which he lived has become Azerbaijan nowadays, so Azerbaijan is perfectly correct in claiming him as a local man - this might also be correct for the Soviet Union at one time. In my eyes, this does not rob Persian culture from one of its greatest man either.

As to Medieval jewish authors, I do not research this but my experience tells me that they ought not to be too hard to locate, as I am sure their works or names would normally advertise their origins in one way or another.. There was no reason to hide this in any way.

I hope this is helpful and wish you success in your research.

C van Ruymbeke -- Dr C van Ruymbeke Soudavar Lecturer in Persian Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA U.K.

”

Her email address: ([redacted])

Good research, thanks. Just one observation. It is not correct to refer to memoirs of Diakonov. It is not a scholarly work, it is popular literature. In his scholarly work, published by the Cambridge University. Diakonov says something quite the opposite to what he says in his memoir.

Nizami lived in Ganja, a Turkic (Azerbaijani) speaking city, but he wrote in Persian. [47]

Igor Mikhaĭlovich Diakonov. The paths of history. Cambridge University Press, 1999. ISBN 0521643988, 9780521643986, p. 110

I think we must refer to scholarly works, not memoir. Grandmaster 06:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the memoir he explicitly states(1995 and his last work): “There were slight problems with Nizami - first of all he was not Azeri but Persian (Iranian) poet, and though he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja, which, like many cities in the region, had Iranian population in Middle Ages”

In the paths of history(written in 1993 translated in 1999), he just says: footenote 47 on page 110 “Nizami lived in Ganja, a Turkic (Azerbaijani) speaking city, but he wrote in Persian” However the path of history was written at the demise of the USSR era and the memoir is his last work. It is true that Ganja is now a Turkic speaking city, but the name itself is Persian and at one time, its population was Iranic-speaking Nozhat al-Majales. Which one is the correct opinion? Viktor Shnirelman (whose book in [[48]] has received excellent reviews), has chosen the memoir which is Diakonov’s last work. So the memoir has been cited by scholars (making it sufficient for wikipedia). Also Diakonov is clear that he is speaking about the Middle Ages in the memoir, but he is not clear in the paths of history. Indeed it is WP:OR to assume Diakonov is contradicting himself.

If we assume that the sentences do not contradict(we need a source that states they contradict), it only makes sense that Diakonov is stating “although he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja”(which is a Turkic speaking city), he wrote in Persian, and Ganja was Iranian speaking in the Middle ages, and Nezami was not an Azeri, but Persian(Iranian).". That is a combination of the two sentences seems to me. So the memoir has been cited by other scholars specifically on Nezami. Of course, the only problem with both works is that it does not give any details about Ganja. However, from a history point of view I have several arguments: a) In support of the memoir statement, I can cite another source which explicity states the same thing: C. A. (Charles Ambrose) Storey and Franço de Blois (2004), "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period.", RoutledgeCurzon; 2nd revised edition (June 21, 2004). Pg 363: "Nizami Ganja'i, whose personal name was Ilyas, is the most celebrated native poet of the Persians after Firdausi. His nisbah designates him as a native of Ganja (Elizavetpol, Kirovabad) in Azerbaijan, then still a country with an Iranian population"

Note this is a Western source which covers in detail the poets work and life.

b) I put Nozhat al-Majales as well as what is mentioned by Francois de Blois (major series on Persian literature and also author of some of the Nezami related articles in Iranica) as also support for the same statement. Nozhat al-Majales has 24 Persian poets from Ganja, most of them not related to any court. c) Tabriz was a major and important city during this time, however even after the Ilkhanids it had maintained its Iranian language Old Azair. See for example:Jean Druing, "The Spirit of Sounds: The Unique Art of Ostad Elahi", Cornwall Books, 2003. Excerpt from pg 172: "In this Maqased ol al-han (1418), Maraghi mentions the Turkish and the Shirvani tanbour, which had two strings tuned in second (which the Kurds and Lors call Farangi) and was quite popular among the inhabitants of Tabriz (a region which was not yet Turkish speaking at the time)". Or he is a direct proof of the Tabrizi language 100 years after Nezami [[49]]. d) Besids these..Nezami's ancestry is mentioned before the Seljuq invasion and the Turkmon Oghuz tribesmen (Ganja fell to the Seljuqs in 1070 A.D) would not become urban in one generation..

However, if you feel there is a contradiction with Diakonov, we can state both positions in the small refs or seek a neutral mediator on the issue. However since the scholar in question has passed away, it is now impossible to know exactly what happened(if we assume the statements contradict).

But the memoir has been cited by another well cited scholar for its direct position on Nezami, since itself is written by scholar (and its position on history should be seen as Diakonov last opinion since it is his last work). In the memoir also he is explicitly stating Nezami's background: "Was Persian not Azeri". That is very explicit and he is saying "the population (*at that time*) was Iranian (Persian)". In the path of history (1993 translated in 19999), he is still not stating so expilicity: "Nezami was a Turk and Not a Persian" (one can read such an interpretation but it is not as explicit). In other words, he is being implicit.

Also since we are discussing Nezami's background, as the email above states, he is considered a Persian poet (regardless of his father's background it is a cultural-linguistic designation). He had Persian culture and language. All the Western Nezami - specific (that is written by people involved in Nezami studies) call him a Persian poet, specially those published within the last 25 years or so.

So in this case, just like Pushkin, Nasimi (Seyyed), Esmail Khatai (Kurdish), Shahriyar (Seyyed), the cultural and language designation is sufficient to call him a Persian poet. The cultural is obviously clear from the themes of his works (Sassanid, Eskandar o Dara). So that should be reflected in the introduction as it is in the Nezami related(written by Nezami scholars) scholarly references, specially since I said explicitly there has been different theories for his father also. There is absolutely not one source that calls him a "Turkish poet" (from Nezami scholars). And "Azerbaijani poet" also would not make sense as the language/ethnicity comes couple centuries after. That is we cannot assume in 1140 there was a unique Azerbaijani-Turkish language and ethnicity separate from its common proto-Oghuz tree.

I put Nozhat al-Majales as well as what is mentioned by Francois de Blois (major series on Persian literature and also author of some of the Nezami related articles in Iranica) as also support for the same statement. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See also here: [50] which is a new book (2010) written by current living Nezami scholars.

I will be glad to check the new book when it comes out. As for Diakonov, as I said, memoir is not a scholarly source. I read it, and it contains so many ridiculous claims, that one wonders how a learned person like Diakonov could write anything like that. For instance, he is very unhappy that Azeri women do not drink vodka with men, and things like that. One would expect that a scholar would have a better understanding of Muslim culture. Or the alleged dialogue between a local scholar and Mir-Jafar Bagirov about Nizami's portrait at Bagirov's apartment, which Diakonov could never be a witness of. A lot of it is just anecdotal, and cannot be trusted. As for The paths of history, the English version was published in 1999, while Diakonov was still alive, and he did not change the content of the work. In any case, a scholarly work published by Cambridge Uni prevails over any memoir. But I also have Diakonov's works where he calls Nizami an Azerbaijani poet. But I suggest we do not use Diakonov at all, as he is a respected scholar, but in a completely different field. He is an expert in ancient states like Urartu, but not on Nizami and his times. Grandmaster 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a very well cited scholar and book has used the statement about Nezami from the memoir as authoritative. I agree not everything in a book or memoir is authoritative. It is how other scholars pecreive it. The statement about Nezami though is about history and not what he has witnessed with regards to his travel. The Cambridge book is a translation from 1993 and yes Diakonov did not change the translation. His memoir can also be translated. However what matters is the original book and when it is was published. The statements seem partially contradictory but perhaps they are not. However, I do agree that Diakonov is not a Nezami scholar. Christine van Ruyuymbeke for example is a Nezami scholar. So between mentioning both (as I said cited by other scholars makes it valid for wikipedia) or removing both, you suggest removing both? I do not mind. Just let me know.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest we remove both. When one and the same person says in one source that Ganja had Turkic population, and in the other that it had Persian population, he clearly contradicts himself. So I think it is better to remove Diakonov, he is not a Nizami expert, and there are better sources than him. Grandmaster 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since he is not an Nezami expert, I agree. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)