Talk:Nizami Ganjavi

Censorship

I see that my comments here were removed without any explanation. Instead I received a private warning from Looie496 and Khodabandeh14. Moreover, my edits were removed from the main page. Arbitration was initiated to challenge my edits. But is it not presumptuous to delete my edits prior to the arbitration results? There is an implicit threat in these actions: we are technically more experienced with how Wikipedia works, and therefore have a final say. But this is not how matters of truth (or dispute) are to be resolved. And I suspect that now, after this message, I will get banned altogether -- this however is an act of censorship. But people, let us not forget that we are not in a place like Iran where disagreements with our opinions are banned. Wikipedia is a complete opposite of such a system: everyone's opinions count and not just the select few.

Consider these points:

- My edit (removed) was the mention upfront of a very straightforward fact: "Born in Ganja (now part of modern Azerbaijan), Nizami ..." Now, what is wrong with this edit, please do tell me? Almost all historical biographies start with a sentence like that. More specifically, look at the Britannica entry on Nizami. Right in the first sentence, they mention the modern location of his birthplace. So why is doing the same on this entry an act of vandalism warranting a warning and even a ban?

- It was charged against me that by mentioning the suspected ethnicity of the editors of this page I am somehow attacking them personally. This is a silly charge masquerading as a criticism of a discrimination of some sort. Come on: even judges are expected to recuse themselves from cases if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest. A Persian national who just happens to want to deemphasize Nizami's Azeri link to the benefit of the Persian link is a legitimate target for such charges of conflict-of-interest. Just look at how the mention of Azerbaijan is handled in the first paragraph: it is relegated to a sentence where it is mentioned just as one of the OTHER countries where Nizami's heritage is ALSO appreciated. Come on; is it really fair to say that Tajikistan has the same prominence in who Nizami is as the country in whose modern territory Nizami was born? This is a clear instance of obfuscation. Hide away the word Azerbaijan as tactfully as possible; use esoteric terms such as Transcaucasia instead of Azerbaijan. But ask yourself this: if it is possible to be more precise in terms of modern geographical terms in describing where he was born and lived (i.e., Azerbaijan vs. Transcaucasia), then why not use that more specific term? Or is it because doing so would create an impression (and quite an intuitive one) that Nizami and Azerbaijan are closely associated? And if so, is preventing this impression not a case of a personal national bias?

To sum up my request for edit: since Britannica and all other respectable sources of biographical information mention upfront the modern location of the birth of the person written about, this Wikipedia entry too must mention upfront the modern location of Nizami's birth. If this proposal is rejected, I am owned a valid explanation. Banning me, however, would be an act of censorship and a proof of national bias.

And FYI, I am not some bumpkin writing from an internet cafe in some Azeri village. It will not be easy for you just to shut me up. I will pursue all legal means through Wikipedia to achieve a balanced representation of Nizami's biography. Again, I just cannot believe that it is such a huge deal for a biography page to mention upfront where the person was born!! If this is not a case/proof of an illegitimate bias, then I don't know what is.

Response:

First assume good faith WP:AGF. Your comment was not removed, but in a Wikipedia talkpage, your comment should come at the end of the page, so things read in chronological order. Also please mind WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Arbitration was initiated because of your behaviour which violated WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE and also you removed a source about Persian literature (which Nezami called his own work as Persian poetry and so do scholars). If you want to go to dispute resolution on the article, that is a different route. As per the place of location, scholarly sources use Arran (Caucasus), Medieval Persia, Seljuq empire, Azerbaijan and etc. Nezami has himself used Iran several times. Transcaucasia has been also used by these scholars. If anything is about balance, Nezami should be mentioned as a Persian poet per more than 130+ Western sources in the introduction and Britannica too. You can't ignore that. So that is why we cameup with a concensus. If you do not like the concensus, then take it to the arbitration commitee. There is enough 8+ sources that legitimately shows the USSR tried to change the heritage of Nezami from Persian to Azerbaijani. They have not succeeded with Western Scholars. And from my viewpoint, it is historical anachronistic as know one used to call themselves "Azerbaijani" then. There was Iranians (Persians, Kurds), and Turks, Arabs, Armenians and etc. But nation states did not exist nor modern nationalities in the 12th century.

As per you point: Ganja is wiki-linked as well as it is mentioned that he was born in Ganja (now located in modern Azerbaijan) in the short part about life. You might not like it, but just to give you a different flavor. Here are two introductions, one from a recent academic book (which has more weight than Britannica): A) C. A. (Charles Ambrose) Storey and François de Blois (2004), "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period.", RoutledgeCurzon; 2nd revised edition (June 21, 2004). ISBN 0947593470. 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."

Another one from Encyclopaedia of Islam which has more weight than Britannica: 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. "Nizami Gandjawi, Djamal al-Din Abu Muhammad Ilyas b. Yusuf b. Zaki Muʾayyad, one of the greatest Persian poets and thinkers." Hope that is a valid explanation. If not, Britannica also calls him a Persian poet, uses Persian literature and Persian epic, and also says he is widely appreciated in "Persian speaking lands" (not anything else). But the Persian poet has been left out of the introduction in this article. But if you take these sources to an arbitration, they are much more stronger than authorless Britannica (which has Persian poet for Nezami as the title). Now imagine if the title of the page is changed to Nezami Ganjavi (Persian Poet) per Britannica too. Note the two sources you are dealing here with are two university Professors in top Western schools and the highest form of WP:RS sources. These are two Nezami scholars which has much more weight than Britannica (which mentions him as a Persian poet and does not have an author). One calls him a Persian thinker the author calls him a native of Persians. Both articles in reality have no mention of modern Azerbaijani culture. Wikipedia is not about nation building concepts. Sure, Rudaki the Persian poet was born in Uzbekistan and Homer was born in Turkey. However, their association may be different and it is up to scholars to determine which culture (historical Persian or Turk in this case) has more association with a certain figure. I can also offer this this article Nozhat al-Majales as well as contemporary source describing the population of Ganja. The Armenian historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi (Ca. 1200-1271) mentions that: "This city was densely populated with Iranians and a small number of Christians"(Kirakos Gandzakatsi Kirakos Gandzakats'i's History of the Armenians / translation from Classical Armenian by Robert Bedrosian. — New York: 1986. — p. 197. Excerpt: "This city was densely populated with Iranians and a small number of Christians.". Kirakos Gandzakets'i, Patmut'iwn Hayots' [Kirakos of Gandzak, History of Armenia], edited by K.A. Melik'-Ohanjanyan, (Erevan, 1961), p. 235: "Ays k'aghak's bazmambox lts'eal parsko'k', ayl sakaw ew k'ristone'iwk'..." ).

So everyone can talk about which introduction they like. I might like this one: C. A. (Charles Ambrose) Storey and François de Blois (2004), "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period.", RoutledgeCurzon; 2nd revised edition (June 21, 2004). ISBN 0947593470. 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." However, normal procedure for Wikipedia when there is a dispute, is to come up to a worked out concensus, which has been done in this article. The fact is, Nezami is significant for his Persian poetry and contribution to Persian literature. He is not significant for any other reason, and that is what the average person will see. All other information goes in the body of the text as it has (and Ganja is mentioned in the body of the text as now located in modern Azerbaijan). If you don't like it, then I also do not like the fact that per Britannica, and the two other sources I brought, Persian poet is not put in the first or second line. So take your pick. If you want Britannica, then Persian poet (as Britannica's title), Persian lands (nothing about any country but just Persian lands) are solely mentioned.

As per introduction, it has come through a concensus WP:concensus. So many users have worked on it and if it is to be changed, all sides must agree. The first thing Encyclopaedia of Islam which is much more reliable than Britannica mentions is "Persian poet and thinker". In reality, the place of birth is not the way to introduce someone in Wikipedia biographies (not just Nezami but Newton, Davinchi, Fizuli, Einstein and you name it). Like for Eistein you do not see: "Born in Germany to a Jewish family..". You see his name and what he is known for. So you introduce their name and their significance, which in the case of Nezami, it is Persian literature. The birth section has its own place. As per Tajikistan, Afghanistan...they speak Persian so they can read and understand Nezami's work which is lost through any translation. So in my opinion, I would argue their connection to Nezami is stronger as a Tajik can pickup his book and read it. But if you need sources (Wikipedia works by sources and the best source is Western scholars who have journals/books about Nezami): A) Academic book [1] "Neẓāmī 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."(Britannica) B) [2]: "..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.

Finally, you cannot mention the nationality of users and relate it to their editing. Its none of your business what backgrounds the users come from. You need to simply argue your points. Even if you feel like users are bias, you must only talk about the subject, and bring legitimate sources. Wikipedia is about sources, the better sources are those that are from modern living scholars in major universities who have published specialized works on the subject. Thats about it. Living western scholars of Nezami uniformly consider him a Persian poet (Chelkowski, Van Ruymbeke, Talatoff, de Brujin, de Blois, etc.), thats all that matters. However, this was not forced in the introduction, because of concensus worked out with users. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

A new book is coming [3] 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 ): [4] 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. [5]. 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: [6][7]. 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[8]: "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: [[9]]. 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 ([10]). 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."[11] 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[12]. Some of these issues have been eluciated here [13]. 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 [14]. 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)

stable introduction

Anyhow, these discussions can go forever, it is just important to keep things stable and hopefully time will eventually get rid off falsehood. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK.. I have to agree with you for now. Thanks for clarifications. Xashaiar (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected Status

I demand that you make this page unprotected. I plan to file an official request for Wikipedia arbitration. You cannot shut down debate in this manner. Nishkid64, I just saw that last year you gave me a Warning because of a personal attack. This is sheer censorship. I never engaged in a personal attack. My "fault" was that I was objecting to the clear Persian bias on display in the editorial board overseeing the Nizami page. I will pursue this issue to the end with Wikipedia until a balanced approach is reached. I think there has to be at least one ethnic Azeri present on the editorial board of this page. Otherwise, it is like having only Palestinians as the custodians of the topic of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Enough is enough. And if you ban me because of what I say, I will file another formal complaint against you to disbar you from an editorial position on Wikipedia. Because your job is to edit not to censor. For example, it is a clear case of bias that the page omits to mention that Nizami was born in what is now modern Azerbaijan. You do mention right next to his name the word Persian. This is a clear attempt to right off the bat associate the name Nizami with being Persian. And yet, when it comes to fessing up the location of his birth, you use such esoteric words as Transcaucasia, Ganja, which an average reader would have hard time relating to... You know this, and that is why you so obviously try avoiding to use the name Azerbaijan to describe his birth place. Please rectifiy this situation: mention right on top that he was born is a place that is now part of Azerbaijan, or try to explain why this undisputed fact is not a fact for you. For example, Britannica mentions right on top his birth place thusly "[now Ganca, Azerbaijan]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iksus2009 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

His birth place

Ok, why not mention on top something about the location of his birth. Something like, He is a poet who was born in a city that is now part of Azerbaijan. It is a sign of clear Iranian bias to hide this fact. Instead, some ambiguous terms such as Transcaucasia, etc is mentioned. Come on guys. Why let your chauvinism make you so blind to facts. It is a simple FACT that he was born in Azerbaijan. Or are you afraid that the mention of this straightforward fact might lead the reader to a common-sense conclusion that Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet?

Such a clear case of bias dictating content makes me really doubt the worthiness of a wikipedia page like this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.113.38 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.80.113.38, 30 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Can you add on top a sentence stating the uncontested fact that Nizami was born in what now is Azerbaijan. Or is this fact in dispute? If you reject this request, please explain why. FYI ... you have a new entrant in this debate. I see that Persians have overrun this page. It is time for a balanced approach.

68.80.113.38 (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please mind ethnic attacks in Wikipedia and see WP:BATTLE. It is clear you probably do not like Iranians/Persians, but in Wikipedia, everyone must be professional. I have added he was born in Ganja (modern Azerbaijan) in the life part, and it is in the info-box with wiki-links.. however this is a compromise article. Here is another article you might want to look at: [Nozat al-Majales]. So that is why there is an anachronistic Azeri spelling in the introduction and people have removed tons of information on politicization of Nezami, nor is Persian poet clearly spelled out in the first sentence as it should be. The introduction is comprmise version, so it does not change. Just like most other authors, the place of birth comes under the life section. An ideal introduction would be this: [15]:"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. ". However, the introduction has been worked out by different users (including Azeris). I'll be glad to go to Arbcomm on this issue, if necessary, as Encyclopaedia Britannica, Iranica, Islam, and virtually every living Nezami scholar calls him a Persian poet. Also Britannica is considered a 3rd rate source, but Encycloapedia of Islam is not. Some of these Western scholars work in current universities and they can be e-mailed from Arbcomm. One example: [16]. They all have Persian poet Nezami in their work. Never once does Nezami mention writing in "Azerbaijani", so he cannot be an Azerbaijani poet nor was such an ethnic term used then, nor does he have any work other than Persian. At most, you can erroneously argue he might have been half Turkic (unlikely), but even then, it does not mean Oghuz (Azerbaijani) or etc. Term such as "Azerbaijani" was not used then in the 12th century for any ethnicity. So we know he was born in Ganja (even his father's birth place is not known as no information exists on it), but culturally, he contributed to Persian culture, folklore and literature. So there is a sentence that talks about his father's ancestry and I have referenced an article written by an Azerbaijani guy for a different opinion. But just like Pushkin with Ehtiopian ancestry, he is still a Russian poet/writer/culture. The same holds for Nezami. There is no point in changing the introduction and the place of his birth is mentioned, plus there is enough wiki-links to Ganja in Azerbaijan. It is also mentioned in the article, however when describing Ganja then, one uses Medieval Seljuq empire or etc. So the association with modern countries, is a recent phenomenon. Denying the Persian cultural heritage of Nezami is simply unacceptable. Neither does Homer become part of Turkish literature, because he was born in Turkey. Modern nation building/nationalism has no place in Wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

== Response to Khodabandeh14 (from above) Ok, first things first. I apologize for putting comments on top of this page. As a new participant in these discussions, I did not know the proper protocol. As for going ahead and editing the page without the consensus of the Elders, my apologies because it appears I had mistakenly bought Wikipedia's mantra that "Anyone can edit Wikipedia." On the contrary it seems that the proper mantra would have been "Wikipedia is controlled by whoever has the most time to establish themselves as the Elders and, in the case of controversial topics, by the PARTIAL side that has, for whatever reasons, the numerical superiority in the English discussion. So, I will stop using Wikipedia from now on. It was an eye-opening experience dealing with this Nizami page. And frankly, I think more and more people are realizing this. No wonder most colleges do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a research source. So in a sense you are wasting your time, "perfecting" an inherently flawed source of information. And please don't bother responding to this message. I will no read it. I have better things to do with my life. Yes, I will stop bothering you about this article. You have "won". I give up, because I am not an idiot: I am not familiar with the arcane rules of Wikipedia as you are, and you are probably going to succeed in shutting me down by invoking one or another sacred rule of Wikipedia. I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have. And secondly, I am quite secure in my personal identity not to need making out of all historical regional figures an ethnic Azeri. I started this debate initially because it was moderately important to me to get the facts straight about Nizami. But not important enough to waste my time arguing with Persian chauvinists and Wikipedia zealots. What I do have time is to part with the following comments. Feel free to read them or ignore them.

1) Yes, it illegitimate to bring the ethnicity of the author into an academic (or semi- or psuedo academic) discussion in most cases ... However, and this is very important and very basic although you pretend to miss it, the ethnicity of the author opining on what the ethnicity of a historical figure was is a relevant consideration. Do you really think there is no problem with only Argentinians controlling a Wikipedia article on the Falklands War? So, yes, the fact that your screen name is Persian is very very relevant to assessing the objectivity of your contributions. Same with mine. And Yes, I was born in Azerbaijan, and I do not hide it. Nor do I hide my biases. What I was asking is to achieve a compromise where our biases can be balanced to some extent. What you say, no, our ethnicity has no relevance; SO let's what "I" say stay. To a large extent, you seem to betray a XIX century notion of science and academic research: it is objective, there are no biases, etc! So, let us not be stuck with an outdated ideology, and admit our biases and try to deal with them like adults. What proves you are biased? Please keep reading.

2) If the national origin of authors do not matter, then why do you so glibly dismiss all the research done by the Soviet sources? You say they were serving an ideology. Of course, only the opposing side can do such a thing. What makes you think it is illegimate to charge the Persian sources of the same? Are they really above building their own national identity through ideology? You then quote the Western sources in supporting your claim about the Soviet sources? Is it really that not comprehendable that the West itself had a bias against what the Soviets used to say? Also, you call the Islamic Encylopedia to be more reliable than Britannica? Really?! Says who? Says you and those who agree with you. Does one really have to guess what your national and ethnic background is? If you say that the former is more reliable is because it is closer to the topic, ethnicly or geogrpahically speaking, then, should we not by the same logic say that the Soviet academia's research on Nizami is more reliable than the Western one? Where do you think more research was done on Nizami? West, Iran, or Soviet Union? Where was the quality of academia better? In a superpower with a vast array of achievements or in a culturally and academically backward country like Iran? As for the Western sources, it would not be too suprising to find that they were simply continuing the ingorance of their predecessors, for whom Azerbaijan ("what? where?") was just part of Persia, a la how to an average American everyone in Middle East is an Arab, inlcuding the Persians. In sum, it seems that you tend to call objective the sources that reinforce your biases while dimissing the ones that don't. This is what I call the medivel notion of objectivity (or even a childish one). Again, the MODERN notion of objectivity is a careful balancing of our personal biases, which must be admitted first. You, on the other hand, cry foul when your potential biases are pointed out.

3) Yes, it is a shame that I have no choice but abandon arguing this case due to time constraints etc. Yes, Wikipedia is crap. I now know, and most in academia know it. But the uninformed high school students etc come to Wikpedia first. And you know it! And that is why the Azeri connection is so PASSIONATELY deemphasized. Again, it is unfathomable why you'd be so resistant to mentioning the birthplace of a person you are profiling. I am not denying that he wrote in Persian. But when you call him a Persian poet, there is a not-so-subtle shift in meaning. You'd agree that the immediate connodation (or even denotation) is that ethnically he belongs to current Persia. For example, when we hear "a French singer", we do not think "a singer who sings in French" or even one who contributed to French music. Instead, we think, a singer who was born or raised in France. You are perfectly aware of this typical path of association. And that is PRECISELY why you use the word Persian right up-front. And this, my friend, is nothing short of manipulation. If you are an honest academician, you should consider yourself above such cheap tricks. So, you might say, well back then there was no Azerbaijan. Ok, read below.

4) There was a time when what now is England did not have the modern English as its native residents. This however does not mean that that time period is not part of English history and heritage. England has a ligitmate connection with what they did and what they accomplished. Same goes with Nizami viz a viz Azerbaijan.

5) And a final note ... Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). But make no mistake: what I am about to say is not a personal attack or anything like that. It is a political opinion, and one that is shared by many in the world. For me, the expression of this opinion is occasioned by what I have personnally witnessed in terms of Persian chauvinism ("Persians are the best!" "Arabs don't know anything" "Why did we give up our land that is now Azerbaijan to Russia?" "There is no such thing as an Azeri nation."). I am not denying that Persia has a great history, and its people deserve respect! But I don't think one has to acknowledge all this at the expense of Persia's neibors. And also, my Persian brothers, accept one fact: all that was most great about Persia happend thousands of years ago. Yes, you fought the Greeks. Great. It is like Dolph Lundgren becoming famous because he fought Silvester Stallone in Rocky-- although he lost). Be proud to be Persian, yes. But with some mesaure and without exaggeration. You are great. But you are not the greatest. What relevance does this have to with the Nizami article? A lot. Because behind the way it is written with such biases, I hypothesize, stands this very Persian chauvinism. Nizami is great, therefore Persia alone and no one else has a better or even equal claim to him! So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past), and, and I think Azerbaijan has taken the right political step by aligning itself with US and Israel, because it correctly recognizes in Iran a danger: its relgious fundamentalism hungry for infecting the nearby, and its chauvinism hungry for domination. So, I am sure Azerbaijan will be right there to help our American and Israeli friends. My hope that the war, which many consider inevitable, would be short and swift and without much loss of innocent lives. Iran, with its chauvinism, and now with a nuke, is a dangerous neigbour to everyone around.

Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Wikipedia anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.

P.S. 1 Honestly, I am not going to read any responses to this message. Because I know if I do, I will end up responding out of temptation. So, please do yourself a favor and don't waste your time. Instead, why don't you go a next Wikipedia page to claim someone else important a 150% Persian?

P.S. 2. I just reread your response above: "Modern nation building/nationalism has no place in Wikipedia." It makes me laugh. Really? What are you then doing here if such is the case? Your posts prove otherwise. I admit: I am biased. Why don't you do the same? Or I forgot: You are objective! Aren't we all? Oh, sorry, I forgot, I (an Azeri) do not really exist. I am just a fiction of Soviet propaganda. And I must believe you are correct in saying this, because you are objective -- I got it!

(edit conflict) Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This request has been the subject of considerable discussion in the past. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)