Talk:Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan

my two cents

1) The Russian version of the article is featured Wikipedia and admins there accepted it. 2) The campaign is something that academic sources have written about (Schnirlemann, Franger and others). Also Prof. Paolo Orsatti[1](Associate Professor of Persian language and literature) who is quoted on this review from Prof. Talatoff comments on this book [2] (Kamran Talatoff, Review of "Siavash Lornejad: Ali Doostzadeh, On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi (Yerevan Series for Oriental Studies—1), Yerevan: “Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies”, 2012, 215 pp. Iran and the Caucasus, Volume 16, Issue 3, January 2012. pp 380-383. [3]) "This book provides a full survey of the distortions – dictated by nationalistic purposes – which have been pervading the field of the studies on the Persian poet Nezami of Ganje since the Soviet campaign for Nezami’s 800th birthday anniversary. The authors discuss, with critical accuracy, the arguments put forward by Soviet scholars, and more recently by scholars from the Republic of Azerbaijan, which term Nezami as an "Azerbaijani poet" and his work as pertaining to an alleged "Azerbaijani literature;" and show the historic unsoundness of such theses. Beyond this pars destruens, the book provides also a very rich pars construens, with a bulk of information and data drawn from a first-hand reading of Nezami’s own works and the works by other coeval poets, as well as from historical sources. This book represents an interesting and meticulously documented study on Persian classical literature and on many historic, ethnographic and linguistic questions related to ancient Arran and Transcaucasia. We should be grateful to the authors for having tackled a subject - the politicized use of culture - whose importance has been generally underestimated by European scholars. However the unveiling of a statue in Rome of the "Azerbaijani poet" Nezami compels us to react to such distortions; and makes this book of great topical interest, too." (Prof. Paolo Orsatti)--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

However, the topic is very dense..I personally dislike political topics and I think the main Nezami Ganjavi should stay away from politics as much as possible and instead just follow standard Encyclopedias (like Encyclopedia of Islam). However, a sub-topic in Nezami Ganjavi (about three paragraphs) is another idea. Before I had something like this in the Nezami article but decided to just leave it as blank. However if other users want to add that information it is fine.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This topic can have a small section in mother article , but as daughter , it can not , and may not , be merged into it . The policy of Wikipedia is to expand the subsections in daughter articles and not in the original article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

+1. Good idea. Divot (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

yeah, here is another "policy of Wikipedia": WP:ENEN, WP:BOMBARD, WP:MASK. And here is a nice one: WP:ENC. And especially this one: WP:COI. Anyone capable of defending an article with the title of Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan must be in COI to their eyebrows. Unless they are doing it for a laugh as a parody of the bizarre people up to their eyebrows in natioanlism-cruft which we sometimes get here on the wiki. Seriously. Much could be said about the forstering of petty local nationalisms within the Soviet Union. Could, if someone who wasn't half unconscious over obsessing with their pet agenda would write it. An article with the title Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan does not seem to be a very promising start towards adding coverage to that complex topic. I am just saying. What I should do is lean back and enjoy the spectacle. --dab (𒁳) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, here is a suggestion. I realize that anyone who was capable of creating this thing is not going to be able to see it is comical. So maybe instead of trying to point out why it should be merged, I should assist in finding a way of morphing it into something that does not look bizarre to anyone who isn't a nationalist from the region in question. How about you call this pave Reception of Nizami in Soviet Azerbaijan. You will immediately have an acceptable sub-topic of "Nizami#Legacy". This entire ethnicity-cruft can then be cast in terms that aren't immediately bizarre, awkward or off-putting. Most of it is still going to be about "was he Turkic?", but you can present the case in a way that at least looks sane. I mean by this, suggests that the article's author was sane, which is sort of the requirement for wiki-articles even in the case of evidently insane article subjects. --dab (𒁳) 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of vandalism today: [4]. I think the Soviet campaign was more complex than you think. For Soviets, Azerbaijani was not "Turkic" but a mixture of Medes and Caucasian Albanians.. they tried to create a whole new Azerbaijani identity with only little links left with Turkic but at the same time "distinc" and "separate". So while Nezami calls his literature as Persian poetry and Persian pearl, the Soviets and Azerbaijan SSR started to call it "Azerbaijani literature". For the post-Soviet Azerbaijan, the issue is different and they try to claim Nezami was an Azerbaijani Turk (an ethnicity which did not exist) who was forced to write Persian. Of course there were "Oghuz Nomads" in the area but you won't find any serious Western scholars (e.g. Encyclopaedia of Islam) even giving credence to this viewpoint that Oghuz nomads settled in two generations, became urban dwellers and wrote Persian Poetry whose main theme is about pre-Islamic Persia. Then of course there is the geographical region which is called Azerbaijan and now some non-specialist articles use "Azerbaijani" not as an ethnicity but a person from that area. Anyhow here is what that Soviet campaign and ethno-nationalist does to Wikipedia: [5]. Here you see a user (likely a sock or SPA) out of no where comes and changes primary sources, removes Armenian and puts Azerbaijani (an ethnicity which did not exist in the 12th century and one can only talk about Oghuz nomads) . They had admins spend months on this stuff Since the details of the campaign are worth a different article regardless of the historic Nezami. About the naming, that was what the campaign was about..to do nation building. So it is possible to use: "Soviet campaign using Nezami for nation building in Azerbaijan SSR" or something like that. This issue is overall separate from Nezami's biography (you won't see it say in Encyclopaedia Britannica or Islam) because it is more about modern romantic nation building. That is using classical authors for modern nation building. That romantic national building is just not Nezami..a host of other Iranian cultural figures from Babak Khorramdin to Medes to to Scythians to Caucasian Albanians are considered Turkish in many mainstream Azerbaijani publications (even in the Azeri Wikipedia..Medes become Turks or such theories are given credence). But that is a separate topic than the USSR anniversary campaign. Overall, it is possible to summarize it in 4-8 paragraphs and that makes it much harder to put in the main article. That is the actual occurrence of the Soviet Campaign and its aftermath should not be conflated with Nezami. At the same time, since good amount of books and article have been written on the subject..I think paragraph summary perhaps linking here is not bad..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"not going to be able to see it is comical" - It is not a joke, but a key element of Azerbaijan foreign politics: In Mexico will be erected monument of Nizami Ganjevi, Correggere la didascalia della statua di "Nezami". Of course, this politics may be comical, but it is important point. Divot (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I should mention that this nationalist stuff enters wikipedia in a strange way. For example the main Nezami article has his name in Latin based Azeri script. In reality, this is anachronism for two reasons: a) There was not yet an Azeri-Turkic language at the time of Nezami. There was several disparate Oghuz dialects spoken by nomadic Turkic tribes and Saljuqs, but calling it "Azeri" is historically wrong. Also Nezami never associated with such language nor has written it. b) The alphabet is Latin. Anyhow, this nationalist nation building stuff surrounding Nezami will disappear but perhaps in another 30-50 years. However more scientists are becoming aware of it. I will summarize the main points by USSR and modern Azerbaijan SSR in here (not for changing the article, but as a reference for future users). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, dab.

1. Closing speech by Ilham Aliyev at the annual general assembly of the National Academy of Sciences "No-one doubts that Nizami Ganjavi is an Azerbaijani poet of genius. The whole world knows this. If there is a need to prove this to anyone, we can do so very easily. The memory of Nizami is dear to every Azerbaijani. Nizami's works, of course, are an integral part of our national consciousness. As for the fact that some forces are trying to misappropriate these works, unfortunately, we have repeatedly faced such cases. The main reason is that Azerbaijani literature and culture are so rich that others are trying to misappropriate our national assets"
2. In 2007 an “unacceptable” opinion on Nizami’s Talish rather than Azerbaijani origin was mentioned by the prosecution on the trial of Novruzali Mammadov who was charged with state treason (Human rights in CIS and Baltic "Судебные разбирательства только подтвердили и развили абсурдность обвинительного заключения. Так на суде прозвучали обвинения о недопустимости публикаций на страницах газеты следующей дискуссионных материалов: -О талышской принадлежности поэта Низами")

Do you think that president of Azerbaijan, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, court of Azerbaijan, and killed political prisoner are only comical? Divot (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The title is long indeed, however it was taken from the Russian Wikipedia where it was a subject of long debates with the Azerbaijani participants. Previously the article had been titled "Azerbaijanization of Nziami" but as a result of a compromise was renamed into the present title. --Rosesandguns (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

academic sources

I add a lot of academical sources: Victor Schnirelmann, Yuri Slezkine, Walter Kolarz, Kamran Talattof, etc. about campaign. Divot (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

it's still clearly a sub-topic on Nizami. Don't be so obsessive, what encyclopedia would carry an epic article on a "campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan". Just collapse it into a brief section in the poet's bio article. --dab (𒁳) 17:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not part of poet's bio, it's about soviet pseudohistorical campaign. What is the relationship between Nizami's bio and events of the 20th century??? Divot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a lot of sources that talk about the Soviet compaign(Tamazishvili, Orsatti, Diakonoff, Schnirelman, etc.). Tamazishvili says "key compaign". There is not one source, who said that this is a part of the biography of Nizami. Divot (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

um, the bio article, like most bio articles, has a "legacy" section? Where you can simply say "there was a pseudo-historical campaign in the Soviet Union"? I am not saying there wasn't such a campaign. But you misunderstand the term "encyclopedia". An encyclopedia is for summarizing things, not for dumping the entire literature ever published on a topic, that would be more like a digest. Most of this article consists of snippets and quotes. It could easily be summarized into a single short paragraph without losing anything. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to throw the raw literature at people, especially Russian-language Soviet-era literature, and let them figure it out on their own. Your task is to create a coherent sumamry from the stuff you have collected here. --dab (𒁳) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. It is a key company in Soviet Union. According to Tamazishvili, presenting Nizami as an Azerbaijani poet and ascribing his work to the achievements of the Azerbaijani literature was “the most important revolutionary result for the Soviet science achieved by this ‘jubilee’ campaign”. Divot (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

F.e. 1992 Los Angeles riots - this is a more digest with "dumping the entire literature ever published on a topic". ... On March 3, 1991, Rodney King and two passengers were driving west on the Foothill Freeway... The acquittals of the four accused Los Angeles Police Department officers came at 3:15 pm local time .... Although the day began relatively quietly, by mid-morning on the second day violence .... But Los Angeles riots is very important event for USA. Like Nizami azerbaijanization for soviet science and culture. Divot (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an example of nationalist attacks I had to deal with in Wikipedia: ": I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon".. [6]. And Admins took no action. Then there is the quote by Elhami Aliev in this article and then quote by Heydar Aliev in this book [7] (pg 86-88)... --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally support a seprate article, but I will try to write a summary paragraph on monday hopefully; incase the admins here decide something different than Russian wikipedia (which the article is featured). Given my own lack time, I doubt I can fight likely vandalism on another article and I'll be away for most of next year. Anyhow Wikipedia does not effect Academida (mainstream specialists on the topic) and books such as these: [8] and statement by scholars (e.g. Prof. Orsatti) will eventually ensure that people become aware of politically-based distortions. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Academic reliable sources about campaign

1. Tamazishvili, A.O. (2004), “Iz istorii izučenija v SSSR tvorčestva Nizami Gjandževi: vokrug jubileja — E. È. Bertels, I. V. Stalin i drugie”, ed. by Vitaly Naumkin, N. G. Romanova, I. M. Smiljanskaja (eds.), Neizvestnye stranicy otečestvennogo vostokovedenija: [sbornik], Oriental Studies Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg: 173-99

original: "Эта долгая (с 1937 по 1947 г.) юбилейная кампания, в которой приняли участие многие ученые-востоковеды, литераторы и политики, дала хорошие результаты. На рубеже 1930-1940-х годов ее активный участник Е.Э. Бертельс говорил: «Подлинно научное низамиведение приходится создавать только в наши дни»1. Впоследствии он же подводил итоги: «Еще двадцать лет назад вся литера¬тура о Низами на русском языке сводилась к немногочисленным статьям преимущественно библиографического характера. Отмеченное во всех уголках нашей Родины восьмисотлетие со дня рождения великого азербайджанского мыслителя и поэта в корне изменило это положение»2. Главным, революционным для отечественной науки результатом этой кампании стало отнесение Низами к поэтам азербайдлсанским, а его творчества к достижениям азербайджанской литературы, в то время как в мировом востоковедении (а ранее и в советском) доминировал взгляд на него как представителя литературы персидской. "

translation: "This long (from 1937 to 1947) anniversary campaign, in which many scholars – Orientalists, literary people, and politicians – took part, gave good results. In the boundary of 1930s and 1940s, its active participant, E.E. Bertels said, “real scholarly study of Nezami can only be done in our time.”[1] He himself concluded that “Only twenty years ago all the literature on Nezami in Russian language was based on few articles mostly of bibliographic character. The 800th anniversary of the Great Azerbaijani thinker and poet in all the corners of our Homeland has basically changed this situation.”[2] Main, revolutionary result of this campaign for our native scholarship became attributing Nezami as an Azerbaijani poet, and his works as achievements of the Azerbaijani literature, while in the realm of the world Oriental Studies (and prior to this in the Soviet as well), the viewpoint of him as a representative of Persian literature."

original: "В 1939 г. вышел и том БСЭ, где Е.Э. Бертельс в статье о Низами называет его великим азербайджанским поэтом44. Этим было как бы оформлено завершение процесса пересмотра отечественным востоковедением взгляда на национальную принадлежность Низами Гянджеви. // Несомненно, что и выступление Миколы Бажана, и детали развернувшейся затем научно-политической кампании были хорошо известны Бертельсу, и в то время он не считал принципиально неприемлемой некоторую политизацию работ по восточному литературоведению"

translation: "In 1939, a volume of BSE came out where E.E. Bertels in his article on Nezami refers to him as a great Azerbaijani poet.[44] This in a way formalized the review process by our Orientalists of the national belongingness of Nezami Ganjavi. // Undoubtedly, Bertels was well aware of Mikol Bazhan’s speech and the details of the future scholarly-political campaign, and at the time he did not see a principal fault in some politicization of some works on eastern literature."

2. Siavash Lornejad, Ali Doostzadeh. On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi. Edited by Victoria Arakelova. YEREVAN SERIES FOR ORIENTAL STUDIES, Yerevan 2012

"The USSR anniversary campaign of the Persian poet Nezami which began in the late 1930s was politicized from its very beginning . From the beginning of the campaign, scholarship and politics were combined together for the purpose of nation building. The campaign culminated in the festivities in 1948, but its consequences have affected scholarship by introducing anachronistic terms as well as non-scientific misinterpretations of Nezami’s writings. The political ramifications of that campaign can be seen in ethno-nationalistic writings to this day, as well as works of some scholars who are not aware of sources which contain critical examinations of USSR nation-building scholarship."

"According to Shnirelman, “in 1938, the 800-year anniversary of Nezami was celebrated, and he was declared a great Azeri poet. In fact, he was a Persian poet that was no wonder, since the Persians accounted for the entire urban population in those days. This was recognized in all the encyclopedias published in Russia before the 1930s, and only in 1939 did the Big Soviet Encyclopedia call Nezami a ‘great Azeri poet’ for the first time” . The sources that were mentioned in the Introduction have covered this politicization campaign in some detail . A striking example of this politicization is the report in Pravda [“The Truth” – official Communist Party of the USSR Publication”] published in March 4th, 1939."

Divot (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. While the current title is clumsy and overlong, there does not appear to be consensus for a move to the proposed title. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan → National identity of Nizami Ganjavi – In its present shape the article glaringly breaches WP:WEIGHT and has fact picking and neutrality issues. As the article itself admits, Nizami was believed to have an Azerbaijani heritage prior to the establishment of the Soviet rule in Azerbaijan, so the so-called campaign looks like a cherry-picked term.

The present title also implies a particular viewpoint, while in reality there are several. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union further research into Nizami's ethnic background continued in Azerbaijan, particularly on the basis of the lyrics in his works. The issue is similar to Nicolaus Copernicus, whose article gives a balanced overview due to his uncertain ethnicity. Having read the tenets of two major hypotheses on Nizami's ethnicity, i.e. Persian and Azerbaijani, I must admit that both have a certain degree of uncertainty, so it's rather dishonest to promote one hypothesis and cast aspersions on the other. The article on the so-called campaign raised extensive content concerns when it was first created in Russian Wikipedia and a similar debate took place here. The proposed renaming seeks to reflect all viewpoints under a neutral title. Brandmeister^talk 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree to move: Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan → National identity of Nizami Ganjavi due to the one-sided and biased view in the article about campaign. Information about campaign can be put in separate section in the new article National identity of Nizami Ganjavi. Best, 188.142.246.17 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. "As the article itself admits, Nizami was believed to have an Azerbaijani heritage prior to the establishment of the Soviet rule in Azerbaijan" - of course not, it was only mistake by Kocharlinski based on Jóhannes Sherr’s assumptions on that Nazimi’s mother was an Azerbaijani from Gyanja, contrary to the testimony of the poet himself according to which his mother was Kurdish. The same about the arguments about Copernicus. "Establish the truth", it is not our business. We have a lot of sourses about campaign, that's enough for us. Divot (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree Per wikipedia WP:RSUW. What is important is not views from anyside but views from prominent Western scholars who read and undestand Persian WP:RS, who study Nezami and have written books and scholarly articles special about him. So if there were several viewpoints, then Encyclopaedia of Islam or Britannica or etc. would mention it. Also "Azerbaijani" is anachronistic in the 12th century and one should use Oghuz Turkomans. As far as I know, no prominent Western Nezami scholar has mentioned him as a Oghuz Turcoman. If such a view exists however among specialist, it is still independent of Soviet campaign. That is not even related to this article which is about the campaign. One can discuss that the article's title can be shortened to "Soviet campaign on Nezami" or "Soviet campaign of Nezami in Azerbaijan" or "Soviet political campaign". However it should have something about Soviet campaign, Stalin, Bertels, IOAS archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.113.26 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RSUW is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Also the article itself admits, that "after the break-up of the Soviet Union the encyclopaedias in Russian language continue to refer to Nizami as an Azerbaijani poet". Brandmeister^talk 00:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"the encyclopaedias in Russian language continue to refer to Nizami as an Azerbaijani poet" - And so what? Divot (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article cites five modern Russian encyclopedias regarding that - an example showing that opinions on Nizami's ethnicity in reliable sources vary. Brandmeister^talk 00:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "opinions on Nizami's ethnicity in reliable sources vary" - No doubt there are different opinions. But this the subject of articles, as happened that in the USSR and CIS Nizami is Azerbaijani, and elsewhere in the world - Persian. Sources say that this is the result of the Soviet ideological campaign. An article in Wikipedia just about it. And don't forget that a lot of modern russian scholars say - that was a falsification. Divot (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The methodology of regarding Nizami as a Persian based just on the language is flawed. If you read the reasons of why authors regard him as a Persian, you'll see how problematic they are, mainly because little is known about Nizami. Schnirelmann for example concludes that Nizami was Persian simply because the population of Ganja in those years was Persian - which of course doesn't mean that Nizami was himself a Persian. So it's not about "my version is better than yours", that's why I propose to cover the scholar opinions more broadly. Brandmeister^talk 10:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • "The methodology of regarding Nizami as a Persian based just on the language is flawed" - It must to say Schnirelmann, Talatoff, Orsatti, Bournoutian, Rossi, Dyakonov, Steblin-Kamensky, and dozens of well-known Iranian scholars and orientalists. Maybe you are right and all of these respected scientists are crazy, but it's not a problem of Wikipedia. We need to use authoritative opinions. Divot (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• An opinion is authoritative when it's supported by persuasive rationale. If not, it's not authoritative. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "If not, it's not authorit" - You need at first to convince the scientific community that there is a conspiracy against Azerbaijan, which involved dozens of well-known researchers. When you do this, we'll continue our talk. Divot (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Brandmeister. In Wikipedia we do not have to discuss rationale as we simply need to quote the current scholarly concensus which I brought three sources below. But if you are interested you can read Chapter 4 of this book or do you want me to copy & paste it? [9]. The fact is the people of Ganja spoke Iranian languages (from available texts at that time), Nezami uses a term for his son (through his Turkish wife), that denotes his as having Iranian father and Turkish mother, and also he wrote about ancient Persia and not Oghuz stories. There is not a single relic of Turcoman Oghuz culture from the area in the 12th century. The Oghuz nomads would not have sedenterized within two generations and started writing about ancient Persia. He saw himself inheritor of Ferdowsi etc.. Nothing about Oghuz myths but all about Iranians. All that does not matter, there are scholars who have clearly compared both theories and discounted the anachronistic Azerbaijani theory. You have no scholars who have compared both theories, and claimed him as Turkic. The fact that at least 5+ scholars have compared both theories and discounted Turkish, while there is not a single scholar (I mean the non-Soviet non-politicized ones) that has compared both theories and claimed him as Turkic, is sufficient to show that the Turkish theory is not taken seriously by scholars (Orsatti, Talatoff, Schnirelman, Ivan Steblin-Kamensky, Fragner). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• There was no "Azerbaijani" ethnicity, identity or even language in the 12th century. This is also discussed in the article. I can point you to a few sources with this regard.

There was Oghuz Turcoman nomads in the area that entered during the Saljuq era but which Western Nezami author (I mean one that knows Persian, and has written articles about Nezami) has claimed Nezami was a Turk and Oghuz Turk in particular? None. So such a viewpoint is ahistorical and lacks any weight. Also the article mentions: "Encyclopaedia Krugosvet in an article on Azerbaijani literature (author - Chingiz Husseynov) completely recovers the scheme of the origin of the Azerbaijani literature from “Avesta” as well as explains the writings of the poets of the 10th-13th centuries in Persian by the fact that it was “the language of the Persian empire”.[83] Other Russian scholars speak of Nizami as of a Persian poet.[1][6][10][84][85]" Okay obviously you do not agree that that Avesta is Turkish literature? So these teriatary sources are not WP:RS. An Encyclopaedia claiming Avesta as Azerbaijani literature is writing anachronistic and nationalistic stuff which is not historical.

• Some serious prominent iranologist from Russia (Stembensky) or political historians (Schnirelman) discount the former Soviet claim (these would trump any teritary source). Now who are the famous Nezami living scholars in the West (who have written modern articles and books about him) that know Persian and are well cited in Western academia who claim him as an Oghuz Turk in the past 10-40 years? The are scholars in Russia that state Nezami did not even know Azeri (virtually the biggest Iranologist living there now). See WP:UNDUE "represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." So as long as there are no prominent Western Nezami specialists who claim him as an Oghuz Turk, then your suggestion is violation of undo. Just like for example we do not take into account the theories about Caucasian Albania that Turkish nationalist scholars of Azerbaijan propagate (basically claim they were partially or fully Turks). Also the article has fairly represented the Azeri viewpoint with links and minor quotes even though none of these meet WP:RS (since they are not Western or peer reviewed). It also has mentioned Russian Encyclopaedias and Russian scholars (scholars beat teritary Encyclopaedis). Still, from a Western viewpoint, no serious Nezami scholar living today has claimed Nezami as an Oghuz Turk, where-as there are many quotes calling him Persian thinker, Iranian population, native of Persians, Persian poet, Iranian etc. Wikipedia is not here to represent all viewpoints. It represents primarily specialist and scholarly viewpoints on the subject. And based on former AA1/AA2, Western ones are preferred. Consequently, unless you can show that some serious Western scholars studying Nezami and writing books about Nezami have called Nezami an Oghuz Turk, then the idea is a moot point.
• Now here I'll quote an Azeri media:"Elchin Hasanov, a member of the Writer’s Union of Azerbaijan, has quoted him as stating: “We need to build a proper line of propaganda …, in order to prove to the world that Nezami is Azerbaijani"( Day.az, “Pisatel' El'chin Gasanov: ‘Nam nuzhno rabotat' nad tem, chtoby vo vsem mire poverili v to, chto Nezami i Fizuli – azerbajdzhancy’ “ 22 March, 2006 http://news.day.az/society/44452.html). So obviously Western scholarship does not believe it. Meaning the title you proposed is violation of WP:UNDUE. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• BTW I noticed in the Azeri talkpage, you removed any reference to the Kurdish mother of Nezami (it is in the talkpage). That is not really NPOV editing. How come this is not even mentioned in the Azeri Wikipedia article? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also the concenpt of "National Identity" did not exist in the 12th century as there were no nation-state and there was also no Azerbaijani ethnicity or people calling themselves Azerbaijani, and writing in modern Azerbaijani Turkish language. There was Oghuz Turcomans who had entered the area. Perhaps you mean ethnic background of Nezami? Well that could be a separate article if there were prominent scholars writing about Nezami, who know Persian and who are Western experts who have claimed him as Oghuz Turk. However, this article is and should only be about a Soviet Political Campaign. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. I highly doubt that the celebration of 800th anniversary of the poet in USSR could be labeled as a campaign on assigning Nizami a certain ethnic identity. In fact, what happened in the Soviet Union back in 1940s was a celebration of the poet's anniversary, and any speeches mentioned in the article were made on that occasion. The view that the Soviets assigned the poet a certain national identity that is not accepted elsewhere is wrong, because you can see even from the article that Nizami was considered by some authors to be an ethnic Turk even before the Soviet times, and this view is shared by some in the Western academia too, and this cannot be attributed to a Soviet campaign. An example:

Sometime in the last fifteen years of the twelfth century, the Shirvanshah Akhsatan made a request of the poet Nizami:

Mïkháham ke konún be yád-e majnñn ráni sokhan cho dorr-e makninn
I wish you now in Majnun's recollection to speak poetic words like pearls of perfection

At the same time the ruler also made it quite clear what the language of this recollection should be:

dar zivar-e pársi vo tázi in táza `arús rá terázi

In jewels of Persian and Arabic too adorn this bride so fresh and new

But he also goes on to say what language he does not want the poet to use — apparently alluding to Mahmmúd of Gazna’s legendary cheapness in the matter of Ferdawsi:

torki sefät vafá-ye má nist torkána sokhan sazá-ye má nist

Not in the Turkish way do we keep a promise so writing in the Turkish manner doesn’t suit us

This couplet seems to indicate that the Sharvanshah could have asked Nizami to write in Turkish and that the poet could have done this. But alas — or fortunately, depending on your point of view — the ruler preferred Persian. So a vastly influential tale was born, and the first complete Turkish version of the story had to wait for almost three hundred years.

Walter Andrews & Mahmet Kalpakli. Chapter "Layli Grows Up: Nizami's Layla and Majnun "in the Turkish Manner"; in Kamran Talattof and Jerome W. Clinton. The Poetry of Nizami Ganjavi: Knowledge, Love, and Rhetoric. Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. ISBN: 978-0-312-22810-1, p. 29-30.

I think the proposed title is more appropriate, alternatively the article could be titled something like "celebration of 800th anniversary of Nizami in USSR." Grandmaster 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Walter G. Andrews - Professor of Ottoman and Turkish Literature
• Mehmet Kalpakli ([10]) - Turkish Literature

They don't know Persian, so, their opinion about Nizami is not interesting. By the way:

More misinterpretations and mistranslations (based on politicized writings) of this section has occurred. With regards to LMZA:34-35, Kalpakli and Andrews erroneously claim that: “But he also goes on to say what language he does not want the poet to use – apparently alluding to Mahmud of Ghazna’s legendary cheapness in the matter of Ferdawsi: torki sefat vafā-ye mā nist / torkāna sokhan sazā-ye mā nist --Not in the Turkish way do we keep a promise so writing in the Turkish manner doesn’t suit us. This couplet seems to indicate that the Sharvānshāh could have asked Nezami to write in Turkish and that the poet could have done this. But – either alas or fortunately, depending on your point of view – the ruler preferred Persian. So, a vastly influential tale was born, and the first complete Turkish version of the story had to wait for almost three hundred years.”

The Azeri translation of Samad Vurgun adds further mistranslations of these lines: “Türk dili yaramaz şah nəslimizə, Əskiklik gətirər türk dili bizə. Yüksək olmalıdır bizim dilimiz, Yüksək yaranmışdır bizim nəslimiz”. Thus both Kalpakli and Vurgun have mistakenly taken the term “torkāneh-sokhan” to mean “Turkish language”, but it literally means “Turkish-like rhetoric” and “rhetoric associated with Turks” while in the context of the poem, it has the double meaning of unmannered speech and rhetoric associated with or deserved by Turks. Here rhetoric (sokhan) does not mean language. For example, fārsāneh sokhan or arabāneh sokhan does not mean the Persian or Arabic language, and no one in Persian literature has used such a word formation to refer to a language. Also it should be noted that in the translation of Kalpakli, there is the verb “writing in the Turkish manner” whereas Nezami uses the word “rhetoric” (sokhan), not “writing” (neveshtan) here and thus, this is a mistranslation. The word “writing” could have been inserted in their translation due to the fact that the authors were influenced by the Soviet viewpoint.

Siavash Lornejad, Ali Doostzadeh. On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi. Edited by Victoria Arakelova. YEREVAN SERIES FOR ORIENTAL STUDIES, Yerevan 2012

So, they are experts in Turkish Literature and not reliable sources in Persian. Divot (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Walter Andrews & Mahmet Kalpakli only say that Nizami can wrote poem in Turkish, they don't say that he was not Persian but only Turkic or Azeri poet (like in USSR or Azerbaijan). In book "Ottoman Lyric Poetry", Published by University of Washington, 2006" page 70, the same authors say "The story of Layla and Majnun by Ottoman times was a tale told often appearing in numerous poetic-narrative versions, including rendition by famous Persian poet Nizami (1140-1202) and Jami (1414-1492)". So, your "counter-example" is dubious and WP:NOR. Divot (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The title whatever it is, should mention Soviet Campaign on Nezami. However I wanted to make some points before going back to the title per a request.
• Actually Mahmet Kalpakli is the first author (so it is Kalpalki and Andrews) and he is not a Western author, but from Turkey and teaches in Turkey. I am not saying anything is wrong with Turkey, but there is a strong sense of nationalism in Turkey. For example Khwarzmian scholar Biruni is considered Turkish by Turkish scholars, where-as he clearly states his mother tongue as Iranian Chorasmian language. However, neither Kalpakli or Andrew mention that Nezami was an ethnic Turk either (this is WP:synthesis/WP:OR) and the misintrepretaiton of Leili o Majnun from them goes back to Stalinistic time. Andrews does not even know Persian. And Kalpakli is a Turkish author and not a Western author.
• At most Kalpakli (who is not a Western author but from a University in Turkey and is the first author) is saying based on the misintrepretation and mistranslation of the couplets:"couplet seems to indicate that the Sharvanshah could have asked Nizami to write in Turkish and that the poet could have done this". Basically, one can claim That

Kalpalki claims Nezami could have written "Turkish" but several factors make this whole intrepretation nonsensical:

• There was no Turkish literature during the time of Nezami Ganjavi in the Caucasus and not a single verse exists, let alone an epic. Where as 115+ Persian poets are mentioned in the Nozhat al-Majales (24 from Ganja) not a single Turkish verse exists from 1200-1300 in this time. Nezami has many quatrains, ghazals, qasida also in Persian but nothing in Turkish. Not only Nezami but not a single person in this era has written Turkish in the Caucasus.
• For example, Tourkhan Gandjei mentioned: “The Oghuz tribes which formed the basis of the Saljuq power, and to one the Saljuqs belonged, were culturally backward, and contrary to the opinion advanced by some scholars, did not possess a written language. Thus the Saljuqs did not, or rather could not, take steps towards the propagating the Turkish language, in a written form, much less the patronage of Turkish letters” (Gandjei, T. (1986) “Turkish in Pre-Mongol Persian Poetry”, BSOAS, vol. 49/1:67-75.)
• Nezami knew no Turkish. Prof. Ivan Steblin-Kamensky: "Although he did not even speak Azeri, they justify this by saying that he lived in the territory of current Azerbaijan. But Nezami wrote his poems in Persian language!" (Prof. Ivan Steblin-Kamensky, Dean of the Oriental Department of St. Petersburg University). So basically you have a contradiction of Kalpalki from a serious scholar here. Steblin-Kamensky, I.M (2003), “Vostochnayy fakulytet davno gotov sotrudnichaty s Zapadom”, Saint Petersburg University newspaper, № 24—25 (3648—49), 1 November 2003”. http://www.spbumag.nw.ru/2003/24/1.shtml (also quoted by Lornejad et al.)
• Vahid Dastgerdi who is considered an authority already has a sound intrepretation of the verses in question before USSR. He mentions "Torkaaneh Sokhan" as rhetoric for Turkish kings is not what we deserve. The Sharvanshahs were basically Persian/Persianized kings and Nezami is references the fact that since they do not break their vow like Mahmud did with Ferdowsi, they do not deserve harsh rhetorics.
• Kalpalki makes some wrong translations. For example he claims "Persian and Arabic ornaments" is reference to a language, whereas "Persian and Arabic" are two different languages, so how it could be a language in singular? Also "Torkaaneh Sokhan sezaaye maa nist" does not mean "writing in the Turkish manner", as there is no verb writing. It means "Turkish-mannered rhetoric is not what befits us". And here it is contrasted with "Sokhan-e Boland". "Torkaaneh Xordan" is used by Khaqani in the sense of Vulgar as opposed to "adab".
• Abbas Zaryab Khoi, after coming in contact with the Soviet viewpoint wrote a two page commentary analyzing and dismissing the Soviet viewpoint. This two page commentary was recently translated and included in the book of Lornejat et al (2012). With regards to the word "Torkaaneh Sokhan", Abbas Zaryab writes: "Thus as we see, he (Abbas Zaryab) has compared “torkāneh-sokhan” to mannered discourse/rhetoric and thus “torkāneh-sokhan” means unmannered and vulgar rhetoric, and the interpretation of “torkāneh-sokhan” never means to speak/write in the Turkish language."
• If there was even a remote Turkish tradition and Nezami knew Turkish, he would try to write for a Turkish king and not Sharvanshahs who are not Turks. Why would anyone or the Sharvanshah even think about someone writing Turkish for them?
• So one can claim at most that Kalpalki (who is not a Western author as Turkey is not what we consider Western) is claiming that Nezami knew Turkish (one cannot claim he is claiming Nezami is an ethnic Turk) but then this is dismissed by all the mentioned arguments just above. A) No Turkish literature at this time in the Caucasus and not a single verse B) Torkaaneh Sokhan does not mean Turkish language but as used by Khaqani it means harsh rhetoric (reference to the lampoon composed by Ferdowsi against Mahmud) C) Sharvanshahs were not Turks. D) The whole section according to Dick Davis, Lornejad et al. actually shows Nezami was not a Turk. Why else would he praise the Sharvanshah's letter, the Sharvanshah and etc..
• The whole section has been translated by Lornejad and Doostzadeh... a summary is here: [11] and several flaws were mentioned in the translation of Kalpalki. If there is an issue that the Turkish scholar Kalpakli needs to be mentioned, then obviously Abbas Zaryab Khoi (a serious scholar who thought Persian courses in universities of the West) or Steblin-Kamensky need to be mentioned above.
• So no Western Nezami scholar (Western meaning Western University and writer that writes about Nezami and knows Persian) has considered Nezami an ethnic Turk.
• Going back to the title, I think it is reasonable to have a title such as "Soviet politicization of Nezami", if the present title is not good. This is short and concentrates on the main aspect of the article. No one can deny that there was a Soviet celebration campaign that was political and for nation building (this is sourced). For example Nezami uses the term Dorr-e Dari (Persian pearl) for his work, but somehow the USSR decided to call it "Azerbaijani poetry" (anachronistic). Or the dictionaries where changed overnight and then there is the IOS archives and etc. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• also I will point out that the concept of "National identity" was anachronistic for the 12th century. There was definitely ethon-linguistic culture but national identity assumes some sort of modern identity. There needs to be sources claiming there is a conflict, however, here are two sources mentioning what Western scholarship generally thinks:
• Also to make a claim about "varying" viewpoints, one needs WP:RS sources. Is there such a sources? Else it is original research:
• Tamazishvili, «главным, революционным для отечественной науки результатом этой кампании стало отнесение Низами к поэтам азербайджанским, а его творчества к достижениям азербайджанской литературы, в то время как в мировом востоковедении (а ранее и в советском) доминировал взгляд на него как представителя литературы персидской. Точки зрения, что Низами персидский поэт, и сегодня придерживаются ученые многих стран, в первую очередь — Ирана» (translation: "Main, revolutionary result of this campaign for our native scholarship became attributing Nezami as an Azerbaijani poet, and his works as achievements of the Azerbaijani literature, while in the realm of the world Oriental SBold texttudies (and prior to this in the Soviet as well), the viewpoint of him as a representative of Persian literature"). (So any writing/text claiming his work as "Azerbaijani literature" is out of the question).
• Siavash Lornejad, Ali Doostzadeh "On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi", Edited by Victoria Arakelova, YEREVAN SERIES FOR ORIENTAL STUDIES (Editor of the Series Garnik Asatrian), Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies, Yerevan, 2012. Copyright released to the public. "These sources which are written by scholars of Persian literature and Nezami specialist, affirm clearly that the uniform consensus of Nezami scholars is that Nezami Ganjavi is a Persian poet and thinker"
• Kamran Talattof. Siavash Lornejad: Ali Doostzadeh, On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi (Yerevan Series for Oriental Studies—l), Yerevan: "Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies", 2012, 215 pp. (review) // Iran and the Caucasus (journal) 16 (2012) 380-383. "Nezami Ganjavi is one of the most famous Iranian poets of the classical period. He was born to native Iranian parents in the city of Ganja, which is now located in Azerbaijan Republic. At Nezami’s time, Iranian ethnic elements and Persian culture and language were dominant in Ganja as noted by primary sources. Nezami is famous for his five monumental books of narrative poems collectively known as Panǰ-ganǰ or “Five Treasures”, all considered Persian masterpieces. He also wrote a number of Persian lyric poems. The above information about the poet is very basic, universally acknowledged, and found in countless literary and encyclopaedic publications over the past several centuries and has thus never been a point of contention. That is until recently. A number of politicians and activists in the newly established Azerbaijan Republic have attempted to deny Nezami’s Iranian nationality and even his native language. Amazingly, the Iranian authorities seem to not have even noticed this distortion of history".
• So where are the WP:RS sources from Western specialist claiming he was an Oghuz Turk? Here are two WP:RS western sources claiming he was Iranian and not even mentioning any other viewpoint:
• Chelkowski, P.J (1995), “Nizami Gandjawi”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Ed., vol. 8: 76-81. Online Version: 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:*"Nizami Gandjawi, Djamal al-Din Abu Muhammad Ilyas b. Yusuf b. Zaki Muʾayyad, one of the greatest Persian poets and thinkers." Excerpt two: "In Haft Paykar, the phantasmagoric movement of its hero, Bahram Gūr, as he visits each princess, covers a symbolic path between black, or the hidden majesty of the Divine, and white, or purity and unity. The princesses and their pavilions are manifestations of specific planets, specific climes, colours, and days. The pavilions are domed, representing the structure of the heavens. Nizami illustrates the harmony of the universe, the affinity of the sacred and the profane, and the concordance of ancient and Islamic Iran." (Nizami Ganjavi in Encyclopedia of Islam, Chelkowski)." *"The great Persian authority on Niẓāmī, Waḥīd Dastgirdī, calls Ḵh̲usraw wa S̲h̲īrīn “the best historical fable of love and chastity, the treasure of eloquence, counsel and wisdom,”"
• 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). p. 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"
• Both authors de Blois and Chelkowski have numerous articles and even a book on Nezami. Both sources are very recent (1995, 2004). Can anyone point me to equivalent status Western Nezami scholars who know Persian (like these two) mentioning Nezami as an Oghuz Turk?
• The campaign is a well mentioned in different sources. There are also Persian sources mentioing the campaign published in the journal Iranshinasi. So a title like "Soviet campaign and politicization of Nezami" or "Soviet campaign on Nezami" might be okay. However, this current title seems to be from Russian wikipedia where the same users have constantly argued back and forth. So that needs to be taken into account, since ultimately it was admins there who decided the title. Either way, more weight than necessary has been given to the Azeri viewpoint. For example it is quoted that the "concept of Iran did not exist" where-as Nezami uses Iran/Persia multiple times for his own territory and furthermore, in the 12th century, Azerbaijan (an Iranian and not Turkish name), was simply an geographical entity devoid of any ethnic connotation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The assumption that no Western Nezami scholar has considered Nezami an ethnic Turk isn't true. Quoting M. Shaginian, «Этюды о Низами», p. 66: "François Bernard Charmoy first noted the peculiarities of [Nizami's] lexicon, its certain difference from the language of Persian classics" and "Charmoy first drew attention to Nizami's Azerbaijani ties, as well as to the difference of not only Nizami, but also other poets, who lived in Ganja... from Persian poets" (p. 67). A. Sumbatzade («Азербайджанцы – этногенез и формирование народа», Б.: Элм, 1990, p. 153) further explains, that there is an "abundant material of deposited Turkophony" that "we see in Arab-Persian scientific literature and belles-lettres, created by Azerbaijani scientists, poets and writers prior to 13th century, that is before the appearance of first literature works in Turkic Azerbaijani language". Specifically, R. Aliyev ("Низами Гянджеви", Б.: Язычи, 1991, с. 28) writes that in his works Nizami uses several Azerbaijani Turkic words, such as "alachyg" (tent), "munjug" (beads), "ushaq" (child), "yataq" (convoy), etc. It's not about counting how many sources say Persian, but about rationales used to back up claims. We must distinguish between a Persian poet and a poet of Persian literature as they aren't the same things. The argument that Nizami was Persian because the population of Ganja was Persian isn't serious as it doesn't mean that Nizami was Persian.

The article itself cites five modern encyclopedic references who regard Nizami as an Azerbaijani poet who wrote in Persian language: Great Russsian Encyclopedia, New Russian Encyclopedia, Short Russian Encyclopedia (2003), Great Encyclopedic Dictionary (2008) and Great Encyclopedia Terra (2006). So it's not just in former Soviet Union. Brandmeister^talk 11:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Those references are tertiary Russian sources and now disclaimed by many Russian scholars. They have no weight against Western Nezami scholars that have been cited.. for example Chelkowski, de Blois, Orsatti, etc. It was shown one of those Encyclopedia's has claimed Avesta as Azerbaijani, so the question is are they using territorial principle or what? Also the article makes a distinction between the West and former USSR territories where the situation now is getting to be realized as a fraud. For example the Dean of the Oriental Faculty of St. Petersburg: "As noted by Prof. Ivan Steblin-Kamensky, Dean of the Oriental Department of St. Petersburg University, with regards to students from some of the former Soviet Republics and presently, CIS countries : “We trained such specialists, but … there are a lot of nationalistic tendencies there and academic fraud. Apparently it's related to the first years of independence. Their works include nationalist beginnings. Objective perspective, scientific understanding of the problems and timeline of historical developments are lacking. Sometimes there is an outright falsification. For example, Nezami, the monument of whom was erected at Kamennoostrovsk Boulevard, is proclaimed a great Azerbaijani poet. Although he did not even speak Azeri, they justify this by saying that he lived in the territory of current Azerbaijan. But Nezami wrote his poems in Persian language!” .(• Steblin-Kamensky, I.M (2003), “Vostochnayy fakulytet davno gotov sotrudnichaty s Zapadom”, Saint Petersburg University newspaper, № 24—25 (3648—49), 1 November 2003”. http://www.spbumag.nw.ru/2003/24/1.shtml [accessed May 2011]). So basically, when you have the largest Russian Iranologist disclaiming the Turkic theory, then tertiary Russian sources (from country that inherits the former USSR) with unknown authors are not really important. Also how many of those nameless tertiary (Russian) sources use a territorial principle and which one of them uses the word Turk for Nezami? Azerbaijani can simply be a geographical designation.

As per your other comments.

• Shaginian is a USSR source and that is misquote of Charmony. Someone from 100+ years ago would not use "Azerbaijani literature" and "Azerbaijani people" as an ethnic group in the West. Bring the original quote from Charmony, with exact date and year. Else there are false verses attributed to Nezami and false misreadings by books/articles published by Azerbaijan SSR and now too. The Soviet Encyclopedia and Encyclopedias from territory of the former USSR is a non-starter as are these tertiary sources. The article mentions that the situation in Russia is mixed (with specialist like Kamensky being much stronger source than non-specialist, many times authoress sources) but that is not the situation in the West. 100s of sources say he is Persian literature and not Turkish. I have collected 125+ from the West that state Persian poet[12].

But a Google books search prior to the 20th century shows that all Western sources consider him Iranian/Persian and none consider him Turkish.

• As per Azerbaijan republic shcolars, Schnirerlman states that they are mainly not reliable..and they are not Western scholars anyhow, but they are given their portions in the article. Aliev, Sumbatzadeh are from the republic of Azerbaijan. So they are not Western scholars.
• By the way the Persian of Nezami and the region, is influeced by Fahlavi per Nozhat al-Majales, but it is not "different". It is Persian and he calls his own work as Persian pearl. In the West he is seen as a representative of Persian poetry not Azerbaijani (Turkish, Oghuz) poetry.
• As per the words you mentioned, all of them have been used by other Persian poets and writers. This is described in detail here:[13]
  • manjuq (منجوق) (5x) (Dehkhoda:Asadi Tusi, Farrokhi; Doerfer 4/1740:Asadi Tusi; PD: Attār, Anvari, Ferdowsi). Doerfer etymologizes it as Turkish, but Dehkhoda is unsure.
  • yatāq (یتاق) (12x) (Dehkhoda: Sa’di; Doerfer 4:/1827:Nizam al-Molk; PD:Attār)
  • voshāq (وشاق) (7x) (PD: Attār, Sa’di, Hafez, Sanāi)
  • ālāchuq (آلاچوق) (1x)(Doerfer 2/519: Rashid al-Din Fazlollah, Mu’in al-Din Natanzi), the modern Turkish form of which, ālāchiq, is still used in Persian. With the initial meaning of “type of tent”, it is used in a Nezami’s ghazal once to refer to the weakness of the tent of a Turcoman under the foot of the elephant.
    • So are you saying Ferdowsi and Asadi Tusi, Attar, Nizam al-Molk and Sa'adi are Turkish? What about modern Persians that use the word Alachiq, are they Turkish? So by the same rationale, whoever uses the word "Azerbaijani" or "namaaz" or "jaan" is Persian because the words are Persian. Again this is discussed in detail here: [14] (Chapter 3).
  • Let me quote the above book: "Let us now have a look at the words that are genuine or possibly genuine Turkish loan words and which are not titles, personal names, ethnic groups or place names. All these words have also been used in Persian poetry and prose by writers outside of the Caucasus regions. All these words are not Nezami Ganjavi’s prerogative either, and were common for the Persian language of the time, many of them still being used today. ", "we took the first chapters of each book of the Khamsa and, despite the usage of more than four thousand non-unique words, only one possibly Turkish word was found (totoq)" and "So even if, with this upper-bound, the number of occurrences of the repeated Turkish words would reach 500, then, considering that Nezami Ganjavi left 30,000 couplets in the Khamsa and 2000 verses of lyrical poetry, we can assume one sixth of a per cent of Turkish words in Nezami’s whole vocabulary. This is actually an extremely miniscule number and it is much smaller than that in the everyday Persian speech of today by at least a magnitude." [15].

• As per your statement: " The argument that Nizami was Persian because the population of Ganja was Persian isn't serious as it doesn't mean that Nizami was Persian. ". Actually the arguments are numerous:
  • First if a place is Persian then the inhabitants are Persian. So that is a serious good argument.
  • Population of Ganja spoke an Iranian language as witnessed by primary sources as well as the words recorded from Ganja (e.g. Chandari, Sang-e nim Daang, Hark (Arg)..).**No relic of Turcoman culture at this time while at least 24+ poets are mentioned from Ganja who wrote Persian quatrains (Nezami included), quatrains being non-court poetry. Not a single Turkish verse from Caucasus/Azerbaijan and even Iran, Turkey in this era. This shows Turcoman nomads did not have an urban and sedentary civilization. And specially in 1130 (around when Nezami was born), they were not sedentary and urban.
  • Nezami calls himself Persian Dehqan in one verse.
  • He uses the term "Torkzaad" for his first son through his Turkish wife (Kipchaq). That term during that era was used by people for someone who is half Iranian and half Turkish, with an Iranian father and Turkish mother. For example Shahnameh uses for Hormozd the Sassanid King who was Turkish through his mother or the Majmal al-Tawarikh uses the same term in the exact fashion. [16].
  • Nezami uses Persian myths and considers himself an inheritor of Ferdowsi,..nothing to do with Oghuz myths like Dede Qorqud. His stories are Persian based (Haft Paykar, Eskandarnama, Khusraw o Shirin) or Persianization (of Leiyli o Majnun) per scholarly sources. He has referenced Shahnameh numerous times showing he is well within the traditional Persian culture.
  • Oghuz Turcomans came to the area after the Saljuq era..they would not sedenterize, become urban and start writing about Persian myths within two generations.
  • Nezami Ganjavi was a Shafi'ite Muslim while Sunni Turks historically and overwhelmingly have been Hanafites. Specially Oghuz Turks.[[17].
  • He is within the realm of Persian culture but not Turkish culture. He is part of Persian literature not Turkish literature, as he calls his own work as Persian pearl.
  • I do not want to copy & paste from here:[18].
• But again, present a currently living Western Nezami scholar (knows Persian, has written scholarly books/articles on Nezami) that has taken the Turkish theory seriously. No quoting from Soviet sources (e.g. Shanigian) and forget about nameless teritary sources in Russia, since serious Russian scholars have been quoted in the article. But bring the actual scholars in the West on Nezami (who know Persian and have written specialized article/books on him) claiming he was Turkish. if such a theory existed it would have been in the prestigious Encyclopaedia of Islam whose author on Nezami is Prof. Peter Chelokowski, a major authority in the field. Or it would have serious adherents. I mentioned at least four Western Nezami scholars (all having books and articles on Nezami) calling him Iranian/Persian: Orsatti, Chelkowski, Talatoff and de Blois.
• We have serious scholars (both experts on politics and experts on Nezami) comparing the two theories and discounting the Turkish one. We also have serious Western Nezami scholars explicitly stating he was Iranian/Persian. No Western Nezami scholar (university position, can read Nezami, and has written scholarly books/articles on him) living today has mentioned Nezami being Turkish. And none of have from the past either (else bring their exact quote) and show the books/articles they have published on Nezami.
• Note I am not looking for random google quotes, else I can find you 5+ sources including Minorsky claiming Fizuli was Kurdish. Also Nasimi is a Seyyed (an Arab) but he is written as Azerbaijani in Wikipedia. We can bring sources that "Azerbaijani" did not exist in this era (in the 12th century) I have a source now which shows Nasimi is a Seyyed so it means not Turkish but Arabic. So what is the rationale for calling him Turkish other than quoting some books, specially since about half his work is Persian? Wikipedia does not look for rationale, we must accept scholarly concensus (I quoted some sources above mentioning such a concensus). So should we create two articles about disputes of the ethnic nationality of these two (Fizuli or Nasimi)? Nasimi for sure was not Turkish, he is a Seyyed. So such speculation is not about wikipedia. And also one does not have to explain the "rationale" of Western scholars, it is simply sufficient to quote them.
• Another source demonstrating Persian is this recent important book: ""The list of the authors is representative of the international studies on Nizami at the present moment. If only for this reason, the appearance of this rich and many-sided volume of essays is of the greatest importance.""[19] ((note key terms "Iranian Civilization", "Persian poet","Persian cultural area" etc. but nothing about "Azerbaijani literature" or "Azeri").
• Note I am not looking for polemics else one can copy & paste this whole non-copy righted book:[20]. So do we want to fill wikipedia talkpage with 200+ pages? No. Simply, if you want to claim that there is a great debate, you need some serious alive Western scholars who work on Nezami (books, articles) and read Persian that have claimed him to be Turkish instead of Iranian/Persian. Anyhow, polemics aside there was a USSR campaign about Nezami. The title's problem could only be argued that is too long. But such political campaign cannot be denied.
• Finally, the article is about the campaign...but any serious author that is describing wether Nezami was a Persian/Iranian or Oghuz/Turk has said he is Persian/Iranian. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to summarize, the alternative titles that one can suggest: "Soviet politicization of Nezami", "Soviet historical and political campaign on Nezami's anniversary" or also the current title is fine too since it was hammered for months in Russian Wikipedia by the same users, and in the end admins decided on it. I think that is an important issue, since the same users here were discussing the title in Russian Wikipedia for months. Given that admins there decided on it (since opposing users will not necessarily agree), I think that is also a good title. As per the alternative title proposed by Brandmeister, as I said, no serious Western Nezami scholar who has written books, articles on him and knows Persian has taken the Turkish theory, where-as one can list a dozen or so Western Nezami Ganjavi scholars calling him Iranian/Persian: Orsatti, De Blois, van Ruyumbeke, Schimmel, Chelkowski, Talatoff, Abel, Gelpke, Maria Sutenly, Meisami, Gohrab...and also some serious Western historians: Frye, Bernard Lewis, Claude Cahen, Bournoutian, etc. And of course Encyclopaedia of Islam which is the most prestigious source on some of these matters. Then there are scholars (some politicization experts like Shnirlemann, Fragner and some nezami experts like Talatoff, Orsatti..) who have explicitly discounted the Turkish claim while no serious Nezami scholars (Western) has discounted the Persian in favor of Turkish. Then there are three sources mentioned above (Talatoff, Tazamishvilli, Lornejad) describing a consensus. Note WP:RS also mentions secondary sources, I consider Encyclopedia of Islam as secondary source as it is written by experts in the field. If the issue is rationale of why these authors consider him Persian, that is not the concern of Wikipedia as these mentions authors have their rationale, but one can do endless polemics: [21]. The current article gives links to books or articles (many online ones which are not WP:RS) describing the Azeri viewpoint and also has presented the situation of former USSR territory as well. It is fair and very balanced. The title cannot be violating WP:UNDUE, and the Turkish viewpoint is WP:UNDUE as no serious Western Nezami scholar (knows Persians and writes articles/books on him) has taken the Turkish viewpoint seriously, and so it does not belong. Also there was no Azerbaijani nationality, ethnicity, language at this time (one can cite several sources that mention this), there was Oghuz Turks who migrated to the area after the Saljuq era, and so the term Azerbaijani can have a geographical meaning in the 12th century, but ethnic group is Oghuz Turcoman/Turks. So "Soviet politicization of Nezami", "Soviet historical and political campaign on Nezami's anniversary" ..are also good and succinct. An undeniable fact that Soviet union politicized the figure of Nezami which is well documented. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a WP:COI here, so I'll have my final word in this discussion. You cannot promote your scholar view as the only true one when other reliable sources (both secondary and tertiary ones) disagree with you. And you cannot dismiss scholars just because they are Turkish or Azerbaijani unless their opinions have been widely rejected as false, similarly I may ignore Lornejad for example because he is a partisan Iranian author, affiliated with the subject. Calling Nizami a "Persian poet" is actually misleading because it's implies that his ethnicity was Persian (which is not 100% certain). Because of that Britannica's entry and Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia Of Literature for instance describe him as a "poet in Persian literature" rather than "Persian poet". This seems to be a reasonable option because writing in Persian doesn't necessarily mean that you are a Persian. Concerning the views of Storey, de Blois and Schnirelmann for example, they represent a circumstantial evidence. Instead of having this unscientific mudslinging, we would serve our readers better if we rename and rewrite the article in a way that shows all existing scholar opinions on Nizami and methodology used to back up the relevant claims. And please write in a concise way in the future so that an ordinary person will understand something :) Brandmeister^talk 17:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'll try be brief.
• Britannica states: Persian (Poet). See the main link to the page: [22] "Neẓāmī (Persian poet) - Nezami 'Aruzi (Persian writer). And also here in Britannica [23] " the Khamseh of the celebrated Persian poet Neẓāmī". Also check the main link on Nezami [24]. In the Internet Explorer (at least), on the top top left (the tab bar), the name of the page is Nezami (Persian poet). The Merriam Webster dictionary is just a copy of Britannica's text with no author. A source without an author is useless, but again they do not mention anything about Azerbaijan. So it is not a contradiction. So Britannica mentions Persian poet. And again Britannica is not the same rank as Encyclopaedia of Islam whose author is Peter Chelkowski. Britannica despite calling him a Persian poet, does not even mention the author of the article. So it is really not a high ranking source like Encyclopaedia of Islam. As per the former-USSR territory tertiary sources disagreeing with me, the article mentions that former USSR, some tertiary Russian sources (non-specialized and seem to be authorless) mention him "Azerbaijani" (and again not a Turk, so it is not clear if they are talking to geographically or modern territory or what and one of those articles mentions Avesta again), but then mentions some serious secondary specialists (basically the top Iranologist and Dean of St. Petersburg in Russia) mentioning him as Persian.

• Based on the above, I have mentioned some serious Western Nezami specialists (that know Persian and have written articles/books about Nezami). And also some other serious writers (on political maters) as well who have discounted the Turkish claim. When at least 5+ serious Western writers discount the Turkish claim, then what you are proposing is WP:UNDUE. I requested a serious Western Nezami expert (has written articles/books on Nezami and knows Persian obviously) mentioning the Turkish viewpoint. Actually all the sources that mention Persian and Turkish theories together, mention him as Persian (e.g. Fragner, Shnirelmann, Orsatti, Talatoff..). I brought you about a dozen Professors who know Persian and have written about him (books or specialized articles on the sole topic) mentioning him as Iranian, Persian, etc, and some of them discounting the Turkish theory explicitly.

• As per Turkish scholars (from Turkey/Azerbaijan), Wikipedia does not cater to nationalistic scholars or else a host of things from Caucasian Albania, Medes, Scythians, Babak Khorramdin, Biruni, Sumerians,Bahmanyar, Suhrawardi, etc. would have to have articles about "opinions" and "reasons". That is not how it works, specially if these Turkish (Turkey/Azerbaijani) writers contradict serious Western scholars in the field. For example on Biruni, there is an explicit statement from him where he says his native language is Chorasmian language(Iranian language), but writers (not sure how many but a good amount of them) from Turkey, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan call him a Turk. Anyhow Schnirelmann, etc. have analyzed scholarship about history in Azerbaijan SSR and now, and even the former head of the academy of sciences, Zia Buniatov actually distorted primary texts. Ivan Steblin-Kamensky also talks about distortions and fraud, with regards to Nezami and regional former USSR scholarship. Also there are Western sources discounting the Turkish(Azerbaijani) claim specifically. So there are sources that discount them. Even then though, those opinions are given space in this article. As per Lornejad, the book has been reviewed by Western scholarship and meets WP:RS (strict definition of peer-review). However, that book[25]. is hardly used in this article and a link is provided. That book just confirms Soviet Politicization, and discusses it in much less detail. Rather it concentrates on arguments that have spawned after the campaign and also brings some new sources that have not been examined in light of the subject.
• Also I disagree on the circumstantial evidence comment (its your opinion), however, note what I mentioned about Nasimi. He was of Arabic ancestry, his place of birth is unknown, and close to half of his work is Persian. But most sources (without any evidence, and there could be no evidence, since he is an Arab=Seyyed) call him Turkish. Our job is not to find out why these sources call him Turkish (which is wrong) while he is actually a Seyyed and only claims himself as a Seyyed.
• We are not here to analyze the evidences in Wikipedia, as this would not only be WP:UNDUE and serious violation of WP:OR and WP:synthesis, but also not the job of Wikipedia. Only WP:RS books that have analyzed the evidences can be mentioned, and also that could be a 200+ page non-copyrighted book [26] from one side, and possibly another 200 page from another side (if it meets WP:RS), and a mess (e.g. the four words you just mentioned which are used also by Ferdowsi, Attar, Sa'adi, Asadi Tusi, Natanzi, and other writers). This article is about the Soviet campaign, which is independent of Nezami, even if he was African. The article in its present form does more than a fair job to the Turkish viewpoint by providing links and summary of the Turkish argument webpages (which are not WP:RS but nevertheless, they are represented). Virtually everyone of those arguments are also analyzed by Lornejad [27] besides constructions. But note, the article does a fair job providing links to the Turkish viewpoint. So what you are proposing is outside the scope of Wikipedia and inline with WP:FORUM. The article also links the Iranian evidence/quotes/sources (whether written by Iranians or Westerner scholars).. But it concentrates on the campaign. We are not here to analyze why great scholars such as Chelkowski or de Blois or Orsatti considers him Iranian/Persian and not Turkish, that is just not our job. This article (about 85%) is about the campaign and the title if to be changed (for brevity only and not content) should be: "Soviet Nizami Campaign" or "Soviet Politicization of Nizami". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Actually there also two other problems (in addition to what has been pointed out here: with Kalpalki's quote. First the Persin line is خواهم که به یاد عشق مجنون or in some other manuscripts خواهم که کنون به یاد مجنون. "Khaaham (classical Persian Xwaaham but I am writing with post-15th century transliteration) keh be yaad-e 'eshq-e Majnun" or "Khaaham keh konun be-yaad-e Majnun" (note but Kalpalki has transliterated it mistakenly as "Mikhaaham keh konun be-yaad Majnun". The "mi" in "MiKhaaham"is not in the actual poetry of Nezami (I checked three editions including the one based on the oldest manuscript), redundant and it messes up the flow of the poetry. This shows these authors do not really have a handle on the Persian language which is understandable as the Turkish Professor is a Professor of Ottoman language not Persian.
• The second mistake is on the line "in taazeh 'arus raa taraazi"(این تازه عروس را طرازی). The correct translation is: "Beautify and dress this new bride afresh" (see Lornejad et al.) where-as Kalpalki et al. have translated it as: "adorn this bride so fresh and new". The Kalpalki translation has put the word "new" in the wrong place and this is a mistake for the meaning of the poem. "New bride" here refers to the fact that this is a new story for epic poetry, that is why it is a new bride. That Nezami is not going to imitate and make the bride new. So it is "New bride" not "adorning the bride new". "New Bride" is an important word here, or else without the qualification "new", the whole meaning is distorted.
• I will point this out here[28]. In words of Prof. Davis, the whole Soviet interpretation is "rubbish" (i.e. nonsense and worthless).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

disagree In Western scholarship, Nezami is not seen as a Turk. Also sources indicated by Khodabandeh14 indicates that there is a uniform consensus in the West.Iroony (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• comment I thought I had already opined for Merge; now I cannot find it. (Maybe it was in a deletion discussion.) Whatever, please Merge this as a short paragraph to the Nizami article and better use your energies to "develop" that article. It is awkward and undue to have such a long text beside the main article. --E4024 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The proposed name meets WP:CRITERIA just fine, and is far more WP:PRECISE. The current title seems to be an awkward translation from the Russian article. It's "Campaign to give national status Nizami Azerbaijani poet" via Google Translate. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  "The proposed name meets WP:CRITERIA just fine" - what do you mean? Have you any scholars who says that this is a question about "national identity", not about "political campaign"? Divot (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The political campaign is about his national identity, is it not? I say the proposed title meets WP:CRITERIA because it is recognizable to someone familiar with the topic, natural (at least relatively—it's hard to imagine anyone searching for the current title), WP:PRECISE enough without being too wordy (i.e., concise). The only aspect of CRITERIA I can't speak to is consistency, mostly since this seems like a rather unique topic. I know other authors whose nationality is the cause of minor disputes (such as Nikolai Gogol), but none that have received this sort of coverage. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, political campaign try to change Nizami's national identity. But in this topic we dont decide Nizami's national identity, we just describe political campaign. This title is not a best one, but "National identity of Nizami Ganjavi" about another subject. Divot (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

According Wikipedia:Article titles: "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by". Well-known scholar, Victor Schnirelmann: "By that time, both aforementioned Iranian and Armenian factors had been conducive to rapid Azerbaijanization of historical heroes and historical political formations in the territory of Azerbaijan, hi particular, in 1938 the 800-year anniversary of Nizami was celebrated, and he was declared a great Azeri poet (Istoriia 1939: 88-91).", So, "Azerbaijanization of Nizami" is based on reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Divot (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

See, that's a good example. I wouldn't oppose a title like Azerbaijanization of Nizami Ganjavi. I understand your point—the article is less about Nizami's national identity and more about disputes regarding it. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rationale for not Merging with Nizami Ganjavi

These are from the merging page:

• Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope. - No, we have different subjects.
• Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability. - No, we haven't a large overlap
• Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there). - No, the page is not very short.
• Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>" article(and can be merged there); see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). - No.

It says merging should be avoided if:

• The resulting article is too long or "clunky" - Yes, the resulting article will be too long
• The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles - Yes
• The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short - Yes, this topic about campaign, Nizami Ganjavi is about poet.

Do not merge. Divot (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do not mergeChange the name to a shorter one , but I think merging is not useful. The article about Nezami , is an article about poetry , but this one is a huge article about politics : merging them will ruin both articles . Maybe a short name for the article can be used , something like The Nazami conflict , Soviet politics of Nezami or something like that . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge No need for a separate article on a so-called "campaign". This can be easily included in the main Nizami Ganjavi page werldwayd (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is not even a vote (if it is I put 'disagree), the user is saying why a merge is not a good idea. There was a proposal for merge/deleted already and the result was keep. Also Russian wikipedia has it as featured. Also the user above is actually saying why a merge is not possible. He is not proposing a vote again as the article was put for delete/merge once and the result was keep. If there is a need to be brief, I have tried it here: [[29]], but even that runs into at least three or four full paragraphs and leaves out many things. Even if we assume Nezami did not exist, the campaign is a noticeable politicizied event which spawned politicized literature (all of the sudden it was falsely claimed Nezami also wrote in non-Persian and his work is Azeri literature) and has been mentioned by different authors. It is a separate matter from the poet as it is a 20th century event. The only argument I think has some merit is that the title can be shortened: "Soviet politicized campaign on Nizami" or Politicization of Nezami from Soviet Era til Today. Somehow the suprising statements of Elam Aliev (unlimited funding for distortion which will not have an effect in 100 years as history cannot be changed) or the jailing/killing of Nowruzali Mammedov (where Azeri media accuses him of betrayl for claiming Babak/Nezami were not Turks) do not belong to the poets page. But putting any bias aside, to claim there was no such campaign or it was not a political event for nation building or the USSR did not all of the sudden changed Persian poetry (term used by Nezami) to Azerbaijani (which at that time meant Caucasian Albanian/Medes but now it is Turkish) poetry, this is contradicted by sources. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Since the result was keep, here are some alternative titles (only for bevity and not content change): "Soviet political campaign on Nizami" (with aftermath of course), "Soviet politicization of Nizami", "Soviet Nation building and Nizami", "Politicization of Nizami in Soviet and post-Soviet Azerbaijan", "Soviet Nizami campaign and its aftermath", "Political usage of Nezami in USSR and Caucasus", etc.. However since the current title was choen after months of discussion in Russian wikipedia with a featured article and admin interventions, I have nothing against it either. I do not plan to keep wasting time on Wikipedia on this issue, but I will have this here for other users: [[30]] and another link. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Just another comment.
  • I tried to write a brief version of this article but it became four paragraphs:[31] and misses much of the detail. Furthermore, as I noted here some examples of the politiczation [32] which again justifies a good reason for the article. Also the distorted arguments about the beginning of Layli o Majnun is summarized here: [33] and to quote one Western Prof of Persian literature, the Soviet argument is "Rubbish". Also why I believe USSR/local Azerbaijan republic sources are not WP:RS [34] (per Orsatti, Talatoff, Steblin-Kamensky, etc.)Also the usage of the term ethnic Azerbaijani for a poet 1130 is anachronistic per Fragner and other sources. I have summarized some Nezami scholars here: [35]. Finally , if there is ever a separate article challenging the opinions of these Western scholars[36], I have put responses to the USSR/Azerbaijan SSR arguments here:[37] and affirmation on why Nezami is an Iranian here [38].
  • However, whatever may be said, and I have said a lot here: [39] (also copied here incase deleted (and several other places): [40], the Soviet campaign is a fact that is mentioned by sufficient sources (there also some Persian sources too..), and the declaration that Nezami wrote only "most of his work" (whereas it is all of his work) in Persian and that he "should not be surrendered to Iranian literature" (Stalin) is a political event that this article should cover, regardless of the actual fact about the 12th century poet. And the campaign is now seen as a distortion of history and politicization of history. Perhaps an alternative name is: "USSR politicized campaign on Nezami and its aftermath" or "Politicization of Nezami in USSR and Azerbaijan Republic" or "Politicizattion of Nezami by USSR" ..all of these are for brevity only, else the article as it is now, is featured in Russian wikipedia and it covers Soviet campaign and its aftermath. There is no denying that the Soviet campaign was a political and politicized events and the statements from there, as well as the fact that Encyclopaedias in USSR started to change and that there was Stalinistic nation building in all USSR countries..are all facts of history.
  • I urge future readers to read here before starting polemics cause it is likely repetitive: [41].
  • Also the politicization of Nezami should be stopped fully..and scholars should be left alone to do their job. I am an admirer of Nezami simply because of his poetry which can only be appreciated really in the original language (like most top notch poetry). Ultimately, historical falsification, no matter how much money is pumped into it, will not be successful (it might take 20 or 30 or 50 years or 100..). In this case, it is hard to predict what money will do, but again in the long term it will not have success. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

future thought

I hope one day politicization of history ends and discord between all types of people ends and there is peace in the Caucasus, Middle East, etc. Best Wishes.--Khodabandeh14Out (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

Colleagues, I want to ask admins to summarize the discussion on the neutrality of this article (WP:DRN). Any objections? Divot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

None from me. The article's neutrality tag is still an issue and I will contribute in that venue. Brandmeister^talk 18:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is neutral and has reliable academic sources, so I remove the irrelevant neutrality label. If you have any objections you must exactly mention which part is not neutral, otherwise, it is somehow vandalism in this article. Regards. The Stray Dog Talk Page 08:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've got some time to revisit the article and I think it does have WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL issues, aside from copyediting ones (as it was almost literally translated from Russian version). The article basically tries to say that all Soviet research of Nizami should be dismissed merely because it was politically motivated, as compared to Western scholarship, without factual merit. Actually the situation is more complex and researchers from the opposite camp put a significant deal in analyzing particularly Nizami's texts. But due to political acrimony, the scholar split between Soviet and Western views on Nizami was rather ideological than factological in this case. Probably because of that the article contains some shaky assertions, e.g. that "according to Tamazishvili Yuri Marr did not claim that Nizami was an Azerbaijani poet". In fact, he did (quoted in a 2010 Russian-language paper from Journal of Saint Petersburg University): "The lasting image of a Turkic woman as a poetic symbol of feminine beauty, [...] multiple aphorisms peculiar to Turkic (Azerbaijani) folklore, folk language... many direct indications and hints of the poet himself - all of these expose Nizami as an Azerbaijani poet, speaks about deep folk roots of his creativity". This competing view is supported by several modern Western sources, e.g. Encyclopedia of modern Asia or Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, so I think the relevant research should be presented more clearly in the article. There are other glaring POV examples, such as "the Azerbaijanis desperately needed proofs of their own autochthony, since being considered as a 'nation of newcomers' created a direct threat of deportations", "all the titular nations were supposed to have "great traditions" , etc. I'll try to clean it up. Brandmeister^talk 16:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

you wish! no you can't.sorry but those sources are joke at the best. random drops by random authors. nizami was never turkic/azeri or whatever. show me an academic source that calls nizami a turk. were there etnic azeri or azerbaijani in period of nizami?! of course not!before starting your mission, read dozens of discussions in talk page of nizami. you have an obvious pro-azeri and anti-iranian agenda.89.165.95.109 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are some obsecure and very dodgy western 'sources' that you have linked. Azeris weren't even an ethnicity back then, this is historical revisionism at best. If I recall correctly, modern Azeri historians/Soviet historians also claim that the Medes, the Kingdom of Atropatene, and Caucasian Albania was 'Azerbaijani Turkic' as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all who's Barbara A. West ? what is her specialization ? If she uses Azerbaijani sources for her claim, then clearly, her book is not a reliable source. Azerbaijani "historians" are not to be trusted, just an example among many others, i quote : " The book is another poor example of Azerbaijani historians trying to substantiate their claim that Armenians are newcomers to the Caucasus. All these “historical facts”, began to appear only after 1988, when the Armenians of Karabagh sought independence from Azerbaijan, and increased after the fall of the USSR. "---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

seriously where did this West got her info?! i searched that book and i saw this outrageous claim: "the first azerbaijani literature was written by nizami ganjavi" really?! which one of nizami's work were in azeri language?! or which other scholar names nizami's works as azerbaijani?! Emily Liiedel wrote that part. who's she?89.165.95.109 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Barbara A. West holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology from the University of Rochester in New York. Clearly out of her element concerning a 12th century Islamic poet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

the other book is same.not every so-called encyclopedia provides facts.never forget that azerbaijan gov is famous for paying authors for rewriting history. azeris have a long term history of stealing and claiming iranian history and culture.nizami never called himself azeri or turk.he even used "IRAN" in some of his poets.ya know azerbaijan even removed persian texts from nizami's tomb and desperately tries to invent a turkic root for him.those even call persian heroes like babak khorramdin turk while then enemies of babak were turks!89.165.95.109 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not Barbara West or ethnicity of a particular author. The article selectively quotes a particular side of the dispute without actually explaining why the entire body of Soviet (and some non-Soviet) research of the topic should be discarded on factual, methodological grounds. The science does not work by dismissing arguments solely because they are politically driven. To dismiss a particular view there should be compelling counter-arguments which the article largely doesn't contain. While the article acknowledges there were multiple scholars involved, it oversimplifies the methodological underpinning by saying in particular: ...classifying Nizami as an Azerbaijani poet based on the fact that he lived in the territory which later formed part of Soviet Azerbaijan. The reality was more than that and involved, among others, an analysis of Nizami's literature works upon which the relevant assumptions on Turkic affinity were made. Another problematic issue is that the article first says that the "final verdict supporting the stance that Nizami was a great Azerbaijani poet, who spoke against the oppressors but was forced to write in a foreign language, was made by Joseph Stalin", but then says that "Bertels never mentioned Stalin's role in the question of the 'repatriation' of Nizami; there is no word about Stalin in Russian publications either, including the publications of Azerbaijani authors". Other examples, like "Marr was enjoying the 'beams of fame' of his father", "its further shameless exploitation could be of no use any more", etc are really non-neutral journalese and not helpful in an encyclopedia.

Per WP:IMPARTIAL, "Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them" and "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view", especially when a number of reliable sources endorse the other hypothesis (particularly The Modern Encyclopedia of East Slavic, Baltic, and Eurasian Literatures, published by Academic International Press). So with that in mind, this should be sorted out. Brandmeister^talk 23:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis still weren't an ethnicity back then, bringing up random obscure 'sources' isn't gonna help /thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's about presenting the scholar views accurately and resolving non-neutral language. As for "random and obscure", I doubt that. Brandmeister^talk 00:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Azerbaijani ethnos emerged at the end of the 16th century, any claim about Nizami Ganjavi being "an Azerbaijani poet" is irrelevant, since than man died 300 years before the rise of the Azerbaijanis.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You're the doing the exact opposite though. No offense, but it seems like you're trying to find the tiniest bit of random material that supports your views. The consensus of the majority of actual academic sources is that Azeris weren't an ethnicity back then, and that Nizami was of Iranian descent, thus the scholar views is represented pretty accurately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as the article deals with authors and sources who endorse the Turkic version (Bertels, Marr, Krymski who revised his stance, Drozdov, etc), then there's no harm in describing their views. In 2010 Russian Orientalist V.A. Drozdov of St. Petersburg University provided a good summary of such opinions. In any case I think we can angree that the overall non-neutral language should be fixed. The quoted authors, mainly Tamazishvili and Schnirelmann, use quite a charged language not actually acceptable in any encyclopedia, examples of which I mentioned above. Brandmeister^talk 09:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

dude! stop your nonsense. nizami has nothing to do with ethnic azeri. native language of nizami was persian. he was born in persian-speaking ganja; even there are source that he was from tafresh. he lived in persianate shirvanshahs who were persianized arab. none of his works written in any turkic languages. his works are all about iranian cultural elements and zero thing about your turkic/oghuz kind; how is a book like khosro o shirin has anything to do with oghuz nomads?! he even has anti-turkic poems and bashed turks in his works. was he a self-hating turk or what?! there was no modern nationality azerbaijani in his time. so how an iranian and persian poet is related to a turkic ethnicity?! azeris are a post-safavid ethnicity, a very recent ethnicity and nation. stick to your own turkic culture. i know you and your turkish bros try to steal and claim iranian icons but sorry this is not turkish or azeri wikipedia to promote your pan-turkist agenda. it's not iranians's fault that your people lost their native iranian culture and now are a turkic group. even the name azerbaijan is persian and almost all of your important cultural elements are either iranian (like nowruz) or caucasian (like your dances and music). so stop your nonsense and don't waste our time by dropping random books from random authors.188.158.105.62 (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Statue in Moscow

There is a statue to Ganjavi in Moscow next to the Azerbajani Embassy, I was told it was erected it 1991, which would make it an 850th anniversary statue. You can easily find pictures of it by googling. There's no mention of it here though.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.27.203 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality of this article

Fellow collaborators, I believe this article may have a bias, which is against WP:NPOV, by saying that the Azerbaijani actions are "politically and ideologically motivated distortion of the historical record of the national-cultural origin of one of the classics of Persian poetry, Nizami Ganjavi". Any comments? Hlsci (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)