Talk:Nizami Ganjavi

Ganjavi in the thought of Great Iran

همه عالم تن است و ایران دل

نیست گوینده زین قیاس خجل چون که ایران دل زمین باشد دل ز تن به بود یقین باشد


The poem he wrote is only the name of Iran. 

ایرانی تبار (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translation as per Google Translate:

All the world is the body and Iran is the heart

He is not the speaker of the saddle of shyness
Because Iran is the heart of the earth
Be sure that your heart is in your body

An alternate translation uses shame instead of shyness. Peaceray (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

change ganjavi to ganje'ei Egilruq (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring ethno-cultural identity in the first and most important sentence where the poet is introduced

"...a 12th-century Muslim poet." Nizami is considered the greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature. There are many Muslim poets and artists around the world. Are they typically introduced as "Muslim poets," or are their ethno-cultural identities or nationalities emphasized instead? This approach, which prioritizes religious identity over other defining aspects, seems unscientific and may be driven by political motives. It is essential to write articles based on academic and scientific references to provide a balanced and accurate perspective. Context matters, and reducing an individual’s identity to a singular aspect, like religion, often oversimplifies their contributions and significance within their broader cultural and historical framework. MaryamSafariIran (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MaryamSafariIran: Please see MOS:ETHNICITY. His Persian ethnicity is not what he is most famous for. What he is most renowned for—being "the greatest romantic poet in Persian literature"—is explicitly stated in the sentence immediately following the phrase "a 12th-century Muslim poet". - LouisAragon (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nezami Ganjavi is notable for his Persian poetry, not for being a Muslim. If someone didn't know he was Muslim, they wouldn't be able to tell from 99% of his poems. But from the very first verses of Khosrow and Shirin, it’s immediately clear that he was Persian.
He is not famous for Islamic jurisprudence, or for his studies of the Qur’an or Islam. His fame comes from his Persian poetry.
I’ve reviewed the relevant protocol, and it specifically refers to the context in which a person is notable:
"The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable"
In Nezami’s case, that context is Persian poetry—his language, the literary heritage in which his mind nurtured, and which led to the creation of his works.
I think there is a political motive behind this choice of wording—a deliberate prioritization of the poet’s religious identity over the linguistic and cultural context in which he was raised.
Let me emphasize: we are talking about a poet whose work is not religious, and who does not even show influence from any particular religion in his poetry. MaryamSafariIran (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaryamSafariIran Your assertion that Nizami’s Persian identity is 'evident from the first lines' of Khosrow and Shirin is a classic case of WP:OR. As editors, we are prohibited from interpreting primary texts to reach our own ethnic or national conclusions.
1. Historical Context (Anachronism)
Applying the modern concept of 'nationality' to the 12th century is a historical anachronism. During Nizami's era, identity was defined by Religion, Lineage, and Locality. The modern concept of a 'nation' only began to take shape centuries later, starting with figures like Martin Luther, and the term 'nationality' as we understand it today emerged only after the 18th century.
2. Textual Evidence vs. Personal Interpretation
If we examine the primary text without bias, we find no claims of Persian ethnicity. On the contrary, Nizami explicitly identifies with his Turkic roots and protests the linguistic constraints of his time:
The 'Earring of Slavery' (Layla and Majnun): Nizami describes the Sultan's order to write in Persian as a burden: «حلقه بندگی در گوش دیدم...» ("I saw the earring of slavery in my ear").
Lineage (Haft Peykar): He explicitly contrasts his identity with the Persian crown: «اگر تو کیکاوسی ما افراسیابیم» ("If you are Kay Kavus [the Persian King], then we are Afrasiab [the Turkic King]").
Political Pride (Khosrow and Shirin): He celebrates the "Dovlat-e Turk" (Turkic Fortune/State) in the introduction of the very poem you mentioned.
3. Academic Consensus
The fact that Nizami wrote in Persian was a matter of the literary canon of his time, not an indicator of ethnicity. As established by the renowned orientalist E.E. Bertels, Nizami’s style was so unique to his local Ganja environment that he was not fully embraced by the traditional Persian literary establishment for centuries.
Source: Bertels, E. E. Nizami: Tvorcheskiy put' poeta. — Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956. — pp. 14–15. (Original: Бертельс Е. Э. «Низами: творческий путь поэта»).
International scholarship further recognizes this through terms such as "Sabk-e Azarbajgani" (The Azerbaijani Style, as defined by Jan Rypka) and "Turk-e chihra" (Turkic Beauty as an aesthetic ideal).
Conclusion:
I demand that you provide a specific quote from the original Persian text of Khosrow and Shirin where Nizami identifies as ethnically Persian. Unless you provide such evidence from a WP:RS, your assertions are a violation of WP:OR. Personal interpretation of medieval poetry cannot override established academic and historical facts. NR SHENER (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a not platform for engaging in historical falsifications. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have no link and no evidence that Nizami wrote about his nationality in Khosrow and Shirin? From your response, I understand that the answer is 'no'. Have you actually read Nizami yourself, specifically Khosrow and Shirin?
You explicitly stated that Nizami’s identity is 'evident from the first lines' of this poem. I am holding you to that statement. Please provide the specific quote from the original text that supports your claim.
I understand the desire of some to appropriate Nizami’s legacy; after all, he is the greatest poet of all time. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe himself affirmed this, recognizing Nizami as the most outstanding and the greatest among the greats. It is precisely because of his immense global stature that there is such a persistent temptation to 'nationalize' him. However, in the realm of academic scholarship and [[WP:RS]], admiration is not evidence of ethnicity.
Furthermore, characterizing internationally recognized scholars such as Jan Rypka, François de Blois, and Peter Chelkowski as 'falsifiers' of history is a very serious charge. The global academic community does not share this view. Accusing such authorities of falsification without providing a single academic source only further undermines your position.
I have no intention of engaging in a long dispute with you, as I am convinced from the start that it is impossible to change your mind. Therefore, please avoid generalities and subjective opinions. Simply provide the direct quote from the poem where Nizami wrote that he is Persian. If you cannot provide it, your claims remain a violation of [[WP:OR]]. NR SHENER (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you replying to a year old topic? The “Life” section lists over 10 different scholarly sources that all attribute to him being ethnically Persian. Not to mention the city he was born in was entirely of Iranian population at the time. The global scholarly consensus is that he is ethnically Persian, which is what this Wikipedia article reflects. Also, none of the scholars you've mentioned (Jan Rypka, François de Blois, and Peter Chelkowski) attributed him as Turkic, only that Turks claim him as their own. Chelkowski even refers to him as Persian, Blois explicitly mentions the population of Ganja at the time was Iranian, and the only claim of ethnicity Rypka stated was that his mother is of Kurdish Iranian origin. CleanupIsMyMiddlename (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2025

2A00:F41:837:9240:8CEA:4A57:762B:CC2D (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Note: It's already given that he worked in Persian literature. Was he not a Muslim? Also remember to given appropriate sources for the change. Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Nezami Ganjavi is not the muslim poet! This is not the way to explain the identity of someone! There are 1,8 billion muslims on the world, you should mention the nationality of Nezami Ganjavi, he was born in Iran and all of his poems is in Persian. He additionally has mentioned That I am an Iranian in the “Divan”!! So correct it as soon as possible!!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nizami_Ganjavi