Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 29
 |
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information.
- Should all administrators seeking resysop have made an administrative act within the previous five years?
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of recall petitions be shortened?
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is article is not the kind of simple reporting of what is recorded in reliable sources that is required for a Wikipedia article. It is, rather, a long essay which is written to publish its author's analysis of its topic. That is to say that it falls under Wikipedia's concept of original research. It gives undue weight to one particular aspect of the history of views of Nizami Ganjavi's postion in literary history: it is, in fact, substantially longer than the article Nizami Ganjavi, which itself, at 97,484 bytes, is quite long. The article gives a superficially impressive list of 98 references, but closer examination gives a different impression. I have not looked at anywhere near all of the sources cited, but I have looked at a sample of them. The author of the article has also, for many of the references, very helpfully quoted the relevant passages from the sources. From what I have seen, most of the sources appear to be relevant background material on various issues to do with Nizami Ganjavi's work and life, and in some cases specifically to do with his ethnicity and the language he used, but it seems likely that only a small minority of them concern the "campaign" that the article is about. For example, at reference 71 the author says "The opinion that Nizami is a Persian poet is reflected in the leading national and biographical encyclopaedias outside the former Soviet Union – there Nizami is described exclusively as a Persian poet", and goes on to give numerous examples of sources where that is so, such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is quoted as saying "greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic". This, like many of the references and much of the content of the article, is about the widely accepted view of Nizami as being a Persian poet, not about the campaign to change that view, and establish him as an Azerbaijani poet. (The Encyclopaedia Britannica article is one of the sources that I have read, and I can confirm that it simply considers Nizami Ganjavi as a Persian poet, and makes no mention at all of the "campaign" to have him considered "the national poet of Azerbaijan".)
What we have is a long, detailed, and carefully documented research paper, which might, for all I can tell, be a good contribution to a peer-reviewed journal in a relevant subject area. However, it does not belong in Wikipedia. It appears to be original research, which synthesises content from numerous sources to produce a new analysis, which is incompatible with Wikipeda's policy that we do not publish original research. In addition, any Wikipedia article on the subject would have to stick more closely to the title: the existing article is not so much about the "campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan" as about the whole issue of Nizami Ganjavi's status as a poet and the views which have been held by different authorities of the appropriate ethnic description of his place in literary history, with special reference to the campaign in question. It fails Wikipedia's standards as original research/synthesis, and it gives excessive weight to one aspect of the poet's significance. A paragraph in the article Nizami Ganjavi would be appropriate. It has, in fact, been suggested that the content be merged to that article. However, very little of the content would be suitable to be kept, and it would be easier to write such a paragraphs from scratch than to try to distil the relevant points from this long and complex thesis. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- If there is anything worth keeping (ie, sourced to our standards, then merge; that content into the article on Nizami Ganjavi. Otherwise, delete all. KillerChihuahua 10:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep First, this very same article is a Featured Article in Russian Wikipedia. Secondly, If someone were to read the talkpage (all 7 pages) of Nizami Ganjavi, fairly quickly it becomes obvious that Nizami Ganjavi's ethnicity is the main subject of the discussion. JamesBWatson's first argument is that the article is too long. I believe that should be applauded and not punished. How often do you come along a new article with this depth and with this many sources? He then confesses that "I have not looked at anywhere near all of the sources cited", but recognizes that the author has quoted relevant passages from the sources. For some reason, that is not enough, because, even though the sources mention about the nationalization of Nizami Ganjavi, they're about him, rather then the campaign to make him an Azerbaijani. As any new Wikipedia article this one also needs work, not deletion. --George Spurlin (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Academic reliable sources about campaign, russian and english. Divot (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. There are three main academical works about the campaign. Two articles by Tamazishvili (i can send russian text if need)
- From the History of Study of Nezami-ye Ganjavi in the USSR: Around the Anniversary – E.E. Bertels, J.V. Stalin, and others ( 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) - partial translation
- Afterword (Tamazishvili, A.O. (2001), “Posleslovie”, Iranistika v Rossii i iranisty, Moscow: 182-92) - partial translation
and
- 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
According Wikipedia:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. // "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - Yes, we have reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
According Wikipedia:Notability (events) "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" - yes, the aftermath of the process we have more than 70 years (Closing speech by Ilham Aliyev at the annual general assembly of the National Academy of Sciences, 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, etc.) Divot (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The main argument for the deletion of the article is that it contains Original Research and “synthesises content from numerous sources to produce a new analysis”.
Original research is defined as a “material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist” or an analysis which “serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.” What is there in the text that can qualify as an original research – that Nizami was a Persian poet (this is what’s implied by the critic)? This is an accepted and explicit Position of those writers which are referenced in this regard and it is far from being the original Finding or Synthesis of the author himself.
The Wikipedia OR rules also say: “To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.” I believe no one doubts that the number of academic and reliable sources referenced in this article is more than enough for satisfying this requirement.
As for the accusation that the article “gives excessive weight to one aspect of the poet's significance”, the article equally uses and quotes both those sources which support Nizami’s Azerbaijani origin and those which support his Persian origin and there is no threshold in this regard which the author has crossed in favour of the latter. --Rosesandguns (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the article Nezami should be clean of political agendas. This is an other topic and deserves a separate article. --Lysozym (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Well researched article, with lots of sources to back it up. Antelope Hunter (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Totally agree with the nominator. The article is an original research in the form of synthesis. Reads more like propaganda rather than an unbiased article. Relies mostly on one Russian source, i.e. Tamazishvili, who is not an expert on Nizami or Persian poetry. Grandmaster 21:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is not an academic source: "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". As far as I know, the authors are not professional historians, and Nizami is a hot topic for political speculations in Armenia due to the conflict with Azerbaijan. Western published peer reviewed specialist sources are preferable, but those are almost totally absent from this article, and there's none directly related to the topic of the article. There are no multiple reliable academic sources about this "campaign", which does not make this article compliant with WP:Verify. Divot says that overall there are 3 sources about the "campaign", one of which is the aforementioned source published in Yerevan, and the other two are 2 articles in Russian by Tamazishvili. That is clearly not sufficient to justify the existence of this article, as the opinion of one person is not a fact generally accepted in the international academia. Grandmaster 21:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Very interesting.... See Back Cover Comments on page 217 and 218 with 3 well-known оrientalists reviews
- "Using admirable caution in the mined field of the reconstruction and critical evaluation of the national stereotypes and clichés stratified through different generations about the interpretation of great literary figures, the Authors analyze the ideological constructs created about the figure and work of Nezami Ganjevi." Prof. Dr. Adriano V. Rossi, University of Naples
- "Siavash Lornejad and Ali Doostzadeh have produced a first-rate scholarly work to expose the attempts by the Soviet Union in the 1930s to falsely label Nezami as “the great national poet of Azerbaijan.”", Dr. George Bournoutian, Senior Professor of History, Iona College, New York
- "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", Dr. Paola Orsatti, Associate Professor of Persian language and literature, Sapienza University of Rome
- Also review by Kamran Talattof (Iran and the Caucasus 16 (2012) 380-383)
- * "In conclusion, the book under review can be considered a great contribution not only to the scholarship on Nezami Ganjavi but also to cultural history of Greater Iran. It should put to rest forever the arguments forwarded by ideological and nationalist scholars of the Soviet Union and Azerbaijan Republic about Nezami's nationality and ethnicity.", KAMRAN TALATTOF University of Arizona
- According WP:RS "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable". So, "On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi" is high quality academic reliable source with excellent reviews by many well-known scholars.
- Of course Tamazishvili is not an expert on Nizami or Persian poetry, but article is not about Nizami, but about soviet orientalism and Tamazishvili is an expert in this territory with many publications. Divot (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- One more source, Victor Schnirelmann. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan, 2001. P.102-103 "In brief, Azerbaijan was in great need of its own history, and in 1940-1941 the Department of History of Azerbaijan was established and a course in the history of Azerbaijan was introduced to the curriculum of the Historical Faculty of the ASU (Ibragimov, Tokarzhevsky 1964: 27). 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). In fact, he was a Persian poet and that was no wonder, since the Persians accounted for the entire urban population in those days (Diakonov 1995: 731). This was recognized in all the encyclopedias published in Russia before the 1930s, and only in 1939 did the Big Soviet Encyclopedia called Nizami a "great Azeri poet" for the first time (Cf. Brokgauz, Efron 1897: 58; Granai 1917: 195; BSE 1939: 94). In the 1940s the Safavi Dynasty became Azerbaijani rather than Turkic, let alone Iranian" Divot (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- One more source, Walter Kolarz. Russia and Her Colonies. Archon Books, 1967, с. 245 "The attempt to ‘annex’an important part of Persian literature and to transform it into ‘Azerbaidzhani literature’can be best exemplified by the way in which the memory of the great Persian poet Nizami (1141—1203) is exploited in the Soviet Union. The Soviet regime does not pay tribute to Nizami as a great representative of world literature, but is mainly interested in him as a ‘poet of the Soviet Union’, which he is considered to be because he was born in Gandzha in the territory of the present Azerbaidzhani Soviet Republic. The Soviet regime proclaims its ownership over Nizami also by ‘interpreting’his works in accordance with the general pattern of Soviet ideology. Thus the leading Soviet journal Bolshevik stressed that Nizami’s ‘great merit’consisted in having undermined Islam by ‘opposing the theological teaching of the unchangeable character of the world’. // Stalin himself intervened in the dispute over Nizami and gave an authoritative verdict on the matter. In a talk with the Ukrainian writer, Mikola Bazhan, Stalin referred to Nizami as ‘the great poet of our brotherly Azerbaidzhani people’who must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, despite having written most of his poems in Persian.". Divot (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Both of these sources make only passing remarks on the subject, and are not dedicated researches. Plus, neither of those sources, including the one by Tamazishvili, links pre-Soviet publications, Soviet policies and politics of modern Azerbaijan into a single campaign or any other process. That is pretty much a synthesis. Grandmaster 05:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the whole idea of the article that a poet cannot be considered national in a country if he did not write in the language of the predominant ethnicity of that country is totally wrong. It happens all over the world, and no one thinks that it is wrong that for instance Johan Ludvig Runeberg is considered a national poet of Finland, despite the fact that he wrote in Swedish language. This article claims that Azerbaijan has no right to celebrate Nizami, who was born and lived his entire live in the second big city of Azerbaijan, as its national poet, because Nizami wrote in Persian, and not Azerbaijani language. I think it is absolutely wrong, and Wikipedia should not be used for promotion of such politically charged ideas. Grandmaster 05:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Both of these sources make only passing remarks on the subject," - but they show that it is a fact generally accepted in the international academia, against your "opinion of one person is not a fact generally accepted in the international academia".
- " I think it is absolutely wrong" - you thing it is absolutely wrong, Tamazishvili, Shnirelman, Adriano V. Rossi, Bournoutian, Kolarz, Talattof, Panarin, head of the Iranian Philology Department and the dean of the Oriental Faculty of St. Petersburg State University I. M. Steblin-Kamensky, Bert G. Fragner etc. thing it is absolutely right. According WP:RS they are reliable sources, and more, academic reliable sources. And you? Divot (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "This article claims that Azerbaijan has no right to celebrate Nizami" - of course not, and you know it. This article claims that there was a politically and ideologically motivated (sic!) revision of the national-cultural origin of one of the classics of Persian poetry, Nizami Ganjavi. It is big different between "celebrate Nizami" and "revision of the national-cultural origin". Divot (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Check the name, it says it all. It claims that the status of a national poet for Nizami was granted, i.e. it implies that people of Azerbaijan were somehow forced to consider Nizami a national poet in Azerbaijan. That is clearly wrong, as Nizami was celebrated as a local genius in Azerbaijan for centuries, and his tomb was a historic place of pilgrimage. As for the national-cultural origin, that is quite a weird combination of words, because the national origin of Nizami, like that of many ancient personalities, is obscure, and apparently he was of ethnically mixed ancestry. How can anyone change something that is not known? And culturally, Nizami influenced many poets and literary figures in the Middle East and Central Asia, and he is revered in many countries. How can one change the cultural origin, and especially in a combination with the national origin? Grandmaster 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I repeat the question. According WP:RS Tamazishvili, Shnirelman, Adriano V. Rossi, Bournoutian, Kolarz, Talattof, Panarin, Steblin-Kamensky, Bert G. Fragner etc. are reliable sources, and more, academic reliable sources. And you? Divot (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "How can one change the cultural origin, and especially in a combination with the national origin?" - Elementary
my dear WatsonGrandmaster. Nizami is not Azerbaijani poet because at that time there was no Azerbaijanis. Similarly Byzantium poets are not Turks, though lived in what is now Turkey. Divot (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)- But those sources do not say anything about the change of national-cultural origin. That combination of words is not used. They only say that Soviets supported Azerbaijan in its desire to celebrate Nizami as its national poet, and some think that it might have been wrong. Also, Kolarz is a journalist, not a trained historian with specialization in Islamic Middle Ages. In addition, this argument is quite marginal in the international scholarship. It is not that all those people are top authorities in the Middle Eastern studies. Plus, as I mentioned above, none of the sources links together pre-Soviet publications, Soviet policies and politics of modern Azerbaijan. That is a synthesis. Grandmaster 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "But those sources do not say anything about the change of national-cultural origin" - they say. F.e. Shnirelman " Iranian and Armenian factors had been conducive to rapid Azerbaijanization of historical heroes and historical political formations in the territory of Azerbaijan".
- "Also, Kolarz is a journalist, not a trained historian with specialization in Islamic Middle Ages" - this article not about Islamic Middle Ages, but about Soviet national politic. And Walter Kolarz is well-known expert of this matter. Divot (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is immaterial if there was a country called Azerbaijan back then. If Nizami is celebrated as a national poet in modern Azerbaijan, he is an Azerbaijani poet. Plus, he was a subject of the state of Atabegs of Azerbaijan, so if we are to consider nationality in the modern sense of the word, he was Azerbaijani. And analogy with Byzantine poets is not relevant, because Byzantine poetry did not influence the Turkish literature, and Byzantine poets were not celebrated as national in modern or Ottoman Turkey. Grandmaster 10:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I repeat the question third time. According WP:RS Tamazishvili, Shnirelman, Adriano V. Rossi, Bournoutian, Kolarz, Talattof, Panarin, Steblin-Kamensky, Bert G. Fragner etc. are reliable sources, and more, academic reliable sources. And you? Divot (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Byzantine poets were not celebrated as national in modern or Ottoman Turkey" - Tell it to Ilham Aliyev and Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences. 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" Divot (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Shnirelman did not mention national-cultural origin. Azerbaijan may have claimed certain historical persons or formations (like it happened in many other parts of the world), but it is not necessarily in connection with their national origin. And I doubt that Kolarz is a top expert in that field, even though he might be notable. The point is that this subject has very little coverage in the international scholarly literature, and especially in terms used in the article. And the synthesis of events from different time periods is obvious. And your point about Byzantine literature is not clear. Grandmaster 10:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "The point is that this subject has very little coverage in the international scholarly" maybe little coverage, but enough coverage. Shnirelman means national-cultural origin, you can order and read his book. Tamazishvili say the same "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." Divot (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "And I doubt that Kolarz is a top expert in that field, even though he might be notable" - review from John Shelton Curtiss. Reviewed work(s): Russia and her Colonies. by Walter Kolarz. The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Aug., 1953), pp. 416-417 "This book is unique in its detailed treatment of some phases of Soviet nationality policy and in the wealth of information that it contains". Divot (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Shnirelman did not mention national-cultural origin. Azerbaijan may have claimed certain historical persons or formations (like it happened in many other parts of the world), but it is not necessarily in connection with their national origin. And I doubt that Kolarz is a top expert in that field, even though he might be notable. The point is that this subject has very little coverage in the international scholarly literature, and especially in terms used in the article. And the synthesis of events from different time periods is obvious. And your point about Byzantine literature is not clear. Grandmaster 10:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- But those sources do not say anything about the change of national-cultural origin. That combination of words is not used. They only say that Soviets supported Azerbaijan in its desire to celebrate Nizami as its national poet, and some think that it might have been wrong. Also, Kolarz is a journalist, not a trained historian with specialization in Islamic Middle Ages. In addition, this argument is quite marginal in the international scholarship. It is not that all those people are top authorities in the Middle Eastern studies. Plus, as I mentioned above, none of the sources links together pre-Soviet publications, Soviet policies and politics of modern Azerbaijan. That is a synthesis. Grandmaster 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Check the name, it says it all. It claims that the status of a national poet for Nizami was granted, i.e. it implies that people of Azerbaijan were somehow forced to consider Nizami a national poet in Azerbaijan. That is clearly wrong, as Nizami was celebrated as a local genius in Azerbaijan for centuries, and his tomb was a historic place of pilgrimage. As for the national-cultural origin, that is quite a weird combination of words, because the national origin of Nizami, like that of many ancient personalities, is obscure, and apparently he was of ethnically mixed ancestry. How can anyone change something that is not known? And culturally, Nizami influenced many poets and literary figures in the Middle East and Central Asia, and he is revered in many countries. How can one change the cultural origin, and especially in a combination with the national origin? Grandmaster 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OpposeKeep (probably renamed); at worst merge -- This is a substantial article with good citations. The title is too long, so that it should be found a better name, which should include the fullname Nizami Ganjavi. There is also an open merge nom, but the article is too long for its merger to be satisfactory: both are large articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)- Further comment -- The lack of "inernational" (probably meaning English-language) coverage should not be relevatn in dealing with non-English literature. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep : I think the reason of the nominator's misinterpretation is that he is not familiar with political atmosphere in new countries of former USSR. Ethnic conflicts are very active and serious there and such topics do have articles and may not be original research of the writing editor. Just note that it is a featured article in Russian Wikipedia . More than that we have a long history of such conflicts in English Wikipedia that is a reflection of the great war in Russian Wiki. So the topic is real, the sources are real and the article is about an important matter , but all of them are not famous in English speaking universe. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Merge into Nizami Ganjavi. As a standalone article it's a WP:POVFORK because the rationale for Nizami being an ethnically Persian poet is based almost exclusively on the language he wrote in. The ethnicity of his parents remains largely unclear. This is similar to the case of Nicolaus Copernicus, who is sometimes presented as German. It is not a consensus in scholar sources that Nizami was an ethnically Persian poet, as the article tries to imply - there are several contradictory sources: [3], [4], [5] to mention some. Wikipedia should present such issues according to WP:DUE weight, without being carried away by criticism-induced euphoria. Brandmeistertalk 13:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- They are not relable sources.
- Barbara A. West: "Special issue dance and music in Eastern Europe", "A Brief History of Australia", "Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania", "The Danger is Everywhere! : The Insecurity of Transition in Postsocialist Hungary" , etc.
- Frederik Coene is currently Attaché dealing with post-conflict assistance in the Delegation of the European Commission to Georgia [6].
- Maliheh S. Tyrrell - Chairman, International Affairs, American University, Baku, Azerbaijan [7]
- Divot (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Don't see why Barbara A. West is unreliable. Frederik Coene researches the Caucasus since 1999. Maliheh S. Tyrrell is a post-doctoral researcher at Columbia University's Teachers College. Other than that, all are third-party authors, neither Iranian nor Azerbaijani. Brandmeistertalk 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Don't see why Barbara A. West is unreliable" it is your problem. She is not expert in Soviet Union or history. According WP:RS you must to prove the reliable of the source
- "Frederik Coene researches the Caucasus since 1999" - it is difference between Sovien national politics.
- Maliheh S. Tyrrell is a post-doctoral researcher at Columbia University's Teachers College. She is the author of Post-Soviet Turkmenistan: Overview (1994) and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan: Overview (1994), just political scientist. Of course in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan Nizami - azeri poet. But just this is a subject of the article, how persian poet Nizami suddenly became azerbaijani poet in Soviet Union and modern Azerbaijan. And Tyrrell say nothing about compaign, so she is not relable source in this theme. Divot (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you think they are unreliable, bring them elsewhere as otherwise we would go off-topic. I would just mention a UNESCO-published History of Humanity, vol. IV: From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century, which mentions Nizami among the "poets of Azerbaijan" (Russian version of the same book) in this context. Associate Professor Inna Naroditskaya specifically writes that "The eleventh through thirteenth centuries in Azerbaijan were a time of striking cultural explosion" and "while Arabic was the language of science, Persian became associated with poetry, which flourished in Azerbaijan between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries". All that shows we should be cautious in Nizami's Persian ethnicity claims. Brandmeistertalk 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "UNESCO-published" is not relable source, too.
- Associate Professor Inna Naroditskaya wrote about Azerbaijanian Mugam in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Periods, not about Nizami or Soviet national politic
- "All that shows we should be cautious in Nizami's Persian ethnicity claims" - we, maybe, but we use relable sources, not our opinion. Tell Kamran Talatoff and Victor Shnirelman that they must be be cautious in Nizami's Persian ethnicity claims, and when they publish this point of view, we just put it in article. Divot (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article itself acknowledges that Nizami was actually called an Azerbaijani poet before the establishment of Soviet power: "In 1903 Azerbaijani publicist and writer Firidun Kocharlinski in his book “Literature of Azerbaijani Tatars” called the poet a ‘Tatar from Elizavetpol’ (up until 1930s the Azerbaijanis were called ‘Tatars'". The so-called campaign is largely a politically motivated thesis of Armenian and Iranian authors. If any similar issue would be interpreted that way, we should start Campaign on granting Nicolaus Copernicus the status of Polish astronomer, etc. As far as I can see, neither Victor Schnirelmann nor any other scholar cited in the article does not provide any rationale for why we should think of Nizami in another way. They just throw claims ex cathedra. Brandmeistertalk 17:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Don't see why Barbara A. West is unreliable. Frederik Coene researches the Caucasus since 1999. Maliheh S. Tyrrell is a post-doctoral researcher at Columbia University's Teachers College. Other than that, all are third-party authors, neither Iranian nor Azerbaijani. Brandmeistertalk 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- They are not relable sources.
Sources say different things. For instance:
Hence the Caucasian and Azerbayjanian panegyrists must be placed in a special chapter; they form a clearly defined group of three generations of teachers and pupils, one of whom, as a grand master of qasida, had a powerful influence on the development of this form of poetry. To this group belonged the most brilliant poet of Azerbayjan, the romantic Nizami. All the poets worked at court or at least within the realm of the Shirvan-Shahs, who favoured literature written in the Persian tongue with their especial patronage, for the Shirvan-Shahs traced their descent from Bahram Chobin. Yet Persian was not their native language, though it predominated in works of literature; folk-poetry of course developed in consistence with local idiom.
Jan Rypka. History of Iranian literature. D. Reidel, 1968, p. 201
Grandmaster 17:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Except that the source of Rypka is very out-dated (published in 1968 but written even beforehand) and he is from the Soviet block. Also no where does he claim Nezami was a Turk, but he simply goes with the cautious Soviet position (Kurdish mother and unknown father, but within the realm of Iranian culture). And here are reasons that the statements of Rypka are outdated with this regard (although the overall book has good information, but we are discussing this specific topic):
- Nezami did not work in the courts or even in the realm of the Shirvanshahs.
- Persian was the language of the Sharvanshahs unlike what Rypka has mentioned.
- Even Rypka, despite Soviet bloc backgrounds, mentions Haft Paykar, Khusraw Shirin are drawn from Iranian culture and Layli o Majnun is a Persianization of an Arabic story. All of this shows that Nezami was within the realm of Iranian culture not the Turcoman Oghuz culture.
- The Nozhat al-Majales which is found after Rypka shows that Persian was the everyday language of the people, while there is not a single relic of Oghuz Turkish culture from the 12th century Caucasus. Virtually none of the people in Nozhat al-Majales had any association with the courts.
- Lornejad & Doostzadeh: "However, no such group of “teachers and pupils” is found in the annals of history with the exception of Khāqāni and Falaki Sharvāni who were pupils of Abu ‘Ala Ganjavi. For example, no one knows who were the teachers of Abu ‘Ala Ganjavi or Nezami Ganjavi or that of more than 100 poets (24 of them from Ganja) from Sharvān, Arrān and Azerbaijan (see Part IV) in the 11th -13th century. Indeed the generation gap between Qatrān (circa. 1009-1070 A.D.) and Nezami Ganjavi (circa. 1130-1200 A.D.) is also more than three generation. As the recently discovered manuscript of Nozhat al-Majāles (see Part IV for more details) shows, Persian poetry was the common and folk expression of the average people and not just associated with the elites of the courts of the Sharvānshāhs." & "Rypka also notes that: “With the exception of Nezami’s work, the entire poetic output of the region was confined to lyric poetry, to the qasida in particular” . However, as shown in Part IV of this book, the most common poetic output of the region should now be considered the ruba’i (Quatrains), which is not a genre of court poetry like the qasida (Odes) or epic poetry. "
- Modern Western Nezami scholars Francois de Blois, Chelkowski, Orsatti, Talatoff, van Ruyembeke, etc. can be listed. Can you list one modern Nezami specialist that calls Nezami an Oghuz Turk? If not, then that is not the prevalent view among the specialist. If there is such a "wide matter" of opinion, then how come the Azerbaijani government is so sensitive? Why is there all this lobbying efforts and nation building (including lobbying of Britannica)? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- But when did the Soviets say that Nizami was a Turk? They never said that. They said that he was a poet of Azerbaijan, and you can find that in many Western sources. Grandmaster 17:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Chelkowski, whom you mention, calls Nizami a poet of both Persia and Azerbaijan. He does not see any contradiction there.
Azerbayjan became the heir to the Khurasani style. Here Qatran, the oldest poet of Azerbayjan, wrote his panegyrics for the rulers of Ganjah and Tabriz. Here Khaqani developed his extraordinary qasidah style with its strange composition, compounds, fancy imaginings and exotic similes and metaphors. Khaqani could be termed as one of the greatest poets of Iran and the cornerstone of the Iraqi style. In Azerbayjan, Mujir, the follower of Khaqani, brought the style to its apogee. Here lived and died the greatest romantic poet of Persia, Nizami. This dramatist of love and life became the unsurpassed model for countless multilingual poets, writers and playwrights in the area stretching from the Caucasus to the Indian Ocean and from Central Asia to equatorial Africa. A score of the lesser known but good poets of Azerbayjan would amount to at least ten names.
Peter Chelkowski Literature in Pre-Safavid Isfahan. International Society for Iranian Studies Iranian Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1/2. — Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of International Society for Iranian Studies, 1974. — p. 112-131.
- Grandmaster 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "But when did the Soviets say that Nizami was a Turk?" - ???? Read the article, Grandmaster! Stalin: "Nizami himself confirms in his poems that he was forced to resort to the Iranian language since he wasn’t allowed to turn to his nation in his native tongue.", Gik "wall of one of the halls comrade Stalin’s words were engraved in golden letters about Nizami being a great Azerbaijani poet who had to resort to the Iranian language as he was not permitted to turn to his nation in his native tongue" etc. Divot (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Grandmaster 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Soviet concept of Azerbaijani identity was based on a mixture of Medes/Caucasian Albanians. However in Azerbaijan republic, the issue today is not settled, but it seems to gravitate towards Turkic per Schnirleman (see the part about the dominance of the revisionist school). However the article about Soviet campaign which was political by all account and is important historical subject that shows Soviet pattern of nation building. In Azerbaijan (SSR) on the other hand there is an active campaign to retroactively Turkify pre-Turkic groups. You know that is not deniable, you can take a look simple articles in Azerbaijani Wikipedia with regards to say Javanshir, Medes, Caucasian Albania, etc. I know there is political problems in the region, but why does a news article mention Nowruzali Mammedov took stand of betrayal and then bring issues such as Babak and Nezami.
- I personally removed political stuff from Schnirelman, Fragner, Kolarz etc. from Nezami article, and I also put Azerbaijan as a heir to Nezami and did not till possibly now (mixed feeling) oppose the anachronistic alphabet. However, one cannot deny that outside of Wikipedia, there is a big and massive lobbying efforts (organized lists etc.) supported by Azerbaijan trying to downplay the Persian heritage of Nezami. You can see it in multiple Azerbaijani news site. So there should be room for an article on Soviet campaign and political use of Nezami. Nowruzali Mamemdov is a case in point.
- Chelkowski is a giant Nezami scholar, probably the most prominent Western one that is alive today. As per the term Azerbaijan itself, in the 12th century it is a geographic region and not necessarily tied to modern nation states. The word itself is an Iranian word. Chelkowski rightfully mentions the primary styles of Persian literate are the Khurasani style, ‘Iraqi style and Hindi style, and mentions the Azerbaijan and pre-Safavid Isfahan school under the ‘Iraqi style . He Notes: “Khāqāni could be termed as one of the greatest poets of Iran and the cornerstone of the ‘Iraqi style. In Azerbaijan, Mujir, the follower of Khāqāni, brought the style to its apogee". So Azerbaijan as a geographical term with 'Iraq, Khurasan, etc. is not about national identity. It is not even separate than Iran for Chelkowski since Khaqani who even lived further is called a poet of Iran. (Peter Chelkowski Literature in Pre-Safavid Isfahan. International Society for Iranian Studies Iranian Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1/2. — Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of International Society for Iranian Studies, 1974. — p. 112-131.).
- Peter J. Chelkowski, "Mirror of the Invisible World", New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975. p. 1: "The culture of Nizami's Persia is renowned for its deep-rooted tradition and splendor. In pre-Islamic times, it had developed extraordinarily rich and exact means of expression in music, architecture, and daily life as well as in writing, although Iran, its center--or, as the poets believed, its heart--was continually overrun by invading armies and immigrants, this tradition was able to absorb, transform, and ultimately ocercome foreign intrusion. Alexander the Great was only one of many conquerors, to be seduced by the Persian way of life." p. 2:"During the last quarter of the twelfth century, when Nizami began his Khamsa, Seljuq supremacy was on the decline and political unrest and social ferments were increasing. However, Persian culture characteristically flourished when political power was diffused rather than centralized, and so Persian remained the primary language, Persian civil servants were in great demand, Persian merchants were successful, and princedoms continued to vie for the service of Persian poets. This was especially true in Ganjeh, the Caucasian outpost town where Nizami lived." p. 6: "Nizami's strong character, his social sensibility, and his poetic genius fused with his rich Persian cultural heritage to create a new standard of literary achievement. Using themes from the oral tradition and written historical records, his poems unite pre-Islamic and Islamic Iran", p. 9:"Probably no Persian writer has inspired succeeding generation of poets more than Nizami",
- 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."
- Anyhow Nezami himself uses the term Iran/Persia for the land he lived in. This is now well documented. I have no problem with any regional country or etc. to be proud of him. However, the Soviet Campaign is well covered campaign in order to form a new Azerbaijani identity which for the Soviets actually was a mixture of mainly Caucasian Albania/Medes. Before Iran lost these regions in 1828, the people identified with Iran and language was not a big issue. Late and Early 20th century, a separate pan-Turkic identity (mainly based on language) was developed and usually then, the Persian heritage of the region became either ignored or attempts were made to Turkify it. All this aside, the Soviet campaign of Nezami is a fairly notable event discussed by various scholars. It has little to do with 12th century, and it is hard to summarize in a paragraph. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note the term used by Chelkowski, "poets of Azerbayjan". This is not a Soviet influence, since Chelkowski belonged to the Western academia. Poets of Azerbayjan could be for Chelkowski poets of Persia as well, but this is clearly a territorial reference. Soviets also did not make much emphasis on ethnicity, for them Nizami was Azerbaijani because he hailed from Azerbaijan. This view on territorial connection is shared by many in the Western academia. And if we take the language as the only criterion on classification of poets, then as I noted above Finnish people should not considerer Johan Ludvig Runeberg their poet, since he only wrote in Swedish, and Irish should not be proud of Thomas Moore, who created his poetry in English, and not Gaelic. The whole concept of the article (i.e. celebration of Nizami as a national poet was imposed by the Soviets while the article contains the evidence to pre-Soviet honoring of Nizami as a national poet in Azerbaijan) is kind of shaky and presentation of material is not in line with NPOV. Grandmaster 18:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you that: "Soviets also did not make much emphasis on ethnicity, for them Nizami was Azerbaijani because he hailed from Azerbaijan". This needs to be mentioned in the article and clearly. That is territorial principle was the key in coming up with anachronistic terminology such as "Azerbaijani literature". Chelkowski uses the term "Nezami's Persia" , so in effect, Azerbaijan for Chelkowski is a region of Persia at the time of Nezami. Nezami himself also mentions the local rulers as regional rulers of Persia. Actually, to be more precise, he uses Arran for his territory but nevertheless, the the regional rulers praised by him are called rulers of Iran/Persia.
- However, Azerbaijan in the 12th century has no ethnic or cultural definition and the term "Azerbaijani" in the 12th century was not used for any ethnic group or culture. That is the emphasis of the article since the Soviets basically assigned all former Iranian heritage of the region under this new title. Azerbaijan is an Iranian word and the main Muslim urban cities of Caucasus/Azerbaijan had culture whose relics are Nozhat al-Majales;we do not have any relic from Turcoman Oghuz culture in the 12th century. It is just like Isfahan or Yazd or Khorasan etc. A region of Persia/Iran, and not a new identity. The Soviet campaign on the other hand was meant to provide a national identity based on regional territory. Prior to the 19th/20th century, Azerbaijan was simply a geographical region (some authors include in the Caucasus and some do not). The examples you bring such as Runeberg and Moore are not relevant, since the concept of an Azerbaijani identity did not exist during the time of Nezami. Both Gaelic and English identity did exist during the time of Moor. There were Oghuz nomadic Turks who had entered the area since the Saljuq era and due to numerous reasons, the mainly Iranian and Caucasian peoples in the region adopted Turkish language (that formed modern Azeri-Turkic), but you won't find any Western scholar calling Nezami Oghuz Turk. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm talking here about the right of people of Azerbaijan to consider Nizami their national poet, despite the fact that he wrote in Persian, and not Azeri. Whether the Azeri identity existed or not back then irrelevant, we are talking about the modern perception, which the article claims is wrong, because it was supported by the Soviets. In this regards Runeberg and Moore are quite relevant, as those poets are considered national in their countries despite the lack of linguistic connection. And modern Britannica also mentions that Azerbaijan gave the world Nizami:
- Note the term used by Chelkowski, "poets of Azerbayjan". This is not a Soviet influence, since Chelkowski belonged to the Western academia. Poets of Azerbayjan could be for Chelkowski poets of Persia as well, but this is clearly a territorial reference. Soviets also did not make much emphasis on ethnicity, for them Nizami was Azerbaijani because he hailed from Azerbaijan. This view on territorial connection is shared by many in the Western academia. And if we take the language as the only criterion on classification of poets, then as I noted above Finnish people should not considerer Johan Ludvig Runeberg their poet, since he only wrote in Swedish, and Irish should not be proud of Thomas Moore, who created his poetry in English, and not Gaelic. The whole concept of the article (i.e. celebration of Nizami as a national poet was imposed by the Soviets while the article contains the evidence to pre-Soviet honoring of Nizami as a national poet in Azerbaijan) is kind of shaky and presentation of material is not in line with NPOV. Grandmaster 18:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In the course of its long history, Azerbaijan has given the world a number of outstanding thinkers, poets, and scientists. Among the medieval scientists and philosophers, Abul Hasan Bakhmanyar (11th century), the author of numerous works on mathematics and philosophy, and Abul Hasan Shirvani (11th–12th centuries), the author of Astronomy, may be noted. The poet and philosopher Nẹzāmī, called Ganjavī after his place of birth, Ganja, was the author of Khamseh (“The Quintuplet”), composed of five romantic poems, including “The Treasure of Mysteries,” “Khosrow and Shīrīn,” and “Leyli and Mejnūn.”
- So disassociating Nizami from Azerbaijan, as this article attempts to do, is not in line with the modern scholarly views on the subject. Grandmaster 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- No one deny anyone's right to to consider whatever they like. The article says nothing about rights, right or wrong. And Azerbaijanis should be proud of Nezami as a regional men for sure, but the article does not (or should not) deny that at all. In fact Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Iranians, Georgians, Talysh, Kurds, Afghans etc. and all humans should all be proud of Nezami. The article should cover the Soviet] nation building campaign (well sourced) and its political nature. For example, Nezami wrote in Persian and calls his work Persian poetry and Persian pearl, but somehow the Soviet called it Azerbaijani literature (along with Avesta). Also the Soviet campaign and Soviet scientists considered Azerbaijanis as Medes/Albanians and actually downplayed any Turkish connection (this is now different it seems in modern Azerbaijan and the situation is reversed). The concept of national poet and national identity is fairly new, anachronistic for the 12th century. Maybe it did exist in the time of Runeberg and Moore, but not in the 12th century.
I bring these points (note I am criticizing government not people and note none of the regional governments are democratic). The criticism though intersects Nezami):
- [8] (here a scholar is accused of betrayal and is chastised for claiming Nezami/Babak as Talysh. He is killed later on. I am not saying his case has only to do with nizami/babak, but the fact that mentioning Nezami/Babak as Talysh is covered under an article talking about national betrayal is upsetting),
- [9] "An Azerbaijani newspaper, for example, has claimed that president Khatami of Iran is a “Persian chauvinist” because he has stated the obvious fact that Nezami is a representative of Persian literature". (Okay so Nizami himself considered his work Persian poetry and Persian pearl, so does he become a chauvinist)?
- [10] 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. Azerbaijani scholar: "“We need to build a proper line of propaganda …, in order to prove to the world that Nezami is Azerbaijani”
- [11] Heydar Aliev is quoted as stating: “I would encourage our youth to learn as many foreign languages as possible. But prior to that ambitious goal, they all should know their own language - Azeri. They should feel it as a mother language and be able to think in it. I wish for the day when our youth can read Shakespeare in English, Pushkin in Russian, and our own Azerbaijani poets - Nezami, Fizuli and Nasimi - in Azerbaijani" (So why not Nezami also in Persian like Shakespear in English?..Translations can do much better on Shakespear than Nezami infact.)
- Ilham Aliyev (per the article)"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" (Okay but Nezami considered his work as Persian literature, he didn't write in Azerbaijani. Who these others? If we are talking about regional shared heritage? Do people consider the other guy that wrote in English as Galeic literature?).
- Stalin: "Nezami should not be surrendered to Iranian literature"
- In fact lets take Bahmanyar from that Britannica list. He was Persian Zoroastrian and he also came from Iranian Azerbaijan. In Azerbaijan republic I know he is important (more than say even Iran), but I hardly doubt anyone would even mention he was Iranian and they would claim him as Turkish. Azerbaijanis have a right to be proud of him too, no doubt. But when they start making Babak or Bahmanyar an Oghuz Turk, then it is a distortion of history. I agree that anyone should have the right to do what they want as long as they do not harm others. But it seems the issue now has harmed others Nowruzali Mammedov)) and has become political. The politicization started in Soviet campaign and so an article should deal with these. In the Nezami article, Azerbaijan is mentioned (even before Iran due to spelling order) and Nezami is also mentioned as celebrated there. No problem, let Azerbaijanis (and Talysh and others) be proud of him and consider him their national poet. However, all of the above news items stem from the Soviet political Campaign and an article covering this political campaign (with now many sources) is not against Wikipedia. One can claim the article can be reworked or etc., but the Soviet campaign on Nezami which was political nation building and overnight, Avesta, Nezami's poetry, Khaqani etc. were transformed from Iranian literature to Azerbaijani literature. The Soviets did this on purpose really to set the two groups that were part of one nation against each other..and the result still unfortunately continues. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jan Rypka and Peter Chelkowski never said that Nizami is national Azerbaijani poet with turkic soul. So, your examples not relevance. Divot (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- keep The Soviet campaign was an actual big event that distorted the figure of Nizami in the USSR and now this continues in the Azerbaijan republic. For example, Nizami calls his work "Persian poetry" but the USSR and modern Azerbaijan call it "Azerbaijani literature". Britannica does not mention it because their article on Nizami is about Nizami and not political events. Also no serious Nizami scholar in the West who reads Persian, and has written specialist articles on Nizami -- books and articles about him -- has taken the Turkish view seriously. Nizami wrote about ancient Persia, considered himself a heir of Ferdowsi and was clearly within the realm of mainstream Persian culture of his time as noted by serious scholars. A list of serious Nezami articles gathered together for a recent book, and all of them consier him Persia/Iranian/Persian literature.[12] (note key terms "Iranian Civilization", "Persian poet","Persian cultural area" etc. but nothing about "Azerbaijani literature" or "Azeri").--Espiral (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please note the back of the 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."--Espiral (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nizami belonged to Azerbaijani school of Persian literature. See The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 5: [13] The same in Christine van Ruymbeke:
The "Persian poetic school of Azerbaijan", appearing in the twelfth century, seems to be the product of this situation: decentralisation and artistic competition against a background of fascinated interest in science. Christine van Ruymbeke. Science and poetry in medieval Persia: the botany of Nizami's Khamsa. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
- Yes but "Persian poetic school of Azerbaijan" which is used by Christine here is not about national or regional identities, or ethnic groups or modern countries. It is simply a subset of Persian poetry. More importantly, Nezami, Mujir Beylaqani, Dhulfiqar Sharvan actually considered their work in the 'Iraqi school and in some sources he is considers part of the 'Iraqi school (Encyclopaedia of Islam, and traditional Iranian scholars). Be that it may, the "Azerbaijani school's" main content has nothing to do with Turkish groups. It is a combination according to the sources of : 1) More Arabic Vocabulary 2) More Archaic Persian and Pahlavi (regional Iranian dialects at that time) vocabulary 3) Christian terminology and new terms and concepts mainly due to Armenian and Georgian influences. It is also called "Shirvan School", "Trans-Caucasian School", "Tabriz School" etc. It is no more than "Persian poetic school of Khurasan", "India" and etc.
- Currently, Christine's webpage states: "the twelfth-century Persian poet, Nizami of Ganja."[14]. By the way you can ask Christine her opinion now and days , and she will tell you Nezami is part of the 'Iraqi school (per the poet's word). The Iranica articles that use the terminology will be revised, as this was part of the Soviet campaign although again I emphasize that the main elements listed by the Soviets themselves are not related to the [{Azerbaijani people]], but rather are: 1) More Arabic Vocabulary 2) More Archaic Persian and Pahlavi vocabulary 3) Christian terminology and new terms and concepts mainly due to Armenian and Georgian influences (which is covered in Sakina Berenjians work). Whatever we may say, it cannot be substantiated from the poets of the region who called their work in the 'Iraqi style and were not familiar with 20th century terms.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I clearly mentioned that Azerbaijani school was within the Persian poetry, but the Azerbaijani school was particular and not identical to other regional schools. The point is that connection of this literature with Azerbaijan exists, and this was noted by scholars. Grandmaster 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes but Azerbaijan in the 12th century is a purely regional geographical term. However, this connection of this Persian poetic school does not exist with modern Azerbaijani group (which adopted the name in the 20th century) or republic which speaks a Turkish language and generally consider itself Turkish (usually dismisses any Persian heritage from the region), and cannot read the works of these poets. It is a term just covering 11th/12th century Persian poets of the region when the term Azerbaijan had absolutely no ethnic definition. Just like anything related to the word "Anatolian" is not related to modern people of Anatolia (who speak Turkish). For example Herodotus and Ataturk (lived in Anatolia though born in Greece, and other Turks are from Anatolia) were both Anatolians, but one is not related to the other. Azerbaijan in the 12th century is a geographical region and Nezami considered his own territory as part of Persia\Iran. So to connect the two (12th century geographical concept of Persian poetry with modern ethnicity) is really WP:synthesis, the only thing they have in common is the term "Azerbaijan". Olivier Roy, "The New Central Asia: The Creation of Nations", I.B.Tauris, 2000.pg 18:"The concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920. Up until that point Azerbaijan had been purely a geographic area. Before 1924, the Russians called the Azeri Tatars 'Turks' or 'Muslims'. Prior to 1914, the reformist leaders of Azerbaijan stressed their Turkish and Muslim identity.". (Note before the 1920s and basically before the Russian takeover of Caucasus, the Muslims of the Caucasus shared the same identity with the rest of Iran and actually the only differentiation between Persian and Turkish elements of Persia was their language, else they had the same culture and mentality...).
- The terminology of Persian schools of "Shirvan" or "Trans-caucasian" or "Azerbaijan" or "Arrani" or "Tabrizi" all created in the 20th century for poets from Qatran to Nizami to Khaqani to Mahasti is simply a regional terminology. Qatran is usually still considered as Khurasani style (there are actually many poems of his which the chastises the nomadic Oghuz Turks who are hailed right now by modern Azerbaijani-Turkish speakers as their ancestors although I disagree) and Nezami as 'Iraqi style (per his own works).
- Even Baku scholars will tell you most common terminology now and days has simply three styles: M. Sultanov, "On the problem of Literary School", in Orientology, Baku (1967) in "Yádnáme-ye Jan Rypka: collection of articles on Persian and Tajik literature", pg 147:"For some reason or other most of the scientists when speaking of oriental literature mention only three literary schools (or literary trends) namely the Khorasan, Iraqi and Indian schools". Anything else usually comes under these. However,sources using this term (Trans-Caucasian, Azerbaijani, Shirvani, etc.) are just mainly discussing overuse of Christian terminology (really mainly by Khaqani) from by these poets of region due to contacts with Armenian/Georgian culture. This has been critically looked at recently and is seen as a hyperbole. -*::To connect literary trends with ethnic identities that were formed later than these trends is WP:OR.-Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I clearly mentioned that Azerbaijani school was within the Persian poetry, but the Azerbaijani school was particular and not identical to other regional schools. The point is that connection of this literature with Azerbaijan exists, and this was noted by scholars. Grandmaster 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- keep In Russian Wikipedia,the article became featured. Article is not about Nezami (so Britannica of course will not cover it) It is about the USSR anniversary campaign and how USSR encyclopedias changed due to political reasons and how this distortion continues in some non-specialist (people who cannot read Persian and have not written any books/articles specializing on Nezami) sources. Please add sources such as Victor Schnirelmann mentioning that for the Soviets, the concept of Azerbaijani was territorial linking them with Medes/Caucasian Albanians and was designed to create a new identity that although relied on region's heritage of Iranian elements, was yet hostile to both Iranians and also minimized any Turkish role. This will give better context to the reader. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Fascinating, absolutely fascinating subject. I too have my reservations about the length of the article, which is enough to be fills the pages of a scholarly journal, but it is so well-researched that a merging might actually not be desirable, as it most probably would be in any another given article. Perhaps something can be done to shorten the title, make the text more concise and bring it under X bytes.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as clearly passing our inclusion guidelines. Much of the discussion above seems to be about whether this campaign is justified rather than about whether it is notable. Whether it is justified is not the matter that we are deciding here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Important Note
The history of this article in Russian Wikipedia is noteworthy.
- At first the title of the article was “Azerbaijanization of Nizami” and our colleagues from Azerbaijani tried to delete it[15]. As a result it was decided to keep the article as it was; the decision was confirmed by two administrators[16].
- Then there were three attempts to rename the article but it was decided to keep it with the same title; the decision was taken by two different administrators[17], [18], [19].
- Afterwards they proposed to merge it with the article “Nizami”; the mediator on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict decided that this suggestion was another attempt by the Azerbaijani colleagues to delete the article and as a result three participants, among them Grandmaster, were blocked for three days[20].
- Grandmaster appealed the block in the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitaration committee made a decision reccomend to block Grandmaster start from one week for his destructive behaviour[21].
- In 2010 it was revealed that the Azerbaijani participants, by means of a special mailing list, had been coordinating their actions on breaking the rules, as a result of which many of them were blocked for long periods, while others were given a topic ban. The organizer and the coordinator of this message was Grandmaster who was blocked for 6 months; while colleague Brandmaster was given a topic ban for three months[22]. In the mailing list there was a message with information about analogous English mailing list in the English Wikipedia.
- Thus the article was subjected to a massive attack by the Azerbaijani participants. In the end the article was recognized as a feature article in the Russian Wikipedia[23]; this outcome was confirmed by three administrators and mediators on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
Divot (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Since this discussion became long, I'd just say only a few words. What goes on in Russian WP is a different matter, each Wikipedia decides every issue independently (excluding serious cross-wiki violations and similar cases). The fate of corresponding article in Russian WP was ultimately decided by discretion of local admins, not arguments brought in by dissenting users. In its present shape (and in Russian WP as well) Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan glaringly breaches WP:DUE, to say the least.
- Other than that, I strongly recommend Divot to stop casting aspersions and write in bad faith, like "massive attack by the Azerbaijani participants". Brandmeistertalk 12:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- "In its present shape (and in Russian WP as well) Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan glaringly breaches WP:DUE" - really? According WP:DUE "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Maybe we forget some significant source about compaign? Divot (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete. If sifted, the entire article really comes down to one source; the one by Tamazishvili. I do not consider the Yerevan-published source by Doostzadeh et al a reliable source. The subject of the article clearly targets Azerbaijan's policies, and a publication coming from a state university in Armenia (with which Azerbaijan has been at war for the past two decades) is not the most suitable source in this case. As for Tamazishvili, there are two options:
- if this campaign is regarded as a political one, then the article violates WP:SYNTH, because Tamazishvili is the only source at hand, and the whole article revolves solely around it;
- if this campaign is regarded as a literary one, then why does any of the almost one hundred source not mention the campaign by the actual term - 'campaign'? In this case, we have a violation of WP:OR, because it appears that the author applied the word 'campaign' to the article arbitrarily.
The article may also qualify to fit WP:UNDUE or even WP:SOAPBOX, because honestly, the question of "Nizami being granted the status of blah-blah-blah" is not a current issue or a topical field in the modern academia. It has not been widely researched or addressed. Therefore it is unlikely to deserve such grand mentioning on Wikipedia, as to being allocated an entire article. Parishan (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A closer look at the article shows that it is completely missing a point. It is unclear what is being argued: if Nizami's ethnicity is being questioned, then why is this called a 'campaign', given that such information turned up in specialised literature as early as 1903 (way before the Soviets)? If Nizami's status as a national poet is the issue, then I find it odd that every single paragraph dedicated to the 'campaign' per se reads "according to Tamazishvili", "Tamazishvili notes", "Tamazishvili comes to a conclusion", etc. Why not rename the article to "Tamazishvili's view on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan"? Parishan (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- "I do not consider the Yerevan-published source by Doostzadeh et al a reliable source" - You do not consider, but Prof. Dr. Adriano V. Rossi (University of Naples), Dr. George Bournoutian (Senior Professor of History, Iona College, New York), Dr. Paola Orsatti (Associate Professor of Persian language and literature, Sapienza University of Rome), Kamran Talattof (Professor of Persian and Iranian studies at the University of Arizona) mean that it is a first-rate scholarly work. Have you any negative review of this work, or it is only your opinion? Divot (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Why not rename the article to "Tamazishvili's view on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan"?" - because we have Kolartz, Shnirelman, Panarin, Doostzadeh, Talatoff, etc. So, we have two main sourses and a lot of minor sources. According WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". What else we need? Divot (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Those points have already been addressed. Research done outside of the area of study cannot qualify as serious. If anything, it is a compilation of random sources which directly or indirectly mention Nizami-related events held in Azerbaijan. What is worse is that the source was published by a state-governed institution in a country that is in currently at war with Azerbaijan. This is like using German propaganda posters from the 1940s to write an article about the Soviet Union. I can understand this being used as a minor source, but you would expect too much from it, if you were to consider it a major source. Come to think of it, even the minor sources are misused, because the little mention that they make is exaggerated and reanalyzed by the creator of the article, which is contrary to WP:OR. Rossi, Bournoutian, Orsatti, etc. - none of these are notable in the field of researching Nizami's heritage or Azerbaijan's policies, so their reviews do not mean much. The whole article is based almost entirely on the work of Tamazishvili, which is enough to question the topicality of this issue. This is not what WP:RS refers to as "significant coverage". Parishan (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- "What is worse is that the source was published by a state-governed institution in a country that is in currently at war with Azerbaijan. This is like using German propaganda posters from the 1940s to write an article about the Soviet Union" - Do you want to say that professors Talatoff, Bournoutian, Orsatti and Rossi gave excellent reviews to "Goebbels propaganda"? Is this very subtle joke? Divot (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, ḴOSROW O ŠIRIN - by Paola Orsatti.
- Kaniran Talattof. "NizamT Ganjavi, the Wordsmith: The Concept of sakhun in Classical Persian Poetry" // Christoph Bürgel, C. van (Christine van) Ruymbeke. "A Key to the Treasure of the Hakīm: Artistic and Humanistic Aspects of Nizāmī Ganjavī's Khamsa", Amsterdam University Press, 2011
- This is really a very subtle joke. So subtle that the common man can't understand. Divot (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- "What is worse is that the source was published by a state-governed institution in a country that is in currently at war with Azerbaijan". - This state-governed institution and German propaganda put out a journal "Iran and the Caucasus" published by Brill (Holland). Reviews by James R. Russell, Gernot Windfuhr, Vladimir Livshits. Are they "german propaganda" too? Divot (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Those points have already been addressed. Research done outside of the area of study cannot qualify as serious. If anything, it is a compilation of random sources which directly or indirectly mention Nizami-related events held in Azerbaijan. What is worse is that the source was published by a state-governed institution in a country that is in currently at war with Azerbaijan. This is like using German propaganda posters from the 1940s to write an article about the Soviet Union. I can understand this being used as a minor source, but you would expect too much from it, if you were to consider it a major source. Come to think of it, even the minor sources are misused, because the little mention that they make is exaggerated and reanalyzed by the creator of the article, which is contrary to WP:OR. Rossi, Bournoutian, Orsatti, etc. - none of these are notable in the field of researching Nizami's heritage or Azerbaijan's policies, so their reviews do not mean much. The whole article is based almost entirely on the work of Tamazishvili, which is enough to question the topicality of this issue. This is not what WP:RS refers to as "significant coverage". Parishan (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with you if this article addressed a literary issue. Unfortunately, the creator is pushing for it to be presented as a political issue, for which there is not enough evidence. Doostzadeh et al have compiled articles and synthesized them to politicize the issue that very, I repeat, very few sources account for, and even then it is a brief mention within an unrelated context. The fact of it being published in Yerevan only aggravates the situation, because due to lack of contact and the war state between the two countries, the expertise and good faith of an Armenian state institution in a strictly Azerbaijan-related field is rather questionable. On the other hand, if this article were a balanced report on the identity of Nizami, then the said book would be of some importance. However the article stipulates that there is in fact politicization, a campaign of some sort, and we have very little evidence to agree with that. Talattof, Orsatti and others are literary scholars, but this article has nothing to do with literature, it is pure politics. Parishan (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- " because due to lack of contact and the war state between the two countries, the expertise and good faith of an Armenian state institution in a strictly Azerbaijan-related field is rather questionable." - a lot of authoritative scientist said that this work is first-rate scholarly work. According WP:RS "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable". Another opinion is only your private opinion. Divot (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am afraid I have to repeat: literary scholars are not notable figures when it comes to reviewing a political piece of work. We need someone like a policy expert or a historian specialising in ideology studies. Otherwise it is nothing, but WP:FRINGE, because, as I said above, the issue of the 'campaign on granting Nizami to Azerbaijan' is not a widely addressed literary topic. Parishan (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- "literary scholars are not notable figures when it comes to reviewing a political piece of work." - you are wrong, because many of the arguments in this political campaign were literary. And I do not think that Talatoff, Burnutyan etc. wrote a reviews for a work that is not in their jurisdiction. They are famous scientists.
- The expert and historian, for example, Kolarts. Or Schnirelmann. They say exactly the same thing as Tamazishvili and Doostzadeh. Divot (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Tamazishvili is the only acceptable source in this case, and the only one at hand, which places him in the minority. I do not know who Doostzadeh is, and why I should accept him as a specialist on Soviet policy or his Yerevan State University-published book a neutral source on Azerbaijan. Talatoff and Bournoutian may have reviewed a book, but that does not make them notable in the given field. You cannot claim the subject being political and refer to literary sources to substantiate it, because neither Talatoff, nor Bournoutian have researched this topic themselves. That, as you like to call it, "is your private opinion." As for Schnirelmann, he is just another case of WP:UNDUE; the issue is only mentioned in one article, and even that is limited to a short comment. The whole criticism of this Wikipedia article is that it is unduly exaggerated and blown up out of one article by Tamazishvili and one or two indirect mentions here and there. 90% of the sources used have absolutely nothing to do with a 'campaign' of any sort. Parishan (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- " I do not know who Doostzadeh is" - It is just your own problem. Four well-known scholars know who is Doostzadeh, it's enough. Divot (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nay. It is your problem that you cannot retrieve notable and/or multiple sources to cover the topic or any notable sources to review that coverage. Parishan (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- " I do not know who Doostzadeh is" - It is just your own problem. Four well-known scholars know who is Doostzadeh, it's enough. Divot (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Tamazishvili is the only acceptable source in this case, and the only one at hand, which places him in the minority. I do not know who Doostzadeh is, and why I should accept him as a specialist on Soviet policy or his Yerevan State University-published book a neutral source on Azerbaijan. Talatoff and Bournoutian may have reviewed a book, but that does not make them notable in the given field. You cannot claim the subject being political and refer to literary sources to substantiate it, because neither Talatoff, nor Bournoutian have researched this topic themselves. That, as you like to call it, "is your private opinion." As for Schnirelmann, he is just another case of WP:UNDUE; the issue is only mentioned in one article, and even that is limited to a short comment. The whole criticism of this Wikipedia article is that it is unduly exaggerated and blown up out of one article by Tamazishvili and one or two indirect mentions here and there. 90% of the sources used have absolutely nothing to do with a 'campaign' of any sort. Parishan (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am afraid I have to repeat: literary scholars are not notable figures when it comes to reviewing a political piece of work. We need someone like a policy expert or a historian specialising in ideology studies. Otherwise it is nothing, but WP:FRINGE, because, as I said above, the issue of the 'campaign on granting Nizami to Azerbaijan' is not a widely addressed literary topic. Parishan (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note
- Parishan was a member of Azerbaijani mailing list too (participated in a coordinated voting etc. - topic ban for three months [24]) Divot (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
May I remind Divot and the administrators that the incident which Divot refers to as "Azerbaijani mailing list" has been reviewed by administrators in the English Wikipedia, and a consensus was reached to disregard any further references to the said incident as disruptive and aimed at besmirching other users.
Divot, please consider this a warning. Any future reference on your part to the so-called "mailing list" incident will be reported to WP:AE, because it has nothing to do with the current discussion and can only be interpreted as an attempt to discredit fellow users. Parishan (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't know of the decision. Divot (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Merge one short paragraph - Mr James B. Watson has analyzed and explained with proficiency the nature of this text. I agree every word. --E4024 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete this article and merge with one short paragraph in Nizami Ganjavi - I don't think one long article needs to be devoted to this issue. One short paragraph about this argument can be put in the article about Nizami Ganjavi. Anyway authors claiming that statement are not more than the authors that claim Nizami was Azerbaijani. Best, Konullu (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. He was indeed a Persian poet, but the controversy is highly notable, described in numerous books, and therefore deserves the separate article. Maybe rename to a shorter title. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- How can something be "highly notable", if there are not more than one and a half sources that mention it? And even those are POV. Parishan (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "one and a half sources"??? Schnirelmann, Fragner, Kolarz, Tamazishvili, Panarin, Talattof, Bournoutian, Steblin-Kamensky, etc... Divot (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- None of them are entirely dedicated to the issue or use the word 'campaign', except Tamazishvili. They address the issue of Nizami's origin and its perception in Azerbaijan, for sure, but that has nothing to do with the way it is currently presented in the article - as if there were a full-blown state-sponsored movement for ridding Nizami of his real identity. Tamazishvili alone is not enough for an article of this size and containing such serious claims. Parishan (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- But they show that it is a fact generally accepted in the international academia. So "one and a half" main sources (Tamazishvili and Doostzadeh) is enough. Divot (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Doostzadeh's book is just a non-expert opinion reviewed by other non-expert opinions and published by an institution sponsored by an enemy state. This makes it an unlikely source for such a controversial article. In the context of Nizami's biography his identity may be a somewhat relevant issue, but I must repeat: none of the listed sources claim that there has been a state-sponsored policy on making everyone believe Nizami was Azeri. Parishan (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes, yes... Orsatti, Talatoff, Bournoutian... are "sponsored by an enemy state". Masonic conspiracy against Azerbaijan, not otherwise.
- "none of the listed sources claim that there has been a state-sponsored policy"
- Shnirelman: "By that time, both aforementioned Iranian and Armenian factors had been conducive to rapid Azerbaijanization of historical heroes an In brief, Azerbaijan was in great need of its own history, and in 1940-1941 the Department of History of Azerbaijan was established and a course in the history of Azerbaijd 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 "
- Fragner: "This makes clear that Soviet nationalism was embedded into the political structure of what used to be called ‘Democratic Centralism’. The territorial principle was extended to all aspects of national histories, not only in space but also in time: ‘Urartu was the oldest manifestation of a state not only on Armenian soil but throughout the whole Union (and, therefore, implicitly the earliest forerunner of the Soviet state)’, ‘Nezami from Ganja is an Azerbaijani Poet’, and so on."
- Kolartz: "The attempt to ‘annex’an important part of Persian literature and to transform it into ‘Azerbaidzhani literature’can be best exemplified by the way in which the memory of the great Persian poet Nizami (1141—1203) is exploited in the Soviet Union."
- etc. Divot (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, given that Armenia is currently in a state of war with Azerbaijan, I could not choose a better definition that the word "enemy state", can you? The institution which published Doostzadeh's book is affiliated with the Yerevan State University, and that is enough to question the integrity of the publication. Though I understand that there is a language barrier, I would like to point it out to you that I said nothing about Bournoutian, Orsatti, etc. being "sponsored". I simply said that their reviews do not mean much, because they are not experts on Azerbaijan or its policies. I would love for you to prove me wrong. Parishan (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "I would love for you to prove me wrong." Right you, or wrong, it is not a problem for Wiki. You are not reliable source. Divot (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Divot, I kindly ask you to read my edits more carefully. I never claimed to be a reliable source. I explained why Doostzadeh cannot be regarded as an impartial source and why Bournoutian's, Orsatti's and others' reviews cannot be considered expert opinions. Parishan (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Bournoutian's, Orsatti's and others' reviews cannot be considered expert opinions." - maybe they went mad and began to write a review of the unknown subject? Divot (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- What they were thinking is not relevant to this discussion. I would like to see a specialist's opinion on the contents of this book, please. Parishan (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Once more, Bournoutian, Orsatti and others. They are well-known scholars. And you? Divot (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is not about me. They are well-known scholars in their respective fields, not in the history of Soviet Azerbaijan. They are not notable enough to assess the political measures that were taken in Azerbaijan, if there had ever been any. Parishan (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Once more, Bournoutian, Orsatti and others. They are well-known scholars. And you? Divot (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- What they were thinking is not relevant to this discussion. I would like to see a specialist's opinion on the contents of this book, please. Parishan (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Bournoutian's, Orsatti's and others' reviews cannot be considered expert opinions." - maybe they went mad and began to write a review of the unknown subject? Divot (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Divot, I kindly ask you to read my edits more carefully. I never claimed to be a reliable source. I explained why Doostzadeh cannot be regarded as an impartial source and why Bournoutian's, Orsatti's and others' reviews cannot be considered expert opinions. Parishan (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "I would love for you to prove me wrong." Right you, or wrong, it is not a problem for Wiki. You are not reliable source. Divot (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and your quotes did not shed much light either. None of them talks of any 'campaign'. This is what I mean when I say that this article is centred around one source with all others being dubious and exaggerated. Parishan (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe they don't use word "campaign", but describe it. F.e. Kolartz "Soviet regime proclaims its ownership over Nizami also by ‘interpreting’his works in accordance with the general pattern of Soviet ideology. Thus the leading Soviet journal Bolshevik stressed that Nizami’s ‘great merit’consisted in having undermined Islam by ‘opposing the theological teaching of the unchangeable character of the world’. // Stalin himself intervened in the dispute over Nizami and gave an authoritative verdict on the matter". Divot (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am sorry, but "maybe" won't do. You may see it as a 'campaign', I may see it as an 'acknowledgement', and Joe Blow may see it as something else. We cannot just pin dubious terminology on events because we think this is what the author meant, right? Parishan (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "right?" - wrong. Kolartz describe Nizami's transformation to azeri poet. Just the same as Shnirelman, Panarin, Tamazishvili, etc. Divot (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Where exactly does he use the word 'campaign'? Parishan (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Once more, maybe they don't use word "campaign", but describe it. Divot (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Once more: this is how you interpret it. It is not enough evidence to synthesise all this questionably relevant stuff into a Wikipedia article and even go as far as placing this dubious term in the title. Parishan (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Once more, maybe they don't use word "campaign", but describe it. Divot (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Where exactly does he use the word 'campaign'? Parishan (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "right?" - wrong. Kolartz describe Nizami's transformation to azeri poet. Just the same as Shnirelman, Panarin, Tamazishvili, etc. Divot (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am sorry, but "maybe" won't do. You may see it as a 'campaign', I may see it as an 'acknowledgement', and Joe Blow may see it as something else. We cannot just pin dubious terminology on events because we think this is what the author meant, right? Parishan (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe they don't use word "campaign", but describe it. F.e. Kolartz "Soviet regime proclaims its ownership over Nizami also by ‘interpreting’his works in accordance with the general pattern of Soviet ideology. Thus the leading Soviet journal Bolshevik stressed that Nizami’s ‘great merit’consisted in having undermined Islam by ‘opposing the theological teaching of the unchangeable character of the world’. // Stalin himself intervened in the dispute over Nizami and gave an authoritative verdict on the matter". Divot (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, given that Armenia is currently in a state of war with Azerbaijan, I could not choose a better definition that the word "enemy state", can you? The institution which published Doostzadeh's book is affiliated with the Yerevan State University, and that is enough to question the integrity of the publication. Though I understand that there is a language barrier, I would like to point it out to you that I said nothing about Bournoutian, Orsatti, etc. being "sponsored". I simply said that their reviews do not mean much, because they are not experts on Azerbaijan or its policies. I would love for you to prove me wrong. Parishan (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Doostzadeh's book is just a non-expert opinion reviewed by other non-expert opinions and published by an institution sponsored by an enemy state. This makes it an unlikely source for such a controversial article. In the context of Nizami's biography his identity may be a somewhat relevant issue, but I must repeat: none of the listed sources claim that there has been a state-sponsored policy on making everyone believe Nizami was Azeri. Parishan (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- But they show that it is a fact generally accepted in the international academia. So "one and a half" main sources (Tamazishvili and Doostzadeh) is enough. Divot (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- None of them are entirely dedicated to the issue or use the word 'campaign', except Tamazishvili. They address the issue of Nizami's origin and its perception in Azerbaijan, for sure, but that has nothing to do with the way it is currently presented in the article - as if there were a full-blown state-sponsored movement for ridding Nizami of his real identity. Tamazishvili alone is not enough for an article of this size and containing such serious claims. Parishan (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "one and a half sources"??? Schnirelmann, Fragner, Kolarz, Tamazishvili, Panarin, Talattof, Bournoutian, Steblin-Kamensky, etc... Divot (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- How can something be "highly notable", if there are not more than one and a half sources that mention it? And even those are POV. Parishan (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. There are many academic works about the campaign. Same article become featured in ru wiki. Gragg (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Feature status in ru:wiki does not mean anything. Nor does the vote from a user, who only appears to revert or cast a vote on a deletion page. Parishan (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If this is indeed kept, can we please have it renamed to something less cumbersome? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to Shnirelman “Azerbaijanization of Nizami” (Victor Schnirelmann. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan, 2001. P.102-103 "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"). Divot (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Azerbaijanization" is not even a word in English. Parishan (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Perhaps "Azerbaijanization" is not a word in English, but it is used.--hayk (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the word appears only in blogs and Armenian propaganda websites speaks for itself. Parishan (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- George E. Marcus (professor and chair of the Anthropology Department at Rice University.). "Perilous States: Conversations on Culture, Politics, and Nation", University of Chicago Press, 1994 "the Azerbaijanization of Nakhichevan is called a "white genocide," that is, one that operates by erasure of evidence of Armenian"
- Simon Payaslian (Holder of the Charles K. and Elizabeth M. Kenosian Chair in Modern Armenian History and Literature at Boston University). "The history of Armenia: from the origins to the present", Palgrave Macmillan, 2007 "Armenians complained to Gorbachev that the implementation of the new system failed to meet their demands as the familiar process of the Azerbaijanization of Karabagh accelerated."
- United States. Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. "Human rights and democratization in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union". "Lezghians have long complained about discrimination and Azerbaijanization, and have called for a form of statehood that would protect them from disappearing as a nation."
- Rolfs Ekmanis (professor, Arizona State University). "Latvian literature under the Soviets, 1940-1975", Nordland Pub. Co., 1978 "In certain circles hope was raised that even if the second phase of nationalization - the so-called korenizatsiia (roottaking), i.e. Belorussianization in Belorussia, Azerbaijanization in Azerbaijan, Latvianization in Latvia, etc"
- Divot (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- A mere search in Google Books will not do the trick. If fact, you are shooting yourself in the foot here. None of these sources give the definition of 'Azerbaijanization' the way this article defines is: in the first case, it refers to some vague ethnopolitical notion, in the second case it implies assimilation and in the third case it has to do with korenizatsiya, which is completely misleading. Source #2 is out of question; the term is mentioned as coined by Armenian petitioners from Nagorno-Karabakh. What is 'Azerbaijanization' anyway? Parishan (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "What is 'Azerbaijanization' anyway?" - According Shnirelman "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", so - declared an Azeri. Divot (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that we name an article using a term that came out of Divot's own Google-run translation of Shnirelman's article? Even then, Shnirelman applies the term азербайджанизация to "historical heroes and historical political formations". As far as I know, Nizami was not a historical hero or a formation, so it seems like your example is irrelevant here. Parishan (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Google-run translation of Shnirelman's article" ??? Shnirelmans book in English. Divot (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please read my comment to the end. Parishan (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please read Shnirelman's comment to the end. Nizamy is an example of azerbaijanization. Divot (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did. He says "of historical heroes and historical political formations". Is Nizami a historical hero or a political formation? Parishan (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- He says " 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", so, he says that Nizami is an example of Azerbaijanization. Divot (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, I do not see Shnirelman's definition of 'Azerbaijanization' and how exactly it works into the framework of the 'campaign on granting the status of XYZ'. I mentioned above that it is not enough for a source to throw a word to enable us to apply it left, right and centre. If you insist on this terminology, then not only do you have to provide a clear definition of the term 'Azerbaijanization' (which you have not as of now), but also find relevant academic source which describe the attitude of Azerbaijani authorities to Nizami as 'Azerbaijanization'. And I doubt you can do that given your, well, not impressive choice of sources which happen to mention this awfully cumbersome and unclear term. That, in turn, calls for a new discussion. Parishan (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- He says " 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", so, he says that Nizami is an example of Azerbaijanization. Divot (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did. He says "of historical heroes and historical political formations". Is Nizami a historical hero or a political formation? Parishan (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please read Shnirelman's comment to the end. Nizamy is an example of azerbaijanization. Divot (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please read my comment to the end. Parishan (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Google-run translation of Shnirelman's article" ??? Shnirelmans book in English. Divot (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that we name an article using a term that came out of Divot's own Google-run translation of Shnirelman's article? Even then, Shnirelman applies the term азербайджанизация to "historical heroes and historical political formations". As far as I know, Nizami was not a historical hero or a formation, so it seems like your example is irrelevant here. Parishan (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "What is 'Azerbaijanization' anyway?" - According Shnirelman "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", so - declared an Azeri. Divot (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- A mere search in Google Books will not do the trick. If fact, you are shooting yourself in the foot here. None of these sources give the definition of 'Azerbaijanization' the way this article defines is: in the first case, it refers to some vague ethnopolitical notion, in the second case it implies assimilation and in the third case it has to do with korenizatsiya, which is completely misleading. Source #2 is out of question; the term is mentioned as coined by Armenian petitioners from Nagorno-Karabakh. What is 'Azerbaijanization' anyway? Parishan (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the word appears only in blogs and Armenian propaganda websites speaks for itself. - Oops, I gave wrong link. Look at Google Books and you'll see that this word used not only by Armenians.--hayk (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the word appears only in blogs and Armenian propaganda websites speaks for itself. Parishan (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Perhaps "Azerbaijanization" is not a word in English, but it is used.--hayk (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with The Bushranger: the title is ridiculous. "Status of the national poet" - what does this even mean? Is there an official status in Azerbaijan called "the national poet"? Parishan (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Is there an official status in Azerbaijan called "the national poet"?" - Tamazishvili: "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. Steblin-Kamensky (Head of the Department of Iranian philology, Dean of Faculty of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg State University): "Nizami, whose memorial was erected on Kamennoostrovsky Avenue, announced the great Azerbaijani poet". Divot (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I still do not see the definition of the "status". Parishan (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, is "Campaign on granting Nizami the national poet of Azerbaijan" ok? Divot (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- That does not make any sense in English. How can you grant a poet? Parishan (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, the first version is better. Divot (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Which one? Parishan (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, the first version is better. Divot (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- That does not make any sense in English. How can you grant a poet? Parishan (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, is "Campaign on granting Nizami the national poet of Azerbaijan" ok? Divot (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I still do not see the definition of the "status". Parishan (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Is there an official status in Azerbaijan called "the national poet"?" - Tamazishvili: "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. Steblin-Kamensky (Head of the Department of Iranian philology, Dean of Faculty of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg State University): "Nizami, whose memorial was erected on Kamennoostrovsky Avenue, announced the great Azerbaijani poet". Divot (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Azerbaijanization" is not even a word in English. Parishan (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Ruthenian nobility . There does not appear to have been any significant refutation of the nomination statement. Obviously, if reliable sources are brought forward to back the claims made by the "Leave" editor(s), then this may change and therefore I am going to leave the history intact and simply redirect' I will watchlist this. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Belarusian nobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the content here is unreferenced/OR, and the article cannot even define it's subject, using different names for its topic. If you look at the article, you'll note that the first paragraph speaks of "Ruthenian gentry"; it's only the third paragraph that suddenly introduces, without explanation or justification, the term "Belarusian szlachta" (szlachta=Polish nobility). The term Belarusian nobility (several different English spellings exist for the adjetie Belarusian, the Polish term is "szlachta białoruska") is used by some reliable sources, and the subject is to some extent notable. However, due to the OR/unreferenced content present, I think that the article is essentially a mess beyond salvaging, and thus I have written a new one on the same subject under Ruthenian nobility (a term that IMHO is more correct and more widely used, see for example reliable sources such as Daniel Z Stone (2001). The Polish-Lithuanian State: 1386-1795. University of Washington Press. pp. 45–. ISBN 978-0-295-98093-5. Retrieved 19 November 2012., Ilya Prizel (13 August 1998). National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge University Press. pp. 300–. ISBN 978-0-521-57697-0. Retrieved 19 November 2012.. Further, the term Belarusian can be seen as POVed; I think Ruthenian is more neutral in this context, and it seems more popular in the English language (something like 4x in Google Book hits for the terms). Unless anyone can show me a source that clearly defines Belarusian nobility and distinguishes it from the term Ruthenian nobility, I think this article should be deleted and redirected to the Ruthenian nobility one; the only things to salvage would be the pictures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect per Piotrus. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Leave/rewrite. Redirect to Ruthenian nobility would not be correct because, i.e., the Radziwill family and many other Baltic families from today's West Belarus is nowadays considered Belarusian but not Ruthenian (although of course there is always a problem with modern nationalisms claiming medieval heritage, however, there is the same problem with the word "Lithuanian" as a name referring to both historical Lithuania and the modern Republic of Lithuania) --Czalex 10:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Would you care to cite any sources for that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Leave/rewrite. Redirect to Ruthenian nobility would not be correct. Firstly, it would lead to necessity of splitting Ruthenian szlachta from Belarus and Ukraine, because we could hardly unite these two phenomenon under one definition (different, though close, cultures; existence in two different law systems of GDL and Poland; different aspirations in time of modern nationalisms). Secondly, identifying of Ruthianian and Belarusian szlachta would exclude the Belarusian families of Baltic origin. It would be extremely inappropriate taking into consideration the huge role of these non-converted Roman-Catholics in formation of modern Belarusian nation. --Rasa (BLR) (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting, but would you have any sources to support this analysis? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- LeaveMr Konieczny's argument can be easily defeated by consulting such well written sources as Davis Norman's Vanishing Kingdoms, Timothy Snyder's Reconstruction of Nations, Andrew Wilson's Belarus, the Last Dictatorship. It appears that Mr Konieczny's objections are highly politically motivated and go against the Wiki's ethics of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.150.4 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep personal attacks to yourself, and kindly cite pages from the books you list that support your arguments; direct quotations would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Leave.
- Association of the Belarusian Nobility (est. 1988): http://www.nobility.by/
- Belarusian Nobility DNA Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Belarusian_Nobility_DNA/default.aspx?section=yresults — W.V.-S. (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC).
- So? Two websites notability don't make, and the issue here is even not so much notability as lack of useful, verifiable and reliable content in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- O Związku Szlachty Polskiej (http://www.szlachta.org.pl/o-zwiazku-szlachty-polskiej.html) Współpraca: "Związek współpracuje z innymi tego typu organizacjami w kraju i za granicą, w szczególności takimi jak: … Związek Szlachty Białoruskiej" — W.V.-S. (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC).
- And this relates to this AfD how? An existence of an association dedicated to Martian weed does not make that concept notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: I am somewhat concerned about votes from mostly inactive editors; canvassing may be going on. I don't mind it much, alas, the arguments above seem very repetitive, and no discussion is developing. I hope we will remember that AfDs are not just votes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- I relisted in hope that some experienced regular contributors in this area will comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect This is one of the few times I use the "per nom" argument, but I can't put it any better than that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the article, it appears to me that Ruthenian nobility are Belarusian nobility, but not vice-versa. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- While that is probably true, the article cites no reliable sources to back this claim. In fact, the article cites no reliable sources on its subject. For that reason I think it must go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. While I am not an expert, Belarusians are a distinct nation with their distinct language, which is not Polish. I do not see any reason why their nobility (or szlachta) can not be described in a separate article. So, basically, I thought that White Russia and Ruthenia are definitely not the same. But once again, I am not an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you would only read my nomination, you'd see that I don't dispute the notability of this topic - only the fact that this article consists unsalvagable, confusing, and unreferenced mess. There are many notable subjects we don't have article about, but if somebody would just paste is a mess like this, they would not survive long. It's time to let this one go, and if someone would like to rewrite it into a proper article based on reliable sources, they have my blessing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your nomination comments above. However, Ruthenian nobility ≠ Belarussian nobility because Ruthenia≠Belorussia. After quick look at the current version, it does not look like real mess to me. My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, after this AfD is done I intend to remove all unreferenced claims per WP:V. Then I'll remove all off topic content. At that point I believe the article will have nothing but categories. This IS a mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fine. You obviously know this subject better than me... My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Does it mean you are going to change your vote? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fine. You obviously know this subject better than me... My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, after this AfD is done I intend to remove all unreferenced claims per WP:V. Then I'll remove all off topic content. At that point I believe the article will have nothing but categories. This IS a mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your nomination comments above. However, Ruthenian nobility ≠ Belarussian nobility because Ruthenia≠Belorussia. After quick look at the current version, it does not look like real mess to me. My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect per nomination. GiW (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi GiW, I know you edit Belorussian topics - I'd appreciate if you'd expand on why you agree with me (as for now we have had very little meaningful discussion here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am a little late. It is therefore no longer making sense to develop the discussion :) GiW (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi GiW, I know you edit Belorussian topics - I'd appreciate if you'd expand on why you agree with me (as for now we have had very little meaningful discussion here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
