Talk:Fuzuli (poet)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFuzuli (poet) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 13, 2023.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 29, 2023Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
September 5, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 20, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 16th-century poet Fuzuli wrote a poetic letter titled "Complaint" after Ottoman officials cut his stipend?
Current status: Featured article

Re: Arabic text[edit]

I have added the Arabic script for names, terms, titles, etc. However, I am not at all well-versed in the script, so there may be mistakes. If anyone familiar with Arabic script (in its Arabic, Persian, and/or Ottoman manifestations) could check and correct any mistakes that may have surfaced, it would be greatly appreciated. —Saposcat 11:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Divan tradition of Azerbaijani literature??! Azerbaijani Turkic?? Any rigid reasoning why it's Azerbaijani not Turkoman? These are lame psuedo terms. He was one of "the great 7 poets" of the alavis/shias, he was praised by shias. Considering he lived 500 years ago before Stalinism, his language was Turkish conversible among the Turkic world, or call it Turki with the most common name at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.52.189 (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Should be nominated. nesimi 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't really know what it should be nominated for just yet, since in its current state it's neither up to good article or featured article status. Things that are currently lacking, for instance:
  • the "Work" section currently there needs a lot more, specifically it should be mentioned that the mystical interpretation provided is only one way of looking at Fuzûlî's work, and a very limited one at that
  • it needs to be established that the "Work" section is not original research; I don't think it is, since the interpretations provided can—I think—be seen to apply very generally across much of Persian, Ottoman, and Urdu poetry; however, this would need verification and support
  • much more mention of many more of Fuzûlî's works should be made, and a discussion of their (and his) significance provided
In any case, I think the article is at least off to a good start, and I'm hoping to devote more time to it once I have delved deeper into Fuzûlî's œuvre (right now, I'm deep into Neşâtî, a fantastic Ottoman poet who doesn't even have a page yet, sadly); until then, any help that you or anyone else (perhaps the folks over at WikiProject Azeri?) could provide would be greatly appreciated. —Saposcat 14:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll see what I can do and I’ll spread the word with people at Wikiproject Azeri. And I think it would be just great if this article could be brought up to the standard of a featured article. May I also suggest you have a look at the article about another great Azeri poet Nasimi? I think Abdulnr made a good start on that one, but it needs work to be up to the standard the poet deserves. Grandmaster 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again it is a superb article, at least amongs ones futuring Azeri personalities. Appreciate your invaluable attentioon on Nasimi, which I currently working on. abdulnr 21:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the Nasimi article when I get the chance, though I'll have to bone up on his work some before I dare add anything (I've only glanced at a few of his poems so far). Until then, I can do some copyediting and the like. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —Saposcat 04:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think right now the article is good enough to be nominated to a good article. It meets all the criteria. Grandmaster 07:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems to me to lack the "it is broad in its coverage" criterion, insofar as the "Works" section is still terribly thin and needs fleshing out with other perspectives and more explanation. —Saposcat 08:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the works section indeed needs some expansion, but even without it it meets the criteria. This article could even be made into a featured article in future. But anyway, as usual, I trust your judgment. I’ll try to collect more material to work on it. Grandmaster 09:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newly Added[edit]

Hi, I read this on "Britannica" thought it was interesting and as it's ofcourse Britannica its historically and factual and referenced by the top scholors.


Fuzuli Turkish poet and the most outstanding figure in the classical school of Turkish literature, born 1495, died 1556, both in Karbala. Resided in Baghdad most of his life. Fuzuli composed poetry with equal facility and elegance in Turkish, Persian and Arabic. Although his Turkish works are written in Azeri dialect, he had a thorough knowledge of both Ottoman and Chagatai Turkish literary traditions.

The works for which he is famous include his melodic and sensitive rendition of the classic Leyla and Mecnun. This celebrated allegorical romance depicts the attraction of the Mecnun (the human spirit) for Leyla (divine beauty). Fuzuli is the author of two divans (collection of poems), one in Azerbaijani Turkish, and the other in Persian. These anthologies contain examples of his most lyrical poetry, many concerned with mystical love and others lamenting the ephemeral nature of this world. His poetic expressions, characterized by sincerity, passion, and a pervading strain of melancholy, transcended the highly formalized classical Islamic literary esthetic. Fuzuli’s works influenced many poets up to the 19th century.

Reference: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. IV, p.367, 1980 edition.

johnstevens5

Monument[edit]

File:Fuzuli monument 2.jpg
Fuzûlî statue

I have another picture of the monument in Baku, featuring only the top part in more detail, but I’m not sure about it’s inclusion in the article, since we already have the picture of the whole monument. It could be redundant. What do you think? Grandmaster 06:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opium or hashish?[edit]

I don't know any Arabic, but running down the poem for another article I encountered several references to "Benk u bode" as meaning "hashish and wine", not "opium and wine". Please check this. Mike Serfas 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about it not being opium; it's not quite hashish, either, I believe, but rather more akin to bhang. Still, "hashish"—if only for familiarity's sake, would probably be better (the poem hasn't been translated to English yet, as far as I know). I'll make the appropriate changes. Cheers. —Saposcat 18:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzuli[edit]

An parlant de poesie de Fuzuli, il faut aussi citer ces bien connu vers de Fuzuli dans la Poesie de l!Eaue (Su Kasidesi)

Dest busi arzusuyla olursem dostlar Kuze eylen topragim sun aninla yare su

si je mouris avant de baiser de son cou heu amis Faite un pot de mes sol ou je gis et donnez en leaue a ma bien aimee

A ce vers, poet parle de l!eau et a son lire on entand le son (es) comme le son de leau qui coulue, a chaque slable a peu pres; ce qui montre sa mairise sur la languae turque —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.111.131 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzuli[edit]

An parlant de poesie de Fuzuli, il faut aussi citer ces bien connu vers de Fuzuli dans la Poesie de l!Eaue (Su Kasidesi)

Dest busi arzusuyla olursem dostlar Kuze eylen topragim sun aninla yare su

si je mouris avant de baiser de son cou heu amis Faite un pot de mes sol ou je gis et donnez en leaue a ma bien aimee

A ce vers, poet parle de l!eau et a son lire on entand le son (es) comme le son de leau qui coulue, a chaque slable a peu pres; ce qui montre sa mairise sur la languae turque

KEMAL ERDEMLI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.111.131 (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri ?[edit]

turkishculture.org isn't identifying reliable sources. Because the source of this link is aznet.org. And this link abuses Neutral point of view. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Iranica is concerened with Azerbaijani language and not with Fuzûlî's ethnicity. Takabeg (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Iranica's article is concerned with Azerbaijani literature and not with Fuzûlî's ethnicity. Takabeg (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica is a reliable third party published source. It says that Fuzuli was an Azeri poet. This information is verifiable, it cannot be removed. All the sources agree that he wrote in Azerbaijani language. Grandmaster 21:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching ethnicity in Islam World of 16th century is extremely difficult. People defined themselves as Moslem. The only reliable method was language and Fuzuli was unquestionably Turk. However subclassification (Azeri, Turkmen, Ottoman etc.) was not well established. So as a second method to define the ethnicity the geographical location should be taken into consideration. Fuzuli lived in what is now modern Iraq; neither Azerbaijan, nor in Turkey. During the early years of his life Iraq was parts of Akkoyunlu or Safavid dynasties and the later years it was a part of Ottoman dynasty. In fact he was granted a pension by the Ottoman sultan. Under these cicumstances he can be considered equally Turk and Azeri. (Anyway, Azeri and Turkish are mutually intelligble.) Any reliable third party source ? Yes, the very first sentence in the article Fuzuli in Encyclopaedia Britannica expo 70 vol 9 p 1062 is Fuzuli: ( d.1556) Turkish poet,is the outstanding figure in the classical schoolof Turkish Literature... Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you 100%, old Ottoman Turkish was about identical to it, and several sources arve available for sherry pickers by simply typing on google book. Ionidasz (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Britannica Fuzuli wrote in Azerbaijani Turkish. So he is an Azeri poet by language, and Ottoman by citizenship. At the time when Fuzuli lived Iraq was a part first Sefevid, and later the Ottoman empires. Iranica is a reliable third party source, and it says that Fuzuli was an Azeri poet. Of course, the heritage of Fuzuli belongs to both Turkish and Azerbaijani culture, and the entire Turkic world, but in terms of the language Fuzuli was an Azeri poet, according to sources. Ionidasz, you cannot remove source info because you do not like it or disagree with it. It is not acceptable. Grandmaster 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's sherry picking at its best! you just have to check google book to see that many sources call it plain Turkish, in those years the old Ottoman Turkish was used and was basically the same. Also, Iranica and Britanica are tertiary sources and are unwelcome, which encyclopedia use other encyclopedia's as source? Ionidasz (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually read the sources you quote? Your own source that you included in the article says:
His works are Iranian in form and character, with a mixture of Azerbaijani-Turkish dialect.
So Fuzuli wrote in Azerbaijani language, all the sources agree on that. What is the point in your edit warring? Do you deny that Fuzuli wrote in Azerbaijani Turkic language? And did you actually read Fuzuli's poetry? You are edit warring about things you don't seem to even know. And your edit warring across multiple articles is no good. Discuss and reach consensus first. You can't just remove sourced info. And rules do not prohibit using tertiary sources either. Grandmaster 06:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems now that the main question is the language of Fuzuli. Was it Ottoman Turkish or Azeri Turkish ? To answer that we should know the differences between the two. I am not pretending to be a literary critic. But I don't see any. In the 16th century the the Ottoman folk language and Azeri were identical. So I think that this discussion is quite fruitless and we should concentrate our energy to be more productive. Lets give credit to Turkish and Azeri at the same time. After all he is a common celebrity to both people.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuzuli monument.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Fuzuli monument.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Fuzuli monument.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

programming language[edit]

there is a new programming language created and named after him http://www.fuzuliproject.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.222.184.42 (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuzûlî. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuzûlî. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Statue of Muhammad Fuzuli, where a merge to this article has been proposed (and leave your opinions there, not here). —David Eppstein (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Füzuli (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is he an Azerbaijani?[edit]

The Azerbaijani identity was created by the Soviet Russians in the late 1930s. He was born almost 500 years before that. Fuzuli was born in modern-day Iraq and spent most of his time there. Muslims at that time didn't particularly care about ethnicity that much, especially when they knew several languages.

So how can he be an Azerbaijani? This is utter nonsense and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickofthisbs (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzuli is known for poetry not for ethnicity[edit]

Per Golden comment.."ethnicity should be included when it's relevant to the subject's notability".

Actually, Fuzuli could not have been known for being Azerbaijani, during his lifetime, since such distinctions did not exist during that time period. Simply because certain sources have called him Azerbaijani does not mean his notability was due to his ethnicity.

Of the three sources used for "Azerbaijani", the third one(Shushtery) is unviewable(fails WP:V). The first says Azerbaijani, the second source(H. Javadi and K. Burill), actually calls him "Turkish".

Per other sources, Fuzuli's tribe, not Azerbaijani is used;

References

  • "FOŻŪLĪ, MOḤAMMAD". Encyclopaedia Iranica. FOŻŪLĪ, MOḤAMMAD, b. Solaymān (ca. 885-936/1480-1556), widely regarded as the greatest lyric poet in Azerbayjani Turkish, who also wrote extensively in Arabic and Persian. He adopted the pen name (taḵallosá) of Fożūlī (presumptuous) in order to be "unique," as he reveals in the preface to his Persian dīvān (Karahan, in EI2 II, p. 937; Bombaci, 1970, p. 13). Fożūlī had his roots in the Bayāt tribe, one of the Oḡuz (Turkman) tribes settled in Iraq..
  • Sümer, Faruk (2013). The Book of Dede Korkut: A Turkish Epic. p. 180. The tribe is also famous for the number of intellectuals and poets that it produced. Fuzuli, the greatest of the classical Turkish poets, was of Bayat origin..
  • Sengupta, Anita; Rakhimov, Mirzokhid (2015). Insights and Commentaries: South and Central Asia. Muhamad ibn Suleyman, used the pen-name of Fuzuli (1498, Hilleh -Karbala, Iraq–1556). His father belonged to the Bayat tribe and had settled in Baghdad, where Fuzuli spent most of his life and studied Persian and Arabic...
  • Mansouri, Fethi. Interculturalism at the crossroads: comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practices. UNESCO. p. 214. Meanwhile, the Gard Ndz, a sub-tribe of the Bayat tribe, claims that FuzūII belonged to them (Al-Bayati, 1973, p. 8; Bayat, 2009, p. 9; Ughlu in Fuzuli, 1994, pp. 7-8).
  • Kia, Mehrdad (2017). The Ottoman Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia. p. 178. Fuzuli's family traced its roots to the Bayat, a Turkoman tribe that had settled in Iraq sometime before his birth.


Even the travel guide!:

  • Kadioglu, Muhsin; Azizali, ‎Besire (2018). Baku Travel Guide: Baku Travel Guide. p. 260. Fizuli (1494-1556) was from Bayat tribe of Oghuz Turks. His real name was Muhammad bin Suleyman.


Shaw, Somel, Havlioglu, and Yalçinkaya call him an Ottoman poet!

  • Shaw, Stanford J.; Shaw, Ezel Kural. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol. 1. p. 334. classical Ottoman poet
  • Somel, Selcuk Aksin (2003). Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire. p. 94. FUZULI (14807—1556). Poet and scholar. ... Though he was a Shii religious scholar, Fuzuli preferred to write poems in Turkish, Arabic, or Persian..[..]. Fuzuli is regarded as one of the greatest Ottoman lyric poets.
  • Havlioglu, Didem (2017). Mihrî Hatun: Performance, Gender-Bending, and Subversion in Ottoman Intellectual History. p. 64. Take, for example, the difference between Bâkî and Fuzûlî, the two most celebrated Ottoman poets of the classical age.
  • Yalçinkaya, M. Alper (2015). Learned Patriots: Debating Science, State, and Society in the Nineteenth-Cetury Ottoman Empire. p. 113. Strikingly, Ziya Pasha's recommendations appear less comprehensive than the way Fuzuli, a celebrated sixteenth-century Ottoman poet, had discussed his path to good poetry..


Clearly Fuzuli's ethnicity is not what made him notable, his poetry was what made him notable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with user:Kansas Bear. This is what the latest (i.e. third) edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam states:[1]

Fuzuli (Fuḍūlī, 888–963/1483–1556) was the pen name of Mehmed b. Süleyman (Meḥmed b. Süleymān), an illustrious lyric poet and author of Azeri literature, with as revered a place in Ottoman literature. (...) Fuzuli is renowned for his Turkish works written in literary Azeri, especially for his gazels (ghazels), his mesnevi Leyla ve Mecnun (Leylī vü Mecnūn, “Leyla and Mejnun”), and his maktel (maqtel) Ḥadīqat es-suʿadā (“Garden of the blessed”). When the words “Leyla” and “Mejnun” are mentioned, the first name that comes to mind in the Turkish context is Fuzuli.

Focus, in the lede, on his relationship to Azerbaijani and Turkic literature and use "Ottoman" as WP:NPOV and WP:VER. Then explain in the body of the article that he was a Bayat Turkoman. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzuli is obviously not notable for his ethnicity alone, especially not during his lifetime. I never implied this.
Being a member of the Bayat tribe or an Ottoman does not preclude him from being Azerbaijani. There are, in fact, reliable sources that clarify this:
  • Abbas, Hassan (2021). The Prophet's Heir: The Life of Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Yale University Press. p. 10. Fuzuli, an Azerbaijani hailing from a Turkic Oghuz tribe Bayat, was a poet and an intellectual.
  • Savory, Roger (1976). Introduction to Islamic Civilization | Middle East history. Cambridge University Press. p. 82. Fuzuli (d. 1556) was not in fact a typical Ottoman. He was born into an Azerbaijani family in Iraq, where he seems to have spent his entire life.


Here are additional reliable sources that confirm Fuzuli's Azeri origin:
  • Doerfer, Gerhard (1988). "AZERBAIJAN viii. Azeri Turkish". Encyclopaedia Iranica. pp. 245–248. Other important Azeri authors were Shah Esmāʿīl Ṣafawī "Ḵatāʾī" (1487-1524), and Fożūlī (about 1494-1556), an outstanding Azeri poet.
  • Norris, H.T. (2011). Popular Sufism in Eastern Europe: Sufi Brotherhoods and the Dialogue with Christianity and 'Heterodoxy'. Routledge. p. 38. As is pointed out by Robert Elsie, 8 each of the ten nights, in Muharram, is 'dedicated to one of the Shi'ite imams, and extracts are recited from the 'Hadiqatu's-su'ada' (shuhada) (the garden of the blessed/mar- tyrs) by the great Azeri poet, Fuzuli (1494/1498?–1556)'.
  • Green, Nile (2019). The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca (1 ed.). University of California Press. p. 30. As with multilingual poets such as the Azerbaijani Muhammad bin Sulayman, called Fuzuli (1494–1556)...
  • Sultan-Qurraie, Hadi (2003). Modern Azeri Literature: Identity, Gender and Politics in the Poetry of Moj́uz. Indiana University Turkish Studies. p. 3. Fuzuli of Baghdad, also called Suleyman Oghlu, was one of the most gifted Azeri poets of this period.
  • Sahni, Kalpana (2010). Multi-stories: Cross-cultural Encounters. Routledge. p. 72. Fizuli, the 16th century Azeri poet...


Based on the above, I propose moving information about Fuzuli's ethnic origin to the Life section with the following text:
The majority of reliable sources introduce Fuzuli as a poet of Azerbaijani literature and depict his works in Azerbaijani as what made him famous, so he should be introduced as such in the article's lead. Thus, I propose changing the lead to:
  • "Mahammad bin Suleyman (Classical Azerbaijani: محمد سليمان اوغلی Məhəmməd Süleyman oğlu), better known by his pen name Fuzuli (Azerbaijani: فضولی Füzuli), was a 16th century poet, writer and thinker, who wrote mostly in his native Azerbaijani, as well as Arabic and Persian languages. Often considered one of the greatest contributors to the divan tradition of Azerbaijani literature, Fuzuli wrote his collected poems (divan) in all three languages. He was well-versed in both the Ottoman and Chagatai Turkic literary traditions as well as mathematics and astronomy."


Here are some examples of reliable sources introducing him as a poet of Azerbaijani literature/language:
  • The above Encyclopaedia of Islam source cited by LouisAragon: "Fuzuli (Fuḍūlī, 888–963/1483–1556) was the pen name of Mehmed b. Süleyman (Meḥmed b. Süleymān), an illustrious lyric poet and author of Azeri literature, with as revered a place in Ottoman literature. (...) Fuzuli is renowned for his Turkish works written in literary Azeri, especially for his gazels (ghazels), his mesnevi Leyla ve Mecnun (Leylī vü Mecnūn, “Leyla and Mejnun”), and his maktel (maqtel) Ḥadīqat es-suʿadā (“Garden of the blessed”). When the words “Leyla” and “Mejnun” are mentioned, the first name that comes to mind in the Turkish context is Fuzuli."
  • "FOŻŪLĪ, MOḤAMMAD". Encyclopaedia Iranica. 2000. pp. 121–122. FOŻŪLĪ, MOḤAMMAD, b. Solaymān (ca. 885-936/1480-1556), widely regarded as the greatest lyric poet in Azerbayjani Turkish, who also wrote extensively in Arabic and Persian.
— Golden call me maybe? 17:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear his notability came from his poetry, not his ethnicity. The my listing of sources proves that, to the point to where he should be called an "Ottoman poet".
As for "Fuzuli was a 16th century poet, writer and thinker, who wrote mostly in his native Azerbaijani, as well as Arabic and Persian languages. Often considered one of the greatest contributors to the divan tradition of Azerbaijani literature, Fuzuli wrote his collected poems (divan) in all three languages."
  • Add to the body of the article this reference, Reflections on Knowledge and Language in Middle Eastern Societies, edited by Yonatan Mendel, Bruno De Nicola, Husain Qutbuddin, page 293. Which will ensure we avoid WP:OR concerning the "native Azerbaijani" part.
  • Also, Fuzuli actually wrote more in Persian than Azerbaijani(Mansouri, page 214). Azerbaijani;44+305+13+44+84(490) Persian;49+410+3+46+106(614). And no, I do not think it is relevant to mention he wrote more in Persian than the other two languages.
  • Remove, "Often", since he is considered one of the greatest contributors to the divan tradition of Azerbaijani literature.
  • Remove "mostly", per Mansouri, page 214.
My suggestion for the lead;
  • "Fuzuli was a 16th century Ottoman poet, writer and thinker, who wrote in his native Azerbaijani, as well as Arabic and Persian languages. Considered one of the greatest contributors to the divan tradition of Azerbaijani literature, Fuzuli wrote his collected poems (divan) in all three languages."
Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that he was also an Ottoman poet, however, we have nearly 15 reliable sources here who all introduce Fuzuli differently. From the sources used in this discussion alone, only five introduce him as an Ottoman poet (Shaw, Somel, Havlioglu, Yalçinkaya and Savory), while seven introduce him as Azerbaijani or a poet of Azerbaijani literature (Doerfer, Norris, Green, Sultan-Qurraie, Sahni, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica (2000)). The best option here would be to avoid categorising him in the first sentence of the lead and instead indicate this later in the lead or in the article body.
We could add something like this at the end of the lead:
I agree with the rest of your suggestions. — Golden call me maybe? 21:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The best option here would be to avoid categorising him in the first sentence of the lead and instead indicate this later in the lead or in the article body."
As long as we do not have to deal with pro-Ottoman POV pushers later(*Ugh*) or someone finding out Fuzuli wrote more poems in Persian and feels that should be in the lead(*double Ugh*). I have been here over 15 yrs and have seen nearly everything.
As long as we have sources in the article that support this.
So we have agreed to;
  • "Fuzuli was a 16th century poet, writer and thinker, who wrote in his native Azerbaijani, as well as Arabic and Persian languages. Considered one of the greatest contributors to the divan tradition of Azerbaijani literature, Fuzuli wrote his collected poems (divan) in all three languages."
Yes? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the lead, with the "Ottoman lyrical poet" sentence added at the end. Was my suggestion in my initial comment about clarifying his origins in the Life section with appropriate sourcing agreed upon as well? — Golden call me maybe? 21:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you meant expanding on the last sentence in the lead.
  • "Was my suggestion in my initial comment about clarifying his origins in the Life section with appropriate sourcing agreed upon as well?"
If it has references, yes. You might want to paraphrase to avoid any copy & pasting issues(plagiarism).--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant, yes. Just wanted to make sure as it wasn't included in your quote.
Great, I'll make the changes then. Cheers. — Golden call me maybe? 22:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fuzuli (poet)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can have a look at this one in the next few days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Initial comments below. Mostly advisory, to some extent or another, though I do have more substantial concerns about close paraphrasing, particularly of Macit.
    • Almost all sorted. Two Three image problems: the coin almost certainly can't be used, and I've asked another editor's advice on the BL image. I'll give the article a final check in the morning to make sure I've not missed anything, then we'll be good to go pending a resolution on the two pictures. Nice job so far in polishing the article up, and thank you for being so responsive to my suggestions. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem! And thanks for being an awesome reviewer. This has been the best GA review experience I've had, all thanks to your detailed suggestions. — Golden call me maybe? 07:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, we're nearly there. Images all check out. A few more bits below that have stuck out on second reading: some of these are probably things I missed first time around, and others may have crept in during recent improvements. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Passing the article – we're definitely over the line, and it's made massive improvements over this period. A few suggestions still below, but nothing that's worth holding the nomination over. Congratulations: a lovely piece of work and a great article to have on the site. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Resolved matters

Resolved matters[edit]

General[edit]

  • Page numbers aren't strictly required in reference footnotes, but it's much better for WP:VERIFIABILITY to include them, particularly when the source is a book rather than a short article or a webpage.
    • I have included page numbers for most book sources. The only exceptions are Iranica and Karahan because I used their web versions and do not know the specific page numbers for the information.
  • Iranica 2000 reads as if "Iranica" is the surname of the author: suggest either "Encyclopaedia Iranica" or "Yarshatar ed.", if the article author's name cannot be found.
    • Changed to "Encyclopaedia Iranica".

Lead[edit]

  • We have both He is regarded as one of the greatest poets of Turkic literature and a prominent figure in both Azerbaijani and Ottoman literature. and He had a major influence on Azerbaijani and Ottoman literature and is considered one of the most renowned poets in the Turkic literary world within a fairly short lead. I'm fully on board with including this judgement, but including it twice seems a little repetitive.
    • Removed the latter.
  • his desire to join a prince's court: what does the word prince mean in this context? I don't know enough about the period to be overly sure, but it can have a number of meanings in English: is there a more precise term ("ruler" or "royal"?) that would reduce ambiguity? I'm not sure the old fashioned use of "prince" to mean "sovereign" works in contemporary English.
    • Iranica refers to Şehzade Bayezid when using "prince". "Şehzade" in Turkish usually refers to the ruler's sons. So, "royal" works.
  • died from a plague outbreak: nitpick, but he either died from the plague, or died following its outbreak.
    • Changed to "died from the plague".
  • The article linked from convent is explicitly Christian. Is that the right word to use in this context?
    • The Muslim equivalent of a convent seems to be a Khanqah. But, since the source uses the word "convent", I don't feel comfortable changing it. So, I've only updated the wikilink.
      • Unless the word Khanqah is so reliably translated as "convent" that we can reasonably interchange the two, you've probably got the best solution here. If it is, I'd sub in the Arabic. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. Could you please clarify what you mean by "sub in the Arabic"? — Golden call me maybe?
          • Sorry: I mean "use the (Latinised) Arabic term Khanqah instead of convent, if and only if it's almost unquestionable that the writer had the term Khanqah in mind when writing convent." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I doubt he did. — Golden call me maybe?
              • In that case, you've done all you can. 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Could it be clarified how someone who wrote in Azerbaijani, Persian and Arabic is generally considered a "Turkic" poet?
    • Are you asking if I should explain that Azerbaijani is a Turkic language or why Fuzuli is considered primarily a Turkic poet rather than a Persian or Arabic poet? If it's the latter, it's because he is best known for his works in Azerbaijani. I can clarify this in the lead by adding "Best known for his works in Azerbaijani," before he is regarded as. Would that work?
      • That would help. I'd also suggest changing the WL on "Turkic" to encompass Turkic literature. On another point: we've got the adjectives Azerbaijani and Azeri at different points in the article: is there a difference between them? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggesting linking to a disambiguation page? Is that allowed by the MOS? Also, "Azerbaijani" and "Azeri" refer to the same thing; one is just a shorter version of the other. — Golden call me maybe?
          • I don't know of anything in the MOS against it: Turkic literature isn't really a disambiguation page, only a placeholder for an article that hasn't yet been written (that is, it's a perfectly good topic in its own right, and all the pages it 'disambiguates' are subsets of Turkic literature). Would suggest sticking to one or the other with Azerbaijani or Azeri, in that case, or at least establishing a consistent usage (e.g. Azerbaijani language but Azeri people, if you feel that is appropriate and reflected in HQRS). All very advisory, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:FURTHERDAB says With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. I couldnət find anything similar to our case in their list of allowed cases, so I still donət feel comfortable linking to a disambiguation page in the lead. There is only one mention of 'Azeri' in the article, and it's in a quote from Berengian. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to change that. — Golden call me maybe?
              • To me, this is one of those few exceptions, but I'm happy to leave it to your taste. I wouldn't change in the quotation, but you could add [Azerbaijani] as a gloss after Azeri. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving Karbala twice as "Ottoman Empire" and "Iraq" creates ambiguity as to whether these are the same city. Probably the simplest way to resolve this would be to simply cut "Iraq" from the second mention; otherwise, you could use a footnote to explain that the city of Karbala became part of Iraq during the Partition of the Ottoman Empire.
  • While not strictly required for a GA pass, I would strongly suggest adding alt text to images to allow them to be accessed by people using screen readers.

Biography[edit]

  • Note C: Fuzuli's religious sect is a subject of scholarly debate, but it is probable that he was a Shia Muslim: given that this is a matter for debate, "it is probable" is probably too contentious to put into Wikipedia's voice. Do we have a secondary source saying e.g. "most scholars consider..."? If not, we could use a particular scholar's view: "The Encyclopaedia Iranica considers it probable...}}. More generally, if it's only probable that he was Shia, we shouldn't state it as a straightforward fact in body text: "probably" would help.
    • The Iranica source describes Fuzuli as "a devout Twelver Shiʿite". Terzioğlu refers to Fuzuli's "probable Twelver Shi'i sentiments" and expands upon this by stating that "Whether Fuzulî was a Sunni, Shi'i or without an identifiable madhhab has been a topic of scholarly controversy." I added "probably" to address the uncertainty.
  • Although some contemporary sources refer to him as 'Fuzuli of Baghdad', suggesting he was born in Baghdad or its surroundings, other sources cite places such as Najaf, Hilla, or Karbala as his birthplace. As a child, Fuzuli received a good education and studied literature, mathematics, astronomy and languages. Aside from his native Azerbaijani, he also learned Persian and Arabic at an early age: three sentences bundle-cited to two sources: advisory, but could it be made clearer which part of this come from which source? Is it all mentioned in both?
    • Nope, I forgot to list the sources for the first two sentences. I've added them now.
  • with the rule of the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty: over where, exactly? The political/geographic context could be clearer here, particularly as to which "country" we're in.
    • Added "over Iraq" at the end of the sentence.
  • when Safavid Shah Ismail: this is a false title: suggest "when Shah Ismail of the Persian Safavid dynasty" or similar.
    • Changed to "Shah Ismail I of the Iranian Safavid dynasty".
  • Briefly introduce who Suleiman I was.
    • Added "Sultan Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire".
  • He presented the Sultan: per MOS:PEOPLETITLE, sultan should be lowercase unless in apposition with someone's name (e.g. Sultan Mehmed was the sultan.)
    • Fixed.
  • from the excess of Shia sanctuary donations: are these donations to or from Shia sanctuaries?
    • To. Made the change.
  • when administrators withheld stipend claiming that there was no excess: "withheld the stipend", surely?
    • Fixed.
  • In 1556, Fuzuli died from a plague outbreak: see similar comment in lead.
    • Fixed.
  • It's probably worth clarifying that all of the traditions place him vaguely near Baghdad, or at least in the Euphrates area: see the point immediately below.
    • Added "nearby cities" before listing Najaf, Hilla, or Karbala to address your point.
  • Among the reasons for this loss of hope were the political and theological instability of his age that profoundly influenced him: I'm not clear what "that profoundly influenced him" means in this context, or precisely what this is saying influenced him.
    • Changed to "greatly affected".
      • It's still not clear: I think the problem is the run-on sentence (what exactly is the antecedent of that?) Suggest something like In the letter, Fuzuli declared that he had abandoned all hope, explaining that he had been greatly affected by the political and theological instability of his age, particularly if he doesn't raise any other important reasons. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a stipend of nine akçes a day: could we have some indication of how much money that was? We don't necessarily need a dollar amount, but it would be helpful to have a frame of reference as to whether this gave him a lavish lifestyle or just barely kept him from starvation.
    • The only information I could find about the value of the akçe is this TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi source. According to it, in 1547, one Venetian ducat was equivalent to 60 akçes. Would including this in the article be useful? I'm not sure if people would know the value of a ducat either.
      • Yes, I think you're right: there's little point in explaining the obscure with the obscure. this Reddit thread (citing a book by John Julius Norwich) suggests that 60 ducats (so 540 akçes) in the 17th century was a reasonable amount to support a soldier for a year; that's about a sixth of what Fuzuli was getting. Not perfect, but perhaps enough (particularly if you can follow up that ref.) to add an adjective like "a relatively comfortable stipend"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wouldn’t that fall under WP:OR? I did find the book, but there is no mention of akçes. I'm not sure if it'd appropriate to draw our own conclusions from our own (or Reddit's) calculations. — Golden call me maybe?
          • If you can find the conversion rate between ducats and akçes for the same period mentioned in a secondary source, it would be a routine calculation to convert between the two, and therefore to use what a source says about ducats to draw conclusions about akçes. I'd be surprised if there's no way to use a secondary source to give some indication of how much money we're talking about here (even in the broad-brush terms between "a huge fortune" and "a tiny pittance"), but we're talking at a level above the GA standards. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably, there's little doubt that Fuzuli was a Muslim of some description? The current footnote c implies that his religion is almost totally uncertain. I'd suggest saying Whether Fuzuli was a Sunni or a Shia Muslim [or any other options mentioned in sources] is a matter of scholarly debate...
  • after Mawsillu was murdered by his nephew in 1527: Mawsillu's nephew or Fuzuli's? If the former, suggest his own nephew.
  • Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi could be linked by ill to the Turkish page Celâlzâde Mustafa Çelebi.
  • a patron to his heart's content: this idiom doesn't quite work here: suggest a patron who satisfied his needs.

Poetry[edit]

  • the well-known Middle Eastern love story of Layla and Majnun: "well-known" is possibly WP:PUFFERY.
    • Removed.
  • No need to italicise panegyric; it's a naturalised English word (see MOS:ITALICS).
    • Fixed.
  • According to literary researcher Muhsin Macit: this is good from a WP:NPOV perspective, but we have another false title: "the literary researcher" fixes that.
    • Done.
  • Fuzuli has also authored several works in Persian: for authors who aren't currently alive, use the past tense: "Fuzuli authored..."
    • Fixed.
  • 'Garden of the blessed': when translated into English, titles of poems should be in title case and italicised: Garden of the Blessed.
    • Fixed.
  • demonstrates his proficiency in Persian equal to that of any classical Iranian poet: this is definitely on the wrong side of WP:NPOV unless framed as a particular source's judgement.
    • Attributed to Abdülkadir Karahan.
  • poets like Hafez and Jami: who were they? As with other points in this article, people should generally be introduced in a few words on first mention.
    • I'm not sure what else I can say about them without including unnecessary information. I added the word "Persian" before "poet" to clarify the connection with Fuzuli's Persian works.
  • (lit. 'Seven goblets'; also called Sāqī-nāma: what does Sāqī-nāma mean?
    • Added literal translation.
  • lit. 'Health and sickness'; also called Ḥosn o ʿEšq: as above.
    • Done.
  • which is inspired by Fattahi Nishapuri's Ḥosn o Del: introduce (and translate) the poet and the poem.
    • Done.
  • Fuzuli's knowledge of old science and medicine.: "old" is a pretty expansive term: can it be clarified as to exactly what sort of science and medicine are being talked about here?
    • The source seems to be referring to the medicine of Fuzuli's time, so I've removed "old".
  • Additionally, he wrote Resâla-ye moʿammīyāt, a work consisting of 190 riddle poems, and Anīs al-qalb, a 134-couplet long qasida written for Sultan Suleiman: as we've translated the titles of works throughout, we should do so here.
    • Done.
  • the Islamic prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali: it's strange not to introduce Ali, particularly as we've considered that Muhammad needs introducing (which, to be clear, is the right approach!).
    • Done.
  • The work is often considered the pinnacle of Turkic masnavi style poetry as Fuzuli elevates a personal love story to a level of spiritual longing and otherworldly aspiration: definitely skirting close to the WP:NPOV line here.
    • Attributed to Iranica.
      • This now needs to be clearer - really, through using quotation marks - on what's the EI's opinion and what's being presented in Wikipedia's voice. In particular, it's not clear who's responsible for the judgement that Fuzuli elevates a personal love story to a level of spiritual longing and otherworldly aspiration
  • His poetry is distinguished by its fusion of the spiritual and sensual, its authentic expression of conventional themes, and its powerful portrayal of love, empathy, and perseverance: it's borderline, but this might be a little too subjective to phrase in the encyclopaedia's voice: something like "has been considered...", "has been praised for...", "has been characterised by..." would help.
    • Made changes to address this.
      • Thanks: looking again the descriptions are still a little flowery for an encyclopaedic tone, and WP:TONE is important to the GA criteria. Given that the whole sentence is walking a fine line for WP:CLOP anyway (it's the equivalent sentence in Encyclopaedia Iranica with each term replaced with a synonym), it would be better to use a real quotation and attribute it: The Encyclopaedia Iranica has characterised the key features of his work as "the way in which he integrates the mystic and the erotic.. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Turned it into a quote. However, the source uses the outdated term "Turkish" to refer to "Turkic". Same with other Iranica quotes. Should I still use that term or can I adjust it to fix it? — Golden call me maybe?
          • This would be a good opportunity for square brackets - e.g. "Fuzuli was a great Turk[ic] poet" - perhaps with an explanatory footnote on the first occasion, if you think it helpful to clarify why you've made the edition. MOS:QUOTE allows you to lightly edit quotations as long as there's a good reason to do so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, this section is walking a fine line with WP:NPOV: it's obviously written with a lot of love for Fuzuli's work, but any aesthetic or quality judgements need to be reported as judgements that secondary sources have made, not as straightforward facts.
  • Two untranslated titles: Rawżat al-šohadāʾ and Beng ü bāde. The latter appears earlier in the article, but is then reintroduced here as if we've never heard of it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added translation for Rawżat al-šohadāʾ. Beng ü bāde is already translated in the History section, should I translate it again? — Golden call me maybe?
      • Optional: my personal preference (from having another user point out that it's generally followed in FAs) is to refer generally to works by their English titles (unless the original-language title is usual in English, like the Almagest), to bracket the original on first use and then not to use it again. Monolingual English-speaking readers may not immediately register that it's the same title (because they don't parse the words as words), but there's good arguments on both sides. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of these works are quite obscure. I couldn't find proper English translations for some of them and had to use their literal meanings. So, I don't feel comfortable referring to them by their non-established English names. — Golden call me maybe?
          • Fair enough: there's no conflict here with the GA standards, and you've arrived at an eminently sensible and consistent position. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A key characteristic of Fuzuli's poetry is its ability to unite and connect diverse ideas, cultures, and traditions: way over the NPOV line, unfortunately. Needs to be phrased (and attributed) as someone's opinion.
    • Removed it since it's basically the same thing as the inclusive legacy line from the section below. — Golden call me maybe?
  • Of his works, only fifteen remain extant: the word only here reads as editorialising: do we know how many works he wrote in total? Suggest Fifteen of his works remain extant as more neutral and encyclopaedic, or else, if we can, e.g. Of his two hundred works, fifteen remain extant.
  • His poems have also been described: as the last person named was Asgharzadeh, this should really be Fuzuli's poems....
  • We should be consistent as to whether it's the Encyclopædia Iranica (digraph æ) or the Encyclopaedia Iranica (two letters ae).
  • Through Fuzuli, the story of Leyli and Majnun: I think we're talking about the story (myth) itself here rather than just Fuzuli's poem, in which case "Layli and Majnun" shouldn't be in italics. If we mean that the poem became famous, cut the story of but keep the italics.
  • I'm not sure what became as familiar as a local tale means: do you mean that it became famous (so as famous in each given place as that place's own local legends)? Can we have a geographical scope for this: in Iraq, in the Ottoman Empire or worldwide, for instance?
    • Yes. I've changed it to "became widely known". I can't provide a geographical scope as neither of the cited sources do. But, it probably means among Turkic language speakers in West Asia (and possibly Central Asia). — Golden call me maybe?
  • which deals with the Karbala tragedy: the Karbala tragedy could do with some explaining. NPOV and the "principle of least astonishment" would encourage the neutral title Battle of Karbala (I imagine the Ummayads thought it was a pretty good day). However, you could do something like which mourned the deaths of Husayn ibn Ali and his followers at the Battle of Karbala in 680.
  • Fuzuli is also the author: more usual to say was also the author.
  • divan is (wisely) glossed in the text, but I don't think ghazal or masnavi are. I appreciate that the latter's linked, but it's better if the reader doesn't have to click away to find out what a word means (as opposed to if they want more information on it).
  • 445 couplets long should be hyphenated, but consider rephrasing the sentence to avoid sounding like Bob Dylan by using two hyphenated adjective-phrases together.
  • a translation of Jami's Forty hadith: Jami should be introduced here (he's currently introduced and WL'd on second mention further down), and Forty Hadith capitalised in title case.
  • In a complex list, use semicolons when you're moving on to the next item: so something like Other works by Fuzuli in Azerbaijani include the 445-couplets-long allegorical-satirical poem Beng ü bāde, which imagines a dispute between wine and hashish over their respective merits; a translation of Jami's Forty hadith titled Ḥadīth-i arbaʿīn tercemesi (lit. 'Translation of Forty Traditions'); and an allegorical masnavi titled Sohbetü’l-esmâr [az] (lit. 'Conversation of Fruits'), which depicts vineyard fruits engaging in self-praise and arguments
  • Fuzuli wrote four poetic letters to Ottoman officials and one to Sultan Bayezid II: this implies that Beyezid wasn't an Ottoman official: suggest Fuzuli wrote a poetic letter to Sultan Bayezid II and four others to his Ottoman officials.
  • Fuzuli praises poetry for its virtues, discusses his lifelong passion for it, and its ability to turn pain into pleasure: needs some reworking: perhaps Fuzuli praises poetry for its virtues, discussing both his lifelong passion for it and its ability to turn pain into pleasure

Legacy and assessment[edit]

  • His poetry was a pivotal moment for the development of the Azerbaijani language NPOV: this would be better framed as someone's perspective, as it's neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
    • Attributed to Asgharzadeh.
  • As a result, three unique Fuzuli textual traditions emerged: Ottoman, Central Asian, and Iranian: comprehensiveness isn't strictly required for GA, but is there more to be said about this?
    • Unfortunately, the only information I can find about this is from Péri, who states the following: "Fużūlī’s popularity meant that his poems were copied over a wide geographical area, by scribes who hailed from different linguistic environments and used different orthographic systems. This gave rise to three branches of the Fużūlī textual tradition; the Ottoman, the Central Asian and the Iranian."
  • due to his unique use of language: "unique" is WP:PUFFERY (everyone's use of language is unique).
    • Removed.
  • the subject of a popular cantata: suggest deleting "popular" as WP:PUFFERY.
    • Removed.
  • in central Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan: modern capitals shouldn't generally be wikilinked; I'd consider dropping the gloss as to what Baku is for the same reason, but up to you.
    • I've dropped the gloss but kept the wikilink as I doubt an average person knows what Baku is.
  • Turkey solemnly celebrated: almost an oxymoron: I'd delete "solemnly" here. This sentence is only cited to a primary source; not a huge deal for GA, but it should really be mentioned in a secondary source if it's going to be in the artlcle.
    • Remove "solemnly".
  • Professor Sakina Berengian refers to Fuzuli as the "Ferdowsi and Hafez of Azeri literature": introduce Berengian and explain briefly what this quotation means, particularly for those who don't know the two writers mentioned.
    • There isn't much information available about Berengian except that she was a professor. Explained the quote.
      • Two things here, then: firstly, MOS:CREDENTIAL weighs against titles like "Professor Smith", "Doctor Jones": simply "Smith" and "Jones". Secondly, if we don't know anything about her except that she was a Professor of something at the university of somewhere, what makes her a reliable or significant source for this article? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The book was published by Klaus Schwarz Verlag as part of their scholarly Islamkundliche Untersuchungen series. It's a reliable and knowledgeable source on the subject. Sadly, the author passed away before the book was published, which might be why there isn't much information available. — Golden call me maybe?
  • Through his inclusive legacy, Fuzuli successfully brings together Azerbaijani, Persian, and Arabic literary practices and reconciles the differences between Shia and Sunni beliefs: another one for NPOV.
    • Added "has been described as"
      • "Inclusive legacy" is still a matter of opinion, so WP:NPOV applies to that. Again, we've got a bit of CLOP going on with the Iranica article: a more serious rework is needed here to either extract the key factual information, or to use a suitably-clipped quotation with attribution. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sentence isn't only cited from Iranica. Abbas also uses a very similar description: "His legacy is that of inclusiveness, linking Azerbaijani, Persian and Arabic literary traditions and bridging Sunni and Shia beliefs". So, I can't attribute it to just one source. Do you have any suggestions for that? — Golden call me maybe?
          • Two options: either pick and quote one (and perhaps add in the ref. "Abbas similarly describes his legacy as..."), or paraphrase and cite both: "his legacy has been characterised as inclusive [cite 1][cite 2]". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did the latter. — Golden call me maybe?
              • Sorry to keep picking at this, but we're still not quite there: for successfully bringing together Azerbaijani, Persian, and Arabic literary practices and reconciling the differences between Shia and Sunni beliefs is a statement of opinion: the word successfully is difficult to reconcile with NPOV, and I'm not sure we can pronounce the still-rather-hot Shia-Sunni doctrinal division as having been "reconciled" in the sixteenth century. Perhaps something like His work has been characterised as a successful reconciliation of Azerbaijani, Persian, and Arabic literary practices, as well as of Shia and Sunni beliefs, and its legacy characterised as inclusive.?
  • two of the greatest poets in Persian literature: NPOV: try two poets regarded as among the greatest in Persian literature.
  • Highly respected in modern-day Azerbaijan and Turkey: this needs a source (or is it explicitly stated in the Supreme Court document?)
  • Introduce Jahangir Jahangirov briefly.

Referencing etc[edit]

The structure of the article follows Macit quite closely, often crossing into WP:CLOP given the sheer scale of reliance on it. For instance, here's a paragraph from Macit:

His youth and early adulthood coincide with the period of Akkoyunlu (Āq Qūyūnlū) rule (1470–1508), and he presented his first kaside (qaṣīda) to Akkoyunlu Elvend Bey (Alwand Beg, d. 910/1504). He also gave a kaside to ʿAlī b. Muḥsin of the Mushaʿshaʿiyya, who dominated the region in which he resided. When Shāh Ismāʿīl (r. 907–30/1501–24) captured Baghdad in 914/1508, Fuzuli presented him with a short mesnevi (mathnawī), Beng ü bāde (“Hemp and wine”). He also gave two kasides and a terci-i bent (tarjīʿ-band) to the shah’s governor in Baghdad, Ibrāhīm Khān Mawṣillü (Mūṣullu), who took the poet under his protection. Fuzuli was left without a patron after Ibrāhīm Khān’s death, and he went to Ḥilla or Najaf in 934/1527. He apparently served as the caretaker of the Tomb of ʿAlī in Najaf during this period.

The corresponding passage in the article reads:

Fuzuli's youth and early adulthood coincided with the rule of the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty. His first Persian qasida (euology) was dedicated to the Aq Qoyunlu Shah Alvand Mirza. In 1508, when Safavid Shah Ismail I entered Baghdad, Fuzuli praised him in a short masnavi (poem written in rhyming couplets). This was his first poem in Azerbaijani and imagines a dispute between wine and hashish over their respective merits, entitled Beng ü bāde (lit. 'Hashish and Wine'). After 1514, Fuzuli received patronage from Ibrahim Khan Mawsillu, the Safavid governor of Baghdad, when he met him during Mawsillu's visit to Najaf and Karbala. He dedicated two qasidas and one terciibent [tr] (poem with repeating verses) to him. However, after the death of Ibrahim Khan in 1527, Fuzuli lost his patron and moved to Hilla or Najaf where he worked as a custodian of the Imam Ali Shrine.

The almost-identical structure is the main problem here: breaking up the use of Macit with other sources might help.

  • Rewrote. — Golden call me maybe?
  • Fuzuli's poetry also expressed a deep sense of humanism and conveyed the dissatisfaction of both the general population and the poet himself with authoritarianism, aristocracy, and institutionalised religion: closely paraphrased from Fuzuli's poetry manifested the spirit of a profound humanism, reflecting the discontent of both the masses and the poet himself towards totalitarianism, feudal lords, and establishment religion. This either needs to be made more distinct in sentence structure and expression (at the moment, it is almost the same sentence with synonyms for some of the terms) or attributed in-text to Asgharzadeh.
    • I attributed it to Asgharzadeh in previous edits. Does that fix the issue or should I just make it into a quote? — Golden call me maybe?
      • Normal plagiarism guidance would advise that, if you're going to use someone's words, you quote them exactly: this is so close and so lengthy I think it does need to be a quotation, cut shorter if necessary. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

  • The Abbas citation is to a chapter written by Abbas in a book entirely written by Abbas; in those circumstances, just cite the whole book (otherwise, it implies that it's an edited volume with other contributors). There's a few others (e.g. Terzioğlu) for which the same applies.
    • Fixed.
  • Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE means the third edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam; the Three isn't part of the title.
    • I've used the EI3 template for that source, which generates that result.
  • Titles of works should be in title case or sentence case, not all caps, even if that's the form used in the original printing.

Image review[edit]

  • File:Fuzûlî.jpg needs a US PD tag.
    • Added. — Golden call me maybe?
      • See my comment on the coin below: the book from which the image is scanned was published in 1999, so {{PD-US}} can't be used. {{{{PD-Art}} might be an option if the original book is (and has long been) on public display: do you know anything about it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Offerismail.jpg has some problems: the underlying work of art is unquestionably PD (though needs a US tag), but it's the photograph of it that's included in this article. As it's visibly a book, PD-ART won't quite cut it: worse, the Commons page has no information for the source of that photograph. To use it, we need to track down where the photograph is from and establish a reason why it's PD.
    • I found and uploaded this higher-quality image from Melis Taner's 2019 book, Caught in a Whirlwind: A Cultural History of Ottoman Baghdad as Reflected in Its Illustrated Manuscripts, on page 115. Beneath it, she gives the following note: "Sacrifice of Ishmael. Ḥadīḳatü’s-Süʿedā. British Library, London, Or. 12009, fol.19b". The original version of the file isn't a photograph, but is of lower quality. Should I restore that version? — Golden call me maybe?
      • Yeah, that file's almost certainly not PD (Taner will have had to pay the BL to use it). We need a photograph that's itself PD (either because it's very old, or because it's been freely released). Where's the "original" file actually from? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found the image on the British Library's official page for free [2]. They noted this: "Images can be used for free, Please credit: Courtesy British Library (followed by the shelfmark)." — Golden call me maybe? 18:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure if that's enough: I think it really has to be one of the appropriate CC licences rather than just an informal statement. I've asked a second opinion, though, as I'm definitely not expert enough to pronounce authoritatively on this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Məhəmməd Füzulinin xatirəsinə həsr olunmuş gümüş sikkə-üz.gif: needs a US PD tag. Currency can be a complicated one: see the relevant Commons page. I'm not sure what the best approach from a US point of view is, unfortunately.
    • If it's in public domain in the origin country, why do we need a US PD tag? — Golden call me maybe?
      • The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the USA (California, specifically), so everything it 'publishes' has to be PD or appropriately licensed there. I've had to dig around a bit to find chapter and verse, but I think the most relevant documents are WP:PD: Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States and WP:IUP: Wikipedia pages, including non-English language pages, are hosted on a server in the United States, so US law governs whether a Wikipedia image is in the public domain. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the explanation. I have added the PD-US tag. — Golden call me maybe? 18:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • The PD-US tag you've added (confusingly, there's a lot of different ones) only applies to works published before 1928; the coin was minted in 1996, so I'm afraid you can't use that one. I've just found this rather good chart which sets out all the relevant tags: my reading of it is that the image isn't PD in the US, so can't be used (and strictly speaking shouldn't be on Commons at all), but please do tell me if you think I've made a mistake. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm still struggling to understand how something can be in the public domain in its country of origin but not in the United States. If the creator of the coin declares it to be in the public domain, how can US impose a copyright on it? Can't we use PD-author? — Golden call me maybe?
              • Welcome to the world of copyright law: it quite often doesn't make much sense. The problem is that there's no worldwide definition of "public domain" (which is a higher bar than "nobody is going to sue you to enforce the copyright"), so each country gets to make its own rules. PD-AUTHOR works if the author has explicitly released the copyright worldwide; that almost certainly doesn't apply here, given that the author never had the right to assert copyright under Azerbaijani law. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's unfortunate. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I appreciate it. I've replaced the image. — Golden call me maybe?
  • File:Brooklyn Museum - Manuscript of the Hadiqat al-Su`ada (Garden of the Blessed) of Fuzuli - Muhammad bin Sulayman, known as Fuzuli.png only says that its presumptive copyright holder (the Brooklyn Museum) has indicated that it's free of known copyright restrictions in the US, but I'm putting on record here that I personally think that meets the free use standards we need. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Lead/General[edit]

  • His son Fazli is mentioned in the infobox, but I don't see him in the article at all. What do we know about his personal life?
    • Not much. I wrote the article for Fazli. All the information I could find about him is on there. — Golden call me maybe?
      • OK: perhaps a sentence or two in the Legacy or Biography sections, then. Perhaps something like Fuzuli's son, also a poet, took the name Fazli in tribute to his father.[efn to explain what Fazli means] Fazli is believed to have received his poetic education from Fuzuli, and wrote both religious and secular poems in Azerbaijani, Persian, and Arabic.[Hess 2015] The infobox is part of the lead, and MOS:LEAD would like everything in the lead to come up in the main article somewhere.

Name[edit]

  • Contemporary sources sometimes refer to him as 'Fuzuli-yi Baghdadi' (lit. 'Fuzuli of Baghdad'), seemingly in an indication of his birthplace, Baghdad: this seems contradictory with what comes later (that Baghdad is only one of several possible birthplaces). Personally, I'd be tempted to cut it from the "Name" section and simply move the epithet Fuzuli-yi Baghdadi (in italics, per MOS:WORDSASWORDS) into the much more detailed sentence in "Biography". It's probably also worth clarifying which language is being used here: I assume it's Azerbaijani?
    • The same information is already in the Biography section, so I removed it from the Name section. The name is in Arabic, but I am not sure how to clarify that without it appearing out of place. — Golden call me maybe?

Poetry[edit]

  • Can we briefly introduce Alireza Asgharzadeh? I wouldn't include the name of the publication in which they write in the body text, unless they're such a minor figure that we need its authority to explain why they're worth listening to.
    • He seems to be a professor of sociology at Toronto Metropolitan University and York University. I've added "The professor" to introduce him. Let me know if that's not enough. — Golden call me maybe?
      • It's fine, but I wonder whether we could be more specific: perhaps Alireza Asgharzadeh, an academic studying Iranian and Azerbaijani culture,... "Professor" isn't necessarily a relevant credential (he could be a professor of microbiology, for instance), and so using that on its own reads as if we've been wowed by the academic title. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and assessment[edit]

  • Fuzuli is often seen as a link between Anatolian and the Chagatai literature: we haven't seen anything about Chagatai yet, or even any indication that Fuzuli could speak it.
    • He didn't speak Anatolian Turkish either. What the sentence means is that his work reached Anatolia and Central Asia (where Chagatai Turkic literature was dominant) and linked the two literatures. — Golden call me maybe?
      • I see. I would expand the sentence to say as much, then: that's rather more explanatory weight than the metaphorical term "bridge" can really sustain. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewrote the sentence. — Golden call me maybe?
          • I've made quite a bold suggestion: Fuzuli's work had an impact on both Anatolian and Chagatai literature; later writers in both traditions drew on Fuzuli's work due to his ability to reinterpret traditional themes and ideas through his poetry, which brought the two literary traditions closer together. From the revised version, it still sounded as if Fuzuli belonged to both of those traditions. As ever, please don't be shy about hacking that up if you think it's not quite accurate. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1995, Turkey celebrated the 500th anniversary of Fuzuli: the anniversary of Fuzuli's what, exactly? Seems too late for his birth (1983) and too early for his death (2056).
    • His birth. Fuzuli's birth date was incorrectly assumed to be 1495 at the time. I've added a note in the article to explain this. — Golden call me maybe?
      • Ah, that makes sense. Do the sources have any idea of when and why opinion changed? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • No precise date, no. TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi only uses "accepted until recently" when referring to 1495. And that source was written in 1996. — Golden call me maybe?
          • Hm; could cite that and go with Until the late twentieth century, Fuzuli's birth date was incorrectly considered to be 1495., but not a major problem. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Golden (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fuzuli (poet); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Pending QPQ. ALT1 is the superior hook, but there's a typo: please add the word "was" between "Islamic World" and "based". ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Golden and Pbritti: The given source uses the word "Šekāyatnāma" for the "complaint" and and our article uses "Şikayetname". Is there a reason? Bruxton (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Belated clarification for Bruxton[edit]

@Bruxton; I see you've asked a question about why the text uses Şikayetname while the source uses Šekāyatnāma. These are alternative Romanizations of a language not yet written in the Latin script at the time. The former uses Persian sound correspondence in the Perso-Arabic script, while the latter is Modern Turkish Latinization (or at least one version of it, I would prefer Şikâyetnâme, which the Turkish Language Association would disagree with). The other alternative would be Şikayətnamə, the Azeri usage. Uness232 (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuzuli (poet) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Sufism[edit]

He is listed on List of Sufi saints but there is no mention of Sufism on his page.

I linked the first instance of "mystic" to Sufism but maybe it should have a sentence in the lead. YordleSquire (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember encountering any information about Fuzuli being a Sufi saint when I was writing the article. — Golden talk 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuzuli_(poet)&oldid=1193492872"