Talk:Ali-Shir Nava'i/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright violation

It should probably be noted that big chunks of this article are simply lifted, unaltered or only very slightly so, from this page. Though the page in question is mentioned in the references at the end of the article, lots of the article needs to be rewritten—or, at least, properly cited—so that it no longer continues to be a copyright violation, which much of the article essentially is right now. —Saposcat 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding Subjective material

Somebody keeps adding a "subjective" opinion of an English scholor.

1. This is about Nava'i not about the English scholor 2. This is an objective page about Nava'i and his works, an extract of one of his most imprtant works has been used. The English Scholors views are subjective, we could include another scholor who agree's with Nava'i, the point is it doesn't matter what "Nava'i's" views are were just giving an example of one of his key works.

Johnstevens5

You are right, this page is about Nava'i, and not about his works either! The part you are talking about is not about Nava'i, but about his work "Muhakamat". Either we delete that information from this article and put it into a seperate article in which all points of view are presented (including the critics), or we leave it just the way it is now: quoting the "Muhakamat" and mentioning the view of modern scholars.

Besides that, this article is flooded with POV anyway, for example the following sentense: He defended the superiority of the Chagatai Turkic language from various points of view in comparison to Persian. The correct NPOV version would be He believed that Chaghatay Turkic language to be superior to Persian, and defended his belief in that work ... No language is superior or inferior to another one.

Tājik 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is "one" modern scholor, if I was to copy and paste a lengthy praise of his work by another modern scholor it would be totally biased.

Your correct about

The correct NPOV version would be He believed that Chaghatay Turkic language to be superior to Persian, and defended his belief in that work ... No language is superior or inferior to another one.

It should be changed to your suggestion, in the section of the "Muhakamat" included I removed any referance to Persian language.

--Johnstevens5 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with your last edit. However, I further suggest to remove any detailed information of the Muhakamat and instead put it into a seperate article Muhakamat al-Lughatayn, comparable to Ferdousi and Shahnama.

Tājik 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Title

This new name for the page is daft. Wikipedia article titles should not contain diacritics (what's the point, if you're giving the spelling in the Arabic script anyway)? And in any case this is a German transliteration, not an English one. I shall move it to Mir 'Ali Shir Nawa'i some time over the next few days, unless someone gives me a really good reason why we should retain this absurd spelling. Sikandarji 16:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed the mistake and moved it to "Mir Ali Shir Nava'i" ... anyways, the old spelling ("Alisher Navoi") was wrong. Tājik 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great. You're right, the old spelling was wrong (that's how the Uzbeks spell it, and we all know how they've "claimed" Nawa'i). Thanks a lot. Sikandarji 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one am glad that it used to be "Alisher Navoi" before. I don't care how daft that spelling is, because that's what I came across in another context. And that's what I used to find this article. Now if you had a good reason to move the article, that's OK with me. But obviously there is a lot of "Alisher Navoi" going on in the WWW. (see the article's weblinks!) It seems that that is a faithful transliteration of the Russian spelling, and it seems that the man in question is held in high esteem by the russians (Statue in Moscow, commemorative coin, ...). What I want to complain about is this: The Article does not even mention, that the spelling "Alisher Navoi" is also widely used.

Now that I look more closely, I have to object to the current title on several grounds: One, "Mir" is a title. Two, "Nizam al-Din Ali Shir" suggests that "Ali Shir" is just a surname. Three, "Navai" is only a pen name, not his proper name.

I propose moving the article to "Nizam al-Din Ali Shir", or whatever is more appropriate to get closest to the official wikipedia guideline

You can probably tell, that I don't know much about arabic names. Please always remember that you're not writing for yourself and some experts, but for the stupid rest of the world.

And what ist that "(Heravi)" supposed to mean? Please explain in the article.

--BjKa 09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to reflect the most common English name, isn't it? Google gives us 14 600 hits for Alisher Navoi and only 345 for Mir Ali Shir Nava'i. And then, why do you transliterate شير (as far as I know, it means lion) as Shīr following modern Iranian Persian pronounciation, instead of Sher, as this word is pronounced in classical Persian and modern Dari an Tajiki? Don Alessandro 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into a huge scrap over something I know little about, we should note that many of those Google hits seem to be scrapes of previous Wikipedia articles. I note, Don Alessandro, that you use Russian Google, and perhaps your preference reflects the Russian usage rather than the English one? Britannica uses 'Ali Shir Nava'i. As for your discussion of "sher/shīr", it tends to be the case that names are transliterated by today's standards rather than those of the time. In any case, Don Alessandro, so long as the other name is directed here, there is no big problem, is there? We need not fight too much over correctness, so long as we are using a name that is at least recognisable. Reverse Gear 06:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I note, Don Alessandro, that you use Russian Google, and perhaps your preference reflects the Russian usage rather than the English one?

Sorry. ) But English Google gives almost the same - 14,500 for Alisher Navoi and 372 for Mir Ali Shir Nava'i Navoi is definetly more popular.

it tends to be the case that names are transliterated by today's standards rather than those of the time

Hm... It may be so, but why should we use modern Iranian standart of pronounciation, instead of modern pronounciation of Dari. Navoi lived in Herat - this is present day Afghanistan, not Iran.

However, I have no intention to start a "war of edits" or smth like this. I only want to poit out the things that seem to be strange. Don Alessandro 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dari is the standard pronounciation of Farsi. And the Uzbek spelling Navoi is just taken from the Tajik pronounciation of the standard Persian Navāī (in Tajiki-Persian, the ā becomes an o). Besides that, please do not confuse Fārsī-e Darī (= Dari) with the dialects of Kabul and surrounding areas that are also - mistakenly - called Dari. The dialect of Herat is Khorāsānī-Persian and quite different from the standrad Kābulī dialect (which is wrongly called Dari (of Afghanistan)). Tājik 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that it should be Nava'i (the literary standard, as it were), rather than Navoi (as pronounced by Tajiks)? As I say below, I don't think it much matters which name we use (both seem equally possible: one is preferred by Britannica -- a very good source for English usage; the other seems widely used. So long as everyone who feels there is something at stake will consent on this reasonably minor issue, I think we can go for either one. Reverse Gear 04:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a great specialist in these things. I only wanted to say, that in modern "fārsī-ye kābulī" (which is mistakenly or not, but officially called Dari) and in classical Persian (the language of Navā'ī's epoch) "milk" is šīr, and "lion" is šēr, while in modern "fārsī-ye irānī" both are šīr. Am I right? Don Alessandro 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removd "Mir" from his name, because it is a title. Also, perhaps this page should be moved to Alisher Navoi. It doesn't really matter which one is "right", it matters which one is most commonly used in English, see WP:UE. Khoikhoi 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one should note though that English Google also calls up pages from elsewhere, and many of those hits seem to be in foreign languages. Google is a bit of a false friend in that regard. I don't think it really matters which name it is at, so long as one redirects to the other, and I'm not a fan of allowing decisions on the basis of narrow nationalist sentiment, but OTOH, I don't have a strong view. As I say, so long as all consent, it seems to me we could have either one, because we have the redirect. If someone were to feel very strongly, maybe those who don't could consent to their choice prevailing? Reverse Gear 04:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose to change the title to "Ali Sher". As Don Alessandro rightly pointed out "shi-r" means "milk", whereas the poet was named after the caliph Ali who was called Ali 'Lion' (sher) for his courage and military art. --Sahib-qiron (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I really dont understand the statement that Uzbeks "Claimed" Alisher Navoi.What does it suppose to mean?? If so then Navoi was who?Iranian?Chinese or what?

Anon

A certain anon has attacked several articles, removing information and adding POV. I reverted his edits here because he simply removed information with a reason or discussion.Azerbaijani 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted a falsifying edit by an anon. Tājik (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have reverted falsifying edits by anons and new users. Tājik (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent irrelevant edit by Nedim Ardoğa. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Turkish version of it. Tajik (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Turkish"

Could we please stop referring to Nava'i as "Turkish"? Regardless that he spoke a Turkic language, in English "Turkish" is restricted to natives of Turkey or those who are unambiguously of Turkish ethnicity. Nava'i was neither. This is not in any way a cultural issue but simply one of the English language. Reverse Gear 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I partially agree. He didn't live in Turkey. But what should we call him ? He spoke Turkic and tried to show the superiory of his language. Doesn't this justify his Turkic identity ? Take an example of Ptolomy. He is generally known as a Greek philosopher. But he lived in Egypt a country far from Greece. Further more Egypt was a part of Roman Empire during his lifetime. Still he is considered as being Greek because he was a member of a small Hellenic minority in Egypt. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's really weird that Persians can call everyone Persian in wikipedia but noone in history is Turkish? It's so weird that there's no example for Greeks, Persians or Arabs but Turks in the history could not be referred as Turkish! Even Turkic is too much. let's say, hmm Central Asian? Or maybe we should say "world resident" because Central Asia is too Turkified! (Maybe it was Persian before!)

There is a difference between "Turkish" and "Turkic", the same way there is a difference between "Persian" and "Iranian". Nava'i was Turkic in identity and language (his language was the Chaghatay language), but he was not Turkish which - in modern usage - only designates the Turkish-speaking inhabitants of Turkey. The Chaghatay language and the Turkish language are not the same language, they do not even belong to the same sub-family of Turkic. The difference is - at least - as big as between different Germanic languages, such as Dutch, German, or English. Tajik (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Turkish-speaking inhabitants of Turkey : Turkish" really interesting. Iranian doesn't mean Persian speaking inhabitants of Iran, it means all inhabitants of Iran. So it's not the same. Maybe Anatolian and Iranian is the same. But then at least we can change Central Asian to Turkic? Or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.211.95 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we protect the page?

Unregistered users (obviously Uighurs) have deleted sourced material that shows Ali-Shir Nava'i's contribution to the development of the Uzbek language a couple of times. If this goes on we should probably semi-protect the page. Nataev (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It happened again. I am going to place a request to protect the page. Nataev (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A new user (most likely an ethnic Uyghur) removed the category that lists Nava'i as an Uzbek without any explanation. This is not the first time this has happened. We should categorize Nava'i both as Uzbek and Uyghur since his ethnicity is disputed, as is clearly indicated in article. Still, as is written in the article, few people believe that Nava'i was ethnic Uygur. Therefore, there is no reason why we shouldn't list him as Uzbek. We cannot have only one of these categories. I think we should semi-protect the page indefinitely. Nataev (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The anon edits clearly qualify as vandalism, so I concur and ask semi-protect the page. Abdullais4u (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I don't mean to be rude, but anyone using as sources things such as the "Children's Digital Library" and Uzhotels.net needs to go read WP:RS. There is no way they should be used in this article. We should be looking for academic sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted those sources. Nataev ^talk 04:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Alî Şîr Nevâyî

in Turkish. Böri (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And? Nataev ^talk 04:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Certain parts of the article do not seem to be academic and rather reflect a personal, un-neutral point of view. Tājik 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting Tajik since you seem to be ver notorious on wikipedia for editing everything about Central Asia and Iran and twist a very "persian" personal opinion into everything that is Turkic. Anything that is not Persian, has to be persianized or persianate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halq So'zi (talk • contribs) 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is probably some way to post this in a better place, but I put it here...

Perhaps the concept of neutrality needs real discussion. Below there is a lot of use of the term "ethnic" about people making edits, and then about assigning Nava'i to an ethnic category. This is part of nation building. Wikipedia is part of knowledge building: if you want to build a national brand or identity through claiming pieces of the past, do it on your own site and time. Many wikipedia pages with this kind of discourse are tiresome and lack information, and it shows a very limited appreciation for knowledge itself when all one wants to do is argue. Modern Uzbeks and Uyghurs are not simple descendents of the "same" groups from the past. Both identities came into existence and changed over time, and referred to varying groups of people. This is all historical fact, and holds, mutatis mutanda for French, German, Italian, Greek, English, Afghan, Tajik etc. These are not stable permanent identities, and no one is going to give more respect to someone or some group in the present because they can claim to be more culturally, genetically, genealogically, geographically, or politically closer to a particular wonderful person of the past. So if one wants to write about claimed ethnic origins and cultural ties, then this should be done in terms of identifying particular people who makes such claims now, and why. This is not as notable as the description of the person to begin with, and deserves to be in a separate section, which references to articles about the changing meanings and uses of the ethnic identities themselves.

In the case of Nava'i he was concerned with the Farsi-Turki linguistic divide (note: not Uzbek, Uyghur, Tajik, etc). In fact he was involved in major conflicts under Husayn Bayqara with some Persian poets who said disparaging things about Turki poetry. But he still wrote in Farsi and appreciated the language. Late in his life he probably became more irritated with bias against Turki and wanted to show that it was also a valuable language. He lived in a context where educated people tended to learn to speak and write Farsi and his last work is about these two languages, but from stories about him we can guess he had a sense of humor about it and was even trying to make fun of pomposity on the opposing side. A sense of humor is really lacking in the debates and edit wars people have here.

People who cannot understand that these debates are based in assumptions about identity that were different at other times, and so one needs to understand local points of view. Those who just jump in to prove a point and take a side in debates about who was who, and who descends from whom, should consider avoiding those topics. Pure objectivity is not possible, but avoiding obvious bias is part of self-respect. Put in the "Uzbek" or "Uyghur" evidence, but do not delete the other evidence, otherwise one looks spiteful and silly. The past has given rise to many presents for different people. Do not write an article to exclude others from what they feel is their heritage as well.

I do not plan to change much of this, but it could be improved a lot. The most important would be to avoid anything about our current times, the present, in the description of the person himself. We should not have to say anything about claims and debates until we get to influence, present value, etc. The line "Although all applications of modern Central Asian ethnonyms to people of Nava'i's time are anachronistic" should not have to appear in the first paragraph because we should not be writing "Soviet and Uzbek sources regard Ali-Shir as an ethnic Uzbek". Simply state what primary sources say about the man, and then get to the debate later. One might create a wikipedia article: "Central Asian Debates over Ethnic Heritage" and wikipedia edit wars would be data for this article. And then one would compare this to debates in the Middle East, Europe, China, etc.

I changed "Nava'i is one of the most beloved poets in the Turkic-speaking world" to "Nava'i is one of the most beloved poets among Central Asian Turks" because neither Saka-Yaquts nor citizens of Turkey have much knowledge or interest in Nava'i. His ghazal poetry appeals to those who understand Muslim Sufi imagery and Turko-Persian courtly language.

I think the following two reverts are good examples of people trying to fix this overall problem, but perhaps it would be better to do it by carefully editing each part by people who know the sources and can see multiple points of view. It is not just nationalism, it is also presentism that has to be eliminated, and sub-Turki ethnic identities were not very important then, and have only become so now. Uzbek was a political identity, and Uyghur referred to non-Muslims when Nava'i was around. He was a Turki- and Farsi-speaking, Turki- and Farsi-writing Central Asian Muslim of the educated, courtly elite. Other labels are part of modern political claims.

>>17:24, 27 October 2013‎ Lysozym (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,205 bytes) (-3,699)‎ . . (restoring the version by User:Dougweller; this is no place for nationalistic POV) >>05:59, 22 October 2013‎ Nataev (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,427 bytes) (+3,222)‎ . . (Undid revision 577710910 by Lysozym (talk) Stop edit warring; we CANNOT claim he was Uyghur; that's what only some sources claim, not what all academic sources)

Sorry for the long post! Nlight2 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You made some very good points, Nlight2. The following sentence reminded me of George Carlin: "These are not stable permanent identities, and no one is going to give more respect to someone or some group in the present because they can claim to be more culturally, genetically, genealogically, geographically, or politically closer to a particular wonderful person of the past." I couldn't agree with you more. I wish I had come up with this sentence! Like you said, the article could be improved a lot. For now I'm only working on the article's English. Nataev (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the debate to the legacy section, as you suggested. Nataev (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ali-Shir Nava'i. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140805163801/http://www.navoigarden.com/bibliography.htm to http://www.navoigarden.com/bibliography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)