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.
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. — Goldencall 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)
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.
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"? — Goldencall 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]
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. — Goldencall 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. — Goldencall 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.
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.
I see "such as": does this mean that there are traditions listing other cities? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Goldencall 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]
Not a problem for GA: struck, with thanks for your patience and hard work in trying. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:12, 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...
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? — Goldencall 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? — Goldencall 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. — Goldencall 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. — Goldencall 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.
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). — Goldencall 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.
Changed to "Battle of Karbala" and added a short explanation. — Goldencall me maybe?
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
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. — Goldencall me maybe?
OK: we can go with something very noncommittal like "the modern scholar Sakina Berengian", then. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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? — Goldencall 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]
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.?
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.
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? — Goldencall 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]
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.
I took the simple approach and edited the template; it now doesn't. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Fixed.
We've still got inconsistency between title case and sentence case: that's not a critical problem for GA, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
The image is from the Meşâirü'ş-şuarâ work of Aşık Çelebi, published in 1568. Çelebi died in 1578, so I think PD-Art covers it. — Goldencall me maybe?
Now fine (I've changed the licence tag on Commons to add its US PD status). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:02, 28 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? — Goldencall 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 [1]. They noted this: "Images can be used for free, Please credit: Courtesy British Library (followed by the shelfmark)." — Goldencall 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]
If it's in public domain in the origin country, why do we need a US PD tag? — Goldencall 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. — Goldencall 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? — Goldencall 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. — Goldencall me maybe?
I think that's fine: the US (unlike Azerbaijan) does think that stamps can be copyrighted. However, since the copyright holder would be the government of Azerbaijan, I think we can treat the relevant Azerbaijani law as enough of a release of all rights to make it PD in the US. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Goldencall 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.
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. — Goldencall me maybe?
You could use ({{lang-ar|Fuzuli-yi Baghdadi}}), which gives (Arabic: Fuzuli-yi Baghdadi).
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.
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]
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. — Goldencall 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]
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. — Goldencall 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. — Goldencall 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]
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.
_of_Fuzuli_-_Muhammad_bin_Sulayman,_known_as_Fuzuli.png){kind=link}
are unassessed)