# Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi

I think Huruzim , Hurufiyyah is worth its own article , but currently it redirects to Sufism , can anyone do something for that?Pasha 07:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Check this Hurufizm article out:
Abdulnr 02:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
People, the same original text and transcribed version of it is given twice there. The first time this section is given is wrong this part does not indicate Nesimi's hurufi nature.
Some of Nesîmî's work is also more specifically Hurûfî in nature, as can be seen in the following quatrain from a long poem:

   اوزكى مندن نهان ايتمك ديلرسه ڭ ايتمه غل
   گوزلرم ياشڭ روان ايتمك ديلرسه ڭ ايتمه غل

   برك نسرین اوزره مسکين زلفكى سن طاغدوب
   عاشقى بى خانمان ايتمك ديلرسه ڭ ايتمه غل

   Üzünü məndən nihân etmək dilərsən, etməgil
   Gözlərim yaşın reəvân etmək dilərsen, etməgil

   Bərq-i nəsrin üzrə miskin zülfünü sən dağıdıb
   Âşiqi bîxânimân etmək dilərsən, etməgil[19]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.227.221 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 

Two points about the article I'd like to bring up:

Some of the sources I've looked at indicate that it is not certain that his actual name was "Imaeddin"; this may be a point to raise in his biography. Also, related to this issue, I think it best to call the article simply "Nasimi" (or perhaps "Nesîmî", as I've more often seen it written—is "Nasimi" the Azerbaijani spelling?), in line with Fuzûlî, Bâkî, and Nedîm; i.e., just using his mahlas or pen name.
The same sources also indicate that his birthplace may have been a place (no longer existent) called "Nesîm", hence his pen name. This, too, is claimed as uncertain—like so much about his life—but it is perhaps a point to be raised.
Other than that, this is a great start. I'm going to work on cleanup and copyediting for the time being. Good work. —Saposcat 05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, let’s see what Abdulnr thinks. Also thanks for your input, I hope it will continue. Regards, Grandmaster 07:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems it have been corrupted into Imadeddin - at least this is what carried on in Azeri/Persion sorces. Alevi sources cite  him as Nesîmî" simple and distinguish from other Nesîmî which was a different Ottoman Alevi poet in 17 century, this may create confusion, although I admit that the second Alevi poet is not as well known, but he crops up in searches. Overall I have no problem - let's just create disambiguation.
As to the birthplace - three different sources debate it. Azeri sources indicate that Nesim was a village in Shamakha where he was born. Other sources (I qoute some Ottoman) name hime Nesimi Baghdadi and finally someone added Shiraz here , although I haven' seen hat source. I guess, this is just part of the legend that his birth place is lal-mekan., nowhere and everywhere.
Also check this article on Hurufi I worked on.abdulnr 08:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the article to "Nesîmî" as per the discussion above. I will expand on the life part (and associated areas) when I get the chance. As for the later (17th-century) poet, we can create a disambiguation page when he actually gets his own page; until then, I think this should be alright, shouldn't it? —Saposcat 14:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good to mention the poem as an example, but more of the poem needs to be quoted before explication is undertaken. Also, the explication needs to be clarified: aim for the reader who knows absolutely nothing of Nasimi, Islam, Sufism, Hurufism, etc.
I might give this explication a shot myself, when I get the chance. We have to be careful that we're not making it into original research, though. Citing explicatory sources on the poem that say that same thing would be a good way to avoid that. —Saposcat 08:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - lets work on both ends - Please see this : Hurufi for clarification. Hurufism is a complicated topic - we do not want to delve deeper. abdulnr 08:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that for Nasimi's name, for certain terms (e.g., al-Hakk), and for any poetry quoted, we should use the Perso-Arabic script that Nasimi actually wrote in (as per Fuzûlî, Bâkî, and Nedîm). I am willing to put it in; however, I am not certain if there are any differences from standard Ottoman script owing to the Azerbaijani language being used (he seems to have used a much more "Azerbaijani" Azerbaijani than Fuzûlî did, for example). If anyone is willing to help out on that matter, it would be greatly appreciated; otherwise, I can just put the script in as I know it would be written in "standard" Ottoman text. —Saposcat 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It will be combersome for me to put it in. Nasimi was more vernacular than Fuzuli or other Ottoman poets - but his poetry survived propogated by Alevis in Ottoman empire so presumably written in the script used at the time. I am no expert in these matters. abdulnr 08:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to put it in, and it is no problem for me. He definitely did write using the Perso-Arabic script (it was the only script known and used at that time and place). I just want to be sure that—since I haven't got the actual text in front of me—it's accurate, since I'll be using the standard of Ottoman script, not any Azerbaijani variation that might exist.
Also, a question: in the second line of the poem quoted is the phrase "kövnü mekâna sığmazam". Have you any idea what the "kövnü" is there? I have some guesses, but am unsure about them. —Saposcat 09:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Disregard the question, as I've found that "kövn" means "existence" (varlık). —Saposcat 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
kövn mekan in Sufi terminology means this worldly existence for which you are absolutely right, as opposed to la-mekan or batin (hidden) existence outside this world, I think abdulnr 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've revamped and rewritten a good chunk of the page; let me know what you think if you get a chance. Cheers. —Saposcat 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this great work... The poet finally gets an excellent page!... Also thank you for more poetical translation...Let me know if you have any other ideas...
Shall we expand on the "Mende siġar iki cahan" which is his greatest work, although I have to admit in my book explanation pages run two pages more than poem itself. abdulnr 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have read your excellent rendition of the Turkish Literature section it is very professional!!!. I only wish we could have something similar on Azeri one (Literature of Azerbaijan)! By the way I noticed that some Alevi poets receive only passing mention - only Yunus Emre has a page. abdulnr 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments; I very much appreciate it. As for the Alevi poets receiving only a brief mention, it must be kept in mind that that article is a history of the entire Turkish literature tradition, and as a result basically everybody receives little more than a passing mention, individually speaking.
Thank you again for the compliments. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. —Saposcat 04:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You did a fantastic work, as usual. The article is great. I think we can add some more biographical information too, specifically with regards to circumstances of his tragic death, which are described in many legends. According to one of them, Nasimi voluntarily surrendered when the local authorities were going to execute a young man for declamation of his poetry. I'll try to collect more info. Grandmaster 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking a bit into it as well. One story I particularly enjoyed (I found it in a secondary source, Walter Andrews' Ottoman Lyric Poetry) was how Nesîmî collected his skin after the unfortunate flaying, and then ascended to heaven with his skin flung over his shoulder.
Thanks for the compliments. I still think a lot remains to be done on the "Work" section, however, and I plan to get down to it (hopefully!) sometime soon. —Saposcat 05:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
There are several of such stories, some even include poetry, I’ll try to collect them all. Maybe some of them worth inclusion. Grandmaster 06:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As a said there is second Nasimi which is called Kul Nesimi- so we need to distinguish between them. Shall we create disambiguation ?
Look here:
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~sibel/poetry/poems/kul_nesimi/_About/about1

You can create a stub for the other Nesimi and make a disambig for him. Grandmaster 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should also mention the version that he was born and grew up in Shamakhi in the modern-day Azerbaijan Republic. That is one of the most popular versions. Other than that, excellent work, as usual. Grandmaster 19:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This is what I found out: Apparently Nesimi's brother Shah Khandan was born and buried in Shamakha He was a distingueshed poet who claimed being a brother of Nesimi, and his tombstone still survives. This account is related in Låtifi, 16 century Safavi historian.  Nasimi's brother writes to him the following poem warning him on his non-orthodox beliefs:

Gəl bu sirri kimsəyə fas eylemə
Xanu xasī aməyə aš eyləme.''
That is how Shamakha version came about...
But it looks like no one knows where he was born!!!! abdulnr 22:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As one of the most popular versions it has a place in the article. It is also said that he spent a few years of his life in Baku and Shamakhi. Grandmaster 04:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it has a place in the article, but point out that it is a popular version. I only removed it, not out of disbelief or disrespect, but because it had no citation and I didn't see it mentioned in any of the sources I used (I'm absolutely ruthless on citation and referencing, to be honest). Also, where did the Bursa claim come from? That seems awfully far afield and anomalous from the other claims for his birthplace. Is there a source for that?
And in any case, you're right: we simply have no idea where he was born.
Also, wasn't Latîfî an Ottoman biographer and historian? Every source I've ever seen says that he was. But perhaps it's a different person you mentioned, or perhaps he moved between the two different courts. —Saposcat 06:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It was a mistake, he was of course Ottoman historiographer abdulnr 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is from encyclopedia Iranica:
It is said that Nasimi was originally from Shirvan and, coming to Tabriz, met Fazlullah Naimi who converted him to Hurufizm. He was put to death in Aleppo around 810/1407 because of his fervent propagation of the Hurufi beliefs. [1] See page 251
Okay, I'll add that reference too, when I get a chance. It's getting a bit out of hand, though, with all these claims and references backing them up—but perhaps one more won't hurt. :) —Saposcat 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It is one of the versions that he was born and grew up in Shamakhi in Shirvan region. I also think that one more reference will do no harm. Grandmaster 12:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

About the new book added to the reference section, if you're adding it as a secondary source and citing it for biographical detail (which is fine), you should list the work under the name of the author/editor who wrote/compiled the book's biographical section, and not under Nesîmî's own name. —Saposcat 05:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the format to use:
(Editor's surname), (Editor's first name); ed. "(Title of biographical section)" in (Title of book); pp. X–X (these are the pages of the biographical section used). (City of publication): (Publishing house), (Year of publication).
—Saposcat 06:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

i have corrected the translation of a piece by he poet, but it has reverted without explanation.
in my defense well i have a dictionary aparantly the translator had not. neither he had a cursory knowledge of turkish to differantiate her iki (BOTH) and iki (two) or Mine and I, so WTF?
different from saposcat i know that i do not own wikipedia articles, and don't look for a revert war.
so whatever. fucking think before you object--Calm 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a revert war at all, nor do I believe that I own the article in any way; I simply proposed that the issue be taken to the talk page if you object to the translations.
If you'd like, I can give the rationale behind the translations being the way they are, but I would hope that you would calm down first and not venture into personal attack territory. It must also be kept in mind also that this is poetry that is being translated, not straight-ahead prose. —Saposcat 07:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


### Rationale behind translations
I thought I'd put the rationale, as far as I see it, behind the translation of "Mende sığar iki cahan" here, so any discussion and/or objections could be made with them in mind.

"Her iki(si)" is "both" and "iki" is "two". In the poem, however, there is a clear distinction being made between "this world" and "the other world" (or whatever you'd like to call it). As these do not number above two in the poem, it seems to make sense—especially insofar as only one beyit is being cited, hence putting the lines somewhat out of context—to stress this duality in English by means of the word "both". (I did not originally put this translation in there, but the translation as "both" seemed to make sense to me according to such a rationale.)
"Menem" does, of course, mean "I" (as opposed to "menemki" being "mine"). My own translation (using "mine") was based on the fact that, in English, to use inversion—i.e., "Mine is X" as opposed to "X is mine"—in such a context lends to the word "mine" much more than just the idea of possessiveness, but makes it equate to identity. Hence, I chose to translate it as "mine".
A smaller point regarding transliteration: normally, the word is "kevn", but this is a directly-cited quotation, wherein the choice of transliteration was "kövn"; if it is written that way in the text cited, it should be written that way in the citing text.
Finally, regarding the translation of the entire phrase "kövn ü mekân": it is a difficult phrase to translate owing to its abstraction and slightly dual meaning, and I admit that my first attempt ("existence") was inadequate. I have since changed it, to translate as "world". It can also be read as "universe", as per a subsequent translation; myself, I would prefer "world" simply insofar as "kövn ü mekân" can mean both "âlem" ("world") and "kâinât" ("universe" or "cosmos"), but the line has a rhyme in the original, and I think it best to try and preserve that in the English, so long as things are not being altered into completely wrong readings, which I don't think the reading as "world" does (although my original translation did).
—Saposcat 10:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Calm, I think that Saposcat’s translation is better. In fact, it is internationally accepted to translate the verse “iki cahan” as “both worlds”. I know that because I read the academic Russian translation, and it also said “both worlds”, and not literal “two worlds”. In poetry literal translation does not always convey the meaning of the poem. Grandmaster 11:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and we should not tolerate foul language on this pages, if you forgive me. I think personally that poetic translations are better insofar as they capture the meaning and not literal interpretation - this poem is extremely complex affair and Saposcat gave it a good service.  abdulnr 11:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I should add that, of all the points I made, the one I'm most willing to accept compromise on is the phrase "Mine is the placeless essence", especially insofar as the rest of the poem plays strongly with the word "menem" (i.e., "Şems menem, qemer menem, şehd menem, şeker menem") in contexts where the "I am" emphasis seems particularly strong. As such, I think that Calm's translation is likely more appropriate than my attempt (sorry, Calm—we all act rashly at times, I suppose), which leaves perhaps a bit too much ambiguity and probably leans too much toward the overly self-consciously "poetic" school of translation. Any thoughts? —Saposcat 11:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "kövn ü mekân" should be translated as the (existing) space or even universe, as Calm suggests, I think we should rephrase the second line because now the English translation has identical phrases in both lines, while the original does not. The poet means that he cannot fit into existing space, no matter how big or endless it is. I suggest the following to preserve the rhyme of the original:
Both worlds can fit within me, but in this world I cannot fit
Mine is the placeless essence, but in existence I cannot fit
What do you think? Grandmaster 11:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That seems alright to me. It also, as you point out, preserves the redif ("sığmazam"/"I cannot fit") without simply repeating the whole English phrase over again, as my clumsy attempt did.  The word "existence" to mean "existing space" is a bit hard to get at the meaning of in English because of that word's high degree of abstraction, but then again, the phrase has a good deal of abstraction in the original (as far as I can tell), and so I think it works out alright. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
So if I understand your previous posting right, maybe this should be the final version everybody can agree on:
Both worlds can fit within me, but in this world I cannot fit
I am the placeless essence, but in existence I cannot fit
If everyone agrees, we can ask Saposcat to incorporate it into the text. Grandmaster 12:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that works best, yes. Calm's version with "I am" seems to work better to me, particularly given other beyits in the poem. Let's just see if others agree before changing it. (By "others", I guess that would be abdulnr and Calm, who are apparently the only others concerned with this debate at present.) —Saposcat 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As a said currently is slightly clumsy with "in this world". However what you propose is fine. WHat about this:
Both of the Worlds can live in me, but in this world I shall not fit
I am the placeless essense- into existence shall not fit
Sigmazam does not mean cannot fit (ability) it means will not (action)
Profess that even "fit" is a bit prozaic word, i would have chosen something else, but at loss now. Better go and read Milton.abdulnr 14:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think the word “live” is good in this context. As for “shall not” instead of “cannot”, it is OK. I think we can use my version and replace “cannot” with “shall not”, if everybody agrees.
Both worlds can fit within me, but in this world I shal not fit
I am the placeless essence - into existence shall not fit
How's this, my fellow poets? Grandmaster 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the word "fit" is not excessively prosaic; on the contrary, it is by far the best of the alternatives.
Secondly, I don't think that "shall not" works, and am strongly against using it. Here's why: as is rightly pointed out in the article, Nesîmî uses a register much more vernacular than many poets of the time, while "shall" is a highly formal word in English and makes it sound like one of those bad 19th-century translations that translators (these days) are taught to avoid like the plague.
Thirdly, as for the alternative of "will not", I don't think that this works, either. Here's why: to say "will not fit" here in English gives a strong undercurrent of "I absolutely refuse to fit". I may be wrong (and please inform me if I am), but that kind of strong refusal doesn't seem to be so present or stressed in "sığmazam" as it would be if we were to render it as "will not fit".
Finally, what about just "do not"? which would give us the following:
Both worlds can fit within me, but in this world I do not fit
I am the placeless essence, but into existence I do not fit
Any thoughts? —Saposcat 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Do not is OK, but I think the word "cannot" is the best for this verse. Let’s decide on that, we can always change our mind if we come up with something better. Grandmaster 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "cannot" is the best, because although that may not be what he says grammatically, that seems to be exactly what he really says. —
Saposcat 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If there's no objection, we can include this version to the article. Grandmaster 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok if you both want this I will agree. It makes three. abdulnr

I'll go ahead and make the changes then. —Saposcat 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
MY TWO CENTS: As I know , in Azeri Turkish , Manda means "for me " but if we(Azeri's) say Mana , that would be "to me" . Then mybe in the first part "Mende sığar iki cahan, men bu cahâna sığmazam ", the word "sığar" can be translated as "looks little for me" form the Persian-Arabic word "صغیر/Sağir" . Then the first part would be translated : before me (for me) , the two worlds looks little , I don't push myself into this world.( sığmazam can be translated as "I don't push" as in contemprary Azeri that Siğmağmeans to push)--Alborz Fallah 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Gövher-i lâ-mekân means the "placeless jewel" : that's a known phrase in Persian that means a priceless and invaluable thing . The poet is playing with the two meaning of that phrase that's a popular thing in Persian poetry (called Janass(punning)):Priceless jewel/Placeless essence.--Alborz Fallah 10:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic article, I agree with the earlier comments that the "Alevi"/Turku style of poets, singers and masters of folk literature should recieve more attention.
This has had a huge influence and impact on the culture of the Turks and is more distinct, it does not have outside influences and is primarily an invention and original style of the Turks.
The Yunus Emre page is sadly very poor and I will definately work on this, in addition "Koroglu", "Karacaoglan", "Erzerumlu Emrah", "Ahment Yasavi", "Keloglan" etc etc all deserve alot of attention.
These are folk heroes and there are literally thousands upon thousands of songs, poems, books regarding such characters and many more, this style is called "Turku", in Azerbaycan, Turkey, the Caucauses, Iran, Iraq, Balkans... among the Turks this style is so important and so loved yet its hardly mentioned here.
--Johnstevens5 17:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Was he Turkish or Azerbaijani? The categories in this article say he was both. —Khoikhoi 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"The categories in this article say he was both." Yes. Just, for a moment, let's let the ethnic nonsense go and recognize that he actually is both insofar as he exercised an immense influence in both traditions and is generally considered a part of both traditions. We don't, for example, see objections to T. S. Eliot being listed as Category:American poets and Category:British poets. Why is that? Who knows? And how much does it matter? —Saposcat 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Because nationalism is a lot more important for some people than you think. :) Just look at the edit wars that went on at Nezami and Babur. —Khoikhoi 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course I realize that, and have been watching those particular edit wars now and again (and getting nauseous at each glance, to be honest). However, since the bits you mention are only categories—thus placing them at the very bottom of the page, where (in my extreme cynicism) I believe few readers ever reach—I think it can probably, and rightfully, pass uncontested. Also, the Turkish-Azerbaijani dichotomy seems somewhat less likely to be contested than the Turkish-Persian (as per Nezami) or Turkish-Mongol (as per Babur) one. But only time will tell, I guess. Let's leave it and see how long it takes for the proverbial shit to hit the proverbial fan. —Saposcat 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but Category:Turkish people has a very specific meaning, it means Turkish by ethnicity or nationality, not Turkish by culture, etc. Also, saying "Azeris = Turks of Turkey" is factually inaccurate. Of course they're closely related, but they're not the same. Anyways, that's all I pretty much have to say. —Khoikhoi 23:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Its a silly statment, Azerbaijan people are Turks people of Turkey are Turks, Turkey does not have sole ownership over Turks, this is a far larger nation and a language which is used by around 100 million outside of Turkey.
So it doesn't matter if you say he's Azerbaijani or Turkish as whatever you call him he's a Turk, also regarding that Turkey or Azerbaijan didn't actually exist back then and that he was part of the Ottoman Empire his Millet would have been the Turk Millet.
Whatever way you look at it, he's a Turk so there's no need for a huge immense argument again like is seen in Persian article's.  There are no arguments, people of Turkey and Azerbaijan are the same, if you don't accept this it really doesn't matter because the people of those countries actually view each other as the same and this ideal is not just among the people but the ruling elite, a famous phrase is, "Azerbaycan Turkiye iki dovlet bir Millet", Azerbaijan Turkey two countries one Nation.   A Nationalism issue will never be made out of articles like these as they are the same nation in two countries.
Regards
Johnstevens5

Thank you John, please put something around my neck and drag me through the streets, for I do not know the truth! Shame on me. —Khoikhoi 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) Let me just say, please calm down, Johnstevens5.
Fine, he would be part of the Turk millet, which had nothing whatsoever to do with nationality or ethnicity but only with religion.
Re: "people of Turkey and Azerbaijan are the same"—whatever happened to the idea of every single human being being completely different and ultimately unfathomable, in a radical way, to any other individual human being? Can't that be read anywhere in Nesîmî?
Re: "A Nationalism issue will never be made out of articles like these as they are the same nation in two countries"—no, a nationalism issue will (or rather, should—"will" is too strong because such issues are, in fact, being made all the time over "articles like these") should never be made out of articles like these because nationalism is largely an irrelevancy in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. "Nationalism" is not the grounds on which Nesîmî was arguing for the Turk/Turkic/Turkish language at all. —Saposcat 23:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, if I came across as rude I apologise it wasn't meant to come across like that, to me it sounds silly but to somebody who didn't know it's a logical statement.
There won't be any nationalism anyway in this article for the reasons I explained above.
Regards
--Johnstevens5 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"People of Turkey and Azerbaijan are the same" is not a logical statement. —Khoikhoi 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It may not be to you but to the people of those two countries its really logical, this is why I'm asking for sources written in the West to be more realistic ie the language etc etc
They may not be identicle people but there is a general feeling among the people in those areas that they are of the same nation.
--Johnstevens5 01:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's leave it at that. However since we don't know where he was born etc.. this is very irrelevant. He excibited most influence on Alevi Turkish (as opposed to Turkish divan poetry) and Azeri Turkish poetry. Cite them in both. abdulnr 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And what nation would that be? —Khoikhoi 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Majority of Google hits as well as JSTOR and Google Books references spell his name as Nesimi. So I think we should move the page to a proper title as reflected in scholarship. Thanks. Atabek 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is close.  For example Encyclopedia of Islam has it as Nesimi but then it seems more google books have it as Nasimi.  [2] vs [3].  I am going to add some sources from Encyclopedia of Islam about his Persian poetry, but a search in google books would have yielded a good amount of results.  But other statements seem to not be sourced.  --alidoostzadeh 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ali can you provide us with references to poems or ghazals of Nesimi which were written originally in Persian? If not, then I guess the reference provided above does not seems to be quite valid. Atabek 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, I looked at the source you brought.  It does not say mostly [[4]].  As per his Persian poetry, Encyclopedia of Islam is very valid source.  I'll bring more soon.  --alidoostzadeh 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is one right now actually:

اى جانِ عاشق! از لب جانان ندا شنو
آواز «ارجعى» ز جهانِ بقا شنو
اى آنكه اهل ميكده را منكرى! بيا
از صوفيانِ صومعه بوى ريا شنو
صوفى كجا و ذوق مىِ صافى از كجا
اين نكته را ز دُرد كَشِ آشنا شنو
از سوزِ عود و نغمه چنگ و نواى نى
شرحِ درونِ خستهء پر درد ما شنو
شرح غم «نسيمى» آشفته، موبمو
اى باد صبح! زآن سر زلف دو تا شنــو

Source:
ديوان فارسى عمادالدين نسيمى، به تصحيح رستم على اوف، ص١٩٤-١٩٥. مصراع دوم و پنجم اين شعر در نسخه رستم على اوف و جلالى پندرى بجاى «ز جهان بقا» و «مى صافى» «به جهان بقا» و «مى صاف» آمده است. 
Translation of Source:
The Persian Diwan of Nasimi, with the correction of Rostam Aliyev, pg 194-195.  
And here is another source:
The quatrains of Nesimi, fourteenth-century Turkic Hurufi. With annotated translations of the Turkie and Persian quatrains from the Hekimoğlu Ali Pasa ms. by Kathleen R. F. Burrill.
(Columbia University. Publications in Near and Middle East studies. Series A. ; v. 14) 1972.  --alidoostzadeh 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is his whole Divan in Persian on a CD  (along with other poets) [5]. --alidoostzadeh 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this information. I also added the Britannica reference, which clearly says that Nesimi's Turkish divan was his most important work. Atabek 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the sentence that Nesimi was a father of Turkish classical literature can be removed/reworded due to lack of reference for the tag for some time. Atabek (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, as there is already Literature of Turkey template inserted on the page, I think we can now remove the other Turkish literature tag that's on the page. Atabek (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

These "sources":
Mystical Islam: An Introduction to Sufism, I. B. Tauris. pp. 103, does not mention Azerbaijan or Nasimi's ethnicity.
Burrill, Kathleen R.F. (1972). The Quatrains of Nesimi Fourteenth-Century Turkic Hurufi; has no page number listed.
Lambton, Ann K. S.; Holt, Peter Malcolm; Lewis, Bernard (1970). The Cambridge History of Islam. Cambridge University Press. pp. 689, does not mention Azerbaijan or Nasimi's ethnicity.
This information needs to be sourced or corrected with reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a technical issue? Because when I read the second poem, the Perso-Arabic script isn't the same as the transliteration below it. Sorry if my English is bad M Dzaki (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No, your not seeing wrong,the second one is same as the one below , the " gordim ol ayi behram eyledim"  should be something like this "گردام  اؤل  ایی و بهرام ایله دم" ish when written with modern standards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennanak88 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC) 

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

2 İm. Nəsimi.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani identity was created by Stalin in the late 1930s and was applied to every Muslim in the South Caucasus. 
Nasimi was born several centuries before Stalin, and he lived in Syria and Iraq...
How can Nasimi be an Azerbaijani? This is ridiculous.
Sickofthisbs (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani identity was created by the Soviet Russians in the late 1930s. He was born almost 600 years before that. Nasimi spent most of his time in the Levant and Iraq, and he admired the ethnic Iranian Fazlallah Astarabadi, and wrote poetry in Persian and in various Turkish dialects and sometimes in Arabic. So how can he be an Azerbaijani? This is utter nonsense and it should be removed. This is childish propaganda by the Baku regime. Sickofthisbs (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I'm aware we have previously had a similar conversation, but how is Nasimi being Azerbaijani irrelevant when the majority of his works are written in Azerbaijani and it is his works in Azerbaijani that he is famous for? Why is the MOS:ETHNICITY guideline not being applied to poets of other ethnicities from the same region? The same question applies to this and this article. — Golden call me maybe? 20:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I would ask why Azerbaijani is being liberally used over multiple articles, when clearly it is NOT a nationality(during this time period).
"but how is Nasimi being Azerbaijani irrelevant when the majority of his works are written in Azerbaijani and it is his works in Azerbaijani that he is famous for?"
You mean when the majority of their cultural works are in a particular language that language should be mentioned in the lead? How very interesting. I guess this only applies to Azerbaijan, Turkic, Turco-, Turko-, issues.
I recently reverted the edits of Alihd23, who was adding Persian to articles. Continue to make insinuations about my neutrality, and you will not like where it ends up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I would ask why Azerbaijani is being liberally used over multiple articles, when clearly it is NOT a nationality(during this time period).
Your question would be better directed to scholars such as Gerhard Doerfer, Canan Balan, and Kathleen Burrill, who all use the terms "Azerbaijani" or "Azeri" to refer to the poet. Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist.
You mean when the majority of their cultural works are in a particular language that language should be mentioned in the lead? How very interesting. I guess this only applies to Azerbaijan, Turkic, Turco-, Turko-, issues.
If the poet is most renowned for their works in that specific language, then yes. Per MOS:ETHNICITY: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident". Him being Azerbaijani provides context for his works in the Azerbaijani language and helps avoid redundacy by writing something like "was a poet who is most famous for his works in his native Azerbaijani language" since writing "Azerbaijani poet" already conveys that information.
I recently reverted the edits of Alihd23, who was adding Persian to articles. Continue to make insinuations about my neutrality, and you will not like where it ends up.
I am simply stating what I have observed. I am not familiar with Alihd23 or the topic area in which you have reverted their edits. However, I have noticed that many major poets from the Middle East have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead of their articles. This practice seems to be removed only for Azerbaijani poets (if you have recent evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share it). If we follow the logic that cultural works in a language do not allow for the inclusion of the poet's nationality (in cases when they are the same (e.g. Arabic origin poet writing in Arabic language)) in the lead, then we would need to make changes to almost every Middle Eastern poet's article. An RfC would be a more appropriate way to address this issue. — Golden call me maybe? 21:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
"I am simply stating what I have observed."
Oh, well since we are stating what we have observed, I noticed Qizilbash arrived to support you on Timurid Empire talk page, it is a pity they can not tell the difference between culture(Persianate) and ethnicity(Persian). Undoubtedly they will be here post-haste for your RfC.
I have observed you complain about edits towards what you label Azerbaijani poets insisting that since they wrote their majority of their works in Azerbaijani that you should be allowed to violate MOS:Ethnicity. I guess majority works only applies to the Azerbaijani language? But not about an empire that wrote the majority of its works in Persian. Got it.
"this practice seems to be removed only for Azerbaijani poets (if you have recent evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share it)."
I guess a link to Alihd23's edits were too difficult to understand. Clearly evidence will only be the shade you agree with.
"Your question would be better directed to scholars such as Gerhard Doerfer, Canan Balan, and Kathleen Burrill, who all use the terms "Azerbaijani" or "Azeri" to refer to the poet."
And yet you continue to ignore MOS:Ethnicity.
"Just because the term "Azerbaijani"/"Azeri" did not exist at the time does not mean that the people did not exist."
Jesus Christ, that is what you think this means? Clearly you can not edit in this area neutrally.
"An RfC would be a more appropriate way to address this issue."
I am sure. Since we both know who will arrive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Golden: Define 'renowned'. We have two surviving diwans from Nasimi, one Azerbaijani, one Persian - he was, above all else, a man of great multiculturalism and roved across the Perso-Turkic worlds. He may have been 'from Azerbaijan' at the time, but he didn't carry around an 'Azerbaijani' nisba at the end of his name and would have simply referred to his language as türk dili or türkcə. While the divergence of the Azerbaijani language began in the 14th century, it was an embryonic stage for its differentiation, and his poetry could quite possibly just as easily be labelled Turkish. In all of this context, what evidence is there that Nasimi himself ascribed significance to coming from this particular region, or identified his form of Turkish as a uniquely differentiated Azerbaijani concoction? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: I don't think how he referred to his language in the 14th century is relevant to our current understanding. Modern scholars have analyzed Nasimi's poems and agree that they were written in Azerbaijani. I have not seen a single source that disputes this. You can verify this by reviewing the sources cited in this article, which all confirm Nasimi's origin and/or language:
Balan, Canan (2008). "Transience, absurdity, dreams and other illusions: Turkish shadow play", p.177: As seen in the lines of the Azeri poet Nesimi
Berengian, Sakina (1998). "Azeri and Persian Literary Works in Twentieth Century Iranian Azerbaijan.", p.16: One can mention, for example, the influence of Navā'i, the Chaghatay poet and writer (1441-1501), on Azeri and Ottoman literature, and the lasting influences of Nasimi (d. 1404) and Fuẓuli (d. 1556), two Azeri poets, on the development of Ottoman literature.; p.17: The earliest manifestation of Shiite sentiments was in the works of Nasimi (14th century), the first important figure not only of the Azeri, but also of the Turkic world as a whole.
Bilgin, Azmi & Üzüm, İlyas (2007). "NESÎMÎ". TDV Encyclopedia of Islam: Ayrıca Âzerî Türkçesi’nin Fuzûlî’den önceki en büyük şairi olarak kabul edilir. [Google Translated: He is also regarded as the greatest poet of Azeri Turkish before Fuzûlî.
Burrill, Kathleen R. F. (1972). "The Quatrains of Nesimî Fourteenth-Century Turkic Hurufi.", p.24: The fourteenth Century was a period of great bourgeoning, both among poets of Western Anatolia such as [...] and also among those who were the forerunners of the Azeri Turkic group, such as [...] and finally Nesimi himself.; p.46: Generally he is accounted an Azeri Turkic rather than an Ottoman poet though frequntly, like Kadı Bürhaneddin and Fuzuli, he is included in lists of Ottoman Turkish poets
Doerfer, Gerhard (1988). "AZERBAIJAN viii. Azeri Turkish". Encyclopædia Iranica: The oldest poet of the Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not of East Anatolian of Khorasani, origin) is ʿEmād-al-dīn Nasīmī (about 1369-1404, q.v.).
Gümüş, Kudret Safa (2020). "Nesîmî ve Şeyhî'ni̇n "Yok" Redi̇fli̇ Gazelleri̇ne Mukayeseli̇ Bi̇r Bakış" p.237: Nesimi is a poet who grew up in Azerbaijan in the second half of the 14th century and created a work with the characteristics of this Azerbaijani dialect.; p.238: Nesîmî Azerbaycan Türkçesi özelliklerini yansıtarak lirik ve coşkun şiirleriyle ön plana çıkmış, onun dili halkın dili ile özdeşleşmiştir. O, aynı zamanda Klasik Türk edebiyatının mazmunlarını klişeleştirmeyi gerçekleştiren ilk şairlerden biri olmuş ve Azerbaycan sahasının Fûzûlî’den önce en büyük şâiri olarak kabul edilmiştir. [Google Translated: Nesîmî came to the forefront with his lyrical and enthusiastic poems, reflecting the characteristics of Azerbaijani Turkish, and his language was identified with the language of the people.  He was also one of the first poets to stereotype the mazmuns of Classical Turkish literature and was considered the greatest poet of the Azerbaijan field before Fuzûlî.]
Hess, Michael R. (2021). "Nǝsimi, İmadǝddin". Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE: İmadǝddin Nǝsimi (ʿİmādǝddīn Nǝsīmī d. c.821/1418–9) is considered to be the true founder of Azerbaijani (Turkic) classical ǝruz (ʿarūḍ) poetry
Javadi, H.; Burrill, K. (1988). "AZERBAIJAN x. Azeri Turkish Literature". Encyclopædia Iranica: Two poets of the 14th century, Qāżi Aḥmad Borhān al-Din (an East Anatolian) and the Ḥorufi demagogue ʿEmād-al-Din Nasimi played significant roles in the development of the Azeri Turkish poetry.
Usluer, Fatih (2013). "NESÎMÎ, Şeyh İmâdüddîn Seyyid Nesîmî": Azerî-Türkmen sahasında yetişmiş olmasına rağmen Anadolulu bir şair kadar hatta daha fazla hüsnü kabul görmüş birkaç şairden biri Nesîmî’dir. [Google Translated: Nesîmî is one of the few poets who, although he was brought up in the Azeri-Turkmen field, was accepted as well or more well-intentioned as an Anatolian poet.]
I excluded non-scholarly sources (Laman Ismayilova (AzerNews) & Encyclopædia Britannica) and Watenpaugh's book that only calls the poet a "mystic" without providing additional information. The fact that nearly all sources describe Nasimi as an Azeri poet, and often introduce him as such, clearly indicates the origin and nature of his fame. — Golden call me maybe? 09:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I see not scholarly consensus here on using 'Azerbaijani' at all; on the contrary, most sources eschew this terminology in favour of some variation on 'Azeri Turkish' or 'Azeri Turkic' - which is, I suppose, a fairly reasonable compromise between the chronistic and the achronistic, and the academic and nationalistic, in favour of recognizability. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I have no issue with using "Azeri"/"Azeri Turkic" instead of "Azerbaijani". I see arguing for or against either terminology as unnecessary since they both refer to the same thing. — Golden call me maybe? 09:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this for a while now. Imho, when a WP:RS says "Azeri poet", "Persian poet" "Arabic poet", etc they don't refer to ethnicity, but language - though that obviously can be a bit problematic to see that. So in order to adhere to that and MOS:ETHNICITY in our ledes, we would either have to remove the word/reword it to better reflect that, or change the link to the language instead of the ethnicity at very least. I am certainly no saint when it comes to this, but I have started to implement it [6] [7]. I believe this would take off some stress on Middle Eastern related articles, which we all know are constantly bombarded by pov edits. Also, Azerbaijani/Azeri neither existed as a ethnonym nor a language name at the time. At that time Nasimi would have spoken its ancestor language, Ajem-Turkic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the language link. I definitely think pushing more pages in the direction linguistic rather than ethnic emphasis would solve a lot of problems. I've lost count of all the articles that are like, he spoke Arabic, but he was Persian, because he came from X, but his family was from a Kurdish tribe, yada yada yada. On and on and on. You literally cannot end these identity discussions in the Middle East sphere. How about we just put up a big disclaimer stating: "everyone's a ethnic and cultural mongrel - get used to it!" Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: I don't this Ajem-Turkic is going to switch on lightbulbs for too many people - what do you think about terms such as 'Azeri Turkic', which contain a more recognizable geographic qualifier to the basic underlying Turkishness? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Most reliable sources do indeed refer to the language of work when describing a poet as Azeri, Persian, Arabic, etc., rather than their ethnic origin. I fully support removing links to ethnic articles from poets' pages and instead linking to the language of their works. If this approach were accepted as a consensus and applied consistently to all Middle Eastern poets, and perhaps even those from other regions, I would appreciate it. Thank you for starting the work by removing the links in those two articles. — Golden call me maybe? 09:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Relevant to this thread:
"Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914"'. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
"The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
"As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
"In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
"Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): 37
- LouisAragon (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)