This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hafez article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of طنز در اشعار حافظ from fa.wikipedia. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EBRedshaw.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Timur and Hafez story is repeated twice in two sections. Can someone remove one of them or condense into only one section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aref samadi ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I was always told hafez was called hafez because he had memorized the quran and 25 different tafsirs. I was under the impression that he was a devout individual and his allusions to wine throughout his poetry where metaphors of a divine love. Am i wrong? this article makes hafez out to be some heathen hedonistic alcoholic bum. It does a poor job of relaying the most important information about him.
I read this article with amazement. There is hardly any authentic information about Hafiz' life that we know, other than the fact that he lived in Shiraz and at what time. His life is as mysterious as his poetry. This article seems more like a pop magazine article about Hafiz rather than an encyclopedic article. Especially with childish claims like "he had memorized a zillion works of x and y and z" or "at age 21 he worked in a bakery". None of this is factual or provable. I suggest we cut out most of the meaningless hearsay and myth and curtail the article to a minimal but factual one. I would be happy to contribute. Ardavan 13:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fontgirl 20:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not particularly worried if I "would be laughed out of any western conference on Hafiz" as I have a degree in Persian Literature from the University most authoritative on Persian language in the world, as Persian is my mother tongue and as I teach Persian in high school. And all of that is pale compared to my own love for Hafez' untranslatable wizadry. Of the Ghazal numberrs that you listed above, none of them contains anything that even remotely suggests any homosexual tendencies or promotion of such deviations. A quick look at your edit history explains where this comes from. Your "beard" statement is simply nonsense and untrue. Apparently my Hafez book has a different numbering scheme than yours. Perhaps you can exactly write down which of his Ghazals is referring to beards (which you seem to suggest it's a "he" who is translated as "she" in "western languages").
The No. 22 that you mention, which in my book it is not No. 22, but I immediately recognized which one you mean form your translation, is clearly about a female and not a male. The couplet immediately after it mentions "chashm Narges" (Narcissus eyes) which is a quite commonly used symbolism in Persian poetry and is ALWAYS female. You left that part out. Besides, if you could understand the symbolic nature of this type of poetry and what they are talking about, you would know that even if it was a male, or lion or eagle or anything else, makes no difference in the essence and the concept for which it stands for and symbolizes. The fact that some "western experts" have made a carnal interpretation of is says it all.
In connection with that same Ghazal you write: "Were, or were not, women totally secluded and forbidden from men's gatherings and houses (unless married to the male)? Were women permitted to be seen drunk and wearing a shirt, in the public street? Is this, thus, the description of a woman?" -- well, first of all, the scene of that Ghazal is not in a bar or pub (Meykada in Persian), rather, it is at midnight and in privacy. But to answer your question, since you are making such direct interpretation of everything, then why don't you ask yourself was there a public wine house in the Islamic society of Hafez' time? If there was, then sure, there could also be female wine servers. The existence of a public wine house in that society would be much more shocking than female servants working in such a place.
Regarding Encyclopedia Iranica, no, I haven't seen it. Regarding the Ghazal numbers you are asking, it is obvious that your book has different numbers from mine. Regarding "military color of lyrical imagery" I have no idea what you are talking about.
There have been many respectable Western scholars who were very well familiar with Hafez' works. Goethe is certainly no small figure. How did he miss this obviously "homoeroticism" (I learned this word by reviewing your edit history) of Hafez and never mentioned it at all? Edward G. Browne was another Western scholar who was well familiar with Persian literature. How come he never mentioned anything about such aspects of Hafez? Reynold A. Nicholson was another Western scholar who wrote extensively about Hafez. There are many others. And what about Iranian scholars? None of them have enough brain to understand their own native language and see the "homoerotic" aspects of Hafez, but only a certain "western conferences on Hafez" are capable of seeing it? Would the Islamic Republic of Iran include the poetry of a "homoerotic" poet in the books and educational system of Iran? Ardavan 07:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Evidence: Columbia University's Encyclopædia Iranica - entries on Hafez; see especially vii and viii. Are you going to argue with the definitive multi-volume encyclopedia of Iranian culture, editied and published by Columbia University and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities? (A free font download is required to handle the need for textual accenting.) Fontgirl, 14:46, 26th Feb 2005
A minor point - Iranian girls are pale skinned, but dark haired, making adolescent girls particularly prone to have "soft hair budding on the upper lip" - until they get into the habit of pulling them out - usually when a bit older. This is a normal feature and I have so far not seen one Iranian girl who would not have during/shortly after puberty have this feature. I am at a loss whether this would ever have been seen as a mark of particular beauty - it is not now - but in a poem, in a girl I would mostly see it as a sign of youth, naturalness, lack of vanity, naievty etc, but I have not studied literature Refdoc 20:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article , in many aspects seems very low-quality to me.It provides very little useful information about Hafez and most of it is about folk myths.The section "Hafez in contemporary Iranian culture" is very poor in particular.And there are phrases like :"His work is also notable for making frequent reference to astrology and displaying a knowledge of astronomy and the zodiac." which do not seem appropriate , Hafez's poetry is not about astronomy, nor displays any extensive knowledge of it.I think we should cooperate and expand this article. Pasha Abd 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Abd Pasha is right. The references to wine, love and intoxication are traditional in Persian poetry AND are esoteric references to Persian mysticism which ALWAYS uses these allegories. The Wikipedia article is pathetic.-- Zubedar ( talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Szfski ( talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Szfski ( talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
. Drinking wine and appreciation of beautiful women is the most natural behaviour of human being. Shiraz had a good wine that Hafez knew well. Do not make up story for those humans! Xashaiar ( talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)به یکی جرعه که آزار کسش در پی نیست / زحمتی میکشم از مردم نادان که مپرس
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Types_of_hafez_poems.jpg
This fascinating graphic showing influences of Hafez would of course be even more interesting if it were legible by non-Persian speakers on his English language page : ) Anyone able to upload an English translation? Thanks Eric Machmer —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
Why are we still denying things that everybody knows? Haiduc 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I would request other editors, preferably some with knowledge of Persian, to repair the damage caused by the editor who posted "I got the data from a persian website, Surely Persian scholars who are experts in persian language know more that a foreigner!!" as justification for the tacky art and sanitizing edits. Haiduc 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The european translator, assumed that since hafez was a follower of sufism and love in sufism had sometimes been pederastic, therefore the beloved should have been a young boy. Well, I am looking at the persian version of the verses translated by Henry Wilberforce-Clarke, and as person whose mother tongue is persian it seems to me that the beloved was an adult female rather than a young boy. Since hafez is using pronouns to refer to his beloved and the cupbeareand and pronouns in persian are the same for both genders, one could go both ways but in persian we always use the phrase 'lock of hair of the beloved' to refer to females (since they have long hair you know). Besides anyone who is familiar with hafez poetry and have an advance understanding of medieval persian language, would know that Hafez is very unlikely to have pederastic inclinations. I am well aware of the existance pederasty in many teachings of sufism and I have seen the pederastic sentiments in Jami and Saadi poems but Not all persian poets that follow sufism have pederastic inclinations!!.
I'm afraid there are people here who have another agenda than the truth. In the western world there are two big lobbies nowadays. The first one being the jewish lobby, and the more recent one is the gay lobby. One of the ways for the gay lobby to justify it's way of living is to tag some famous people (especially of the past) with something related to homosexuality. And that's what's happening here. And I as an Iranian, it's the first time that I hear about pederastry of persian poets. Now to answer you one by one ; to fontgirl: I'm afraid the link you gave above about encyp. Iranica doesn't say anything about Hafiz being a pederast or even suggesting anything close to it. READ IT AGAIN AND TELL ME WHERE YOU SEE EVEN AN ALUSION TO LOVE FOR A YOUNG BOY, please. As for women having mildly some hair above their lips, it is still very common and at that time the removal of the hair was done for the first time when the girl got married. to Haiduc : you are definitely from that gay lobby. Let me tell you that there is no difference between the persian of 14th century and the one of 21 century from a litterary point of you. The mistake you make all is two fold; -First there is no pronoun/adjective distinguishing between male or female in persian and -Second anything said in mystical poems referes to god and love of god and the dissolution of the lover (god seeker) and the beloved (god) or in more philosophical term the subject (ego) and the object (egolessness), and those translators who did not take into consideration these two factors were/are just amators wasting their time and the time and energy of their readers. F Mir 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are more than five hundred lines in this link you mentioned, talking about many opinions and you just pick up two lines containing the word "homoerotic", that I don't know which idiot has written. Now let me give you another link [1] where they precisely talk about ghazal, it's formation and it's particularities. And they mention : "The idealized "beloved" in the ghazal tradition is typically a woman, or God." And then why is it believed to be homoerotic????? "The use of masculine grammatical structures suggests that many poems carry homoerotic undertones." As I said it is the structure of the persian language which does not have any distinction between genders, which has made some so-called scholars (probably those with an agenda not related to mystic poetry) to makeing a deliberate mistake of talking about "masculin grammatical structure" while it is neutral in persian. Neutral meaning precisely that if a man wrote it "The idealized "beloved" in the ghazal tradition is typically a woman, or God." And the paragraph ends by ; "The ghazal rarely speaks about specific encounters; rather, it conceives of love as a metaphor for interactions among humans, God, and the world." How about you, Haiduc, going a little bit further in your analysis than just fulfilling your agenda (as I know your contribution in wikipedia very well) and looking for the word homoerotic? 74.57.251.217 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the miniature in this page because of its low artistic merit (not the soft nudity it contains). It is actually a pleasurable and imaginative piece of pop art but not in line with Hafiz's style of poetry which is no doubt Persian High Art. I think it gives the page a better look if replaced with a classical miniature belonging to the same era.
Last time I checked, the word is divan, not diwan ("w" does not even exist in Farsi). Also, Khwaja is a very bad translitteration. the correct pronunciation would be Khajeh. I believe that it is important to promote correct pronunciation of foreign words (i.e. EYE-RAN -> EE-RON). Otherwise, besides the need for some information on the "Fall-e Hafez" tradition, this article is very informative. -- 69.140.122.175 ( talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
While I am not particularly familiar myself with the information pertaining to the life of Hafiz, I see a lot of things that seem to assert particular things regarding his life without any sources of information or citation on the matter. This makes me extremely suspicious of its accuracy and neutrality, and I have marked one section as such and I shall be tagging the page as needing more sources and verification throughout. I would be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this matter especially on better and more verifiable sources to make this more encyclopedic. Peter Deer ( talk) 11:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also removed the word mystic in the first line, as there is no factual evidence proving that Hafez himself was a mystic. I also recommend removing "surrealist" as a description for Hafez's poetry. Persiancowboy 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persiancowboy ( talk • contribs)
in the right column it is stated that "Notable ideas: Hafez's work has been translated by a number of major Western poets". I really found it disturbing and insulting to Hafez. Should we remove this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.24.182 ( talk) 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
i deleted the image of hafez goote (!) seats. I do not find it appropriate here. If you believe that must be here please write your reasons here first.
the point is that 1. that image puts an stress on gooote and the city weimer. 2. hafez is great without and before the western people tell us. 3. this is wikipedia english and not necessarily wikipedia for western people. 4. any image on a wikipedia must put the subject matter (here hafez) as the one and only central figure in the image. 5. we do not want to impress western people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.24.182 ( talk) 14:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact that many Western readers are likely to encounter Ladinsky's works such as "The Gift: Poems by Hafiz, the Sufi Master" (the cover spells his name as "Hafiz") when looking for some Hafez to read in English, I think that Ladinsky's fraud should have more emphasis in this article. To me, the fact has been established that Ladinsky's works attributed to Hafez are actually original works by Ladinsky, perhaps "inspired by" Hafez, but not actual trasnlations from the Persian. Ladinsky himself has publicly tried to justify this without actually denying that they are not really translations, as in his review of his own book, "The Gift," posted on Amazon. Yet, this does not seem to be well known, given the commercial success of his books. I think the issue is a bit buried in this article, and downplays it. I'm not sure that it is appropriate under the section "Works and Influence," as it should be noted as a separate issue of fradulent attribution. Perhaps it should given its own section under "Controversy," or part of a separate section about English translation (I think more discussion of the differences in the English translations is needed, and would be helpful in guiding an English speaker to appropriate readings). I even think that this should be mentioned in the intro briefly, referring to the corresponding section for more info. I would be willing to work on this, as I am currently researching the issue and looking at some of the various translations, such as those by Robert Bly & Leonard Lewisohn, Elizabeth T. Gray, and Thomas Rain Crowe. But I wanted to see what others thought first for the best plan of action? Putrescent stench ( talk) 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Dan Ladinsky does not know Persian, a little or a lot. I don't want to change it because I don't know how to cite it. To know that he doesn't know Persian you just need to call him on the phone and ask him. His poems are entirely made up by him. There is not one relation between one single Ladinsky poem and a single Hafez poem and Ladinsky has admitted that in a published inerview. They are "renderings" of poems by Hafiz, by Mr. Ladinsky. It's sad people don't know this. Darwin394 ( talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
how Meher Baba recited Hafiz ghazals until his dying day while maintaining a vow of silence? Rumiton ( talk) 13:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No takers above, looks like the contradiction needs to stand. Now...your new translation reeks of improvement, but what is a Hindu mole? Could it be the tilaka? Rumiton ( talk) 10:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The notion of love and sex do not interfere in the Persian literature and as such Hafiz cannot be assumed to be a homosexual, just as some westerners who read Hafiz think. Do you also assume that Rumi who wrote Divan-e Shams and mentioned his love for shams several times had a sexual relationship with him? حضرت محمود ( talk) 08:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 00:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hafez →
Hafiz Shirazi – per
WP:COMMONNAME
But maybe these results include other Hafez/Hafiz. Now let's re-research with the word Shirazi / of Shiraz:
Hafiz is overwhelming Hafez.
-- Takabeg ( talk) 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Google Books: "Hafiz Shirazi": 751 results. Google books: "Hafez" poet: 9,240 results. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You can throw in the Encyclopaedia Britannica for "Hafez" [3]. Hafez is the most common form among modern scholars. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Normal research of google books research cannot distinguish similar words.
-- Takabeg ( talk) 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Books Ngram Viewer can didtinguish similar words. According to Books Nagram, Hafiz is more common.
You can understand how "Hafiz Shirazi" "Hafiz of Shirazi" is common, when you see "Hafiz Shirazi" and "Hafiz of Shirazi". Takabeg ( talk) 13:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hafiz Shirazi →
Hafez – Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Page moved according to the opinion of a single user, employing a dubious methodology which does not match common English usage. Both Encyclopaedia Britannica and
Encyclopaedia Iranica use "Hafez". See also: Google Books for "Hafiz Shirazi": 751 results. Google books for "Hafez" poet: 9,240 results. There may be some argument whether the most common version of the name is "Hafez" or "Hafiz" but it is certainly not "Hafiz Shirazi". Should be moved back to "Hafez".
Folantin (
talk) 15:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Hafez2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
Why he dressed like a Russian in this picture? And what its mean? Hofizi Sherozi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hofizi_Sherozi.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.224.118 ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The ridiculous pictures of him should be removed. There are no renderings of Hafez. None. All 'artist's concepts' are biased - particularly those showing him as a jolly old man with a turban or some kind of weird Russian nobleman. These are absurd. Might as well photograph bums on the street of Tehran. Noh Chung ( talk) 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know I got this picture from Wikimedia and put it on the article, it was already on another language article. What is Russian about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Hafez book.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
English language resources
the third item is currently a broken link
G. Robert Shiplett 18:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The infobox for Hafez is classified as Saint. But he was not a saint for sure. I say we should change it to Infobox writer. Pouyakhani ( talk) 06:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we mention that he was a Shia please?-- 88.111.126.79 ( talk) 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
we should mention that he knew all 14 Qira'at The Holy Quran Kareem -- 88.111.126.79 ( talk) 13:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There are references that cannot be followed by any means. For instance:
There are neither links (if these are web sites), nor book titles, nor publishers, nor journal sources... I am trying to edit an article about Hafez for Bulgarian wikipedia. So, please, could somebody make these (and the similar) references complete. -- Mmm-jun ( talk) 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
His collected works composed of series of Persian literature are to be found in the homes of most people in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, who learn his poems by heart and use them as proverbs and sayings to this day.
So, this line from the introduction, I'm guessing...the person who wrote that comes from either Iran, Afghanistan or Tajikistan. Does the article need this in the introduction, or at least in the way and at the location it is right now? 83.83.59.46 ( talk) 22:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit there may be a problem with the sources: all three are Arabic, which makes them unverifiable for most English=speaking readers:
Also, the translations offered in this edit are not exactly correct English.
recently i added a sample poem translation from this book, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.184.179.38 ( talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hafez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article starts with Hafez - not to be confused with Hafiz. Surely it IS to be confused with Hafiz, the latter most usually being a different translation of the same name? RGipps ( talk) 19:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Urdu Language 119.152.152.130 ( talk) 18:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hafez article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of طنز در اشعار حافظ from fa.wikipedia. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EBRedshaw.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Timur and Hafez story is repeated twice in two sections. Can someone remove one of them or condense into only one section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aref samadi ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I was always told hafez was called hafez because he had memorized the quran and 25 different tafsirs. I was under the impression that he was a devout individual and his allusions to wine throughout his poetry where metaphors of a divine love. Am i wrong? this article makes hafez out to be some heathen hedonistic alcoholic bum. It does a poor job of relaying the most important information about him.
I read this article with amazement. There is hardly any authentic information about Hafiz' life that we know, other than the fact that he lived in Shiraz and at what time. His life is as mysterious as his poetry. This article seems more like a pop magazine article about Hafiz rather than an encyclopedic article. Especially with childish claims like "he had memorized a zillion works of x and y and z" or "at age 21 he worked in a bakery". None of this is factual or provable. I suggest we cut out most of the meaningless hearsay and myth and curtail the article to a minimal but factual one. I would be happy to contribute. Ardavan 13:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fontgirl 20:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not particularly worried if I "would be laughed out of any western conference on Hafiz" as I have a degree in Persian Literature from the University most authoritative on Persian language in the world, as Persian is my mother tongue and as I teach Persian in high school. And all of that is pale compared to my own love for Hafez' untranslatable wizadry. Of the Ghazal numberrs that you listed above, none of them contains anything that even remotely suggests any homosexual tendencies or promotion of such deviations. A quick look at your edit history explains where this comes from. Your "beard" statement is simply nonsense and untrue. Apparently my Hafez book has a different numbering scheme than yours. Perhaps you can exactly write down which of his Ghazals is referring to beards (which you seem to suggest it's a "he" who is translated as "she" in "western languages").
The No. 22 that you mention, which in my book it is not No. 22, but I immediately recognized which one you mean form your translation, is clearly about a female and not a male. The couplet immediately after it mentions "chashm Narges" (Narcissus eyes) which is a quite commonly used symbolism in Persian poetry and is ALWAYS female. You left that part out. Besides, if you could understand the symbolic nature of this type of poetry and what they are talking about, you would know that even if it was a male, or lion or eagle or anything else, makes no difference in the essence and the concept for which it stands for and symbolizes. The fact that some "western experts" have made a carnal interpretation of is says it all.
In connection with that same Ghazal you write: "Were, or were not, women totally secluded and forbidden from men's gatherings and houses (unless married to the male)? Were women permitted to be seen drunk and wearing a shirt, in the public street? Is this, thus, the description of a woman?" -- well, first of all, the scene of that Ghazal is not in a bar or pub (Meykada in Persian), rather, it is at midnight and in privacy. But to answer your question, since you are making such direct interpretation of everything, then why don't you ask yourself was there a public wine house in the Islamic society of Hafez' time? If there was, then sure, there could also be female wine servers. The existence of a public wine house in that society would be much more shocking than female servants working in such a place.
Regarding Encyclopedia Iranica, no, I haven't seen it. Regarding the Ghazal numbers you are asking, it is obvious that your book has different numbers from mine. Regarding "military color of lyrical imagery" I have no idea what you are talking about.
There have been many respectable Western scholars who were very well familiar with Hafez' works. Goethe is certainly no small figure. How did he miss this obviously "homoeroticism" (I learned this word by reviewing your edit history) of Hafez and never mentioned it at all? Edward G. Browne was another Western scholar who was well familiar with Persian literature. How come he never mentioned anything about such aspects of Hafez? Reynold A. Nicholson was another Western scholar who wrote extensively about Hafez. There are many others. And what about Iranian scholars? None of them have enough brain to understand their own native language and see the "homoerotic" aspects of Hafez, but only a certain "western conferences on Hafez" are capable of seeing it? Would the Islamic Republic of Iran include the poetry of a "homoerotic" poet in the books and educational system of Iran? Ardavan 07:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Evidence: Columbia University's Encyclopædia Iranica - entries on Hafez; see especially vii and viii. Are you going to argue with the definitive multi-volume encyclopedia of Iranian culture, editied and published by Columbia University and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities? (A free font download is required to handle the need for textual accenting.) Fontgirl, 14:46, 26th Feb 2005
A minor point - Iranian girls are pale skinned, but dark haired, making adolescent girls particularly prone to have "soft hair budding on the upper lip" - until they get into the habit of pulling them out - usually when a bit older. This is a normal feature and I have so far not seen one Iranian girl who would not have during/shortly after puberty have this feature. I am at a loss whether this would ever have been seen as a mark of particular beauty - it is not now - but in a poem, in a girl I would mostly see it as a sign of youth, naturalness, lack of vanity, naievty etc, but I have not studied literature Refdoc 20:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article , in many aspects seems very low-quality to me.It provides very little useful information about Hafez and most of it is about folk myths.The section "Hafez in contemporary Iranian culture" is very poor in particular.And there are phrases like :"His work is also notable for making frequent reference to astrology and displaying a knowledge of astronomy and the zodiac." which do not seem appropriate , Hafez's poetry is not about astronomy, nor displays any extensive knowledge of it.I think we should cooperate and expand this article. Pasha Abd 00:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Abd Pasha is right. The references to wine, love and intoxication are traditional in Persian poetry AND are esoteric references to Persian mysticism which ALWAYS uses these allegories. The Wikipedia article is pathetic.-- Zubedar ( talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Szfski ( talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Szfski ( talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
. Drinking wine and appreciation of beautiful women is the most natural behaviour of human being. Shiraz had a good wine that Hafez knew well. Do not make up story for those humans! Xashaiar ( talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)به یکی جرعه که آزار کسش در پی نیست / زحمتی میکشم از مردم نادان که مپرس
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Types_of_hafez_poems.jpg
This fascinating graphic showing influences of Hafez would of course be even more interesting if it were legible by non-Persian speakers on his English language page : ) Anyone able to upload an English translation? Thanks Eric Machmer —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
Why are we still denying things that everybody knows? Haiduc 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I would request other editors, preferably some with knowledge of Persian, to repair the damage caused by the editor who posted "I got the data from a persian website, Surely Persian scholars who are experts in persian language know more that a foreigner!!" as justification for the tacky art and sanitizing edits. Haiduc 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The european translator, assumed that since hafez was a follower of sufism and love in sufism had sometimes been pederastic, therefore the beloved should have been a young boy. Well, I am looking at the persian version of the verses translated by Henry Wilberforce-Clarke, and as person whose mother tongue is persian it seems to me that the beloved was an adult female rather than a young boy. Since hafez is using pronouns to refer to his beloved and the cupbeareand and pronouns in persian are the same for both genders, one could go both ways but in persian we always use the phrase 'lock of hair of the beloved' to refer to females (since they have long hair you know). Besides anyone who is familiar with hafez poetry and have an advance understanding of medieval persian language, would know that Hafez is very unlikely to have pederastic inclinations. I am well aware of the existance pederasty in many teachings of sufism and I have seen the pederastic sentiments in Jami and Saadi poems but Not all persian poets that follow sufism have pederastic inclinations!!.
I'm afraid there are people here who have another agenda than the truth. In the western world there are two big lobbies nowadays. The first one being the jewish lobby, and the more recent one is the gay lobby. One of the ways for the gay lobby to justify it's way of living is to tag some famous people (especially of the past) with something related to homosexuality. And that's what's happening here. And I as an Iranian, it's the first time that I hear about pederastry of persian poets. Now to answer you one by one ; to fontgirl: I'm afraid the link you gave above about encyp. Iranica doesn't say anything about Hafiz being a pederast or even suggesting anything close to it. READ IT AGAIN AND TELL ME WHERE YOU SEE EVEN AN ALUSION TO LOVE FOR A YOUNG BOY, please. As for women having mildly some hair above their lips, it is still very common and at that time the removal of the hair was done for the first time when the girl got married. to Haiduc : you are definitely from that gay lobby. Let me tell you that there is no difference between the persian of 14th century and the one of 21 century from a litterary point of you. The mistake you make all is two fold; -First there is no pronoun/adjective distinguishing between male or female in persian and -Second anything said in mystical poems referes to god and love of god and the dissolution of the lover (god seeker) and the beloved (god) or in more philosophical term the subject (ego) and the object (egolessness), and those translators who did not take into consideration these two factors were/are just amators wasting their time and the time and energy of their readers. F Mir 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are more than five hundred lines in this link you mentioned, talking about many opinions and you just pick up two lines containing the word "homoerotic", that I don't know which idiot has written. Now let me give you another link [1] where they precisely talk about ghazal, it's formation and it's particularities. And they mention : "The idealized "beloved" in the ghazal tradition is typically a woman, or God." And then why is it believed to be homoerotic????? "The use of masculine grammatical structures suggests that many poems carry homoerotic undertones." As I said it is the structure of the persian language which does not have any distinction between genders, which has made some so-called scholars (probably those with an agenda not related to mystic poetry) to makeing a deliberate mistake of talking about "masculin grammatical structure" while it is neutral in persian. Neutral meaning precisely that if a man wrote it "The idealized "beloved" in the ghazal tradition is typically a woman, or God." And the paragraph ends by ; "The ghazal rarely speaks about specific encounters; rather, it conceives of love as a metaphor for interactions among humans, God, and the world." How about you, Haiduc, going a little bit further in your analysis than just fulfilling your agenda (as I know your contribution in wikipedia very well) and looking for the word homoerotic? 74.57.251.217 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the miniature in this page because of its low artistic merit (not the soft nudity it contains). It is actually a pleasurable and imaginative piece of pop art but not in line with Hafiz's style of poetry which is no doubt Persian High Art. I think it gives the page a better look if replaced with a classical miniature belonging to the same era.
Last time I checked, the word is divan, not diwan ("w" does not even exist in Farsi). Also, Khwaja is a very bad translitteration. the correct pronunciation would be Khajeh. I believe that it is important to promote correct pronunciation of foreign words (i.e. EYE-RAN -> EE-RON). Otherwise, besides the need for some information on the "Fall-e Hafez" tradition, this article is very informative. -- 69.140.122.175 ( talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
While I am not particularly familiar myself with the information pertaining to the life of Hafiz, I see a lot of things that seem to assert particular things regarding his life without any sources of information or citation on the matter. This makes me extremely suspicious of its accuracy and neutrality, and I have marked one section as such and I shall be tagging the page as needing more sources and verification throughout. I would be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this matter especially on better and more verifiable sources to make this more encyclopedic. Peter Deer ( talk) 11:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also removed the word mystic in the first line, as there is no factual evidence proving that Hafez himself was a mystic. I also recommend removing "surrealist" as a description for Hafez's poetry. Persiancowboy 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persiancowboy ( talk • contribs)
in the right column it is stated that "Notable ideas: Hafez's work has been translated by a number of major Western poets". I really found it disturbing and insulting to Hafez. Should we remove this sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.24.182 ( talk) 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
i deleted the image of hafez goote (!) seats. I do not find it appropriate here. If you believe that must be here please write your reasons here first.
the point is that 1. that image puts an stress on gooote and the city weimer. 2. hafez is great without and before the western people tell us. 3. this is wikipedia english and not necessarily wikipedia for western people. 4. any image on a wikipedia must put the subject matter (here hafez) as the one and only central figure in the image. 5. we do not want to impress western people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.24.182 ( talk) 14:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact that many Western readers are likely to encounter Ladinsky's works such as "The Gift: Poems by Hafiz, the Sufi Master" (the cover spells his name as "Hafiz") when looking for some Hafez to read in English, I think that Ladinsky's fraud should have more emphasis in this article. To me, the fact has been established that Ladinsky's works attributed to Hafez are actually original works by Ladinsky, perhaps "inspired by" Hafez, but not actual trasnlations from the Persian. Ladinsky himself has publicly tried to justify this without actually denying that they are not really translations, as in his review of his own book, "The Gift," posted on Amazon. Yet, this does not seem to be well known, given the commercial success of his books. I think the issue is a bit buried in this article, and downplays it. I'm not sure that it is appropriate under the section "Works and Influence," as it should be noted as a separate issue of fradulent attribution. Perhaps it should given its own section under "Controversy," or part of a separate section about English translation (I think more discussion of the differences in the English translations is needed, and would be helpful in guiding an English speaker to appropriate readings). I even think that this should be mentioned in the intro briefly, referring to the corresponding section for more info. I would be willing to work on this, as I am currently researching the issue and looking at some of the various translations, such as those by Robert Bly & Leonard Lewisohn, Elizabeth T. Gray, and Thomas Rain Crowe. But I wanted to see what others thought first for the best plan of action? Putrescent stench ( talk) 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Dan Ladinsky does not know Persian, a little or a lot. I don't want to change it because I don't know how to cite it. To know that he doesn't know Persian you just need to call him on the phone and ask him. His poems are entirely made up by him. There is not one relation between one single Ladinsky poem and a single Hafez poem and Ladinsky has admitted that in a published inerview. They are "renderings" of poems by Hafiz, by Mr. Ladinsky. It's sad people don't know this. Darwin394 ( talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
how Meher Baba recited Hafiz ghazals until his dying day while maintaining a vow of silence? Rumiton ( talk) 13:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No takers above, looks like the contradiction needs to stand. Now...your new translation reeks of improvement, but what is a Hindu mole? Could it be the tilaka? Rumiton ( talk) 10:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The notion of love and sex do not interfere in the Persian literature and as such Hafiz cannot be assumed to be a homosexual, just as some westerners who read Hafiz think. Do you also assume that Rumi who wrote Divan-e Shams and mentioned his love for shams several times had a sexual relationship with him? حضرت محمود ( talk) 08:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 00:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hafez →
Hafiz Shirazi – per
WP:COMMONNAME
But maybe these results include other Hafez/Hafiz. Now let's re-research with the word Shirazi / of Shiraz:
Hafiz is overwhelming Hafez.
-- Takabeg ( talk) 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Google Books: "Hafiz Shirazi": 751 results. Google books: "Hafez" poet: 9,240 results. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You can throw in the Encyclopaedia Britannica for "Hafez" [3]. Hafez is the most common form among modern scholars. -- Folantin ( talk) 13:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Normal research of google books research cannot distinguish similar words.
-- Takabeg ( talk) 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Books Ngram Viewer can didtinguish similar words. According to Books Nagram, Hafiz is more common.
You can understand how "Hafiz Shirazi" "Hafiz of Shirazi" is common, when you see "Hafiz Shirazi" and "Hafiz of Shirazi". Takabeg ( talk) 13:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hafiz Shirazi →
Hafez – Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Page moved according to the opinion of a single user, employing a dubious methodology which does not match common English usage. Both Encyclopaedia Britannica and
Encyclopaedia Iranica use "Hafez". See also: Google Books for "Hafiz Shirazi": 751 results. Google books for "Hafez" poet: 9,240 results. There may be some argument whether the most common version of the name is "Hafez" or "Hafiz" but it is certainly not "Hafiz Shirazi". Should be moved back to "Hafez".
Folantin (
talk) 15:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Hafez2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
Why he dressed like a Russian in this picture? And what its mean? Hofizi Sherozi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hofizi_Sherozi.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.224.118 ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The ridiculous pictures of him should be removed. There are no renderings of Hafez. None. All 'artist's concepts' are biased - particularly those showing him as a jolly old man with a turban or some kind of weird Russian nobleman. These are absurd. Might as well photograph bums on the street of Tehran. Noh Chung ( talk) 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know I got this picture from Wikimedia and put it on the article, it was already on another language article. What is Russian about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Hafez book.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
English language resources
the third item is currently a broken link
G. Robert Shiplett 18:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The infobox for Hafez is classified as Saint. But he was not a saint for sure. I say we should change it to Infobox writer. Pouyakhani ( talk) 06:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we mention that he was a Shia please?-- 88.111.126.79 ( talk) 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
we should mention that he knew all 14 Qira'at The Holy Quran Kareem -- 88.111.126.79 ( talk) 13:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There are references that cannot be followed by any means. For instance:
There are neither links (if these are web sites), nor book titles, nor publishers, nor journal sources... I am trying to edit an article about Hafez for Bulgarian wikipedia. So, please, could somebody make these (and the similar) references complete. -- Mmm-jun ( talk) 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
His collected works composed of series of Persian literature are to be found in the homes of most people in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, who learn his poems by heart and use them as proverbs and sayings to this day.
So, this line from the introduction, I'm guessing...the person who wrote that comes from either Iran, Afghanistan or Tajikistan. Does the article need this in the introduction, or at least in the way and at the location it is right now? 83.83.59.46 ( talk) 22:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this edit there may be a problem with the sources: all three are Arabic, which makes them unverifiable for most English=speaking readers:
Also, the translations offered in this edit are not exactly correct English.
recently i added a sample poem translation from this book, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.184.179.38 ( talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hafez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article starts with Hafez - not to be confused with Hafiz. Surely it IS to be confused with Hafiz, the latter most usually being a different translation of the same name? RGipps ( talk) 19:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Urdu Language 119.152.152.130 ( talk) 18:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)