Talk:Ghazal

SUGGESTED CHANGES

Ghazal has its origin in Arabic. The introduction should mention Arabic origin and then it should be divided into AT LEAST two parts (Farsi and Urdu and possibly also Turkish).

It should mention in the intro. that Ghazal was an integral part of Arabic Qasida (pre-Islamic esp). and there were two types of ghazals in these Qasida: ghazal 'uthri which describes the girl including her physical characters and often private body parts and the other type (I forgot the name). AND there should also be a mention of the etymology of the Arabic word Ghazal(with REFERENCE to Hans Wehr or Al-Mawrad dictionary). Then it should mention that ghazal as a separate genre was developed in Farsi and from Farsi, it was later adapted into Turkish (first) and later in Urdu.

First sub-section must be about Ghazal in Farsi (chronological divisions only)

Second section perhaps Urdu.

A third section about Ghazals in other languages: Bengali, Marathi, Sindhi, Gujrati, Seraiki, Uzbek, Kazak, etc. And English. 78.149.168.132 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is something slightly missing from the definition of the form. In the few true ghazal's I've seen the rhyme at the end of every second line has a particular form. The final word of each second line is the same, the second to the last word, or the second to the last phrase, rhymes. For example look at the example in the entry which has rhymes of the form "expel tonight / tell tonight / cell tonight / fell tonight " and so on. I supposed it's necessary due to the fact that the last word in each couplet is the same, so that, in order to rhyme one must rhyme on the penultimate word, but I've seen things that claim to be ghazals that don't follow this rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.176.132 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If the final word is the same, the previous one must rhyme. But the final word doesn't have to be the same. --Sarabseth (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghazal in Urdu??!!

The article is based mostly on Urdu language's poetry. It contains some points which are completely inappropriate. Since Ghazal is originally a form of poetry in Persian language, this article should directly focus on the original concept of Ghazal (i.e. Ghazal in Persian Poetry). Another article should be created as Ghazal (Urdu Poetry), and the majority of the contents of this article should be moved to that article.

Ghazal is a very vast subject (more than it seems), it needs an extensive and scholarly research. I will be trying to start working on this theme in the future, but since I am much busy, other members who are well-informed in Persian literature, mainly Iranians or Afghans, can go for it. Ariana310 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ARIANA has a point. However all nationalists should be careful. Ghazal has its origin in Arabic even if Ariana will not be very happy to be reminded of it. OK. YES. This article SHOULD be divided into AT LEAST two parts (Farsi and Urdu and possibly also Turkish). It should mention in the intro. that Ghazal was an integral part of Arabic Qasida (pre-Islamic esp). and there were two types of ghazals in these Qasida: ghazal 'uzri which desscribes the girl including her physical characters and often private body parts and the other type (I forgot the name). AND there should also be a mention of the etymology of the Arabic word Ghazal. Then it should mention that ghazal as a seperate genre was developed in Farsi and from Farsi, it was later adapted into Turkish (first) and later in Urdu.

First sub-section must be about Ghazal in Farsi (since chronologically Farsi ghazals were being written when Urdu did not exist). (BTW I am Pakistani)

Second section perhaps Urdu.

A third section about Ghazals in other languages: Bengali, Marathi, Sindhi, Gujrati, Seraiki, Uzbek, Kazak, etc. And English.78.149.168.132 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Ghazal

The article states:

Etymologically, the word literally refers to "the mortal cry of a gazelle". The animal is caled Ghizaal, from which the English word gazelles stems, or Kastori haran (where haran refers to deer) in Urdu.

the original writer didn't know Urdu, Arabic or (apparently) much English. Kastori hiran is musk-deer. Gazelle is called chinkara in Urdu. For Arabic etymology see my comment below 78.149.168.132 (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The etymology of the word is incorrect. Ghazal is a loanword from Arabic Ghazal غَزَل, also a genre of poetry specifically to speak of love. The word ghazal itself in Arabic means exactly that, to exchange with the one you love words of love. Ghazaal غَزَال (not ghizaal) on the other hand is indeed a deer (in general) and is the etymological source of the English gazelle. Ghazaal is of the same root and was derived from ghazal (to speak of love), not the other way round. --Maha Odeh (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are wrong. Please look at Hans Wehr's definitive <A Dictionary of Written Arabic> for the translation and etymology. Maha you can/ must also look in Lisan al-Arab. Clearly Ghazal and Ghazaal come from the same root Gh-z-l also any Arabic speaker will also know that the verb 'to spin' also comes from the same root. So to spin, to beautify, and by extension love (Notice: Al-Sayyuti and Hans Wehr both will tell you that 'love' is only by extension, the meaning of gh-z-l, not directly) and to speak of love, also love which is for the beautiful things and for the beauty that is spun (both in the sense of 'created' as well as spun in words). Therefor, a gazelle is called Ghazaal because it is beautiful and lovely in it's (created) form and an object of much poetic ('spun') contemplation. Also the Arabic word for cotton-candy is derived from the gh-z-l root —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.168.132 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Urdu Genre with Persian and Arabic

Each of the three is totally distinct, Arabs do not write ghazal using the same rules mentioned nor using the Persian rules; while all share the name, it (the common name) merely reflects the one connection that is directly related to the name: the fact that the poem describes the love of the poet for his (or her) lover. I think that either this article should be moved to "Urdu Ghazal" (maybe "Ghazal (Urdu) or that it should be re-written to explain that. --Maha Odeh (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes Section?

Just saying: the notes section here means nothing to me, the casual encyclopedia reader. Does it serve any useful purpose? 71.238.152.124 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

classical gazal singers--- not forgetting Talat Mehmood

A sweet silky voice. Jim Reeves of India. Practically forgotten today. Please shed some light on this legendary King of gazal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerutwalla (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Say, I came to this page looking for information about what I thought was a style of music. Obviously it's much bigger than that, but maybe a separate article for a music style would be good. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.120.120 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Pronunciation

What about its Hindustani pronunciation, since everyone’s complaining about this being about Urdu ghazals? Or, more to the point, its Indian English pronunciation? This is not ur: or ar:.

Also, the English section is kind of an unwikified, unencyclopædic mess.—Wiki Wikardo 13:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

delete or change the title

(1: The article starts with wrong Persian spelling and seems to have urdu direction. And apart from these 2:) There are three kind of Ghazal. In Persian poetry, in Arabic poetry, and in Urdu poetry. These are completely different things. So I suggest changing the title to something like "ghazal (Urdu)" or something similar. I will write an article on "Ghazal (Persian)". Should I rename the current article and remove completely all instances of Persian poets? Or there is another suggestion?--Xashaiar (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghazals composed in English by Western poets

It is unclear what the above-named section in the article is intended to contain. Is it a list of all ghazals ever composed in English (and published presumably)? That's not encyclopaedic and not what Wp is for. Surely better to add the word 'notable' before 'Western poets' and weed out anything by non-notable poets. I'm going to be bold and take that on.--Yumegusa (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, after this section starts with arrogant "Blah... "false starts" ...blah... "the bastard Ghazal" ...blah... in the early to mid-1990s", it makes a 180' turn and continues with a list on "notable poets" including, e.g., Thomas Hardy. Come on, have some balls, name the list "Notable bastard poets raping ghazal" or something - or let some air out of the earlier part. --82.131.125.123 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ghazal or Gazal?

Although the article title is Ghazal I note the first sentence opens with "The gazal". Nowhere else in the article does the form without the h occur, and quickly checking I find these results:

	GBooks	GWeb
Ghazal	102,000	13,500,000
Gazal	22,500	4,860,000

There seems therefore no basis for retaining the form without h as anything more than a redirect (which already exists). --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Meena Kumari

In this edit user Sarabseth removed Meena Kumari from the Ghazal singers section of the article, with the edit summary "rvt fantasy addition to ghazal singer list". I've no prior familiarity with Kumari, but it seems clear from her article that she was a very famous actress, who composed and performed ghazals. A Google web search for "Meena+Kumari"+ghazal gets some 145,000 results, so please explain this removal. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

She was just an actress. Not sure why you think "it seems clear from her article that she was a very famous actress, who composed and performed ghazals" Her wikipedia article does not even mention the word ghazal. She "performed" ghazals mostly in the sense that she picturized them onscreen but they were actually sung by playback singers.

As for the google search, I think you're giving too much weight to YouTube encomiums. She may have left a posthumous cache of ghazals she wrote, and there may be recordings in her own voice of a few. But she's certainly not a well-known or well-regarded ghazal singer. As a general rule, I feel that if this factoid isn't even in her Wikipedia article, it shouldn't be included in other articles as if it were an established fact.

--Sarabseth (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll defer to what appears to be your superior knowledge of the subject. Regarding the 145,000 hits on Google search, I'm not giving weight to anything, apart from the number itself. I find it difficult to reconcile such a high result with your use of the dismissive term 'fantasy'. Additionally, I am aware of no guideline that states that if a fact is omitted from a subject article it should not be included in another one. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a guideline, I said "As a general rule, I feel...".

If it is indeed a verifiable fact, there's no problem including it in some article even if it's not in the subject article (though it should, of course, be added to the subject article too). However, if it is a verifiable fact that's material, it will usually be in the article already. So if you're imputing something from just the number of hits on a Google search (as opposed to finding it in a reliable source), and what you're imputing is not in the subject article, that's probably a red flag right there.

In any case, in the present instance, it's certainly true that she is not a notable ghazal singer by any means. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Sarabseth. Points taken. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Further problems with Sarabseth

This article needs additional citations for verification, undoubted. But where beginning? Surely not with only just other WP articles, and confirmations like: "if it is a verifiable fact that's material, it will usually be in the article already." It´s not a good idea to take lacks in Wikipedia as a confirmation and then beginning edit wars against simple facts. It would be better to look to the available texts and - by studying them and the secundary disussions about - extract good citations for our article. But to revert the name Jami, because WP didn´t tell already anything about his ghazal poetry, is not helpful. -- MrPtroll (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly it's difficult to disagree with MrPtroll in this case. To remove Jami with this edit after I had pointed out that there are ample references in Google Books supporting his inclusion, was not at all constructive. Are we trying to improve the article, or just score some personal points here? If the former, then clearly the constructive thing to do was to add the references. Is it too much to hope that we can now concentrate on trying to improve the project? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you,you are right.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that everyone is so upset with me. My only concern is with keeping articles clean, in some sense.

I would ask Bagworm/gråb whåt you cån why -- after finding ample references in Google Books -- he/she couldn't have added a reference or citation in support of Jami's name? Isn't it supposed to be a basic principle of Wikipedia that it's not good enough for an editor to just say in an edit summary "I know this is true, take my word for it" or even "I know this is true, for the following reason". It it's true -- and I never questioned that it is -- it should be supported by a citation. I could have added a "citation needed flag", but my experience is that hardly ever does anyone bother to respond to those; the flag just stays up forever. Reverting was just an expedient way to catch Bagworm/gråb whåt you cån why's attention; all he/she needed to do was add a citation based on the research he/she had already done.

I was certainly not picking a fight, and to call this edit-warring is rather extreme. I think the tone of my edit summary speaks for itself: "that's great, but to add him here still needs some kind of citation please". It's clearly a request for a citation. If even people who have already pulled up references will not add citations in support of unsourced additions, then who will? According to MrPtroll, I should look to the available texts and study them, and secondary discussions about them, and extract good citations, but to ask the person who has already uncovered ample references in Google Books to add a citation is obnoxious behavior? That's truly hilarious. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi,Sarabseth,no everyone is upset,it is just a matter of lack of searching the facts,I have searched some sites,it is clear to me that your point has weight to justify the facts.As a question of citation,even you faild to justify your edit,though it is correct.I apologize my hasty comments.Here are few websites, may be useful for any perpose now or in the future.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

1. http://www.ghazalpage.net/prose/notes/short_history_of_the_ghazal.html#origins

2.http://www.poetry-portal.com/poets37.html

3.http://www.iranchamber.com/literature/articles/history_literature.php

Please, can I add Ghazal, in technical point of view ?

Hello !

Can I put more materials. I am not sure, if it will be under wikipedia scope.

Can I add, how to write Ghazal, it's technical terms, Beher(meter, Sanskrit, Arabian, Indian, Nepali), Radif, kafiaa etc in depth materials with full references ?

example:

Ghazal in Nepali.

https://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/गजल

Thank you.

ठिस बुढा (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why not (as long as everything is reliably sourced). Try not to get too technical, but don't worry about it too much. Other editors can always make changes if it gets too technical. --Sarabseth (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is appropriate for an encyclopedia, the structure of the poetic form. I see that a couple of the other wikipedias have more on this. I don't read any Nepali, so I can't judge the quality. Let us know if you need any help. Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of the ghazal's structure is important, but please bear in mind WP:NOTHOWTO. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you !

WP:NOTHOWTO "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". It is helpful.

I'll focus on structure in simple English, in neutral point of view, in simple words (Arabian, Urdu, etc, English, Hindi/Indian, Sanskrit).

Thank you very much.

ठिस बुढा (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This basic information is still missing. I understand that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. But I don't see why that should mean Wikipedia has to describe the form without defining it. I would like to see something about the radif, kafiyaa, beher, etc. I don't have the references to do it, but I encourage someone to. [[67.249.4.82 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)]]

"Malay language" in lead

In this edit an anonymous editor removed "Malay language" from the list of languages that spell ghazal with Arabic letters: غزل. Though my first instinct was to to revert this unexplained removal of data, it appears to be a good edit, since the official writing system of Malay uses Latin characters, not Arabic - see Malay language#Writing system. Also compare the ghazal article on Malay WP. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I beg to differ. Despite the fact that the malay language is now officially written in the modern latin script, nonetheless the arabic-based Jawi script is still maintained for cultural and religious purpose. --Egard89 (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a reference to that mention of the Malay use, summarizing Egard89's point and linking to this Talk section. --Thnidu (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the 'reference', as you can't add a link on the article to its Talk page, and this discussion is in any case insufficient as support. I'm not entirely convinced that it's appropriate to include the Malay word (which is the same word as English, Urdu, Persian, Arabic, etc. anyway) in a legally unofficial script in the lead. Can Egard89 or anyone provide a supporting citation from a WP:RS? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• You are right.Justice007 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Proper noun?

Why is ghazal capitalised throughout the article? Shouldn't it be lower case or is there a specific reason it is not? Rayman60 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Rayman60 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150112215734/http://wordsters.net/poetics/poetics01/01weaverprint.html to http://wordsters.net/poetics/poetics01/01weaverprint.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

REQUESTED ADDITIONS

Other closed forms generally have a section or page dedicated to exactly what the formula of the form is --and common variations, e.g. the pages on sonnets. Could we receive the same thing here? The more who know HOW to write them, not just ABOUT how they are written, the more good is done for the world.

67.172.173.184 (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Daniel Kemper

"legend in poetic form"?

The first sentence called the ghazal "[a] legend in poetic form". What does that mean? According to the article itself, a ghazal is usually about love and separation, not legends. I'm deleting that phrase. --Thnidu (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

order of comments

The comment at the top of the page is dated 30 September 2017, the most recent comment, just above a comment dated 2008. I'm moving it to the bottom, where it belongs in chronological order, as imposed by the "Add comment" button. Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is badly in need of a review

I have tagged its neutrality as questionable, as it is exclusively using referring to this topic as "arab" and "islamic" and appears to politicize the topic with use of certain terminology. It would be nice to have some non-Pakistani editors also have a look at this article and make corrections.Gorvius (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

poetic form section is much more difficult than it has to be for someone wanting to know how to write one

Poetic form section needs a re-write because -this is the English version- a new term is introduced, the reader searches for what it means, discovers it is defined by still newer terms not yet defines and so on. I'm sure there is a much more basic way to describe the structure- and encourage western writers rather than discouraging them. Perhaps just an additional section with a "cook book" example. -?

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)