Talk:Jami

Was he Afghan?? Falphin 00:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not easy to decide see [Britannica.Pasha 23:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sacred pederasty

Completely inaccurate and out of context. As if that needs to be stated. SouthernComfort 09:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the correct format when inserting a reference, and also that entire section sounds irrelevant, and perhaps not very factual either. So, whoever wrote the section please come forward with more, reliable citations.Zmmz 10:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have reason to think that this is incorrect? Given that it does indeed provide references, I'm not clear what your objection is. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with certain streams of Sufi thought, his poetry deals extensively with the esoteric topic of pederasty and with the Sufi practice of contemplating the beauty of God in the beauty of an adolescent boy, known as Nazar ill'al-murd. In his Nafahat al-Uns (Breaths of Fellowship), a biography of Sufi saints, he defends some of the greatest Persian mystics against accusations that their practice of shahid-bazi (the "witness-game", the contemplation of beautiful boys) is heretical. Among these are Al-Ghazali, Awhad al-Din Kirmani, and Farhruddin Iraqi. His argument was that the masters were absorbed in absolute beauty, and not trapped by the base form. In the cosmogony evolved by Jami, God himself is but a beautiful youth absorbed in the contemplation of his many qualities.

The above paragraph is stating as fact that Jami adhered to this line of thought. In reality, this is the subjective interpretation of an author. Thus, the paragraph needs to be clarified as to whose theories these are exactly. The only reason I didn't explain further is because these disputes have been primarily between Haiduc (who added the section) and myself, and have involved other such articles related to "pederasty" (especially as regards Persia). SouthernComfort 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason to disagree with this interpretation? Is it controversial? Are there conflicting interpretations? There should surely be some genune ground for doubt if the article is to be disfigured with the template? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish to take exception to SC's personalization of the discussion. I do not see this disagreement as being essentially between SC and myself, but rather a conflict between presenting previously censored material accurately vs. blurring its nature. SC's contention that these historical facts are nothing other than somebody's opinion is not tenable. There may be times when such a formulation is appropriate (specifically when we are presenting a minoritarian view). However, the topos of pederasty in Islamic literature, thought and religion has been discussed and explored by many in the East and the West, both in the past and in recent times. Thus the circumlocution of claiming these notions to be merely "the subjective interpretation of an author" - already inserted by SC in various articles in one form or another - serves only to dilute the sense of the articles, and is - probably unintentionally - deceptive. Haiduc 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with you. There are "historical facts" as regards these figures, because very little is known about their personal lives. All that we have, essentially, are their works, and to judge them based upon their works is indeed a subjective interpretation of the translator or scholar in question. Strictly speaking, to attach any claims of "sacred pederasty" to this poet's works is just that, a claim, and cannot and should not be presented as fact. If it was indeed "fact" then it would be widely accepted amongst scholars - there is no evidence of this. SouthernComfort 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are claiming that we can't say anything about the person's beliefs, because all we have is what they wrote (and any account of that is "subjective"). This makes little sense, and in the absence of any actual grounds for disagreement with what the article says, I'll remove the template. Please don't replace unless you have a better reason than you've given so far. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Mel, and my concerns are valid and I have stated as much in my recent edit summary reverting your removal of the tag. That paragraph is not clearly sourced, and if only one source was used, it must be disambiguated as being the theory or claim of the writer in question. It cannot be stated as fact for the reasons I have outlined. We may agree to disagree, but you cannot say that my argument is not valid. SouthernComfort 11:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag again, and am listing the article at RfC; let's see what other editors say. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. As an admin, you should be well aware of this. SouthernComfort 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd offered anything like a good reason for adding it, I'd leave it there. As your stated reason fails even to be specious, I have no compunction in removing it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove the tag, there is obviously a dispute here. We can't say that Jami's poetry "deals extensively with the esoteric topic of pederasty" as Jami never discusses "pederasty", his narrative is metaphoric and spiritual, not literal. --ManiF 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you're appealing to your interpretation of what he wrote. What is the claim here: that the article is guilty of interpretation, or that it isn't? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how familiar are you with Persian poetry or poetry in general? Jami is called a "mystical poet" by all the major sources [1], I'm simply describing what a "mystical poet"'s narrative is, metaphoric and spiritual. The article however is guilty of subjective interpretation, none of the other major encyclopedias associate Jami's work as "Pederasty" or any other such adjectives. These allegations are at best original research, supported by obscure sources. None of the mainstream sources make any such connections between Jami and "Pederasty". As NPOV clearly states "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." --ManiF 12:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a great deal of familiarity with poetry, and a little with Persian poetry in translation. I also know that there is a very long tradition of "interpreting" away what current societies don't like or don't understand (see, for example, the Authorised Version editions of the Song of Solomon, in which erotic imagery is explained in utterly anachronistic and peculiar Christian terms).

In any case, if a poet uses an image for something positive, then the image is hardly likely to be something that he views negatively. To use a vulgar example, if I'm describing my true love's eyes, I might say that they are as brown as the wood of a cherry tree, or that they're as green as the grass on a Kerry hillside — but I'm not going to write that they're as brown as shit or as green as phlegm... If Jami uses pederastic images, then unlss they're there to refer to something of which he disapproves, it's fair to assume that he doesn't disapprove of pederasty. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look up Jami in every major encyclopedia out there, there is no mention of this "Pederasty" business in any of them, because it's radical, unconventional and controversial claim to those familiar with Persian poetry and its principal themes and preoccupations. If there was any significance or truth to this claim, there would be at least a hint of it in other major encyclopedias. This is a case of NPOV, as "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." --ManiF 04:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this rejection of the existence of pederastic themes in Jami a blanket rejection of such themes in Persian poetry, or only in the work of Jami? How are we to view examples provided by the quoted scholars and others, which, in translation, treat of the desire of men for beautiful boys? Haiduc 10:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Would it be useful to provide a citation for this paragraph? Yes, and it would put an easy end to the debate. Ont he other hand, I'm not sure one is really needed. First sentence: Simple statement of fact. Second sentenct: Does his Nafahat al-Uns defend mystics agains the stated allegations? If so, statement of fact. Describing the argument used by Jami is in the last sentence again, statemetn of fact. That's the line of argument he used - quie demonstrably. While the para *might* be open to some very obtuse and caviling accusations of 'POV', in terms of literary criticism I read it as being about as objective as one can get. Bottom line - a cite would help (and be obligatory if this is a direct quote), but I wouldn't call lack of cite a show-stopper.Bridesmill 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First and second sentences "simple statements of fact"? Fact? Really? I'm curious to know how you know that they are "fact." Because one translator of his works says so? Also, please cite your sources for these alleged "facts." SouthernComfort 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of silliness that makes me remove the template as being ungrounded. Of course we use English translations: this is the English Wikipedia. Do you have grounds for suspecting the accuracy of the translation? You certiainly haven't offered any, such as an alternative translation that gives a different reading. Are you going to go through Wikipedia slapping "verify" notices on every article about a non-English writer unless it gives quotations in the original? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mel Etitis here. The paragraph seems well sourced and well written, and unless we have a specific counter-position that interprets or translates those writings in a different way, there's no need for a tag. Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not about mere translation, the entire paragraph seems like original research, a subjective interpretation of Jami's works and beliefs. Just because something is well written, doesn't mean that it is true. --ManiF 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Subjective interpretation is right. The article is not neutral in its presentation of Jami. SouthernComfort 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Lukas' suggestion, Persian-language sources concerning poets like Jami are available, but they do not mention anything (as far as I have read) that deal with the subject of pederasty. They generally offer a completely different interpretation of such verses. Until I can track down other scholarly opinion, I suggest that the section be made NPOV as stating the opinion of a single scholar or writer as fact is clearly not appropriate lest there is widespread consensus amongst such scholars. Evidence of such consensus has not yet been brought forward. SouthernComfort 05:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's all be very keenly aware of the political and religious climate in which we are functioning, especially in modern Iran. This aspect of Islamic culture has been the target of extensive censorship and denial, certainly in modern Iran, and up until recently, in the West. See Pederasty in the Islamic world#Modern censorship. (This link as a matter of fact contains another lucid reference to pederasty in Jami's opus.) Haiduc 11:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

SouthernComfort's reasons for disputing this now seems to be that he hasn't found a Persian source that talks about it. That kind of negative evidence, in the face of the positive evidence given in the article, just doesn't stand up. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Purely your opinion and I would appreciate that you do not speak on my behalf. I have not changed my reasons and I have explained myself quite clearly. There is a legitimate dispute and no evidence has been provided of majority consensus. You would do well to stop removing the tag, which again, as an admin you should be well aware is against WP etiquette. SouthernComfort 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, I wasn't speaking on your behalf, nor could my comment be sensibly read in that way; I was referring and responding to what you said. If the tag had been placed for good reason, I'd be happy to leave it. Moreover, see below regarding citations. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Piece now has a cite, "it has been claimed" has been added, how can it possibly remain in dispute? You are disputing that a claim has been made? Another cite could be added if it exists which has a different take on this work, to demonstrate that there 'is' a dispute on the interpretation of this material 'at least of the same scholarly level' as the piece now there. I'd recommend pulling the dispute tag, if you want find a source which states something different about these poems & add that.Bridesmill 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I might add that the second cite (Janet Afary) is from an Iranian source. Of course, she is writing in English, I hope that does not vitiate its scholarly value. Haiduc 16:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Southern Comfort, the passage seems to be well-sourced. Can you say which sources you object to, and why? Alternatively, do you have other reliable sources who put forward a different point of view? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've already stated my objections both here and on Haiduc's talk (he is the primary contributor of the "pederasty" material to which I have objected - he has not responded to my latest query). The basic problem is that Haiduc has presented the subjective interpretations of certain authors as fact and connecting such interpretations with notions of "sacred pederasty" which I believe to be inappropriate, and which the sources in question do not seem to address. The section is not neutral for these reasons - I have no objection to the sources. I do, however, object to presenting interpretations as fact - Mel seems to argue otherwise, a position which I find both unreasonable and unusual, and his distinct lack of regard in assuming good faith is also unusual as he has constantly removed the tag and referred to my actions as "disruptive." I have asked a couple of other editors to help balance this article in the meantime. SouthernComfort 19:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You argued that Jami's own writings were unacceptable because they involved the interpretation of translators, adn you have been consistently unable to provide any source that disputes what's said here. You've also ignored the addition of extra citations, and continued to replace the template while for three days not taking part in the discussion here. That isn't good-faith editing. You seem determined to use the template permanently as a sign of your personal disagreement, rather than as a genuine editing tool. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you, SC, that the pederastic history I am documenting predates you, me, and the Wikipedia, so your constant injecting of my name into this discussion is an unhelpful digression. My being the "primary contributor" says nothing. I am also the primay contributor to the "Teachings" section of Jami, and to a lot of other articles and sections. As for my alleged lack of response to your query, I responded the same day, here. I am the one waiting for a response, as I am still waiting for a response to your removal of the baccha picture from the intro of the [[Pederasty] article, where you argued that it was a "bad picture" and I responded at length on why it was one of the best we have.

"The subjective interpretations of certain authors." Shall we call this the "Southern Comfort doctrine" (no irony intended)? The gist of it is that henceforth all scholarly dissertations get lumped into the "subjective interpretation" category. The theory of relativity is Einstein's subjective interpretation of the relationship between mass, energy and the speed of light. The theory of evolution is Darwin's subjective interpretation of the beaks of Pacific island birds. Do I have to say the obvious, that this is untenable nonsense?

When a number of different scholars, as well as our own mental proceses - which you cannot argue do not belong in the compilation of an encyclopaedia, this is not simply a dumb cut-and-paste project - tell us that pederastic love, in all likelihood chaste pederastic love, is an important subject in the writings of Jami, when in the Haft Awrang the father of the boy advises the boy on choosing a lover, when we have all the stories and quotes we already have, clearly discussing men loving boys, you are still plying us with your "subjectivity" sophistry?!

Please contribute seriously to this article, you are in an excellent position to do so, and drop the obstructionism. Haiduc 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I suggest that you stop removing the tag - some of us actually have lives, i.e. jobs and families. Thus, it does take time to address these issues and your behavior is unacceptable. SouthernComfort 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)