Talk:Rumi

Eğerçi Hürd Güuyem, aslem Türk est

"Eğerçi Hürd Güuyem, aslem Türk est" [Mawlana]

Simply means "I use Farsi but my origin is Turk". Mawlana is not Oghuz, but Kipchak. He was born in Bakh, but rose in Anatolian peninsula. But of course he is a sun to all of us. If he was Persian, he would be a sun to all of us as today. His ethnic origin must no be a problem for us of course but i think we owe making this information clear to him.

I am from Turkey and I always want to be objective in all discussions. For example in some branches of architecture(Islamic architecture) the Iranis(you can take this both Turks/Kipchak/Oghuz and Persians or only Persians) are subtler.

Glad to know your opinion , but I think the problem is in translation . "Hamdeli az Hamzabani khoshtarast" that means "being one in heart is better than being one in language" - says Mollana . "Eğerçi Hürd Güuyem, aslem Türk est" , that translates as "Although I talk in Indian , but my origin is Turk " .In a Farsi poem , because of the physical appearance of Anatolian people was white , and of Indian people was dark , the poet tended to use them as contrast in poem .That means I'm white but using dark words !! hinduguyem: Hendi (Indian)+ guyam (taking) = I'm talking (in) Hendi : Did he ever talked in Indian?!! Overall that means "I'm Pessimistic in words , but Optimistic in heart". Take care--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• In Turk-Islamic culture the language of military and government is Turkish, the language of literature is Farsi, the language of science is Arabic. It is a well known fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.122.253 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Baza baza...

Baza, baza her ançi hesti baza, Ger kafirü, gebru, putperesti baza, In dergehi ma dergehi növmidi nist, Sad bar eger tövbe sikesti baza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.230.51 (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Maulana jalaledin mohamad Balkhi is an Afghan

maulana was born in balkh province of Afghanistan and it,s a fact. please don,t waste your time to say he,s an Iranian poet or a Turkey!it,s very clear that we deal with a enormous cultural invasion so Iran and turkey wants to use these situations of Afghanistan to prove their benefits but who love Maulana and his poems must say or write that. Maulana one of the greatest poets of the world was born in balkh province of Afghanistan. thise sentences will end the claims of Iranian and turkish and all people around the world .hosinmokhtary@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosinmokhtary (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in contemporary Afghanistan, we note that in the introduction. The nations known as Afghanistan, Iran, and so forth are (relatively) new nations. Both Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations, share their heritage in the Persian empire and culture. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PI, but I think the user meant something different. Going by the historical meaning of the word "Afghan", Mowlana was - of course - not an Afghan. See Afghan for more information. Afghanistan as a modern nation was created in 1919, 700 years after Mowlana. Tajik (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maulana is born in Balkh which is a province of Afghnistan. Please edit the parts where it is being claimed that he is an Iranian. Yosuf-Haydary 04april2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosuf-haydary (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It never states even once that he is Iranian from what I can see. It states he is Persian: Tajiks for example are considered Persian. The modern states of Afghanistan and Iran did not exist at this time, so we must base this on ethnic or linguistic definitions. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How ironic!!!!!, this debate is contrary to the very teachings of Rumi, why do we need to associate him where he came from or where died, his words are what is most important and everything else is not relevant,,,,,afghan,,,iranian or turkish, does not matter,,,,,,Saalim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.112.88 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Pashtun Ismailiyya, Iran as a country did exist back then, but of course its borders have changed over time. Balkh was part of the Iranian nation back then and would have been no different to a person from Shiraz or Esfahan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from such useless troll-like pointers, if there's an official claim against his 'citizenship', it should be quoted with solid references rather than expressing your own point-of-view. Thanks.hameed (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is a Turk. He has Turk culture. He lived in Konya and died in Konya.He isnt İranian or Afgan.We think.. Mevlana is Turk. Because Mevlana's grandmother is turkish princes of Harzemşah family. her name's Melika-i Cihan Emetullah SultanBABP (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on! Is it honestly that difficult to say that he was an ethnic Persian, born in either Vakhsh or Balkh (located in what is today either Afghanistan or Tajikistan), who spent a large portion of his life in Turkey? Szfski (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is as ridiculous as at the Nasrudin article. Good grief, it's an encyclopedia folks. Peter Deer (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi is TURKISH and he is also a component of TURKISH culture. Rumi was born in Baklh. At that time Khwarezmian Empire was in power. Khwarezmian Empire was also a TURKISH State. Then Rumi came to Konya. There was Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in Konya and it was a Turkish State. Rumi wrote his masterpieces with Persian as in that the language of literature was Persian. So that he is not an Afghan nor Iranian. He is TURKISH. Listentotheney (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) You come on. mevlana is TURK. This is real. You must accept. mevlana say, "My ethnic group is Turk." You look Mevlana's statements. And this is not as ridiculous as at the Nasrettin article.BABP (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana was a Turk. It is not important where Mevlana was born. He was born in Belh and he wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed. Because he used aruz... Mevlana had Turkish culture, he lived Turk city..BABP (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mevlana is neither Iranian nor Turk. Why do you argue about it? He is universal and is a part of world culture. Butterflyeffective (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We are TURK. We must protect our values. Otherwise other ethnic groups claim to our values and culture. For example; Iranians. Iranians says; "Mevlana is İranian". That's not true. Mevlana is TURK. BABP (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We accept RUMI is a global but according to same information RUMI is a Persian.We defend that RUMI is not persian, he is TURK. He is piece of TURKISH culture and he always lived in TURKISH land, but he wrote his masterpiece with Persian.We are arguing this subject because we want to defends our culture(Listentotheney (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)).

You must supply reliable sources for your claims. Please have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. Regards--Shahab (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

During the period of Seljuk state.Konya has its most brilliant years.Rumi is also very happy to live there to be in a Turkish state.This happiness made him write his best works in Konya.He wrote his works in Persian not in Turkish and as Iranians did not want to share such a great person, they think that he is an Iranian.However, realities are obvious.The works whick make Rumi as real Rumi was written in Anatolia.Moreover, the ideas of Rumi under the title of Mevleviyeh was only systematized in Anatolia not in Iran or in another country.Rumi said in his Masnavi and rubais that is Turk. (Listentotheney (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

What are your proofs related with Turkishness and culture of Turk at Masnavi and rubai.You have to explain. (Butterflyeffective (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

The works of Rumi demonstrate that he is influenced from Turk culture.Especially in Masnavi he used a lot of Turk proverbs.The meanings of that proverbs are true and logical.To succeed this, he must be know the meanings of the proverbs.That is, he succeeds that bringing up in Turk culture.For example; As you saw, so you shall reap and he said in his rubais “ Aslem Turk-est egerci hinduyuyum”. (Listentotheney (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Why did Rumi writte in persian not in Tukish! Because languages are born grove develop and die like humans.If Rumi had writte his Masnavi in Turkish, his poems would be ineffective like 13.century poets and he wouldn't be able to Rumi who lighten the world with his works.And Masnavi which has been translated into different world languages wouldn't be one of the immortal perfections of all times.According the 13.of century Persia was a rich language.therefore Rumi wrote Masnavi in a Turkish language.(Listentotheney (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Mevlana’s father was Bahaeddin Veled who was also known in his life time as the”Sultan of the Scholars”. His mother was Mümine Hatun, the daughter of Rükneddin, who was the Emir of Behl. So Mümine hatun was Turk and Bahaeddin Veled was Turk.. Also Sultanü’l - Ulema and his family who arrived at Karaman in 1222, stayed there for 7 years. There, Mevlana married Gevher Hatun who was the daughter of Şerefeddin Lala. The marriage gave Mevlana two sons named Sultan Veled and Alaeddin Çelebi.So Gevher Hatun was Turk..He wrote in Persian. Thats true. But that does not make him Persian. He known Turkish. He tried to write in Turkish but he failed.... .Mevlana died on Sunday, December 17,1273 in Konya. So Konya is Turkish City. Iranians, Afgans and the other must understand!!!! MEVLANA IS TURK...BABP (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mevlana says:“Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem” So he says: I am a Turk...He likes Turks.. Turks were praised by Mevlana. BABP (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Obviously you have not read the archives and talkpages and have repeated some stuff that has been been responded to multiple times. New users should read the archives.

2) Rumi did not just write in Persian. He spoke in Persian and all of his sermons (Fihi ma Fihi) recorded by his students are in Persian. The Fihi Ma Fihi is in an informal Persian and best proof that Rumi spoke Persian in everyday affairs. Had he spoke Turkish in everyday affairs, then his lectures would have been recorded in Turkish. But they are in informal Persian. These lectures were recorded by his students while Rumi was preaching are in Persian and are in everyday informal (not written but spoken) Persian. So that puts an end to the theory that "he wrote Persian because it was more beautiful". Obviously the propents of this theory have not read Fihi ma Fih or the Seven Sermons (Friday sermons again in Persian recorded by his students). Also his recorded conversations with Shams are in Persian (and some in Arabic), but never Turkish. So you have: A) His conversations with his students all in Persian. B) His friday sermons all in Persian. C) His conversations with Shams, primarily and overwhelmingly in Persian. 3) As per the verse you claim. Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su"

تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم

دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو

Professional Translation: “You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, know that much, that much, that in Turkish the word for water is su”(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196)

Turk, Hindu.. have very different (mainly symbolic) meaning in Persian poetry and show opposites.

Here is another one for example:

گه تركم و گه هندو گه رومی و گه زنگی از نقش تو است ای جان اقرارم و انكارم

Gah torkam, Gah Hendu, Gah Rumi, Gah Zangi Az Naqsh tost ay del, Eqraaram o Enkaaram

Translation:

“I am sometimes Turk, sometimes Hindu, sometimes Rumi and sometimes Negro, O Soul, from your image is my approval and denial”

So these imageries are not a proof of background. Turk vs Hindu, and Rumi vs Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry.

The verse you brought says "Agarcheh hendu gooyam" . Assuming authentic, it means "I speak in Hindu".. Now we know Rumi did not speak in Hindu. However Turk as opposed to Hindu is a constrast of climates, colors, lifestyle, kings vs desolates and etc in Persian poetry.

4)

The connection of Rumi's mother to the Khwarizmshah empire is seen as legendary hagiography and not factual due to both chronological reasons as well as textual reasons. Scholars reject it and it was designed to simply connect him to royalty. In reality, the grandmother of Rumi is a simple woman as demonstrated by Baha al-Din's Ma'arif. I would read the articles in Encyclopedia of Islam on Rumi as well as the book of Franklin. These are the secondary sources acceptable in Wikipedia.

5) Although Hindu, Turk, Rumi (Roman) and Black are faviorate symbols of Persian poetry and even "Rumi" is called Rumi, if you look at Aflaki, there are also some comments about Turks. Here is an anectode from Rumi quoted by Aflaki (pg 503) about Tukrs vs Greeks. Note he is not putting Turks downs or praising Greeks (in my opinion) but just making an observation: "Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. " (pg 503) See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002.

Here are some quotes from Rumi: "“God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished.”" “Oh ignorant Turk! Give up (tark) this idea and undertaking. Take back your Turks (torkan) to your lady (tarkan) as quickly as possible. Otherwise, you will not escape with your life.” “Majd al-Din, why did you let out a shout and release your quarry from your gullet? A Turk who is a recent disciple is able to bear the burden, but you divulge the matter. Many things like this occur to abdals to God.” “Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. “

Note I only brought these for demonstrations. The Diwan Shams overall contains a positive usage of the word Turk, the Mathnawi seems somewhat neutral towards negative, but the Manaqib Aflaki seems negative. The reason is that Diwan Shams is a mystical book and the imagery of Turk in Persian mysticism has been positive (along with that of "Rum/Rumi"(Greeks)).

6)

Rumi's son on multiple occassions has attested that his Turkish is very poor.. yet his son was born in Anatolia but he claims little knowledge of Greek and Turkish. This is described in this article: [1]

According to Franklin: “Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 239)

“Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 240)

Sultan Walad actually admits the fact that his knowledge of Turkish and Greek is rudimentary four times. For example in the Ibtedanama, Sultan Walad states:

بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی که از این اصطلاح محرومی گوی از پارسی و از تازی که در این هر دوخوش همیتازی

Translation: Abandon the speech of Turkish and Greek Since you are deprived of these expressions Instead speak Persian and Arabic Because you are well versed in these two Sultan Walad, Masnaviyeh Waladi, Ensha’ Baha al-Din b. Mowlana Jalal al-Din Mohammad b. Hosayn-e Balkhi, Mashur beh Mowalana, ed. Jalal al-Din Homa’I (Tehran:Eqbal, 1316) (pp 393-4)

His son admits 3-4 times that he has very poor command of Greek and Turkish.

7) A complete response to the arguments you have and could have is given here: [2] Wikipedia works by standards of Western scholars. Schimmel and Franklin are the top Rumi scholars and they have called Rumi a Persian and Persian poet. That is sufficient. It is unfortunate that the same arguments get repeated again and again. It is extremly tiring that instead of reading the archives some new user always comes to make the same repetative arguments. The fact is Rumi is known because of his Persian poetry. No one is going to examine his corpse for DNA evidence.

8)

Wikipedia works by WP:weight and WP:RS. Western scholars in general and Rumi Western scholars in particular (like Franklin and Schimmel) affirm Rumi's heritage and background as a Persian. So that is what counts and not endless polemics that is constantly repeated.

Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

1) Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west? (p. 9)

2) Annemarie Schimmel, “The Mystery of Numbers”, Oxford University Press,1993. Pg 49: “A beautiful symbol of the duality that appears through creation was invented by the great Persian mystical poet Jalal al-Din Rumi, who compares God's creative word kun (written in Arabic KN) with a twisted rope of 2 threads (which in English twine, in German Zwirn¸both words derived from the root “two”)”. 3) Ritter, H.; Bausani, A. "ḎJ̲alāl al- Dīn Rūmī b. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿulamāʾ Walad b. Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad Ḵh̲aṭībī ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. Excerpt: "known by the sobriquet Mawlānā (Mevlânâ), Persian poet and founder of the Mawlawiyya order of dervishes" 4) Julia Scott Meisami, Forward to Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2008 (revised edition) 5) John Renard,"Historical dictionary of Sufism", Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. pg 155: "Perhaps the most famous Sufi who is known to many Muslims even today by his title alone is the seventh/13th century Persian mystic Rumi" 6) Frederick Hadland Davis , "The Persian Mystics. Jalálu'd-Dín Rúmí", Adamant Media Corporation (November 30, 2005) , ISBN-10: 1402157681

But if you are interested in this matter, read here:[3]. However from Wikipedia's point of view, the most comprehensive books on Rumi are those written by Rumi scholars and amongst them, the book fo Franklin currently stands out as the most detailed and objective biography of Rumi in any language. And he is a Professor of University of Chicago. The Encyclopedia of Islam is also another weighty source. GoshtaspLohraspi

mevlana jalaluddin RUMI is TURK.He isn t IRANIAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Listentotheney (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's what I call reasoning!94.183.126.215 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumi's homeland-Balkh region-has the native population of Tājīks who were called "Persian" at the time. I can give many sources to prove that Tājīks are the native inhabitants of Balkh region. Both "Persian" and "Tājīk" must be used as the ETHNICITY of Rumi to AVOID CONFUSION (even though Tājīks are part of Persian people, but they are called Tājīk today). Those who deny this fact, they seem as if they are stealing the cultural heritage of the native population of the region and this is totally unacceptable. Artacoana 11:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkish banknote

Two days ago, I added a short sentence mentioning the fact that Rumi was depicted on the reverse of the Turkish 5000 lira banknotes of 1981-1994. — The edit was blindly reverted by Nepaheshgar (edit summary: irrelevant).

In my opinion, the fact that the Turkish government considers Rumi as having enough symbolic significance to depict him in its currency is interesting to our readership, and worthy of mention in a single, short sentence.

In general, a government's decision to showcase an individual as a symbol of a country's culture and historical heritage (for that is what the banknote depiction connotes) is quite interesting. This is especially true in the case of Turkey, which up to that time had not depicted specific persons in its currency (with the exceptions of Ataturk & İsmet İnönü, the Republic's presidents). When the Turkish Bank decided to depict individuals, from all possible candidates they chose four: the author of the national anthem, Mehmed II, Sinan and Rumi. – To be honest, I cannot understand why this fact wouldn't belong in the article, especially when just above of where I introduced the sentence a mention of MySpace is deemed worthy of inclusion. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely noteworthy. I will support you if you put it in. The reason you were reverted is because there are many edits done in bad faith to try to change Rumi's ethnicity, Nepaheshgar is a good editor and meant no harm. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I reintroduced the sentence at the same time I wrote the above comment. I know I should have waited for this discussion to take place, but sometimes blind reverts reduce my patience. My apologies. - Regards, Ev (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am against all this banknote stuff. Please stop this and try to understand "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia". According to Examples your banknotes appear to "belong to trivia section", and according to WP:TRIV "Trivia sections should be avoided." I strongly oppose your addition of picture of banknotes to Wikipedia. Please remove what you added.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, do you ever read the links you provide ? As its title implies, the Trivia sections guideline deals with the creation of separate trivia sections whithin articles, like the trivia section in our article on Pretoria. Of course those sections should be avoided. – Notice however that I did not add to this article a "Trivia" section with a "list of miscellaneous facts", but only a single noteworthy fact (whose relevance I argue above), and to the section I deemed appropriate. Moreover, the "Example" section of the Trivia sections guideline you are citing clearly states that "[t]he facts themselves are not the issue here: the problem is with their organization" (emphasis mine). - Ev (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not understand my point. Banknote provides no or unimportant information. That's it. If you click around in the page I posted you see kind of definition: "Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important." and I wrongly assumed that after seeing some examples you will understand that mentioning banknotes should be avoided. Also regarding your last sentence: no body is saying that there is no banknote with picture of Rumi on it, but I am saying SO WHAST?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, those examples you wanted me to see are interesting facts that are all currently mentioned in the article in question. The whole point of that "Example" section is to indicate how to organize noteworthy information within articles, instead of listing it randomly in a trivia section. – If you are comparing a mention of the banknote in this article with those facts about James Monroe, it is quite evident that the banknote should be mentioned here.

In any case, above I argue that, far from being unimportant information, mentioning the banknote helps to convey to our readership the significance attributed to Rumi in modern Turkey. - Regards, Ev (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion that's not significant at all.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's significant either. But it's fine as an image with a caption. That said, the image shouldn't be in the middle of the page by itself. It should be embedded with a paragraph like all the other images, so I moved it to the right of the next paragraph. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, the articles on the following individuals currently mention similar depictions in currency:

• George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant & Benjamin Franklin.
• Except for Elizabeth II, all other 29 individuals included in Category:People illustrated on sterling banknotes mention those depictions, including: Alexander Graham Bell, Robert Burns, Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, Alexander Fleming, David Livingstone, Isaac Newton, Florence Nightingale, Robert I of Scotland, Walter Scott, Adam Smith, George Stephenson, Robert Louis Stevenson, the Duke of Wellington, Christopher Wren and the featured articles on Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Charles Darwin. In the case of William Shakespeare, the mention is done in the "Memorials to William Shakespeare" sub-article.
• Some examples of literary figures: Antoine de Saint Exupéry (France), Banjo Paterson (Australia), Selma Lagerlöf (Swedish Nobel Prize), Elias Lönnrot (Finland), Taras Shevchenko (Ukraine), Mihai Eminescu (Romania), Henryk Sienkiewicz (Polish Nobel Prize), Turlough Carolan (Ireland), Annette von Droste-Hülshoff (Germany), Marko Marulić and Ivan Gundulić (Croatia), Jonathan Swift and the featured articles on James Joyce & William Butler Yeats.

These examples demonstrate that, in general, Wikipedia deems such depictions noteworthy. In view of this clearly attested general practice and my argumentation above, exactly why would that not be the case here ? Why would Rumi's depiction in Turkish currency be deemed "irrelevant" or "not significant at all" for this article ? - Ev (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without explanation by 89.165.6.109 in October 2009 (dif). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! Are the Persians and Turks fighting over Mowlānā/Mevlana again? Everybody just calm down and take a breath. It's just a banknote Xashaiar. Szfski (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the mention, which had been removed without any meaningful explanation by 188.158.12.85 (dif. Edit summary: there is no need to put turkish lira.). - Best, Ev (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hi - I came in here for info on Rumi and thought I would check out the discussion page as well.. ""Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important" - was said about the banknote thing.. "important" is subjective, for me.. someone new to Rumi, I would think that he is important enough to be on a bank note is significant as it reflects his standing in the eyes of a certain nation. I would not dismiss this as unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Prose works of Rumi

These should be elaborated on, since they are very important in understanding Rumi's philosophy. Of course he is known primarily for his poetry but still the prose works are highly elegant. The Fihi ma Fih is a work recorded by his students when Rumi was giving lectures. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).-Shahab (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity subpage

The debate on Rumi's ethnicity, whether he was Persian, Turkish, Tajik, Afghan or belongs to humanity has been raging on for a long time on this page now. The same old arguments are repeated by newbies, and no constructive decision has resulted. Little effort has been made towards taking this article towards FA and the energy of the contributors is being spent towards deciding on the "vital" question of ethnicity. I propose that first of all a subpage Talk:Rumi/Ethnicity be created where this debate can be continued. The main talk page should be reserved for discussing other improvements to the article. (A similar approach has been taken on a number of other wikipedia articles). Secondly, if no consensus is forthcoming then a request for comment be filed. I am willing to take the lead if no one objects.-Shahab (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good one. However, the debate on his ethnicity is usually done by some new wikipedia users who have no handle on sources and comeup with some slogans. In reality Fraklin, and Schimmel are top Rumi scholars of the world and their words are final. The article can use improvement though in terms of Rumi's philosophy. I suggest the new edition of Franklin be used to expand upon these. Thank you.--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumi's philosophy? He wasn't a philosopher in the traditional sense. The ideas espoused by him are not strictly his own but really the dominant Sufi ideas of his period(and I say this after having written nearly 95% of the philosophic outlook section of the article.) Rumi was not a traditional philosopher, not the kind Ghazali was anyway. His real genius lay in experiencing the inexpressible and yet expressing it through his poetry. (What's notable and missing though, is the extent of Rumi's impact on philosophy.) Anyway that is besides the point. My question is: Should we create an ethnicity subpage where everyone wishing to debate Rumi's ethnicity can do it to their heart's content. This would allow this page to focus on other issues and bring some balance.-Shahab (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

About the subpage you suggested, Wikipedia is not really a forum. See WP:forum. People that have really fringe claims or reasonable claims, can make an external link based on scholarly sources and put it at end of the article. For example he is what I think is a decent article: [4] and it is linked as an external link. Even nationalist Turkish scholars like Talat. S. Halman: “Baha ad-din (Rumi’s Father) and his family eventually settled in Konya, ancient Iconium, in central Anatolia. They brought with them their traditional Persian cultural and linguistic background and found in Konya a firmly entrenched penchant for Persian culture. In terms of Rumi’s cultural orientation – including language, literary heritage, mythology, philosophy, and Sufi legacy –the Iranians have indeed a strongly justifiable claim. All of these are more than sufficient to characterize Rumi as a prominent figure of Persian cultural history”(Rapture and Revolution, page 266). Other opinions as external links are welcomed by readers are not here in wikipedia for forum talk or to give citations to their on WP:OR. However the article follows top Rumi scholars like Franklin and Schimmel. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know he is not a traditional philosopher. But by philosophy in general I meant his "ideas, thoughts, spiritual path" and in one words what he calls the identity ("Andisheh"). The book of Franklin is really a must and the most comprehensive book on Rumi and should be used to expand this article. Good luck on that journey!--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Instead of making a subpage for debating Rumi's ethnicity how about making a subpage seperately of the archived discussions of his ethnicity. Any new reader who has an objection can then be directed to it so can then read up before cluttering up this page with the same old repeated arguments. A similar approach was taken on Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi regarding the controversy of Mahatma vs Mohandas. Or alternatively, a FAQ on the lines of Talk:0.999... can be put up on the top of the page.-Shahab (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming there are no objections forthcoming I am adding a consensus notice on the top of the page. This will help new readers realize that for their objections to be taken seriously, they must be accompanied by reliable sources.-Shahab (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to create something that does not exist? The phenomena that we are observing here are called "Claims", and not actually "Debate". There are many random claims which nobody cares about, like the claims that Beethoven was black and not a Frisian just because he had curly hairs. Rumi was an ethnic Tajiki born in balkh, he spoke Persian and wrote in Persian which is crucial in understanding and interpreting his mindset. He was a citizen of the Seljuk empire in his later years, not because he liked to be there, but because of the Mongol invasion of his homeland which we would better call it generally "Khorasan". If you ask me, Rumi himself did not care about his ethnicity, anybody who is acquainted with his ideas should know that. He truly belonged to the whole "World". and which culture influenced Rumi the most? There are two major figures who influenced him during his life: Shams-i Tabrizi and Attar of Nishapur.حضرت محمود (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mevlana Sufi scholar of Turkish origin

Bigane meğirid merâ zin kûyem. Der kûy-u şuma hâne-i hod mîcuyem. Düşmen neyem her çend ki düşmen rûyem. Aslem Türkest eğerçi Hindû gûyem” (Beni bu beldede yabancı saymayın. Sizin beldenizde ben evimi arıyorum. Her ne kadar düşman görünüşlüysem de düşman değilim. Farsça yazsam bile aslım Türk’tür). Do not count me in this foreign town. Your beldenizde I'm looking for my house. Although I am not the enemy of the enemy görünüşlüysem. Even if you write Persian, Turk bobb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.72.116 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

-_-

can someone create a wikipage for

"Persian scholars/poets/scientists being claimed by enthusiast Turk nationals" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumi said these words; Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem (I may speak Persian but Im a Turk) can you explain me why Rumi said these words? read some of his books and find out the truth, its really funny that most people are ensured that Rumi was Persian while he said different things about this ancestry. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Whoever created this page is either very jelous or very stupid.whole world knows that mevlana was turkish. His Father was turkish ,his mother was turkish, Mevlana himself writes that he is turkish. at that time, the place he was born was a turkish land not persian. All you ignorant wiki racists can cry out loud forever.He was turkish and claiming the opposite in ignorant wiki racist pedia will not change this.oh by the way, our iranian friends also claims that the ottoman empire was actually an iranian empire.this is not just very funny but stupid. have a nice day and stop being stupid please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.202.72 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems the racists are out in for today. All the response to your arguments here: [5] B) Rumi has no such a poem..Hindu Guyam = speak Indian not Persian. So you have mistranlated Rumi's poem into Turkish due to lack of knowledge of Persian. Hindu and Turks are symbols of contrast in Persian poetry and do not take ethnic values. As noted by Kafardar when quoting the Turkish scholar Golpiranli and such ethnonyms in the works of Rumi:"Golpiranli rightly insists that ethnonym were deployed allegorically and metaphortically in classical Islamic literatures, which operated on the basis of a staple set of images and their well recognized contextual associations by readers; there, "turk" had both a negativeand positive connocation. In fact, the two dimensions could be blended: the "Turk" was "cruel" and hence, at the same time, the "beautiful beloved"(Kafadar, Cemal(2007), "A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum"in Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Cultures of the Islamic World , vol 24. Brill.-page 23). And also noted by de Bruijn: “In such imagery the link to ethnic characteristics is hardly relevant, so that it may be used together with features of another ethnic type in the characterization of a single person, e.g., when Neẓāmi describes the princess of Hend as āhu-ye Tork-čašm-e Hendu-zād (“a gazelle with Turkish eyes, of Indian blood” (De Brujn, J.T.P. (2003). “Hindu” in Encyclopaedia Iranica 2003). The Turks in Persian poetry are not Anatolian Turks but the real Turks of Central Asia (Kyrghyz/Kazakhs..) and they are mentioned with round face and small eyes (• Schimmel, Annemarie(1992). “A Two-Colored Brocade: The Imagery of Persian Poetry”, the imagery of Persian poetry. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. (pg 137-144).) Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو To Maah-i Torki o man Agar Tork nistam Daanam man in Qadar keh Beh Torki ast, 'aab Su

Professional Translation by Schimmel: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). So why ignore this line? He also states: ""Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. ""(See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002). As noted Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 193: "Rumi's mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse". A complete response is also available here: [6][7]. The problem with the Turkish nationalistic reading of Rumi (which brings about full of contradiction has he has also considered himself Rumi (Greek), Zang (black..)" is the lack of understanding of Persian poetry and the non-ethnic metaphor meanings of Hindu/Hindu, Rum, Turk, Zang, and Habash.

Effendi is a TURKISH word meaning "master" or "sir". Even this proves that Persians and Arabs effected culturally from us and we controlled the for hundreds of years and it was Turkish sphere of influence instead of Arab or Persian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.44.19 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Effendi is actually a Greek word. "The word itself is a corruption of the Medieval Greek afendis (αφέντης), ". Persian word is Sarvar and also Khwajah (modern Turkish Hoja). Arabic word is Jenaab (among many other titles) and Turco-Mongolian is Aghaa. Anatolia was mainly Greek Christian back then, so Effendi entered Muslim languages from there. It is true though there were mutual influence between Persian, Arabic and Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by WP:RS not WP:OR.

Franklin D. Lewis, "Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The life, Teaching and poetry of Jalal Al-Din Rumi", Oneworld Publication Limited, 2008 pg 9: "How is that a Pesian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considred in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere" pg 21:"On the question of Rumi's multilingualism (pages 315-317), we still say that he spoke and wrote Persian as a native language, whote and conversed in Arabic as a learned "foreign" language, could at least get by at the market in Turkish and Greek(though some widely extravagant claims have been made about his command of Attic Greek, or his native tongue being Turkish). Franklin Lewis is the foremost scholar of Rumi. Rumi's work is replete with Shahnama (Iranian mythology) but nothing about Turkish mythology. He also traces his spiritual lineage to Attar and Sanai, not Turks. We do note consider "Widely Extravagant" claims in Wikipedia.

Persian poet info-box

Please change the Persian poet info-box to a standard infobox like William Shakespeare's article. Let's stop claiming people as this or that for nationalistic reasons. Just write a biography of them with their lives and accomplisments and works. EasternAryan (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell the tale in Persian so that all may understand it, Even though they lack insight and are (spiritually) sleep. Sultan Walad سلطان ولد —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reduce the number of sources citing Rumi's ethnicity

"Rumi... was a 13th-century Persian[1][4][5][6][7][8][9] poet". Should there really be nine sources citing the fact that Rumi was Persian? It is obvious to anyone who has studied Rumi and his life that he was Persian. Some people dispute this fact (and they are wrong). It is quite common that a fact that is disputed by some people (even if they are uneducated about the topic) to have many sources citing it in a Wikipedia articles. But this trend is getting out of hand. Having nine footnotes following a word (especially a word in the middle of a sentence) really reduces the readability of the sentence. What is gained from having so many sources cited? Nothing at all. The number of sources citing a fact doesn't make the fact any more or less true. I could find over 50 sources citing that Rumi was Persian. Should we cite them in the article? It's true that some POV editors will be less likely to remove a fact if it has nine sources following it, but those nine sources could be cited in the Discussion page in order to establish consensus. Surely a fact that has a consensus of support cannot be removed; any attempt to do so will quickly be reverted. Ironically, those that keep citing sources to facts such as this one, are those that most zealous about readers knowing the fact. However, the addition of so many footnotes reduces the sentences readability, reducing its clarity. Are readers more likely to believe a fact if it has nine footnotes? Perhaps the number of footnotes has some persuasive effect, but our role here is not to try to write a persuasive or convincing article, rather an informative, clear, and concise article. If we tailor the format or tone of the article in order to make it more persuasive we will compromise important things: in this case, readability and clarity. Where should we draw the line on the number of footnotes? There should be only one footnote following a fact in the middle of the sentence, preferably the most authoritative and reliable source being chosen for citation.Agha Nader (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any readability issue however they can collected more like in Scythians where a footnote covers many sources. So two three footnotes can have three sources each (3x3=9)...Each of the footnotes provide valuable information. However the article should be ip protected permanently as 95% of ip contributions are edits designed to change historical facts. Once the article is permanently ip protected the next logical solution would be to transform the 9 footnotes into either 2 or 3 footnotes with each footnote covering 3 sources or so..

Is Persian in this sense referring to an ethnicity, or to a language, or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.241.235 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

False (Non-Authentic) Quotes Attributed to Mowlana Rumi

The quote thats used on Rumi's Universality section is not composed by Rumi, though its attribute to him. I am quoting from Rumi & Islam: Poems and Selections, by Ibrahim Gamard, Page Xiii (Introduction section).

"I traversed the lands of the Cross and the Christians, but he wasn't on the cross. I travelled to the temple of idols, to the ancient temple, but, there wasn't even a tinge evident within it.... I looked into my heart, and I saw Him in that place, He wasn't in any other place."[3]

"Even if you are an unbeliever or Zoroastrian fire worshipper or an idol worshipper, return. ..... The Sufis court of ours is not a court of despair. Even if you have broken your repentance a hundred times, return"[4]

Both the above quotes are not composed by Rumi. As I looked into sources [3] and [4] of the book's Notes, this is mentioned:

[3] First Translated by Nicholson in 1898, Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz, no XVII, ppg 71-73. This poem doesnot occur in the earliest manuscripts of the Divan and is no longer considered to be authentic by scholars. Nicholson mentioned that this poem occured in only one manuscript which is dated over 170 years after Rumi's death.

[4] This quatrian does not exist in the earliest manuscript of Rumi's Divan, but is found in manuscript of another poet Baba Afzaluddin Kashani (died 1274), it has long been attributed to Aby Said ibin Abi Khayr (died 1048), for which see Abramain, Nobody, Son of Nobody:Poems of Shaikh Abu Saeed Abil Kheir (Prescott, Arizona: Hohm Press, 2001), p 4.

Someone should remove that quote, or add a criticism note. -- Thanks. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the 1st quote... "I traversed the lands of Cross..". as that's considered fabricated/false. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Date: May 2010

Problem: A few of this article's sections (Life, for example) are in desperate need of better grammar and clarity.

Random the Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 23:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is just a mess, mostly because of nationalistic POV etc. A real expert is needed, and the article needs to be based on scholarly works, not the personal POV of certain Wikipedians. Tajik (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What nationalistic POV? I see references to Encyclopedia of Islam, Schimmel, Franklin and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

dear Tajik, the accepted academic theory is that rumi is a Persian poet, mystic and was born in wakhsh Tajikistan which was then part of the larger province of balkh... If you put dispute section there instead of another tag,you are really helping pan turkist type nationalists.. You might want to keep the cleanup tag..and do some editing to clean it up.. However don't give an execuse to pan Turk type groups... specially since the information in this article is based on Franklin, schimmel , ei and etc.. Thanks your friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.9.79 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So doost aziz please get involved and fix anything you see fit, But don't give reasons for Turkish nationalists to dispute the main facts.. I know you understand.. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Protect?

Shouldn't this page be protected? I'm getting a bit tired of reverting every anonymous IP that tries to claim Rumi for some modern nation-state. The last numbskull even tried to say that the city of Vakhsh was in Afghanistan. Szfski (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection : 1 month JoJan (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Farhadus, 4 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The article claims that Rumi is from "Iranzamin". This is errouneous. Rumi came from Balkh located in Afghanistan.

Farhadus (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As a registered user you can make the change as soon as you are autoconfirmed, i.e. for most users on en.wiki, accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 legitimate edits. JoJan (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

JoJan, that is why this user used {{editsemiprotected}} to request the edit. Farhadus, do you have a source for that change? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems an endless edit war going on over the birthplace and "nationality" of the Rumi. That's why I semi-protected this article to let passions cool down. But I don't want to get involved in this edit war and that's why I didn't make the edit without a reference to a reliable source. JoJan (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 221.187.47.219, 11 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "Rumi was born in Greater Iran (Iranzamin), in the province of Balkh and thus he is called Balkhi" to "Rumi was born in the Persian Empire, or present-day Balkh, Afghanistan. For this reason, he is often called Balkhi."

Rationale: The current sentence is historically inaccurate and thus non-scholarly.

The region where Rumi was born was not known as Iran at the time, but as the Persian Empire. Therefore, the best edit would be to write "Rumi was born in ... the Persian Empire, or present-day Afghanistan" which is in fact the most historically accurate description.

While one can argue that due to border changes, at the time of Rumi's birth, Balkh was within the Persian Empire, it should be pointed out that Rumi was neither ethnically or culturally Iranian as evidenced from his writing. On the contrary, he conformed with the ethnic groups compromising the Afghan people as suggested by his specific dialectical variant in writing the Persian language (upon close investigation, his Persian was closest to the "Dari" dialect of Persian as spoken in Afghanistan).

Thank you for listening to my appeal.

Sources

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan http://www.mfa.gov.af/rumis.asp <-- Government article discussing Rumi's past, with evidence of Rumi's family history in Afghanistan.

Information about his writing approximating the Dali dialect http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/about_translations.html

Google maps confirming that it is present day Afghanistan http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=2Lk&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=balkhi&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

221.187.47.219 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

221.187.47.219 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done per WP:BOLD, noting that his birthplace has been the subject of past disputes. I implemented this change because it was properly cited and uncontested. If someone more knowledgeable and with a conflicting source wishes to revert, I have no problem with that. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting information

Conflicting information? On the one hand the article states that "Rumi was born in the Persian Empire, or present-day Balkh, Afghanistan." In the same paragraph, it states that: "He was born in the village of Wakhsh, a small town located at the river Wakhsh in what is now Tajikistan." The place where Rumi was born cannot be both in present-day Afghanistan and what is now Tajikistan, can it?Rvlusa (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems to be a victim of the POV I-hate-other-countries edit warring that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Is it really that difficult to state which present day country his birthplace is in? Davidelit (Talk) 08:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.164.240.252, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 1) Rumi is not Persian 2) Rumi is an Alevi 3) Semah is an Alevi rituel

78.164.240.252 (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Muslim Sufi"

An anonymous IP has been editing this article despite several reverts to read that Rumi was a "Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic." Am I right in reasoning that "Muslim... Sufi" is redundant and reverting these edits? I just wanted to get an idea of consensus before I continue to revert... Thanks, Lithoderm 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all people would be aware of Sufi's being Muslims... some might say they are not (LOL).. so while many might think it is redundant - it does assume a certain level of knowledge from readers which perhaps is beyond many of them. I would leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rumi's religious denomination

While it is true that Mowlawna praises the first two Caliphs in his couplets, it is also worth mentioning that he also writes highly of Ali.

Learn from Ali how to fight without your ego participating.

The lion who breaks the enemy's ranks is a minor hero compared to the lion who overcomes himself.

God's lion did nothing that didn't originate from his deep center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.97.19 (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dec 2010

My friend, if you knew anything about Molavi (Rumi, Melevi, or whatever other name you wish to give him) you would not waste your energy trying to give him a national identiy. Molavi was a mystic, a manof God and the only thing that mattered to him was to "lose his ego" and thus get closer to God. How Ironic that people like you use him to do the opposite! He would have found your attempts to use his presumed nationality to boost your own ego a sign of immaturity and lack of spiritual development. I make no apology if you find my comment offensive. In fact I am pleased if that is the case, since to make something better, something has to be destroyed. That was Molavi's philosophy which I adhere to and respect. Best wishes, Keivan (with no particular national prejudice) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K31van (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The above comment moved from the top of the page by Imc (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Both Persian and Tajik must be used as the ethnicity of Rumi

Rumi's homeland-Balkh region-has the native population of Tājīks who were called "Persian" at the time. I can give many sources to prove that Tājīks are the native inhabitants of Balkh region. Both "Persian" and "Tājīk" must be used as the ETHNICITY of Rumi to AVOID CONFUSION (even though Tājīks are part of Persian people, but they are called Tājīk today). Those who deny this fact, they seem as if they are stealing the cultural heritage of the native population of the region and this is totally unacceptable. Artacoana 11:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Decisions in Wikipedia is just based on reliable sources, not idea of users. Sources say Rumi was a Persian. --Aliwiki (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tajiks are East-Persians, so by calling Rumi for a Persian also includes tajiks. --85.165.212.65 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions

Is this page is for persian propaganda?When reading the page that is strongly attracting our attention!I think By this way persians are showing disrespecting,betraying and mistreating Muhammad Rumi's philosophy!Shame on them!Also nationalism is forbidden in Islam!And look to [8]--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dont mind them mate just let it go, we know better than that, Mevlana his family owns a website on the net and they have the truth on their website, Mevlana himself stated many times in his books that he is a Turk and not Persian, he said these famous words: Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem (I may speak Persian but Im a Turk)

Many people accept Mevlana as Persian because he wrote in Persian which was the literature language at that time, many sources are based on this. By the way Mevlana did know Greek and Turkish, he also wrote in the Oghuz Turkish language and Urdu. If you wish any sources visit www.mevlana.net this website is owned by his family. Redman19 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Hindi" is not Persian, it means Hindi (Indian). And Mawlana has no Indian poems. Rather the play Hindu vs Turk is an old Persian symbolism of light vs dark, and has no ethnic affiliation.

Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو To Maah-i Torki o man Agar Tork nistam Daanam man in Qadar keh Beh Torki ast, 'aab Su Professional Translation: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). The imagery of Turk, Rumi, Hindu and Zang is common in Persian poetry and has been used by many poets. Unfortunately, I doubt any of the people that wrote the comments above have any idea of these. For a detailed article on Rumi's ethnicity, see [9] where this symbolism is also explained among many other features. Here is an anectode from Rumi quoted by Aflaki (pg 503) about Tukrs vs Greeks. Note he is not putting Turks downs or praising Greeks (in my opinion) but just making an observation: "Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. " (pg 503) See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002.--96.241.114.129 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I already explained before Rumi is often mistaken for Persian because he wrote his poems in Persian, Persian was the literature language at the time, many Ottoman sultans also wrote their poems in Persian this doesnt make them Persian right? what Rumi ment by "Hindi" was a language that was hard to understand for many people, in other words this is a reference to the Persian language because he wrote in Persian, UNESCO accepted Rumi as a part of Turkish culture, why are you Iranians still trying to claim him with your Persian propaganda? Rumi was born in Khorasan, this place was mainly inhabited by Turkish tribes (Turkmen) in the time when Rumi was born, there are still many Turks in Iran and present day Afghanistan.

Again some quotes of Rumi: Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem = I may write/speak Persian, but Im still a Turk. Turk gibi cevik ol, Acem (Farsi) gibi miymintilik etme = Be fast as a Turk not slow as a Persian.

Visit www.mevlana.net, you can find the info I just wrote here on there, the real truth is written there, that is the only website on the internet that is owned by his own family.

Even Hamid Baqaee the director of Iranian Cultural and Heritage Organisation (ICHTO) and the Islamic Republic’s vice president called the renowned 13th century "Persian" mystic Poet, Rumi, a ‘Turkish intellectual’. Redman19 (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Without proper understanding of Persian language , translating the sentences is giving wrong information . In Persian poem , because of the physical appearance of Anatolian people was white , and of Indian people was dark , the poet tended to use them as contrast in poem . Aslem Türk-est egerci hinduguyem , that means I'm white but using dark words !! hinduguyem: Hendi (Indian)+ guyam (taking) = I'm talking (in) Hendi : Did he ever talked in Indian?!! Overall that means "I'm Pessimistic in words , but Optimistic in heart" --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The first poem of yours states: "Speaking Hindu" not speaking Persian. Hindu and Turk were used as a symbols of Persian poetry, and have no ethnic value here.. "Torki Kon" means to move around, where-as being 'Ajam (Tajik) means to be settled. Also the site you brought has no academic value and you are mistaken. Rumi's Friday sermons, his lectures to his students (which were takens as notes by his students) are also in Persian. This shows it was his everyday language. Also you are selectively quoting Rumi. "You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su"(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). As per the website you brought, much more than that has been analyzed here: [10] As per Hameed Baqai, that is what Turkish newspapers reported by this was denined by Iranian media. Plus we do not quote Hameed Baqai, but Ann Marrie Schimmel and Lewis Franklin who are the top known Rumi scholars.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources I gave you were provided by his own grandson, I dont think his own grandson is mistaken about his own roots and that of Rumi right? have you ever been in Konya? you can read this all yourself in the Mevlana Museum. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)"

Her ne kadar Farsça söylesem de, aslım Türktür benim. <<< again Rumi clearly states here that he is a Turk, why? you know what aslim means? origins, you can read it yourself in the Mevlana Museum, see it with your own eyes. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"I have proved many times with documents that Mevlana was a Kaşgar Turk and his family used to speak the Hakani dialect, which belongs to Central Asian languages,” said İsmail Yakıt, the head of the Philosophy and Religious Sciences Department at Süleyman Demirel University in Isparta. He said one of the clear proofs of this argument was Mevlana’s son, Sultan Veled, who was born after Mevlana’s family had moved to Karaman.

“Sultan Veled was born after his family had moved to Karaman. While the whole of Central Asia was speaking the Anatolian dialect, Mevlana was writing in the Hakani dialect,” he said, adding that the Persian language Mevlana had used was actually Anatolian Persian. He said Anatolian Persian language was used by elite people of the region and was also the mother tongue of the Selçuk state." 188.202.146.57 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rumi's grandson is not alive. You might be talking about his 20th descendant which is not important what he states, since Wikipedia works based on scholars and not here-say. Wikipedia works by using modern Western scholarly sources and experts like Schimmel and Franklin ae clear that Rumi is Persian. As per the verse you brought, sorry your making up a verse. Because Rumi never said those verses and you cannot find it. Rumi wrote his poetry in Persian and he uses the opposition of Hindu and Turk. Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو To Maah-i Torki o man Agar Tork nistam Daanam man in Qadar keh Beh Torki ast, 'aab Su Professional Translation by Schimmel: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). So why ignore this line? Rumi's Friday sermons, his lectures to his students (which were takens as notes by his students) are also in Persian. This shows it was his everyday language. Also you are selectively quoting Rumi. "You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su"(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). Mowlana never wrote in a "Hakani dialect" nor did he anything to do with Kasghar!.. He was born in Wakhsh Tajikistan according to modern sources and he has some mixed Persian-Greek and Persian-Turkish poetry(total Greek/Turkish is less than 1% of his work). Sultan Valad also admits he does not know Turkish well. There is no such thing as "Anatolian Persian" because the Persian of Rumi is understandable to the educated Persian speaker today. I don't need to come to Konya, cause I can read Rumi's work in original Persian. There must have been numerous Turkish dialects at the time, and living in Anatolia, Sultan Valad and Rumi were exposed to these dialects just like they were exposed to Greek. However, even Sultan Valad(Rumi's son) admits he does not know Turkish well. Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. pg 239:”Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish " For example in his Ebteda-Nama, Sultan Walad admits twice in Persian after some of the lines in Greek/Turkish. Here is a verse from Sultan Walad (Rumi's son): بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی که از این اصطلاح محرومی گوی از پارسی و تازی که در این دو همی خوش تازی Translation: "Let go of the languages of Greek (Rumi) and Turkish (Turki) Because you lack knowledge in these two, Thus speak in Persian and Arabic, Since in these two, you recite very well." And also elsewhere in Ghazal in his Diwan, he writes:: If I knew Turkish, I would have brought one to a thousand. But when you listen to Persian, I tell the secrets much better" "Sultan Walad, ”Mowlavi-ye Digar:Shamel-e Ghazzaliyat, Qasayed, Qete’at, Tarkibat, Ash’ar-eTorki, Ashar-e Arabi, Mosammat, Robbi’yyat” Tehran, Sana’i, 1984. pg 556: ترکچه اگر بیلیدم بر سروزی بک ایدیدم طتچه اگر دیلرسز گویم اسرار علا". This shows the family was not Turkish or else Sultan Walad would not admit that his knowledge of Turkish is poor. --96.241.114.129 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you better go to Konya and visit the Mevlana Museum you will see yourself that both Franklin and Schimmel got it all wrong, Her ne kadar Farsça söylesem de, aslım Türktür benim this verse is not made up, if you really red Rumis books you would know this but somehow you skipped that part. 195.240.250.105 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin and Schimmel are foremost scholars of Rumi. Furthermore, Mevlana museuem and Konya are build much later than Rumi. As per the line you brought, Rumi did not speak modern Anatolian Turkish and no such word as "Tuktur" is found in his poetry. He did however write in Persian and here is a version: To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو Professional Translation by Schimmel: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). So here clearly says: "I am not a Turk". Plus as mentioned by others, the term "Turk vs Hindu" (which your line mentions and not Farsi), is a contrast between beauty and dark.

Rumis own words

‘ASLIM TÜRKTÜR BENİM’ Mevlana’nın neredeyse tüm yazmalarında bulunan rubaisi şöyle: “Yabancı bellemeyin beni, ben de bu ildenim, Sizin vatanınızda kendi yurdumu aramaktayım, Her ne kadar düşman gibi görünsem de, düşman değilim, Her ne kadar Farsça söylesem de, aslım Türktür benim.” the sentence in bold is sometimes written as hinduguyem, this is a reference to Farsça (Persian) not Hindi, both sentences have the same meaning.

@Response: A) All the response to your arguments here: [11] B) Rumi has no such a poem..Hindu Guyam = speak Indian not Persian. So you have mistranlated Rumi's poem into Turkish. Hindu and Turks are symbols of contrast in Persian poetry and do not take ethnic values. As noted by Kafardar when quoting the Turkish scholar Golpiranli and such ethnonyms in the works of Rumi:"Golpiranli rightly insists that ethnonym were deployed allegorically and metaphortically in classical Islamic literatures, which operated on the basis of a staple set of images and their well recognized contextual associations by readers; there, "turk" had both a negativeand positive connocation. In fact, the two dimensions could be blended: the "Turk" was "cruel" and hence, at the same time, the "beautiful beloved"( Kafadar 2007:23). And also noted by de Bruijn: “In such imagery the link to ethnic characteristics is hardly relevant, so that it may be used together with features of another ethnic type in the characterization of a single person, e.g., when Neẓāmi describes the princess of Hend as āhu-ye Tork-čašm-e Hendu-zād (“a gazelle with Turkish eyes, of Indian blood” (de Burijn 2003).

Rumi also says"To Maah Torki o man Agar Tork nistam- daanam beh in qadar keh beh Torkist, Ab su" تو ماه ِ ترکي و من اگر ترک نيستم دانم من اين قَدَر که به ترکي است، آب سُو To Maah-i Torki o man Agar Tork nistam Daanam man in Qadar keh Beh Torki ast, 'aab Su

Professional Translation by Schimmel: You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196). So why ignore this line? He also states: ""Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks. When God—He is sublime and exalted—ordered the creation of the world of sovereignty (‘alam-e molk’), first He created unaware-infidels, and He conferred on them long life and great strength so they would strive like hired laborers in building the terrestrial world. And they built up many cities and fortresses on mountain peaks and places on top of a hill such that after generations had passed these constructions were a model for those who came later. Then divine predestination saw to it that little by little these constructions would become completely destroyed and desolate, and be eradicated. God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. And they are still doing so, and day by day until the Resurrection they will continue to destroy in this manner. In the end, the destruction of the city of Konya will also be at the hands of wicked Turks devoid of mercy.’ And this being the case, it turned out just as Mowlana said. ""(See: Shams al-Din Ahmad al_Afkali, Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn, ed. Tahsin Yazici, 2 vols, Tehran, Donyaayeh Ketab, 1983. English translation: Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002). As noted Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 193: "Rumi's mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse". A complete response is also available here: [12][13]. The problem with the Turkish nationalistic reading of Rumi (which brings about full of contradiction has he has also considered himself Rumi (Greek), Zang (black..)" is the lack of understanding of Persian poetry and the non-ethnic metaphor meanings of Hindu/Hindu, Rum, Turk, Zang, and Habash. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by WP:RS not WP:OR. So Franklin and Schimmel get the final words.

IP and Rumi's origin

An ip [14] edit thed article and insterted some websites which do not meet WP:RS or do not have any scholarly credentials. The only source he did insert which scholarly credential was Schimmel but he as not understood what Schimmel states: "It is small wonder that the Turks were and still are extremly fond of Mowlana Jalal al-Din RUmi who took his surname Rumi, from the Romans e.g. Anatolian, area were his spent most of his life. He was, as is claimed of Turkish origin."(The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 371) However, Schimmel is discussing Rumi studies in Turkey which claim Rumi as Turkish. But this is not accepted by Schimmel who states: "..Turks are absolutely convinced that Mowlana was a Turk..we shall probably never reach a definite conclusion....Rumi's mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse" (Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 193). However if someone's mother tongue is Persian, they are Persian. Furthermore, Schimmel in another book is clear: Annemarie Schimmel, “The Mystery of Numbers”, Oxford University Press,1993. Pg 49: “A beautiful symbol of the duality that appears through creation was invented by the great Persian mystical poet Jalal al-Din Rumi, who compares God's creative word kun (written in Arabic KN) with a twisted rope of 2 threads (which in English twine, in German Zwirn¸ both words derived from the root “two”)”.. So schimmel cannot be contradicting herself and the ip has misread the passage. More importantly, the recent standard in scholarship on Rumi's biography is the book by University of Chicago professor Franklin D. Lewis,

Franklin D. Lewis, "Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The life, Teaching and poetry of Jalal Al-Din Rumi", Oneworld Publication Limited, 2008 pg 9: "How is that a Pesian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considred in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere" pg 21:"On the question of Rumi's multilingualism (pages 315-317), we still say that he spoke and wrote Persian as a native language, whote and conversed in Arabic as a learned "foreign" language, could at least get by at the market in Turkish and Greek(though some widely extravagant claims have been made about his command of Attic Greek, or his native tongue being Turkish). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thus this widely extragavent claim has no place in Wikipedia as it does not meet WP:weight. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest a separate sub-article under the title "Whirling Dervishes" Kritik1 (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thesecretmeaning, 5 April 2011

Please add a weblink to this free PDF book on Rumi and Sufism. http://www.thesecretmeaning.com/

Thesecretmeaning (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: That site does not appear to meet the guidelines on external links. I see no evidence that the author is an expert in the field (or even who the author is, for that matter. Unless you can show clearly that that site provides reliable information, we shouldn't link to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add this back

This was a saying of Rumi (under the Islam section), sadly someone removed it:

"In an authentic quatrain composed by Rumi, he tells us:

I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life. I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen one. If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings, I am quit of him and outraged by these words.

man banda-yé qur'ân-am, agar jân dâr-am man khâk-é rah-é muHammad-e mukhtâr-am gar naql kon-ad joz în, kas az goftâr-am bêzâr-am az-ô, w-az-în sokhan bêzâr-am]

SOURCE: [--Rumi's Quatrain No. 1173, translated by Ibrahim Gamard and Ravan Farhadi in 'The Quatrains of Rumi,' an unpublished manuscript]

SOURCE 2: http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/self-discovery.html

[Here, the Persian word 'bezar' translated as 'quit of' and 'outraged' also means disgusted, fed-up, repelled, estranged. The meaning is that no one should interpret Rumi's speech and poetry as having meanings that do not conform to the revelation and practice of Islam.] " Other translation:

Hazrat Jalaluddin Rumi (Rah) said (Translated), “I am a slave of the Qur’an while I still have life; I am dust on the path of Muhammad (SAW/PBUH), the Chosen One. If anyone interprets my words in any other way, I deplore that person and I deplore his words.”

Taken from: http://islamicamagazine.com/?p=208

So can someone add this again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.248.2 (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who removed it, but the removal seems to be correct. We do not provide extensive quotations of primary sources on Wikipedia. We are interested in what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the subject, not so much what the subject had to say about themselves.

Also, when you start a new topic, please do so at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Thanks Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lovedrunk: how is this anything but blatant advertising?

Smells like advertising. Should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On the Rumi question...

I, for one, am the first to oppose any kind of nationalism slash borderline racism that may pop up here and there in every day life or online in places like wikipedia, but this ongoing discussion concerning Molana's heritage and ethnic background has to be one of the most redundant dialogues to have ever occurred in wikipedian history. Having read the works of Molana in Persian and studied his verses by reading the works of Abdol Karim Soroush, S.H.Nasr, Arjberry, R.A.Nicholson, William Chittick, and others, I am quite confident that in all of the scholarly works that are recognized by serious thinkers, Molana is quoted as being a Persian with little doubt about his ancestry. The move to claim certain Persian historical figures by nationalist regimes (e.g. Turkey, Azerbaijan Republican) is purely political and the former Soviet Union was instrumental in causing this confusion and conflating the issue. A simple reference to Turkey's UNESCO site where it states that the Persian polymath Ibn Sina was a Turk will suffice here (http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=turkey+unesco+ibn+sina&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e62d73082e470642&biw=1280&bih=677).

I understand why some Turks are motivated to claim Rumi and other historical figures as their own, not only because they lack a significant number of intellectuals, scholars, poets, or great literary figures in their history, but also because of the obvious fact that these figures are so admired and loved by people around the world. But, heresay and making up quotes and false information is not going to convince anyone that you're right (the people living in your country, however, may be an exception to this- for they too are in need of proclaiming their nationalism through the identification of their ethnic identity with certain historical giants).

I'm just glad to see the fine gentlemen in this discussion board, defending and safeguarding intellectual rights, integrity and honesty by carefully and skillfully supporting their arguments/claims with scholarly sources. I wish I could say the same for those who cite as a reference 'the original family tree of Rumi.' I suggest, for those of you who are not yet convinced that Molana was a Persian, to spend some time and energy in learning the language that Molana wrote and read for most of his life (even if in your view, it was the 'literary language of the time'). You may actually figure out that some of these 'scholarly works' that you read and that are published in Turkey, are not so scholarly, but, instead, pure rubbish full of lies and manipulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.182 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Language of Mawlana is Dari (Spoken in Afghanistan) not the Old Persian as Stated in the Books Printed in Iran

Being born in Balkh Province of Afghanistan, Mawlana's book is written in the Dari which quite different from the Persian Language spoken in Iran in names, words and many other aspects (even Iranians can not understand when an Afghan speaks). That is why Iranian people call it Old Persian while that is totally wrong. The terms and words used by Mawlana is still in Practice in Afghanistan. But the people of Iran print in their books and call it Old Persian. The difference of the languages spoken can not be understood by the other people but the best example can be American and British English bu the difference is even to greater extent, for example we call Tomato as "Baadenjan Rumi" while Iranian call it "Gooja Farangi". Now you see the simple names are even different and the terminology, expressions and verbs used by Mawlana is totally different than language spoken in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.138.147 (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Tomatoe is a new word that did not existed in any of these languages prior to 100-200 years ago. It comes from the new world.
• Old Persian is not modern Persian, it is a language from the Achaemenid era. Iranians like all scholars call the poetry of Rumi as "Farsi". Dari also means Farsi and Ferdowsi uses "Parsi-Dari". The reason sometimes Dari is used (and it is modern Persian) is to distinguish it from Middle Persian, Fahlaviyat and other Iranian languages which are also called Farsi in classical sources.
• Rumi calls his language Parsi: پارسی گو گرچه تازی خوشتر است عشق را خود صد زبان دیگر است
• Dari is a just another name for Persian.
• Wikipedia works by WP:RS and Westertn scholars call the language of RUmi as Persian, and Dari is a just another term for Persian.
• I am Iranian and I can understand when Afghan speaks. Mash-hadi dialect and Herati dialect are very close. Also the written language is exactly the same.
• Rumi is most widely read in Iran today in the Muslim world and in its original Persian language, dismissing your hypothesis:[15]
• Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR (which is what you have done). It is not a WP:FORUM and solely relies on reliable sources, say Lewis Franklin.
• Rumi according to modern scholars was likely born in Vakhsh (Tajikistan) which was part of the administrative province of Balkh.

"Fewer people in Afghanistan read his poetry because of the decades of war there and the disruption of the educational system. The teaching of classical Persian language in India and Pakistan has probably declined. However, Rumi's poetry remains highly read and appreciated in Iran. I don't know about other Persian-speaking countries, such as Tajikistan, and cities such as Bukhara and Samarkand in Uzbekistan, but I hope that they are still appreciating his poetry. "[16] All the critical editions of Rumi's work today are printed in Iran and there is no separation of Persian speakers of Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Samarqand/Bukhara as not only the written classical language is the same, but the dialects form a continuum (Mashhad-Herat, Badakhshan-Dushanbaeh..) and it is classified by scholars as one Persian family.

Thank you! Nothing else to be added. Except maybe that the "tomato" argument is laughable. Both, gūğa farangī (گوجه فرنگي) and bādenğān rūmī (بادنجان رومی), have more or less the same meaning in Persian. The first one suggests a "Frankish" origin of the plant while the second one claims a "Roman" (= Anatolian) origin. In both cases, the name suggests that the plant was not native to the Iranian lands but was imported from the West, hence "Frankish" (farangī) and "Roman" (rūmī), since both words have the wider meaning of "western" or "foreign" in Persian. --Lysozym (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kord11, 30 June 2011

Please add the following link to the External Link section: Original Persian / Farsi text of Rumi's work can be found at: www.RumiSite.com Kord11 (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Map of Today's Country Borders Rumi has never been to the Current Geographical Area called Iran

Looking at today's country maps, Rumi has bever been to current geographical area called Iran because he was born in Balkh and later on traveled to Turkey and Qunia and stayed there. Now I wonder if he was alive whether Iranian government would give him an Iranian ID or he would be given Afghan, Turk or another name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.138.147 (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Iranian means Iranian peoples , not citizen of Iran. Second Rumi was Persian (Tajik) born in what is now Wakhsh in Tajikistan which was part of the greater region of Balkh.

• Annemarie Schimmel, "I Am Wind, You Are Fire," p. 11. She refers to a 1989 article by the German scholar, Fritz Meier:

Tajiks and Persian admirers still prefer to call Jalaluddin 'Balkhi' because his family lived in Balkh, current day in Afghanistan before migrating westward. However, their home was not in the actual city of Balkh, since the mid-eighth century a center of Muslim culture in (Greater) Khorasan (Iran and Central Asia). Rather, as the Swiss scholar Fritz Meier has shown, it was in the small town of Wakhsh north of the Oxus that Baha'uddin Walad, Jalaluddin's father, lived and worked as a jurist and preacher with mystical inclinations. *Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings, and Poetry of Jalâl al-Din Rumi, 2000, pp. 47–49. Professor Lewis has devoted two pages of his book to the topic of Wakhsh, which he states has been identified with the medieval town of Lêwkand (or Lâvakand) or Sangtude, which is about 65 kilometers southeast of Dushanbe, the capital of present-day Tajikistan. He says it is on the east bank of the Vakhshâb river, a major tributary that joins the Amu Daryâ river (also called Jayhun, and named the Oxus by the Greeks). He further states: "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh, but at least between June 1204 and 1210 (Shavvâl 600 and 607), during which time Rumi was born, Bahâ al-Din resided in a house in Vakhsh (Bah 2:143 [= Bahâ' uddîn Walad's] book, "Ma`ârif."). Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old (mei 16-35) [= from a book in German by the scholar Fritz Meier--note inserted here]. At that time, in about the year 1212 (A.H. 608–609), the Valads moved to Samarqand (Fih 333; Mei 29–30, 36) [= reference to Rumi's "Discourses" and to Fritz Meier's book--note inserted here], leaving behind Baâ al-Din's mother, who must have been at least seventy-five years old." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

TURKISH

he was not Persian. He was Turkish. he was born in Konya(Turkey). Konya was Ottoman's land when he was born in. Unesco also has accepted he was Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.144.181 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

He was born in Persian speaking Vakhsh not in Konya (he lived in Konya which was culturally Persian). UNESCO is not a WP:RS source but never calls him Turkish..[17]. This stuff has been discussed many times, and only Turkish people make claim on Rumi not being Persian. Western scholars have accepted him as Persian.

• Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000. How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west? (p. 9)
• Ritter, H.; Bausani, A. "ḎJ̲alāl al- Dīn Rūmī b. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿulamāʾ Walad b. Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad Ḵh̲aṭībī ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. Excerpt: "known by the sobriquet Mawlānā (Mevlânâ), Persian poet and founder of the Mawlawiyya order of dervishes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Region from template

I removed the whole section of "Region - Rum - Persia". What the hell does "region" mean ??? That's just an attempt by a bunch of hypocrite Iranians who constantly try to label Rumi as Iranian. For all great people we have a place of birth, a place of death, and ethnicity, what the hell is "region"??? Kasparov49acer 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your removal, since a rant against Iranians is not a viable reason to remove something from an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason for my changes is not a "rant against Iranians" but because "Region" does not mean anything !!! What do you mean by region ??? Kasparov49acer 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The rant against Iranians is because they are trying to label any Farsi speaker who have ever existed as Iranian ! However, a great deal of those man, like Rumi, Avicenna, Ferdowsi and so on were all Afghans, or at least from today's Afghanistan! Kasparov49acer 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Region explains to the reader where this individual was active. Your animosity against Iranians means nothing here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User Kansas, I hope you are willing to produce more than "one liners" here. Maybe in your mind my animosity "doesn't mean anything HERE", but it's HERE that I need to preserve the truth and prevent people like you to manipulate that. You are sounding as if "my anomosity" towards Iranians is a valid reason for you to change history. Tell me please, for which other great man have you put "Region" in wikipedia??? Furtheremore, the "Region" where Rumi was ACTIVE was the whole of empire, which was one place at that time. --Kasparov49acer 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In case you do care about the truth, the empire in question was the Ghurid empire, which was from Herat, North of Afghanistan. So, Rumi was an Afghan Persian, who was ACTIVE in an Afghan Persian kingdom for most of his life, and then moved to the Ottoman lands.--Kasparov49acer 16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will stop your childish games and provide us an explanation for your constant changes. Hope it's more than one line.--Kasparov49acer 16:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

I hope you can bring something more relevant than your puerile personal animosity towards an ethnic group. The only truth that wikipedia should be concerned with, is what can be verified.

Do you have a reliable published source for your assertion that he was Afghan Persian? There are 8 references that state he was Persian.

According to the article he went to Nishapur when he was 18 yrs old, which places him within the area controlled by the Khwarazmian dynasty. What evidence do you have, that he was active during the Ghurid Empire, since he would have been eight years old when it collapsed? Apparently you refuse to see these "truths".

Did Rumi live/work in Persia during the Khwarazmian dynasty? Yes.

Did he live/work in Rum? Yes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fascinating how you make it look as if I have animosity. You bunch of hypocrites have rewritten the history of entire people and nations, pretending to be some sort of objective editors here, while you are engaged in subjective interpretations all along. Of course Rumi was Persian, the whole North of Afghanistan is Persian, the problem is that Persia is defined as Iran in wikipedia, and this brings confusion everywhere. Furtheremore, you didn't answer my question, "for which other great historical figure have you put REGION"??? This is only something that has been added to make it look that all the great Persians of Afghanistan are from Persia, and that Persia means IRAN !--Kasparov49acer 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

Frankly I don't understand what Region=Rum, Persia means. Rum was the name given to the former Roman Empire territory by the Seljuks. In this case it was Anatolia, present Turkey. It had nothing to do with Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty which was much further in the east. I don't think we need the Region information in the sidebox. But if used, Region= Rum (modern Turkey) is a much better alternative. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Region - Rum, Persia was to indicate where Rumi traveled/had influence. Not a literal translation of some place called Rum in Persia. From what I have read he was in Baghdad and Konya(living there by 1215-1220), so the Region section should read:Sultanate of Rum(Konya)-line break- Abbasid Caliphate(Baghdad). Baghdad(undoubtedly before 1258!) may or may not be a legend but should be included for the reader.[18]. Your thoughts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I believe that editors to this article are trying to promote a "pan-Iranian" hero as it were; however, I do not believe that Kansas Bears' edit in the infobox has contributed to this bias. Maybe it would be best to just make it clear in the introduction where he was active? I have done a little research on Rumi today and it does seem as though the article has a Persian-bias. Take this quotation for instance:

"But the Turks claim Rumi was Turkish, and the Iranians claim he was Iranian a long-running debate that will probably never be resolved". (Ramazani, Nesta (2002:211) The Dance of the Rose and the Nightingale, Syracuse University Press, (ISBN 081560727X)).

Why does this article not state that there is a genuine debate about his ethnicity? There seems to be a bunch of footnotes alongside the claim that he is Persian which seems to be done to make it look more legitimate.Turco85 (Talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As Ramazani being of Iranian descent , I can understand what does he mean . Genuine debate in his dialogue is referring to internationalism of Mollana . By showing his ethnicity ,[Most of Iranians] only want to show his original ethnicity and not a national hero out of him , simply because he was clearly anti-nationalist and international . Many times in his poems he has said that he does not pays a damn for material world and national matters and he was only considering spiritual concerns . There is no doubt about his Iranian ethnicity , but he was not never ever a nationalist.Mentioning his original ethnicity is necessary for understanding his ideas , as knowing Persian language that was his language . Many writers believe that the poem can not be translated at all and must be read in original language. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the user:Kasparov49acer and Yamaweiss in removing 'Region' from the template. As mentioned above, placing this template creates confusion.--Artacoana (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You hypocrites make it look as if there is a debate here !!! What exactly is the debate ??? He was a Persian from Afghanistan, and there are hundreds of sources to support that he was born in Afghanistan and that he was a Persian !!! 50% of the population of Afghanistan are categorized as Persians (Tajiks and Hazaraas) and it is from this background that Rumi comes! How does the Iranian claim that he is Iranian ??? I won't even talk about the Turks and the claim that he was a Turk! --Kasparov49acer 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

Yamaweiss, It's better you read the article archives. Xooon (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, can you please provide us with any proof that he was Iranian ??? I hope you guys are realizing that the only reason why you are winning this whole debate, and that all great Afghans are labelled as Persians/Iraninans, is because of your numbers ??? There are obviously no afghans involved in wikipedia (the country is at war ), so the Iranians have free reign in manipulating history without any opposition. As long as the "objective" Western contributors are concerned, they are as biased and hypocrite as you can get!!! I just hope that some of them have a desire for the truth and fix all this nonsesne.--173.178.179.154 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Kasparov49acer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.179.154 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hegel on Rumi's origins

Hegel says (Chapter: The Symbolic Art form p.17): '...Pantheistic poetry has had, it must be said, a higher and freer deverlopment in the Islamic world, especially among the Persians. Facing the Divine which appears to him in everything, the poet empties himself of himself so that, when he has entirely immersed himself in the eternal and absolute, it may entirely flood his soul. Here the Persian poet Jalal-ed-Din Rumi, who has lately been so well-translated by Friedrich Ruckert (1788-1866) is to be ranked first...' (Hegel: On the Arts [abridged and translated by Henry Paolucci]

(Chapter: Poetry p. 155) Hegel states: 'The full flowering of Persian poetry comes instead at the high of its complete transformation, in speech and national character through Mohammadanism...the far traveled Saadi was master, before it submerged itself in thd depths of the pantheistic mysticism taught and recommended in the extraordinary tales and legendary narrations of the great Jalal-ed-Din Rumi... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.133.239 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

Third paragraph, second line.....who were considered devious by ....Should have "devious" replaced by "deviant" or an equivalent please! to make proper sense. (Devious is de rigeur with rulers, deviation from faith is disputable)

SBader (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Turkey.Konya064.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Turkey.Konya064.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation

It would be great if this wiki page helped people to pronounce rumi's first and last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.128.108 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Added. --Z 19:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

sean stone rumi doc

Sean Stone, the 27-year-old son of director Oliver Stone, has become a Shiite Muslim during a visit to Iran; he is working on a documentary about the 13th-century Persian Muslim poet and mystic Rumi.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2012/feb/15/sean-stone-muslim-religion-hollywood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mevlana.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mevlana.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mevlana.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012

The usage of New Persian is superfluous. Being a native Persian speaker, it sounded very weird to me. The current Persian (or Dari) language is in fact the "New" or "Modern" Persian which started to flourish around 1000 years ago in Khorasan.

MaxNajma (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: PLease detail what you would like to change in a 'please change X to Y' manner and provide a reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why just 'Rumi' as the title heading?

I turned up here following a reference to Jalau'l-Din Rimi in Scott Peck's Further Along the Road Less Travelled, and was surprised to find myself in an article headed Rumi. I imagine you are going to answer that this is the name he is know as within the community - but would a forwarder to this article therefore be appropriate? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is one at Jalal ad-Din Rumi — goethean ॐ 16:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ecumenical?

The article seems to have a quarrel with the "portrayal in the West [of Rumi] as a proponent of non-denominational spirituality" and scoffs at people who in the eyes of the authors, propagated this view. Even to the extend that Coleman Barks, who - it's even mentioned in the article - has done more then anyone else to make the name Rumi known in the West, is not cited among the translators. I think this reflects a 'partial' view - although I am well aware that it is very hard to say anything about Rumi that isn't partial, apart from the historical facts (and I am glad that the article is NOT limited to reciting the the historical facts).

My main quarrel would be with this text in the article: "However, despite the aforementioned ecumenical attitude, and contrary to his contemporary portrayal in the West as a proponent of non-denominational spirituality, a number of Rumi poems suggest the importance of outward religious observance, the primacy of the Qur'an." These words, I think, reflect the urge to place, to fixate, Rumi in some or other pigeon hole: "he may have said this and that, but what he REALLY thought was ..." I think this is just one opinion amongst others; there are no historical grounds for this claim. More importantly: I think these attemtps to 'claim' Rumi are selling him short. In my opinion, if he expressed himself, as he did quite often, in ways which at first sight seem contradictory, this very contradiction is an essential part of his thinking and of his legacy. Personally, I do not even see a contradiction here. My sufi teacher used to point his muslim mureeds continually towards the Koran. But me, a (wandering and wondering) jew, he directed towards Torah and Talmud and he stimulated me to adhere to the rules and rituals of my faith. Not for a moment did I or anyonyone else of his mureeds see these diverse advices as 'contradictory'. Please forgive me this personal digression; I only meant to illustrate that even the use of the word 'contrary' in the above sentence reflects an opinion one could argue with.

I would propose to replace the aforementioned text, and the preceding paragraph under the heading of "Universality", which seems written as a prelude to the subsequent denial of this 'universality'. I would propose:

"One of the most quoted sentences of Rumi's is: 'Christian, Jew, Muslim, shaman, Zoroastrian, stone, ground, mountain, river, each has a secret way of being with the mystery, unique and not to be judged' and one of his (in the West) most recited poems begins with: 'Muslims! What can I do? I have lost my identity! I am not a Christian, Jew, pagan, or Muslim. I am neither an Easterner nor a Westerner, neither a land nor a sea person. Nature can't fully account for me, nor can the whirling cosmos.' These quotations may give a sense of the universality of Rumi's concept of 'the Beloved' and and his recognition of, and respect for, the many paths of the seeker."

I also protest against the over-long an over-detailed introduction depicting Rumi as 'a poet' from a bygone era. The Rumi I know is far more then a poet and he is not dead at all; he is a living inspiration and guidance for many. I sorely miss this actual relevance in the introduction and in the article itself. I'll try to come up with something better, but let's first see if anyone responds to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelis (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an editor but I like to make a comment or two. You made a thoughtful critique and I think everyone here will agree with some of the points you made. But my question to you is 1) Do you read Persian? and 2) What translations of his works have you read and how do you know the translations are correct? It seems that you are contradicting yourself when you claim that "he may have said this and that, but what he REALLY thought was ..." because you are doing the same however, in your case, I am not sure if you can read Rumi's work in the original (and yes there is a world of difference between reading a translation or what we would call a version of Rumi's work and his actual work in Persian). Again, no one is debating the universality of Rumi's concept of the Beloved but there are certain references that only make sense within the framework of a particular such as Islam. For example, the Sufis (including Rumi) refer to God as the Friend (dust). This is based on the Qur'anic verse yuhibbuhum wa yuhibbuhunah (God loves them and they love Him, 5:45). The conclusion I draw from your analysis is that I think you are making a separation between the universal and particular whereas they are really interrelated and one concept. i.e. the particular is found in the universal and the universal is found in the particular — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Farsi or Persian?

i think that the use of the word

farsi to describe the language of Rumi,is more approriate.i lived in iran.nobody said they spoke Persian.they said they spoke Farsi.Persian is a western imposition,and inditcates a trend toward deislamification of Iran in western media.followers of Zoraster are called Pars in India.i like them.i have no problem with them.but possibly unintentionally the author of this article is giving the United states policy on Iran towards calling it Persia instead of Iran and calling Tahk-te-jamshid Persepolis for purposes of undermining the importance of Islam in Iran the help it desires. would Rumi want that?i very much doubt it. in the same vain to call the inhabitants Persians or even Iranians is also a weird westernisation.please say:Iranis.they speak "farsi" also 'bahlk' should have a capital 'B'. persian cats and carpets are o.k.but people????i say no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.121.19 (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is nonsense! the proper name of this language in English is Persian. 'de-Islamification' and Western imposition is ridiculous. Nobody in Poland calls their language Polish, they call is 'polski'. so we should stop using Polish as it would be a Western imposition?

Also followers of Zoroaster in India are called Parsee not Pars or Persian. You need to study more and improve your English language much more than this. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's replace POV with a Neutral Point of View

This article contains POV.

Let's observe and evaluate from a neutral point of view:

It's known that Rumi was a Persian poet on the basis of his exclusive use of the Persian language and because he remained in the mainstream of Persian cultural heritage (which means Persianate). It's a debatable matter that he might be of Turkish/Afghan/Arab origin as well as Persian. He adopted Persian literature as Persian was the lingua franca at the time of Rumi. However, it doesn't make him Persian or anything.

On the other hand, as a result of their researches, Halman and Warner says: "...resulting from shifting populations and mass conversions to Islam. One must also consider, at least speculatively, that Rumi's family, living in Balkh, perhaps regarded itself as neither Persian nor Turkish nor Arab nor anything else for that matter but as Muslim, refusing to be assimilated or to identify themselves as Persian or Turkish any more than did the Greeks, Armenians, or Jews in Balkh." (Halman & Warner, Rapture and Revolution: Essays on Turkish Literature, Syracuse University, 2007, p.265)

In the same book, 266, continues: "In the West, scholars have always accepted Rumi as Persian on the basis of his exclusive use of the Persian language and because he remained in the mainstream of Persian cultural heritage. In the Encyclopaedia of Islam, B. Carra de Vaux and H. Ritter, in separate entries," make no reference to Rumi as Persian or Turkish, in fact, no reference at all to the question of nationality."

In the following poem, Rumi emphasizes himself Turk;

"Bigane megirid mera z'in kuyem

Der kuy-i şuma hane-i hod miçuyem

Düşmen neyem er çend ki düşmen rüyem

Aslem Türk'est egerçi Hindi miguyem"

which means in English;

"Don't isolate me from this village,

I look for my place in your village,

You think me an enemy, but I'm not,

I'm Turk though I write Persian."

However, Persians attribute metaphorical and figurative meanings to this poem. Anyway, it's also a debatable subject by men of letters.

Rumi also knows and writes in Turkish though Turkish was not a lingua franca at his time. The following poem is also taken from one of his Turkish poems:

"Gelesin bunda sana yek garezim yok işidürsen,

Kalasan anda yavuzdur yalunuz kanda kalursan?

Çalab'undur kamu dirlik, Çalab'a gel ne gezersen?

Çelebi kullarun ister, Çelebi'yi ne sanursan

Ne ağuzdur, ne ağuzdur ağuzundan kığırılmak,

Kulağun aç kulağun aç bola kim anda değürsen"

Rumi also contrast Turks with other ethnic groups, and praise Turks in most of his poems. For instance, the following sentence:

"Show activity and act like a Turk, not softness and the way of the Tajiks!"

Why does he praise Turks and try to show them strong, powerful and beautiful?

He also says about himself:

"Leave the word a Hindu, see the Turks of inner meaning:

I am that Turk who does not know a Hindu, who does not know."

On the other hand, Rumi lived in Turkey, and contributed to Turkish society first of all. Therefore, most of the contemporary authors call him as "Turkish mystic poet", not "Persian mystic poet" because he didn't live in Persia and never be a part of Persian society. Let's look what others say:

Annemarie Schimmel says: "He was, as is claimed of Turkish origin." (Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalāloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, p.371)

Leiser and Köprülü says: "Rather than cite a great many names, it suffices to mention only the immortal poet of the Mathnawi, the great Turkish sufi Mawlana Jalal al -Din al-Rumi." (Mehmet Fuat Köprülü,Gary Leiser, The Origins of the Ottoman Empire, SUNY Press, Berg, 2007, p.70)

Hume says: "Dervishes, traces its origin to the thirteenth-century Ottoman Empire. The Order was named after its founder, Turkish mystic poet Jelaluddin Mevlana Rumi (1207-73)." (Lynne Hume, Portals: Opening Doorways to Other Realities Through the Senses, p.66)

Sultanova says: "Mawlaviyya traces its origins to the famous Turkish mystic and poet al-Rumi (1207-73). The orders name comes from the Arabic word Mawlana (our master), a title given to al-Rumi by the order. Mawlana was born in Balkh (nowadays northern Afghanistan) and later moved to the Turkish town of Konya, the home of the famous 'whirling dervishes'." (Razia Sultanova, From Shamanism to Sufism: Women, Islam and Culture in Central Asia, I.B.Tauris, 2011, p.30)

Cobb says: "the works of the Turkish poet and Sufi mystic, Rumi Mevlana." (Ronald Lee Cobb, Islam, What You Need to Know in the Twenty-First Century: A Primer for Peace, AuthorHouse, 2011 p.19)

Schaub and Schaub say: "The Turkish poet and philosopher Mevlana Rumi provides a graphic analogy to illustrate this kind of personal blindness." (Bonney Gulino Schaub, Richard Schaub, Dante's Path: A Practical Approach to Achieving Inner Wisdom, Penguin, 2003 p.37)

Another study emphasizes: "[POEM 2 - F I827] Dush and qush are imperative forms from the modern Turkish duşmak and koşmak respectively. Mowlana occasionally used Turkish words and sometimes wrote in Anatolian Turkish." (Mystical Poems of Rumi, University of Chicago Press, 2009, p.412)

An encyclopedia mention him as the major mystical poet of Persian literature, but not a Persian mystic poet: "Born in the city of Balkh in present-day northern Afghanistan, Jalal al-Din Rumi is usually known as Mawlana (Our Lord; Turkish Mevlana) in the East and is renowned as the major mystical poet of Persian literature." (The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairy Tales: Q-Z, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, p.816)

We should care about the fact that Persian was the lingua franca and the language of literature at the age of Rumi, like the Latin language.

Anyway, I believe that we shouldn't mention ethnicity for Rumi because this matter is debatable and nobody is sure about his ethnicity, maybe Afghan, Persian, Turkish or Indian. In the meantime, he never calls Persian, or there aren't any references to mention him as Persian. We just encounter with personal opinions of the modern authors.

As a neutral point of view, we should remove the ethnicity of Rumi, or put the other probabilities as well, such as Turkish, Afghan or Arab.

Alternatively, from a neutral point of view, I recommend to change the (POV) sentence to a (NPOV) sentence:

"a 13th-century Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic."

to

"a 13th-century Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic of Persian literature.

I hope a neutral editor of Wikipedia encourage to convert that sentence without the fear of nationalistic Persian vandals here.

I hope each editors, who read this, share his/her idea, and explain why he/she agree or disagree. Thanks. 81.213.117.125 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree It must be emphasized that Persian was the literary and scientific language of the Moslem World in the 13th century. But This alone doesn't make Rumi a Persian poet. (Isaac Newton wrote Principia in Latin. Does this make him a Latin scientist ?) Rumi's most productive years were in Turkey and he can be considered as a Turkish poet as well. Thus the suggestion put forward by 81.213.117.125 seems like a logical comprimise. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, the Turkish people considers him as one of its own... --E4024 (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree I have researched and found that the International Mevlana Foundation uses the description of "the great Anatolian mystic, poet" in their website. They also explain why they use "Anatolian" in their website, instead of using any sort of ethnicity. The view and opinion of International Mevlana Foundation is important because it has been founded and maintained by the Mevlana's own family in Turkey. They also give reference to the own words of Mevlana:

Come, come over, more over, how long this brigandage?

As you are me and I am you. How long this discrimination of you and I?

We are light of GOD! Why this separation among us? Why light escapes from light?

We are all from the same yeast, our brains and heads too.

But under this bowed sky we see double?

The foundation also emphasizes that Mevlana belongs to everyone. And they explain "When someone is born in a different place than where he became famous, it is usually with the latter place that he is associated with. The famous composer George Frideric Haendel was born in Halle, Germany as a German citizen, but he became famous in England and nowadays he is mostly known as an English composer, his name is spelled in the Anglicized way as Handel and he is buried at the Westminster Abbey. Nevertheless, we have specifically refrained calling Mevlana Turkish, or Afhgani. Instead, we used the name of the geographic area where he lived, wrote and died. Mevlana was born on 30 September 1207 in Balkh, in present day Afghanistan. He died on 17 December 1273 in Konya in present day Turkey." So they prefer using the title "Anatolian", which is also the same meaning with "Rumi". Here, we don't discuss the ethnicity of Rumi, which has been always debated by scholars. I believe we can remove "Persian Muslim" and just use "Anatolian", which is also appropriate with the Rumi philosophy (no race). Gabriel Stijena (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, not Anatolian, UNIVERSAL; a Turkish contribution to the universal culture... --E4024 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I will grant I have not read all the archives, referred to in the banner on the top which claims a past consensus for "Persian heritage". However, I'm inclined to agree with 81.213.117.125 (if possible I'd suggest you register to get a permanent name, as your contributions are quite helpful) that the lede is not the place to dig into the controversy, and that "Persian literature" might be a reasonably workaround. Explaining the different sides of the controversy might be helpful later in the article, but really clutters the lede for the average reader who probably doesn't care about a nationalist brawl over claiming a writer.

I will point out though that the specific phrase "a 13th-century Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic of Persian literature" is not ideal since the "of Persian literature" can be misread as "is a fictional figure in Persian literature". I would suggest instead that the very first sentence simply be: "Rumi (30 September 1207 – 17 December 1273) was a poet, jurist, Islamic theologian, and Sufi mystic." Perhaps alternately "poet, Islamic jurist and theologian, and Sufi mystic." The "13th-century" is redundant because 1207-1273 CE clearly puts him him in that period. I would suggest that following that there could be a brief (briefer than what there is now) description of "born... moved to... ended up in Rum thus the name".

I don't know if there is a good workaround for this which follows WP procedures, but I really do not like the current massive cluster of alternate names, Perso-Arabic spellings, IPA, etc. that take up six lines of the article before the reader even gets to the word "poet". I'd submit this is not conducive to making Wikipedia an educational experience, and nor is the frantic cluster of "Persian[1][2][3][4][5][6]" footnotes in the lede. Once the initial issue of how to structure the lede sentence is addressed, I submit we should move excess data to sections below the lede, including some of the bio details, and since his name issue is quite complicated maybe even a "Names" section right after the lede might be the place to deal with the six lines of messy hash about his nicknames, place names, pronunciation, etc? I'm also not convinced that the pronunciation guides are even that useful, since a) most readers can't read IPA, b) literally all of the words' pronunciations are pretty intuitive to an English speaker c) I have a sneaking suspicion that "Persian pronunciation" is yet another jabby way to emphasise Persian-ness, rather than helpful explanation.

Sorry for the long post, but as a newcomer to this article is explicitly shows its history as a contentious article, with the usual frantic footnoting, huge over-explanation of (what is to the average reader) minutiae, etc. I'd be happy to try to bring in some detached perspective in making at least the lede something that a casual reader in Boston or Buenos Aires could swiftly read and digest to answer "who's this Rumi poet guy I saw mentioned on a blog?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand MatthewVanitas is trying to be helpful, thanks. If people are not ready to accept Rumi as Turk (because he was not a mighty, fierce fighter?) what else can we do other than accepting compromise solutions of avoiding to add to him an alien identity... (I guess Rumi was more Martian than Persian but alas...) Although if I were MV I would not go into the casual reader in BBAA thing, as the concepts about Turks, Arabs, moslems etc are quite complicated in and around that area. Call Rumi whatever you wish, all the same they would put him in the quite wide "turco" basket; which is not a problem for me... --E4024 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree Frankly speaking, the title is really so puzzling and distractive that any guests will have trouble in understanding the first paragraph. No need such complicated sentences... MatthewVanitas, so, I agree that the first sentence can be more simple as the way you recommend and I also give right to the fact that Rumi is a universal man. No need to mention his debated ethnicity as well, as the others suggest. Barayev (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest using the al-Farabi article as an example(for a more neutral POV lede). The al-Farabi article has a section for his origin, which includes Persian and Turkish subsections, both referenced. You will also need to get more support to remove Persian from the lede. As for me, I believe the al-Farabi example would be acceptable and would remove any ethnicity from the lede. Just my thoughts.... --Defensor Ursa 02:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the lede needs to totally avoid his ethnicity, so much as just say "it's a contested issue" and then a lower section discusses it. We've done similar with some Indian castes, as to what varna they fall into; instead of a paragraph of lede saying "well according to X legend they're warriors, but the 1875 British survey says farmers, etc." we just say "their varna is disputed" and in a lower section we can summarise the varna issues. It is extremely important to note that we shouldn't be doing WP:Primary sources descriptions of the ethnic debate. That is, not "I read Poem X and I think it means he's Fooian", but rather "Those supporting claims of his Fooian ethnicity cite poem X as an example<ref>Patrick Yamamoto. ''Rumi and National Pride''. University of Tokyo Press, 1994</ref>. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the "Persian poet" thing. I'd submit that first and foremost he was a poet, and his primary writing language was Persian. Just to be clear on that, I submit the first sentence just tells what roles he played (poet, Islamic theologian, etc). The second or third sentence can say something like "He mostly wrote in Persian, a common literary language of the region, but also wrote some poems in Turkish." That way we avoid any sweeping identity statements, but still make it clear to a reader how he wrote. Later in the lede we can mention "many nations claim him as there own, and it's an issue of dispute" and way down the page maybe in its own section we can have "Here's the Foo argument, the Fao argument, the Foa argument, as detailed by detached scholars studying the dispute". Does that seem like a fair way to address the issue? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is no lamb or veal, mutton and beef are also all right for me. As long as it is not pork... (I think I am a bit hungry but MV understood me :-) IMO it is acceptable, so -for me- you may go ahead. Thanks... --E4024 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Made a major chop

I went in and made some modifications, primarily with the intent of making the WP:Lede more accessible to a wider public, and to remove any highly contentious issue (i.e. heritage) which simply can't be discussed at length in a lede. To reduce bulk, I also created a "Name" section where we detail all the terms he is known by. It's just simply not feasible to discuss eight different names in the lede without compromising legibility. I also removed the way too glib/conclusive "Persian heritage", and instead have a sentence at the end of the first para simply saying "it's a contested issue", and noting he lived in Rum and wrote primarily in Persian.

The (somewhat) downside is that some of my moves chopped out huge wads of references. Not necessarily a huge number so much as massive walls of footnote text arguing one case or another. Let us definitely bear those in mind for going back to old drafts to check for any good footnotes, but I submit we carefully pick and avoid the following:

• Passing references: in the hotly-contested issue of "heritage", there is zero serious encyclopedic validity to some guy passingly mentioning "He was a 13th century Persian poet". That gives us no context from the academic whatsoever; if the academic does not state an actual case for one term or the other, or describe the issue in detail, he's not really investing in the debate.
• Primary sources: If it weren't impolite, I'd love to remove every argument from this Talk page that starts with "In this poem he says...". Unless you have an actual published literary scholar interpreting the poem as supporting fact X, and can say "Prof. So-and-So of Capetown University notes that in poem X", then none of us have any business trying to conduct amateur analysis. Even if Rumi states in a poem "I am Turk" or "I am Persian", it's a poem, not an application for an driver's license. We could take a few minutes and find thousands of poems and songs written in the first person which aren't literally autobiographical. Leave the analysis to the experts, or debate it for fun on literary forums, but this is not a forum.

So that's where we're at so far. Can a few folks take a look and tell me if the lede looks less controversial, more focused on basic fundamental facts, and more legible? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the lede; now, it seems reasonable. And also have put a new section with the Origin as it's in al-Farabi article, which is recommended by Defensor Ursa. Thanks for changes. Barayev (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of the lead

Unfortunately due to the messed up situation in the Persian speaking lands (Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan), some neighbors are trying to appropriate the Persian heritage (note Afghan, Tajik and Iranian are the inheritors of this) while normal Iranians, Tajiks, Afghans are struggling with political realities. And unfortunately, unaware users try to assist this endevours.

• • I suggest authoritative articles and books on Rumi be used. Franklin calls him Persian and Encyclopaedia of Islam states Persian poet.

Google books:

• "Persian Poet Rumi" [19] (2720+ hits)
• "Turkish Poet Rumi" [20] (19 results!)
• "Persian mystic Rumi" [21] (370 results)
• "Turkish Mystic Rumi" [22] (9 results).

Please see Wikipedia's policty about weight and fix the article appropriately.

• The top current Rumi Scholar in the world is Franklin Lewis. We should quote alive scholars. We cannot throw random names of authors, whose books are not even about Rumi. The only authoritative existing biography is from Franklin Lewis. [23]..unless an equivalent authoritative biography of Rumi by a similar scholar of the same rank is written, Wikipedia should reflect the opinions of such scholars.
• As per Schimmel, she has twice referred to Rumi as a Persian mystic and his mother language as Persian:[24]. Be that it may, Lewis is the major alive Rumi scholar.
  • Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.: “How is it that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considered in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in Central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere, in which is now Turkey, some 1500 miles to the west?” (p. 9)
  • According to Franklin: “Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 239) ...“Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 240)
• "Persian poet Rumi" has 2000+ google books hit in google books while "Turkish poet Rumi" has about 19!. Sorry but this is not equal. Not equal weight at all!!
• The argument of the Turkish users has been responded to repeatedly here: [25]...Even Rumi's son had a poor knowledge of the Turkish language. Rumi himself mentions about Greeks and Turks: "Likewise, it is a well-known story that one day Shaykh Salah al-Din happened to hire Turkish laborers to do building work in his garden. Mowlana said: ‘Effendi’— that is to say lord—‘Salah al-Din, when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks,
  whereas the world’s destruction is reserved for the Turks."
  [26]. Also Rumi has a small number of Greek poems, but again he learned that in Anatolia. Else he is from Wakhsh modern Tajikistan which is still Persian speaking.
• He is also clear he is not a Turk in another verse:[27] but we should note that the verses of poetry are symbolic. As noted by Kafadar when quoting the Turkish scholar Golpiranli and such ethnonyms in the works of Rumi: “Golpiranli rightly insists that ethnonym were deployed allegorically and metaphorically in classical Islamic literatures, which operated on the basis of a staple set of images and their well recognized contextual associations by readers; there, ‘turk’ had both a negative and positive connotation. In fact, the two dimensions could be blended: the ‘turk’ was ‘cruel’ and hence, at the same time, the ‘beautiful beloved’” . And also noted by de Bruijn: “In such imagery the link to ethnic characteristics is hardly relevant, so that it may be used together with features of another ethnic type in the characterization of a single person, e.g., when Nezami describes the princess of Hend as āhu-ye tork-čašm-e hendu-zād (“a gazelle with Turkish eyes, of Indian blood” . (Kafadar, Cemal (2007), "A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum", Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Cultures of the Islamic World , vol 24:7-25, Brill.)Or see De Bruijn, J.T.P. (2003), “Hindu”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition). Please note the poem of Rumi here as well where he directly claims he is not a TUrk:[[28].] Consequently, wikipedians cannot cherry pick from poems of Rumi and give it modern intrepretations... Else his name is "Rumi" which means Greek actually but it is a poetic pen-name.
• So the arguments of the Turkish users are all original reasearch or simply quotes from non-scholarly books. Unless the weight of the scholars of those books are established, they should be disregarded immediately.
  • Annemarie Schimmel also remarks on Rumi’s native tongue in the “ The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi”, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 193: "Rumi's mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse"..Note the author discusses the background of Rumi and makes such a statement. [29]. She has also called him a "Persian mystic"[[[30]]. Too bad she is a dead but franklin is alive...Annemarie Schimmel, “The Mystery of Numbers”, Oxford University Press,1993. Pg 49: “A beautiful symbol of the duality that appears through creation was invented by the great Persian mystical poet Jalal al-Din Rumi.
• Halmann is a Turkish scholar but he even adits: "The Turkish ambassador and scholar Halmann who is unsure of the geneology of Rumi’s father mentions that: “In terms of Rumi’s cultural orientation – including language, literary heritage, mythology, philosophy, and Sufi legacy –the Iranians have indeed a strongly justifiable claim. All of these are more than sufficient to characterize Rumi as a prominent figure of Persian cultural history..and Rumi is patently Persian on the basis of jus et norma loquendi.”(Halmann 2007:266-267). Of course that is a Turkish scholar's point of view. So Halmann cannot be constantly quoted as some unbiased scholar. He is afterall a Turkish ambassador.

• C.E. Bosworth, "Turkmen Expansion towards the west" in UNESCO HISTORY OF HUMANITY, Volume IV, titled "From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century", UNESCO Publishing / Routledge, p. 391: "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as law, theology and science, the culture of the Seljuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in the early adoption of Persian epic names by the Seljuk rulers (Qubād, Kay Khusraw and so on) and in the use of Persian as a literary language (Turkmen must have been essentially a vehicle for everyday speech at this time). The process of Persianization accelerated in the thirteenth century with the presence in Konya of two of the most distinguished refugees fleeing before the Mongols, Bahā' al-Dīn Walad and his son Mawlānā Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, whose Mathnawī, composed in Konya, constitutes one of the crowning glories of classical Persian literature."
• For an Iranian viewpoint see here: [31].

• More importantly...Wikipedia works by weight. "Persian poet Rumi" and "Persian mystic Rumi" is the most prominent in google books and google scholars. And as mentioned by Halmann, Rumi is accepted as a Persian in the West. Consequently, Wikipedia needs to reflect these facts. Wikipedia is not about being "fair" but about proper "weight" given by scholars to an opinion. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Also I should mention I can put 1000+ links for "Persian poet Rumi" from google books. So given the fact that the "Turkish poet" Rumi is not an opinion held by any alive Rumi scholar (including Halmann), then one needs to give proper weight to the issue. Else I urge Iranian users to bring 500+ books from google books that puts Persian to show what the proper weight in google books is. Turkish users do not have a single significant alive scholar such as Franklin to backup their point of view. [32]." Please tell me how could such a person be a Turk when he contrasts Greeks so positively against Turks (in a non-poetic setting without any symbolism)? ([33].) Thanks. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Turkish scholar Halman states(pg 266): “In the West scholars have always accepted Rumi as a Persian on the basis of his exclusive use of the Persian language and because he remained in the mainstream of Persian cultural heritage. No account seems to have been taken of the Turkish and Afghan claims, except some occasional references such as the one by William Hastie in his introduction to The Festival of Spring, featuring his translations from Rumi’s Divan: The Turks claim Jelaleddin as their own, although a Persian of royal race, born of Balkh, old Bactra, on the ground of his having sung and died in Qoniya, in Asia Minor…Whence he was called Rumi “the Romans,” usually rendered “the Greek,” as wonning wihin the confies of old Oriental Rome.".. However please note that the arguments for Persian background of Rumi are decisive: [34] and nothing to just with language. It is culture.
• As noted by Halmann, Western scholars have not taken the Turkish claim seriously. This is evidenced by the unequal google books/scholars. Wikipedia is not a democracy but rather what counts is the opinion of modern scholars. Unless the Turkish users can point to an alive scholar that has the weight of someone like Franklin who has written the most authoritative book on Rumi's biography, then they need to desist in vandalizing this page by their nationalistic viewpoint.
• So based on the above, anything about "Turkish" is undo weight. The opinions of giants like Franklin should be quoted. The opinion of schimmel (which is contradictatory) can also be quoted but the page I gave she clearly states Rumi's mother language was Persian and another book calls him a "Persian mystical poet". I suggest that all the recent edits be undone until the weight of the scholars quoted and sources quoted are established by independent users. Franklin and Encyclopaedia of Islam are obvious ones. Thanks.
• Unfortunately, without knowledgable users, constant vandalism by Turkish users occurs in this page with the same repeated WP:OR arguments that are respnded here: [[35]], in this thread and more extensively here:[36]. Then they come and quote either a person who is dead and has contradicted herself or unknown scholars. Where-as Iranian users have consistently brought top notch scholarly sources such as Franklin Lewis, Encycloapedia Islam and etc.

Also their comparison to Latin is a dead-end..as Rumi's lectures are in Persian..Note his lectures were to his students and they are almost all in Persian (with two in Arabic) and none in Turkish. Or his Friday sermons are all in Persian. His son has claimed poor knowledge of Turkish and Greek.. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary

One can only quote scholars who write authoritatively about Rumi. The most important biography is now that of Franklin Lewis. Encyclopaedia of Islam also calls him a Persian poet. I'll respond to the Turkish users below and their unsound arguments. However, what I want to emphasize is Wikipedia works by weight. 2000+ and 370+ google books call Rumi a "Persian poet" and "Persian mystic" respectively. Wikipedia needs to reflect the most authoritative sources such as a Franklin and the most widely used convention. Else quote a minor random book is like quoting a minor random book that claims Obama is a Muslim. Unless a book is about the biography of Rumi himself (such as Franklin), I think it takes a back set.

Persian heritage

That portion is obvious.

• C.E. Bosworth, "Turkmen Expansion towards the west" in UNESCO HISTORY OF HUMANITY, Volume IV, titled "From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century", UNESCO Publishing / Routledge, p. 391: "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as law, theology and science, the culture of the Seljuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in the early adoption of Persian epic names by the Seljuk rulers (Qubād, Kay Khusraw and so on) and in the use of Persian as a literary language (Turkmen must have been essentially a vehicle for everyday speech at this time). The process of Persianization accelerated in the thirteenth century with the presence in Konya of two of the most distinguished refugees fleeing before the Mongols, Bahā' al-Dīn Walad and his son Mawlānā Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, whose Mathnawī, composed in Konya, constitutes one of the crowning glories of classical Persian literature."

• Franklin Lewis: "On the question of RUmi's multilingualism (pages 315-17), we may still say that he spoke and wrote in Persian as a native language, wrote and converesd in Arabic as a learned "foreign" language and could at least get by at the market in Turkish and Greek (although some wildly extragavant claims have been made about his command of Attic Greek, or his native tongue being Turkish") (Lewis 2008:xxi). (Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008)
• Franklin Lewis on Turkish scholar Onder: "There, we can only surmise that his cultural jingoism represents a conscious effort to rob Rumi of his Persian and Iranian heritage, and claim him for Turkish literature, ethnicity and nationalism") (Lewis 2008:549). (Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008)

• Turkish scholar Halman states(pg 266): “In the West scholars have always accepted Rumi as a Persian on the basis of his exclusive use of the Persian language and because he remained in the mainstream of Persian cultural heritage. No account seems to have been taken of the Turkish and Afghan claims, except some occasional references such as the one by William Hastie in his introduction to The Festival of Spring, featuring his translations from Rumi’s Divan: The Turks claim Jelaleddin as their own, although a Persian of royal race, born of Balkh, old Bactra, on the ground of his having sung and died in Qoniya, in Asia Minor…Whence he was called Rumi “the Romans,” usually rendered “the Greek,” as wonning wihin the confies of old Oriental Rome."..
• Halmann is a Turkish scholar but he even admits: "The Turkish ambassador and scholar Halmann who is unsure of the geneology of Rumi’s father mentions that: “In terms of Rumi’s cultural orientation – including language, literary heritage, mythology, philosophy, and Sufi legacy –the Iranians have indeed a strongly justifiable claim. All of these are more than sufficient to characterize Rumi as a prominent figure of Persian cultural history..and Rumi is patently Persian on the basis of jus et norma loquendi.”(Halmann 2007:266-267). Of course that is a Turkish scholar's point of view.

However, we need to follow mainstream scholars. Since Western scholars have not taken the Turkish claim seriously, then Wikipedia also does not take it seriously. Simple as that.

Schimmel

The only scholarly source I saw that the Turkish users use was Schimmel. But they have also ignored these:

• Annemarie Schimmel also remarks on Rumi’s native tongue in the “ The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi”, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 193: "Rumi's mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse"..Note the author discusses the background of Rumi and makes such a statement. [37]. She has also called him a "Persian mystic"[[[38]].
• Annemarie Schimmel, “The Mystery of Numbers”, Oxford University Press,1993. Pg 49: “A beautiful symbol of the duality that appears through creation was invented by the great Persian mystical poet Jalal al-Din Rumi, who compares God's creative word kun (written in Arabic KN) with a twisted rope of 2 threads (which in English twine, in German Zwirn¸both words derived from the root “two”)”.

Given these, the Turkish users cannot use Schimmel. Also she is a passed away scholar. So one must use alive scholars and currently, the most authoritative book on Rumi's biography is that of Franklin.

Google books/scholar

Note I can easily dig 2000+ google books references and 370+ google books references that use "Persian poet" and "Persian mystic"... However, we need to keep the references small but scholarly. Encycloapedia of Islam also clearly mentions Persian poet in its introduction. Turkish users here have not brought any scholarly books and have used random google books.. If Iranian users do that, they can easily add 2400+ sources or so and this wikipedia article would be unreadable.

Turkish claim

As per the repeated OR Turkish claims on this page, it has been responded to here: [[39]], and much more extensively here: A Study about the Persian Cultural Legacy and Background of the Sufi Mystics Shams Tabrizi and Jalal al-Din Rumi [40] (which has been suspiciously removed from the external links!).

it is mainly centered on three false arguments:

false argument one

a) Claim one: Rumi compares himself to a "Turk". Response:

• Yet these same people ignore this verse: "You are a Turkish moon, and I, although I am not a Turk, I know that much that in Turkish the word" for water is su(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, pp 196).

• Another Turkish user above falsely translates the verse: "Aslem Türk'est egerçi Hindi miguyem" means: "I'm Turk though I write Persian".. where as the verse says "Hindi" and not Persian! Also "Hindu" and "Turk" are figurative opposites in Persian literature.

• As noted by Kafadar when quoting the Turkish scholar Golpiranli and such ethnonyms in the works of Rumi: “Golpiranli rightly insists that ethnonym were deployed allegorically and metaphorically in classical Islamic literatures, which operated on the basis of a staple set of images and their well recognized contextual associations by readers; there, ‘turk’ had both a negative and positive connotation. In fact, the two dimensions could be blended: the ‘turk’ was ‘cruel’ and hence, at the same time, the ‘beautiful beloved’” .

(Kafadar, Cemal (2007), "A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum", Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual Cultures of the Islamic World , vol 24:7-25, Brill.)

• And also noted by de Bruijn: “In such imagery the link to ethnic characteristics is hardly relevant, so that it may be used together with features of another ethnic type in the characterization of a single person, e.g., when Nezami describes the princess of Hend as āhu-ye tork-čašm-e hendu-zād (“a gazelle with Turkish eyes, of Indian blood” . (J.T.P. de Brujin, Hindi in Encyclopedia Iranica "In such imagery the link to ethnic characteristics is hardly relevant" Encyclopædia Iranica).

• An example: "Everyone in whose heart is the love for Tabriz Becomes – even though he be a Hindu – a rose-cheeked inhabitant of Taraz (i.e. a Turk)”(Schimmel, Triumphal Sun, 196)".

Also these people ignore the fact that Rumi has called the Ghuzz (Oguz) Turks as savages several times in the Mathnawi (which does not use allegorical symbols) and the Divan.

Or for example many negative quotes about Turks quoted by Aflaki. These are not poetry anymore and cosequently allegory and symbolism does not imply anymore. Amongst the severe ones:

• Oh ignorant Turk! Give up (tark) this idea and undertaking. Take back your Turks (torkan) to your lady (tarkan) as quickly as possible. Otherwise, you will not escape with your life. (Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002. pg 229-231)
• Majd al-Din, why did you let out a shout and release your quarry from your gullet? A Turk who is a recent disciple is able to bear the burden, but you divulge the matter. Many things like this occur to abdals to God. (Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002. pg 266)
• Indeed, the building of the world is assigned to the Greeks, whereas the world‘s destruction is reserved for the Turks. (Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002. pg 503)
• when it is time for building, one must engage Greek laborers and when it is time for destroying something, Turkish hirelings. (Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002. pg 503)
• God created the group of Turks so that they would destroy every building they saw, mercilessly and ruthlessly, and cause it to be demolished. (Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002. pg 503)

See:

• Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002.

false argument two=

b) Claim two: Rumi uses "Turkish"...

Not sufficient. Rumi also uses Greek as well and the percentage of Greek/Turkish is less than 1/3 of 1% of his poems.

• And as noted by Franklin:”Living among Turks, Rumi also picked up some colloquial Turkish.”(Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008, pg 315)

• Annemarie Schimmel, The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaloddin Rumi, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 193: "Rumi's mother tongue was Persian, but he had learned during his stay in Konya, enough Turkish and Greek to use it, now and then, in his verse"..Also Rumi uses much more Arabic than Turkish.. but 97% of his poems are in Persian and less than 1/3 of 1% are in combined Greek and Turkish."

• Halman: “A refutation of the Turkish claim may be found in historical fact evinced by Turkish sources. No Ottoman Tezkire’ tush-shuara (poet’s live; Who’s Who in Poetry) lists biographical data on Rumi, thus indicating that he was not considered a Turkish poet by the Ottoman Turks themselves. Also significant is the statement of Mehmed Fuad Kopruli, generally recognized as the greatest scholar of Turkish literary history in the twentiweth century: “Although one encounters several pieces of Greek and Turkish verse in the Divan-I Kebir, these could not be considered, on the basis of their nature and numbers, sufficient to presume that he was a Turkish poet”. Golpinarli corrobates this view: “With Mevlana’s arrival from Balkh to Anatolia, a branch of Iranian literature was transported into Anatolia. The Turkish couplets and the few Turkish words he used in Mulemmas [ compound verses in two or more languages+ could never confer on him the status of a Turkish poet” (Halman, pg 268-269)

• finally Franklin again criticized Turkish ministry of Cutlure: "This is very creative use of statistics, since a couple of dozen at most of the 35,0000 lines of the Divan-e Shams are in Turkish and almost all of these lines occur in poems that are predominantely in Persian. ((Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008, pg 549).
  • Note the Greek lines are also like these.

false argument three

c) the third claim by Turkish users is that: "Persian was popular poetry language"..

This is again discounted by the fact that Rumi's Friday prayer sermons are recorded in Persian, his letters are in Persian and his lectures to his students are recorded in colloquial Persian. Note colloquial Persian lectures show that Rumi's everyday language is Persian.. how come he has no friday sermons in Turkish? Or no lectures in Turkish? Also Arabic was the everyday religious preaching language but Rumi chose Persian. Also the invalidity of this argument can be seen by examinaning the writings of Rumi's son.

Sultan Walad, Rumi's son

Rumi's son Sultan Walad has claimed several times his knowledge of Turkish and Greek is weak. This despite being born in Anatolia. Note he has again about 60000+ verses of Persian and about 250 Greek/Turkish veres. “Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008,pg 239) “Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008,pg 240) Sultan
For example in his Ebteda-Nama, Sultan Walad admits twice in Persian after some of the lines in Greek/Turkish:
بگذر از گفت ترکی و رومی
که از این اصطلاح محرومی
گوی از پارسی و تازی
که در این دو همی خوش تازی

Translation:

Let go of the languages of Greek (Rumi) and Turkish (Turki)
Because you lack knowledge in these two,
Thus speak in Persian and Arabic,
Since in these two, you recite very well.

And also elsewhere in Ghazal in his Diwan, he writes:: If I knew Turkish, I would have brought one to a thousand. But when you listen to Persian, I tell the secrets much better.(Sultan Walad, ”Mowlavi-ye Digar:Shamel-e Ghazzaliyat, Qasayed, Qete’at, Tarkibat, Ash’ar-eTorki, Ashar-e Arabi, Mosammat, Robbi’yyat” Tehran, Sana’i, 1984. pg 556:)
ترکچه اگر بیلیدم بر سروزی بک ایدیدم
طتچه اگر دیلرسز گویم اسرار علا

He also says: If I had known Turkish, I would have told you, the secrets that God had imparted on Me.(Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 253). According to Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, the Turkish poems are: Written in a very crude and primitive manner and with a very defective and rudimentary versification replete with zihaf (pronouncing long vowels short) and imalā (pronouncing a short vowel long).(Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 206).

Much more evidence here

A Study about the Persian Cultural Legacy and Background of the Sufi Mystics Shams Tabrizi and Jalal al-Din Rumi [41] No need to copy & paste the whole thing.

What concerns Wikipedia

Wikipedia is concerned about weight. Google books/scholars as well as the most authoritative living scholars such as Franklin overwhelmingly state Persian. And scholars such as Franklin have directly criticized the Turkish claim while even Turkish scholars such as Halmann claim that Western "scholars" (note scholars and not some random book) consider Rumi as a Persian poet. Of course Halmann tries to rationalize this by saying because Rumi wrote in Persian, however there are much more evidence here:[42]. So wikipedia needs to restore the correct version: [43].

Unfortunately, ignorant users have attacked this page constantly, and bring 5-6 random books from their 19 book google search whose authors have no authority in Rumi studies.. Some of the books are outright ridicolous with authors having no university and academic background, and just writing one sentence on Rumi. Else Iranian users can do a search from 2000-3000+ google books and overwhelm the punty 5-6 books written by non-experts. Until the Turkish users can suggest an alive Western scholars with the status of Franklin Lewis who has written the ultimate biography of Rumi, and such scholars as Arberry, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Julia Meisami, etc.., then they need to desist from vandalizing this page. The book of Lewis has been overwhelmingly positively reviewed as shown in www.scholar.google.com .. wikipedia consequently must also follow scholarly sources. However, even their semi-unbiased Turkish scholars such as Halmann claim that Western scholars consider Rumi as a Persian. That is sufficient than for Wikipedia and these Turkish nationalists need to find a new play ground to appropriate Persian history. For more details see here: [44]. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yogurt effect

To the above user: How nicely you have written; with sources and all. I wonder why and lament you are not a registered user. Or have you been one in the past? I would like to see you writing articles; for example all those related to Turkish gastronomy... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess nothing better to say? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

• According to Franklin: “Sultan Valad elsewhere admits that he has little knowledge of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 239)
• “Sultan Valad did not feel confident about his command of Turkish”(Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000.,pg 240)

Whoever has a problem with the lead, will they accept mediation of 3rd party? As the format proposed by some users has multiple flaws including WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT and also not taking into account what authoritative scholars who have written biographies of Rumi (e.g. Franklin) consider. Speros Vryonis,"The Turkish State and History", Aristide D Caratzas Pub; 2 Sub edition (September 1992), p.51: "Djalal al-Din Rumi, the great Persian mystic and poet who lived most of his life in Konya is said to have had a very vivid and violent opinion of the nature of the Turkmen nomads of the Rum sultanate: “There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!"” This is for example one quote for Persian origin..but I can find much more from google books/scholars. Note primary source for the same quote: (Shams al-Din Aflaki, "The feats of the knowers of God: Manāqeb al-ʻārefīn", translated by John O'Kane, Brill, 2002. (pg 503)) but in Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred). Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A few points

• Your revert restored a lede which is nearly unintelligible due to having 4-6 lines (depending on screen display) of distracting information regarding the subject's name. I submit that just giving his full name, noting he's commonly called Rumi in the West, is quite sufficient for a lede, and the other name details can come following the lede. It is not helpful to the casual reader to have a mass of words before even reaching the term "poet".
• Ideally citations are not used in ledes, because the lede should simply summarise the body of the article, where we have the leisure to expand context and apply citations. Worse yet is having eight cites simply for the word "Persian". It looks unacademic, breathless, and obviously a "nuh-uh!" response. The version I wrote clearly states he wrote primarily in Persian, a fact that basically none will deny, and importantly notes that there is a dispute over his "heritage" among various modern nations.
• Of the 8 cites for "Persian", most are quite unhelpful. As noted above, "Dr. Smith" mentioning the term "Persian" in passing is not a conclusive argument, while Dr. Smith of a reputed university publishing in a reputable firm and laying out the case for Persian vs. other would indeed be a good cite.
• Speaking of good cites, you weaken your case above with frankly immaterial quotes. It is WP:OR to say "Lewis says Rumi's son didn't speak much Turkish, therefore we on Wikipedia conclude that Rumi is not Turkish." However, if there is a passage where Lewis says "details like his son's lack of Turkish language, and X, and Y, and Z, make a firm case for Rumi being Persian in heritage" that would of course be useful. The parable of the "Turks destroying" is even less helpful, since we here are not Dr Lewis and thus not qualified to conclude when Rumi is speaking literally, when metaphorically (not surprising for a Sufi), etc. If Lewis cites that passage to base an argument, sure let's cite Lewis.

Given the above, I argue we should revert to something similar to my edit, which unclutters the name issue from the lede, removes the excessive breathless, passing cites for "Persian", and specifically mentions that there is a controversy. At the very least we should revert in part just to clean up the name clutter, and address the Persian cites as a separate issue. I'm not at all trying to argue against a Persian heritage for Rumi, but instead looking for a less confrontational and better-sourced way to address it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Your lead violates WP:OR. Because even such Turkish scholars as Halmann agree that Western scholars accept Rumi as Persian. The parable about Turks destroying is not a poem to be symbolic. It is first account witness from Rumi's student Aflaki and is quoted by a secondary source. It is not verse but prose. And I have brought a secondary source (Speros Vyronis) who has mentioned it and says Persian poet Rumi had a violent view about Turks and then quotes the line. I also agree with you that the lead is alittle bit cluttered, however we need to keep the most authoritative sources. Lewis is clear on the issue:

• Franklin Lewis: "On the question of Rumi's multilingualism (pages 315-17), we may still say that he spoke and wrote in Persian as a native language, wrote and conversed in Arabic as a learned "foreign" language and could at least get by at the market in Turkish and Greek (although some wildly extragavant claims have been made about his command of Attic Greek, or his native tongue being Turkish") (Lewis 2008:xxi). (Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008)
• Franklin Lewis on Turkish scholar and cultural ambassador Onder: "There, we can only surmise that his cultural jingoism represents a conscious effort to rob Rumi of his Persian and Iranian heritage, and claim him for Turkish literature, ethnicity and nationalism") (Lewis 2008:549). (Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008)
• Franklin D. Lewis, "Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The life, Teaching and poetry of Jalal Al-Din Rumi", Oneworld Publication Limited, 2008 pg 9: "How is that a Persian boy born almost eight hundred years ago in Khorasan, the northeastern province of greater Iran, in a region that we identify today as Central Asia, but was considred in those days as part of the greater Persian cultural sphere, wound up in central Anatolia on the receding edge of the Byzantine cultural sphere"
• Franklin Lewis:”Living among Turks, Rumi also picked up some colloquial Turkish.”(Franklin Lewis, "Rumi, "Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalal al-Din Rumi", One World Publication Limited, 2008, pg 315)

I agree, we should just have two authoritative sources in the introduction and also mention Western scholars consider Rumi to be Persian.. then we can expand on the issue in the origin section if necessary. What is important is what Western scholars claim and not what Turkish or Iranian scholars claim here. The top living Rumi scholar right now is Franklin Lewis and the most important biography written on Rumi in any language is again his book. Your second sentence is OR and is designed to make things "fair", whereas Wikipedia is concerned about authoritative sources. Currently, Franklin and Encycloapedia of Islam (which says Persian poet) are considered the best sources. Specially the book from Franklin has gotten many positive google scholars review. Now contrast this with some of the sources that were brought randomly from google books such as:

• Bonney Gulino Schaub, Richard Schaub, Dante's Path: A Practical Approach to Achieving Inner Wisdom, Penguin, 2003 p.3 . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we start with Encycloapedia of Islam: "Ritter, H.; Bausani, A. "ḎJ̲alāl al- Dīn Rūmī b. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿulamāʾ Walad b. Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad Ḵh̲aṭībī ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. Excerpt: "known by the sobriquet Mewlānā, persian poet and founder of the Mewlewiyya order of dervishes"--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not start with an encyclopedia; enyclopedias are WP:Tertiary sources. That is, aggregations of already-published research (such as Wikipedia is) rather than the research itself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Halman

Mr Talat Halman (not Halmann) says, in the ref supplied, that ... (this and that) take him as Persian, not that he (the Turkish scholar Halman) does so. If you read more of Halman you will probably sense he is complaining of that situation. --E4024 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talat Halman says Western scholars consider him Persian. That is sufficient. I will bring Halman's full quote as well about Persian cultural heritage brought by Rumi and his father... But again Halman is a Turkish writer and cannot be put in the same league as world reknowned scholars such as Franklin. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am asking admin intervention for removing the anti-Turkish POV above and for sanctions against the user. --E4024 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Halman is not a Professor of a university, but a writer of Turkish background. With all due respect, he is governmental figure from a government that has many ethnic controversies surrounding it and pursues a strong nationalism. However, Halman actually is semi-unbiased and he states clearly that Western scholars consider Rumi to be Persian. Also let me bring the full quote of Halman here. Franklin is a Western writer and Professor of Persian literature in the university of Chicago. He has written the top authoritative Rumi biography of all time. I do not see any "anti-X" here and I am not here to engage WP:soapbox. If you think Halman is in the same league as Franklin with regards to Rumi studies, you need to prove it and not accuse others of being anti-X or anti-Y. The article cannot quote someone like Halman over Franklin not due to their ethnic background, but due to scholarship and academic background. Nevertheless, let me bring some quotes from Halman here --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're talking with your own point of view. I also observe that you have prejudices against Prof Halman, and you don't have enough knowledge about him. Halman is still teaching as a professor at a university. During his long and on-going academic career, Professor Halman has taught at Columbia University, Princeton University (1965–71) and (1972–80), the University of Pennsylvania and New York University, where he also served as Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures. Currently he is the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Letters at Bilkent University in Ankara, where he has been teaching continuously since 1998 when he helped found the program in Turkish languages and literature with a goal of introducing new critical approaches. Professor Halman received his B.A. from Robert College in Istanbul. In the mid-1950s he received his Master's Degree from Columbia University in Political Science, International Relations and International law. So Halman has new critical approaches, and this comes from an academic background. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then Halman is clear: "the West, scholars have always accepted Rumi as Persian on the basis of his exclusive use of the Persian language and because he remained in the mainstream of Persian cultural heritage. No account seems to have been taken of the Turkish and Afghan claims, except some occasional references such as the one by William Hastie in his introduction to The Festival of Spring, featuring his translations from Rumi’s Divan: ""The Turks claim Jelaleddin as their, although a Persian of royal race, born of Balkh, old Bactra, on the groundoof his having sung and died in Qoniya, in Asia Minor… whence he was called Rumi “The Roman,” usually rendered “the Greek,” as wonning with the confies of Oriental Rome"". So where is this great debate amongst scholars? I do not mind having a section about "politics of Rumi's origin", however him being Persian poet is supported by overwhelming scholarship today and this needs to be reflected in the introduction. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Displaying vice living the controversy

Simply because it is prose does not mean that it is not allegorical on some level, and even if he were quoted as saying "Turks are jerks" that would not necessarily indicate he is Persian; to assume so directly is OR on our part. If we have a cite from "Dr. Smith" saying "The Turk destroyer story and X/Y/Z indicate...", sure great, let's use that as a cite. Especially on a topic like this, WP:Secondary sources aren't just preferred, they're basically mandatory. I do agree with you that non-Rumi-ologist sources (like the "Inner Wisdom" book) are non-expert and should not be cited here. I also agree that Lewis looks pretty reputable, though we do of course want to avoid leaning too heavily on one academic, expert though he may be.

Regarding What is important is what Western scholars claim and not what Turkish or Iranian scholars claim here, I would quite disagree. If there is a controversy among reputable scholars, that should be addressed. Further, even if Western/Turkish/Iranian scholars were to agree, the fact that the issue is contested in the public discourse is quite important. Again we shouldn't cite primaries, so if some Turkish political group put out a pamphlet called "Rumi: The Greatest Turk" it'd be improper to cite that. However, if a reputable academic writes "Turkish organisations have pushed a view that Rumi is Turkish, producing a pamphlet distributed in millions of copies..." we should cite that academic's analysis of the dispute.

There's a great wiki-essay Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers that is a fun and short read that really applies here. The "tiger" (the controversy) should not be banished from the article, but should be stuffed and mounted as an objective display-piece. The problem we have now is that the "tiger" is roaming the talk page and the article. We don't need to remove the tiger from the museum (pretend there is no global dispute), we just need to portray it vice have it active. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I know I brought a secondary source. Speros Vyronis for the quote. I'll quote again: "Speros Vryonis,"The Turkish State and History", Aristide D Caratzas Pub; 2 Sub edition (September 1992), p.51: "Djalal al-Din Rumi, the great Persian mystic and poet who lived most of his life in Konya is said to have had a very vivid and violent opinion of the nature of the Turkmen nomads of the Rum sultanate: “There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!"” "
• Please note, Speros Vyronis is a secondary source who is quoting a primary source and giving his intrepretation. He is a well known scholar with quite amount of publication and has written a specific article on Rumi: ((Speros Vryonis, Jr., "The Economic and Social Worlds of Anatolia in the Writings of the Mawlawi (Mevlevi) Dervish Eflaki" in "Jaye L. Warner (2001), "Cultural Horizons A Festschrift in Honor of Talat S. Halman", Syracuse Universty Press, pp 188-197.))
• As per "controversy" amongst reputable scholars, I only see two reputable Rumi alive scholars quoted here, Franklin and Encycloapedia of Islam. Franklin sees no controversy. He has written the most authoritative book on Rumi's biography. Any other book or scholar that has a different viewpoint should at least have similar stature in terms of Rumi studies. As per your claim of controversy is negated by the quote from Halman about Western scholars considering Rumi as Persian. I believe we can mention that Turks consider Rumi as Turkish in another section and I'll be happy to bring quotes such as above, as well as some of the quotes from Franklin. I can also bring Iranian scholars if you wish. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Halman

Note this is the opinion of a Turkish cultural ambassador of Turkey and not necessarily that of Rumi scholars. But it gives a good Turkish viewpoint of the material.

(Talat S. Halman, "Rapture and Revolution: Essays on Turkish Literature", editor by Jayne L. Warner, Syracuse University, 2007, p.265-266) (Please note Halman is the only author and Warner is an editor (perhaps of the series)). Here is the quote:

“The available documentary evidence is so flimsy that no nation can invoke jus sanguinis regarding the Rumi genealogy. Besides, an exploration into his background must take into account such additional factors as the tumultuous life of the area in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the uncertain lineage of rulers and dynasties, miscegenation, and the identity crises resulting from shifting population and mass conversions to Islam. One must also consider, at least speculatively, that Rumi’s family, living in Balkh, perhaps regarded itself as neither Persian nor Turkish nor Arab nor anything else for that matter but as Muslims, refusing to be assimilated or to identify themselves as Persian or Turkish any more than did the Greeks, Armenians or Jews in Balkh.

Bahauddin and his family eventually settled in Konya, ancient Iconium, in central Anatolia. They brought with them their traditional Persian cultural and linguistic background and found in Konya a firmly entrenched penchant for Persian culture. In terms of Rumi’s cultural orientation – including language, literary heritage, mythology, philosophy, and Sufi legacy – the Iranians have indeed a strongly justifiable claim. All of these are more than sufficient to characterize Rumi as a prominent figure of Persian cultural history. Such a characterization is naturally reinforced by his impact on the succeeding centuries of Persian literature and intellectual life. In the West, scholars have always accepted Rumi as Persian on the basis of his exclusive use of the Persian language and because he remained in the mainstream of Persian cultural heritage. No account seems to have been taken of the Turkish and Afghan claims, except some occasional references such as the one by William Hastie in his introduction to The Festival of Spring, featuring his translations from Rumi’s Divan:

“ “The Turks claim Jelaleddin as their, although a Persian of royal race, born of Balkh, old Bactra, on the groundoof his having sung and died in Qoniya, in Asia Minor… whence he was called Rumi “The Roman,” usually rendered “the Greek,” as wonning with the confies of Oriental Rome” ”

In the Encycloapedia of Islam, B. Carra de Vaud and H. Ritter, in separate enteries, make no reference to Rumi as Persian or Turkish, in fact, no reference at all to the question of nationality.

-- My analysis:

• Actually, Halman has probably not looked up the latest version of Encycloapedia of Islam. Since Bausani is the second author and Halman does not mention that. Here is what the current Encycloapedia of Islam states: Ritter, H.; Bausani, A. "ḎJ̲alāl al- Dīn Rūmī b. Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿulamāʾ Walad b. Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad Ḵh̲aṭībī ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. Excerpt: "known by the sobriquet Mewlānā, persian poet and founder of the Mewlewiyya order of dervishes"
• I suggest we can start the introduction with this and clean it up a bit.
• Halman is a good source that shows what mainstream scholarship believes. That is Rumi is Persian according to Western scholars and Halman believes this is due the language and culture.
• Halman despite being of Turkish background is taking the viewpoint that there is not enough evidence. However, I believe there is much evidence and I have brought some above (like Sultan Walad not being proficient in Turkish or the quote from Aflaki, Rumi's father using Sogdian (East Iranian) colloquial words and etc.).
• Be that it may be..Halman is actually clear that " No account seems to have been taken of the Turkish and Afghan claims". Which means that it is WP:fringe and does not beling to Wikipedia.

--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

google warrior

As noted google books/google scholar search for "Persian poet Rumi" and "Persian mystic Rumi" are overwhelming. Here is 9 that I have collected just in 10 minutes or so. I am sure I can make it 100+, but do we need 100 citations?

• Speros Vryonis,"The Turkish State and History", Aristide D Caratzas Pub; 2 Sub edition (September 1992), p.51: "Djalal al-Din Rumi, the great Persian mystic and poet who lived most of his life in Konya is said to have had a very vivid and violent opinion of the nature of the Turkmen nomads of the Rum sultanate: “There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!"”
• Wayne Teasdale , “The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions”, New World Library, Mar 9, 2001. Pg 224: “The Persian mystic Rumi, one of the greatest Islamic poet sages..”
• Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “The Garden of Truth: The Vision and Promise of Sufism, Islam's Mystical Tradition”, Harper Collins, Sep 18, 2007. Pg 204:”Of Persian origin and born in Balkh, Rumi, the poet whose poems now are the most widely sold in America, spent the last forty years of his life in Konya in Anatolia.”
• Annemarie Schimmel, "The Mystery of Numbers",Oxford University Press, Apr 7, 1994. pg 51:"These examples are taken from the Persian mystic Rumi's work, nt from Chinese, but they express the yang-yin relationship with perfect lucidity."
• T. Tymieniecka,” Islamic Philosophy and Occidental Phenomenology on the Perennial Issue of Microcosm and Macrocosm”, Springer, Aug 29, 2006. “The story of true love is so sweet that it not only cannot be narrated in one paper, but, as the Persian mystic Rumi says: 26 However much we describe and explain love, When we come to love we are ashamed of it.”,
• A Avery, G., A Reynolds, K, "Representations of Childhood Death", Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. pg 158: "his free translations of the work of the Persian mystic Rumi".
• Jelaluddin Rumi, Andrew Harvey, Lekha Singh,"Call to Love: In the Rose Garden with Rumi", Sterling Publishing Company, Sep 1, 2007 - 112 pages. Backcover: “The Persian mystic Rumi, who lived and wrote in thirteenth-century Turkey, has become the most widely read poet in America today.:
• Laura Resau, : "The Ruby Notebook “,Random House Digital, Inc., Jan 10, 2012 . p149: “You know, the Persian mystic Rumi mentions a Layla in his poetry.”
• Tambi-Piḷḷai Isaac Tambyah, "Psalms of a Saiva Saint", Asian Educational Services, 1925, page 157:"The Persian mystic, Rumi, exclaims, "I gazed into my heart and there I saw Him who was nowhere else”.
• Stephen Arroyo, “Person-to-Person Astrology: Energy Factors in Love, Sex and Compatibility”, North Atlantic Books, Jun 21, 2011. Pg 114:

The Persian mystic Rumi, whose works have recently become widely known in the Western world for their inspirational beauty and profound spiritual insights, has written: “Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries.”

• Brush Dance, “A Journal with the Poetry of Rumi”, BRUSH DANCE Incorporated, Dec 1, 2001 “This beautifully designed writing journal features the poetry of 13th-century Persian mystic Rumi and the colorful and inspiring artwork of Michael Green.”

Of course more than a 1000 hits can be found in both google books and google scholar. By wikipedia WP:weight and WP:OR, we must consider what modern alive scholars state about Rumi. If there is a scholar that is alive and has the same rank as Franklin or Encycloapedia of Islam, then they should be brought forth. Else constant repetition of the same answered OR in the talkpage should be ignored. Also I would happy to take this issue to mediation once and for all (and likely other Iranian poets).

Despite all this, I believe that the lead should be cleaned up with just Franklin and Encycloapedia of Islam.. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Also incase

If there is ever a need for an Iranian section (which there isn't since WP:weight applies and top scholars like Franklin/Encycloapedia of Islam must be given weight, and the other viewpoints do not have equivalent weight), one can write:

Western authoritative scholars such as Franklin Lewis have criticized Turkish authorities for trying to rob Rumi of his Iranian heritage and have dismissed the extravagent claim that his native language was Turkish. Turkish scholar Halman points to the fact that Western scholars have always accepted Rumi as Persian due to his exclusive use of the Persian language and because he remained in the mainstream Persian cultural heritage.. According to Prof. Speros Vyronis, based on a passage from Aflaki (a student of Rumi and his first biogpher), Rumi had a violent opinion of the nature of Turks. Iranian scholar Firuz Mansuri has noted that Sultan Walad belittles Turks in several poems and also has mentioned several times that his knowledge of Turkish and Greek is weak. R. Minutalab also analyzes the Ma'arif of Rumi's father and the lectures of Rumi and notes: "The language of Vakhsh in Tajikistan was also Persian as shown by the colloquial everyday language of Ma‘arif" and "that the Fihi ma Fih and the seven sermon shows that the everyday spoken language by Rumi was Persian", discounting the viewpoint that the poet only used the language for literary reasons. The Iranian viewpoint on Rumi's Iranian background has been written by Dr. Minutalab. Likewise, in mystical Persian poetry, the words Rumi, Turk, Hindu and Zangi take symbolic meaning and this has led to some confusions for those that are not familiar with Persian poetry, with Rumi describing himself as not a Turk, Turk, Hindu, Greek, Black. Oxford historian C.E. Bosworth has mentioned the process of Persianization was accelerated by Rumi's father and son. Overall, numerous sources have supposed Rumi as a native Persian speaker and as a Persian poet/mystic.

and 1000s+ more in google books and google scholars [45][46].--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

I request the users that came up with a new concensus over two days (despite one standing for five years)! to enter mediation. If not, please desist from changing a concensus that has been here for five years. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Stable version

I've restored the last stable version of the article, which had not been changed for years, before someone, unilaterally and without discussion, decided to introduce nationalistic fringe claims, not supported by the mainstream academic sources, into the article which violate WP:Fringe and WP:Weight. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The version that started immediately with arguments about Turkish scholarship was very poorly composed. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This page has been on my watchlist for years. I totally agree that the stable version that had been there for years should not have been tempered with witout a duscussion· I endorse Kurdo`s restoration of the original version·Penom (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

I don't know why 81.213.117.125 s reasonable suggestion was refused so violently. After all it was suggested to drop the adjective of national heritage. Rumi lived in Turkey under the protection of Turkish sultans. His tomb is in Turkey and he is considered as a Moslem saint by the Turkish people. Maybe his ethnical background was Persian. But what difference does it make ? (Catherine the Great was a Russian empress. Actually she was of German origin. Do we call her a German empress ?) Anyway, after the last edition to call Rumi a Persian poet, the introductory sentence of the article became too chaotic. ( Please try to read the first sentence with four paranthesis, Arabic alphabet, birth and death dates etc. ) I suggest to simplify the first sentence and add a separate section about his names and different views about his background. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nedim; seriously, can we set aside the ethnic debate momentarily and focus on making the first sentence intelligible? The whole lede of the article screams "writing by committee and massive feuding". All but a couple of names should be moved to a Names section just to make the first para readable. Secondly, whether "Persian" appears in the lede or no, "Persian[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]" is completely inappropriate and should be reduced to no more than the two best cites. Particuarly as, as I keep saying, most of the "[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]" cites are not convincing citations, but simply an author who said "Rumi was a Persian poet". There have to be some reputable cites making a more convincing case that just chucking an adjective at the subject.

Mediation is starting to sound more and more reasonable. I'm not sure if some folks are just trying to push a frantic Persian focus at the expense of the article, or if they're just over-reacting due to the (I'm sure irritating) attempts of uninformed parties to jam in Turkish/Afghan/etc. arguments.

Again, I'm not at all trying to remove mention of Rumi's Persian ties, but the panicked nature by which they're address currently is not appropriate, nor are multi-paragraph-lenght footnotes, nor are 8 footnotes for one word, nor is taking up half the lede to explain someone's name. I don't care how "stable" some time-honoured version from 2007 was, all those features are terrible and make the article look shoddy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus among experts is that Rumi was Persian. His place of birth, his language, the reports about him, etc - almost everything points to a Persian origin. That's why leading experts, like for example Annemarie Schimmel, do not take any other claims serious. As for the Encyclopaedia of Islam, here is the direct quote:

• DJALAL AL-DIN RUMI B. BAHA AL-DIN SULTAN AL-'ULAMA' WALAD B. HUSAYN B. AHMAD KHATIBI, known by the sobriquet Mawlana (Mevlana), Persian poet and founder of the Mawlawiyya order of dervishes, which was named after him, was born on Rabi'i 604/30 September 1207 in Balkh, and died on 5 Djumada II 672/1273 in Konya. [...] His father, whose sermons have been preserved and printed [...] was a preacher in Balkh. The assertions that his family tree goes back to Abu Bakr, and that his mother was a daughter of the Khwarizmshah Ala al-Din Muhammad (Aflakl, i, 8-9) do not hold on closer examination [...]

--Lysozym (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you people reacting like I'm trying to purge the word "Persian" from the article? I'm not, I'm trying to make the lede intelligible and professional in appearance (it is neither under the "consensus version". Secondly, why do y'all keep bringing up passing phrases with the word "Persian" in them? If you're trying to defend some imagined attack on Rumi's Persian-ness, chucking out every time someone said "Rumi, a Persian poet" is completely unhelpful of even your own case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)