Talk:Rumi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeRumi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 11, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
April 17, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Persian vs Tajik-Persian heritage[edit]

Given that it is conclusive through the community's research that Rumi was born in either present-day Afghanistan or present-day Tajikistan, would it make sense to call him a Tajik like some other Eastern Iranian Persians from Sogdian ancestry? There are records of his father using local Sogdian words in conversational Persian, strongly indicating an Eastern Persian/Tajik ancestry.[1] Wikipedia has a few pages indicating that some Eastern Persians from this time period are Tajik, while others just vaguely state the pan "Persian" identity. I'm not sure of the exact rule or logic concerning the naming convention, but feel it should be more consistently done to maintain true neutrality throughout the website. It's also confusing for the layman to discern why and when an Eastern Iranian Persian is labeled Tajik vs just Persian (or they would erroneously conclude that Persian may just mean Persian stock from present-day Iran as the link will just lead people to the Iranian Persian page by default. This appears to be at least somewhat of a bias towards present-day Iran and their nationalism.) Jamaas9 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC) .


FYI, Kaveh Farrokh is not an historian, so he is not a reliable source. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  • " I'm not sure of the exact rule or logic concerning the naming convention.."
Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I understand he may not be the best source; however, isn't there enough reliable sources to put Rumi squarely as an Eastern Iranian Persian (modern Tajik), the article clearly states that he is native to what is considered now the modern-day Tajik's homeland? There has been no known historical mass migration that would have indicated he is of Western Iranian/Persian (modern Persian) identity. Again, to remain neutral, what is considered a Tajik vs Persian? If an Eastern Iranian Persian was born in what is considered the historical homeland of the Tajiks, and was native to that part of the Iran-zamon -- by definition, isn't that part of modern Tajik culture, identity, ethnicity etc etc? A synonym for Tajiks is still Persian, so ultimately, it may not matter too much in pure academia but it does for political purposes as Tajiks experience cultural repression in both Uzbekistan and to a lesser degree, Afghanistan. Dividing Eastern Iranian Persians and Western Iranian Persians to two distinct groups on the website (which is correct), but having no connection to Tajiks on his page while stating his Eastern Iranian origins appear biased in favour of present-day Iran and a bias against the Eastern Persians (Tajiks) native to Balkh and other parts of their homeland. Jamaas9 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. We don't add our personal opinions to WP articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
My initial impression is that the lede of Persian people excludes Tajiks. If that so, then Jamaas9 has a valid point. We don't have reliable sources that say "Rumi was not a Tajik". Thus we should avoid making that claim implicitly using links. Wiqi(55) 19:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
How the lead of that article excludes "Tajik" when 4th paragraph is about it? Especially this line:
"However, it is to be noted that the terms Tajik, Tat, and Persian were historically synonyms that were used interchangeably"
And if you read Tajiks and this, there are more details about historical usage of Tajik. Short version: Tajik = Persian, Persian-speaking in that era. If we decide to follow Jamaas9's personal analysis, then the unsourced term Tajik would appear in dozens of articles. Even we can call all medieval Persians as Tajik (per mentioned links). From Avicenna to Rhazes. Jamaas9's concern is more personal than encyclopedic because it's all about their personal interpretation of "Persian". Another point is we can't invent terms and backgrounds on WP. It's all about WP:RS. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you look again at Persian people. Tajiks are excluded from the template and first line where only Iran (the country) is listed. I would expect to find multiple Central Asian countries in addition to Iran, similar to the template in Tajiks. Perhaps that's not the case because Tajiks are linguistically/ethnically distinct from Iranian Persians? For Rumi, a link to Persian language would be inline with wp:nor, because other details of his ethnicity are not explicitly stated by any of the cited sources. Wiqi(55) 09:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Just NO. Now you refer to the first paragraph of a WP article and a template?! Ignoring the whole content of Persian people, Tajiks, and historical usage of Persian/Tajik?! You looked at Tajiks but you didn't you see this?!
  • Alternative names for the Tajiks are Fārsī (Persian), Fārsīwān (Persian-speaker), and Dīhgān (cf. Tajik: Деҳқон) literally "farmer or settled villager", in a wider sense "settled" in contrast to "nomadic" and also described as a class of land-owning magnates during the Sassanid and early Islamic period).
By similar logic like yours, I can refer to Iranian peoples and Template:Iranian peoples and saying something like this: "OK! Lets' change all Persian, Kurd, Pashtun, and the others to Iranian. Because Iranian covers all of them!" What you suggest (Persian people => Persian language) is actually WP:POV, plus ignoring sourced info and previous discussions. It's like going to List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars and changing Arab to Arabic language. Also you try to bring irredentism and anachronism by your very personal definition of Persian and limiting it to the a modern country named Iran. We're talking about a medieval scholar, and "Persian" is what historians used to describe background and ethnicity of Rumi. I think you didn't read my above comment and the message in the top box:
  • "A consensus has been reached on this talk page that Rumi has a Persian heritage. The consensus is based entirely on reliable sources that establish his birthplace and native language within a Persian cultural-historical context. Before reopening a debate on Rumi's ethnicity, please read WP:V, WP:Weight, and WP:RS, as well as Talk:Rumi/Rumi's heritage. See also modern, authoritative biographies of Rumi, such as that of Professor Franklin Lewis, and note the relative ubiquity of such descriptions as "Persian poet Rumi" and "Persian mystic Rumi" in Google Books and Google Scholar sources."
The points are clear. The current revision is a result of reliable sources and discussions by several users and what you want to insert is your own personal analysis. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I’ve noticed that at least of the references oddly is quoted correctly to disprove his Turk background in the historical Talk page (the reference correctly stated he was from Central Asia, which the modern Tajik’s homeland, not Iranian Persian that includes the Western Asian population) background on the talk page, signaling a specific Central Asian/Tajik background but it’s misqouted on the actual article to assert of more generic Persian identity (“Central Asia” turned into just “Asia”). I don’t think that’s a personal interpretation as to change “Central Asia” to “asia” while asserting that Rumi first belongs to the Persians of Iran first, which implicitly states he belongs to Modern Iranian’s more so than his own Central Asian native persian speaking Iranians. Misquoting a reliable source to hide his Central Asian roots and rather assert a generic “Asian” identity is unethical if done intentionally, and by nature, supports a personal POV as it’s deceptive. Right now, the article implicitly states that Rumi belongs to first the modern Persians of Iran and utilizing misqoutes as reference which is unacademic, antiintellectual, and promote a personal POV that Central Asian Rumi first belongs to the Western Asian Persian followed by his own Central Asian Persians. This promotes a specific POV. Either way, we can’t misquote people. This article should be reviewed and revised accordingly. I’ll follow up with the quotes when I get off mobile. Jamaas9 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, respectfully, you are either misunderstanding me or misinterpreting what I am saying, I am not going by any historical definition as anyone who studies Iranology understands Tajik = Iranian = Persian (historically). I am using modern definitions of the different Persian ethnicities that is utilized in Wikipedia to remain consistent and fair. Persians outside of Iran are referred to Tajiks if from Central Asia/Afghanistan as per Wikipedia articles and reliable sources. This article lists Rumi to belonging both to the modern Western Asian Persian ethnicity as his ethnicity and NOT Central Asian Persians, and furthermore lists them second to which ethnic groups consider him more important for their cultural identity. This neither impartial nor fair, as it at least implicitly (if not explicitly) states he belongs less to the Persians who are his direct decedents and more to Western Persians who are more distant from him. The article asserts this using at least one misquote. I’m trying to make sure this article is fair, accurate, and not promoting a specific nationalistic POV. Right now, it looks it does — especially with the misquote. Jamaas9 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand your points but seriously they are not related to this article. You should go to Persian people and suggest a new lead section for that article, e.g. more details, historical usages, and clarification about Persians outside of modern Iran (Central Asia, Afghanistan and etc). That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that much of my discussion is more relevant to the Persian page as this affects more figure than just Rumi. However, we can clean up this page including misqoute(s). Some of my points are still relevant to this specific article, and this discussion is highlighting biases (intentional or not) regarding this Rumi article. Again, why are Tajiks listed as second in when listing which modern ethnicities consider him important? Tajiks should either be listed first (like how western Iranians should alway be listed first for western Persian figures like Saadi/Hafez) or it should clearly state that he equally belongs to all modern native Persian speaking Iranians ethnicities such as Central Asian Tajiks, Western Asian Persians, etc. Modern Tajiks/Eastern Persians have the right to correspond most closely to their direct eastern Iranian Persian ancestors if we are going to divide the Persian ethnicity. Otherwise, this is biased and a form of cultural repression to Central Asian Persians/Tajiks, which happens politically in real life -- this is referenced using reliable on this website as well. Wikipedia should be impartial/fair and not engage in such biases. The only other fair alternative is significantly alter the general Persian page to make sure there absolutely no bias against Persians outside of present-day Iran. Right now, that page presents and focuses on the Persian ethnicity through mostly a modern Iranian (nationalistic) lense. Jamaas9 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Same story as usual: "I want to take pride in ethnicity/historic figure/dynasty/empire X so I'll just write as much personal opinions as I can in order to wear others down, disregard any source that refutes what I would like to see, and push the POV I want". WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:FORUM, and WP:JDL. Nothing more, nothing less. Bring clear WP:RS sources and concrete arguments. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You are accusing me of pushing a narrative when I am simply reporting that there is a misquote from reliable sources on this page that changes the meaning and context of the quote for the benefit of Persians in present-day Iran and creates a bias against Central Asian Persians. The quote was referenced correctly in the historical Talk multiple times when disproving Rumi as a Turk -- so I hope it can be corrected.

It's referred incorrectly (reference 7), omitting a key word that does change the meaning of the text in context of Western vs Eastern Persians (Tajiks) :

Franklin D. Lewis, "Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The life, Teaching and poetry of Jalal Al-Din Rumi", Oneworld Publication Limited, 2008 p. 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 in 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"

The actual book (I have a physical copy) say this:

Franklin D. Lewis, "Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The life, Teaching and poetry of Jalal Al-Din Rumi", Oneworld Publication Limited, 2008 p. 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 in 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"

The tendentious page also states: "First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you should have been? "

Respectfully, why don't you address my actual point, rather than say I am pushing a specific narrative? If there any sources refuting that Rumi was born in either to a native Persian-speaking family in the present-day Balkh region of Afghanistan or Tajikistan (both Central Asia) -- please let me know. I have no goal to push a narrative, and sincerely apologize if I am.

Specifically, I think we should correct the misquote. Given that multiple reliable western sources (Rumi scholars) have stated that Rumi was from Central Asia, including Lewis, I suggest that we edit the beginning the article to state: "...was a 13th-century Persian[1] Sunni[8] Muslim poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic originally from Central Asia[2].[9]

Or we could add an inclusion regarding being from Greater Khurosan as well. What does everyone think? If necessary, I can provide more reliable sources from Rumi scholars that squarely puts him present-day Tajik's homeland, but this has already been established and accepted by mainstream academia and experts.

Jamaas9 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of any policy-based objections to the above. So I fixed the quote [1] and added "originally from Central Asia" to the lede. [2]. Wiqi(55) 14:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Central Asia is not specific and it includes 5 countries and sometimes other regions from Afghanistan, China, Iran, and Mongolia. Historical region is more accurate so I will change it to Greater Khorasan which also matches the quoted text and Template:People of Khorasan. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The quote by Franklin D. Lewis uses "Central Asia". Do you have a source describing the origin of Rumi as "Greater Khorasan"? Wiqi(55) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the quote. Khorasan is there: Franklin D. Lewis, "Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The life, Teaching and poetry of Jalal Al-Din Rumi", Oneworld Publication Limited, 2008 p. 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 in 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 what is now Turkey, some 1,500 miles to the west?" FYI, Khorasan = Greater Khorasan. As I said Central Asia is generic, especially for a medieval person. See Central_Asia#See_also. There was several historical regions there. Lewis mentioned Khorasan and it's more accurate to use a specific historical region rather than a term like CA. Also we don't use West Asia or Middle East in similar articles. Even majority of those articles never mention region or city in their lead sections. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What about calling him "Khorasani Persian" in the lede instead considering that would be the most specific and accurate historical label for his ethnicity? "Khorasani"can link to Greater Khorasani and not the modern present-day provinces in Iran Jamaas9 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion falls in WP:OR again because no cited sources call him "Khorasani" or "Khorasani Persian". Also nobody considers Rumi as a someone from modern Iran. The infobox and section Life clarify his birth and death places. I can add Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkey to infobox. As I said your concerns are not really related to this article. You should take them to Persian people. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Some established facts about Iranian peoples : There is a confusion between having Iranian citizenship and being ethnically Iranian. As Wario-Man said, nobody says Rumi was an Iranian citizen, but the fact that he was an ethnic Persian is quite undisputed. Also, Tajiks are ethnic Persians (BTW, it seems that the word "Tajik" was introduced to qualify Sunni Persians, but i'm not sure of this and am investigating about), just as people who speak Dari in Afghanistan are Persians, no need to get under WP:OR by changing what sources say according to some editor's POV. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Tajik has nothing to do with religion. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Effectively, i think you're right, i have not been able to find any reliable material about this. Thanks for your insight.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe, when referring to Iranian Nationals (modern nationality, not ethnolinguistic group) of Persian descent, the term Tajik does refer to specifically to Sunni Persians in the Khorosan Provinces that never converted to Shia Islam. They are referred to as Tajiks by other Shia Persians as a mark of distinction, so Wikaviani is not completely wrong. You should be able to find this information on some western sources, including this website. Personally, I have never seen this from the Persian sources that I am most familiar with so I am looking to double check this as well. Outside of this context, Tajik isn't utilized to designate any specific religious sect. Anyway, as Wario mentioned, I will be taking the rest of my points to the Persian page to help improve that page. This discussion has been helpful, and I appreciate you all helping me understand how better contribute to the Wikipedia community! --Jamaas9 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://kavehfarrokh.com/articles/pan-turanism/bahram-shahnazar-notes-on-rumis-iranian-origins/
  2. ^ Franklin D. Lewis, "Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The life, Teaching and poetry of Jalal Al-Din Rumi", Oneworld Publication Limited, 2008 p. 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 in 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"

Sources for the name Balkhi?[edit]

Are there any non-contemporary sources that use the nisba Balkhi for Maulana? Every manuscript of Maulana and his son Sultan Walad use the nisba Rumi, Maulana's great biographer Aflāki in his Manāqib ul-Ārifīn uses the nisba Rumi.

Are there any classical sources that use the nisba Balkhi? ahassan05

"Al-Balkhi" is mentioned by Faridun b. Ahmad Sipahsalar: [3]. The name is given in Arabic as Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al-Husayn al-Khatibi al-Balakhi al-Bakri. I think we should add Rumi's full name to the article citing his earliest biographies. Wiqi(55) 19:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018[edit]

This line at the end of the second paragraph cries out "puffery":

A deep grasp of his original poetry requires excellent command of modern Persian, and an equally good command of Islamic prophetic traditions, and the Qur'an. With such command, one may succeed in peeling back the multitude layers of meaning.

It should be removed. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done (in accordance with WP:NPOV). —Ringbang (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Chagatai and Pashto aren't Indo Aryan languages[edit]

The Introduction passage ends with:

His poetry has influenced not only Persian literature, but also Turkish, Ottoman Turkish, Azerbaijani, as well as the literature of some other Turkic, Iranian, and Indo-Aryan languages including Chagatai, Urdu and Pashto.

The last line is inaccurate. Chagatai is a Turkic language and Pashto (While Indo-European) is an Indo-Iranian language, not Indo-Aryan.