Talk:Rumi/Archive 1

message: It is still arguable whether Rumi was Persian or not, but what I suppose has been overlooked in this dispute is that Mevlana or Rumi's family today is Turkish. They reside in Turkey, control Mevlana's offical website , and consider themselves to be Turkish. Secondly, the article states that his birth place and usage of Persian indicate he was Persian. Forgive the usage of the maxim but Jesus being born in a barn doesn't make him cow, nor a child that barks a wolf. 
I do not know about animal much specially cow or wolf or their sounds anyway, but I know Mowlavi is born in Khawrazm then in Iran and most of his poems are in persian, but some ... guy changes the information from the english page of this poet.
We mention his birthplace and language as indicators yet we don't mention his name or the roots of his family - the fact that he is known as Rumi and where the word is derivied from and where his father comes from.
Rumi is believed to be a Turkic word that means foreigner or a foreigner on Islamic lands, but that is its current modern usage, today. Rumi was actually a Turkic title that meant "enlightened traveller from a Seljuk province" - similar to the word "celebi" and was bestowed on such people.
As for most modern day Turks not being able to read Mevlana's poetry - most modern day Turks cannot read old Ottoman poetry of the Ottoman king Suleyman the Magnificent - this doesn't mean that there is no connection between Mevlana and Turkic roots. I am sure the Turkic people of Mevlana's day - who would have heard the poetry - will have understood him. This type of argument just shows that one is ignorant of the development and changes in the Turkish language from its beginnings in the 7th Century BC to today and the languages it adopted along the way from its occupation throught the Seljuk and Ottoman periods of Turkish domination in that region.
I know many Turkish people that criticise the Turks and are yet Turkish. Turkic tribes have been each others worst enemies someimes.
Simply the fact that Mevlana criticised Turks in writing does not mean he could not be one - in fact it could mean that as a Turkic person living under a Turkic Empire he was best experienced to criticise - but all we are really doing in the former is assuming and placng a modern sense of Arabic nationalism on a man by implying that one would not criticse his own race. Either way, Mevlana saw humans as one entire family - and would be laughing at Iranians (who are not even the Persians they are trying so had to associate with) that are so adamant to get the label Persian beside his name. 
Mevlana was a part of the Seljuk Empire, and as such was inspired by it. Whether he was Persian, Greek or Turkic, makes no difference. That should be inherent in the article. 82.145.231.189 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't live in Turkey, but the impression I get is that the religious movement(s) still in existence there do pay homage to him; and not simply as a philosopher, but more as a theologian and wali. Aside from the general public, there are the remnants of the Mevlevi order. I assume they're in accord with their original precepts, and would thus come under the umbrella of mainstream  Islam. - User:Ashu8845
----
Some of the paragraphs of this article are systemically being deleted without declaring a reason. I put the article back in the original form as much as possible. User:ErdemTuzun
----------
"Rumi was a Persian and not a Turk, and all of his poetry is in Perisan.  In fact, Turkish people cannot read and understand any of his poetry, unless they read a Turkish translation of Rumi's works, or they study and learn the Persian language at a high level.  However, he lived most of his life in Konya which is in present-day Turkey, but at the time of his life, there was not even a country called Turkey, nor was present-day Turkey a 'Turkish land'."
I removed this paragraph and carried to the discussion page because it contains wrong informations and logical fallacies.
First of all, nationality is a relatively new concept. In 13th century, this concept was obviously not even a matter of discussion and people were not carrying identity cards on which their nationalities had been scripted. So, actually, while we are talking about the nation or ethnicity of an old age person, most of the time we are just making estimates. In Rumi's case there is no way of knowing exactly what ethnicity he belonged to. Actually, territories involving present Iran were controlled centuries for several Turkic dynasties like Safavids or Qajars and Turkic and Persian people lived side by side and surely mixed, complicating the estimation of Rumi's ethnicity.
Secondly, Rumi was born in a Turkic country and lived and died in another Turkic country. While we are talking about the countries of people in their biographies, we are not only mentioning the country they were born in but also the country they lived most of their time and made their greatest contributions. For example in many biographies Einstein is presented as Germany born Jewish American scientist. Rumi's position is just the same. Of course there was no Turkey that time as there was no Iran. But there were Persian and Turkish people living in different locations of Asia. In this article the word turkish does not point a citizenship of country but a certain ethnicity.
It is true that Rumi was writing in Persian and Turkish people can not understand his poems unless it is translated. However, Persian was the official language for science and art in all Islamic countries. All prominent Turkish artists and scientists have written their works in either Arabic or Persian. It is very similar to the fact that Latin language was the official language for artists and scientists in Europe and regardless of their ethnicities they were producing their works in Latin. 
For these reasons, I added the deleted paragraphs to the article and of course all of these paragraphs are open to modification and refinement. 
Finally, controversial issues should be solved by discussions carried on this page rather than blindly deleting things that we don't like to read. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here". User:ErdemTuzun
------
If what you say is true, then perhaps you can tell us why all the major encyclopedia of the wrold (Britannica, Americana, etc.) describe Rumi as Persian and not a Turk, or your interesting designation of "Turkish/Persian"?!
Furthermore, if you actually could read his poetry, you would see that in a number of places, both in his Mathnavi as well as Divan Shams, he refers to his ethnicity, but almost in all cases, he is trying to teach you that the label doesn't matter.  Somehow I have a feeling you have not even read any of his poetry and you are only going by your Pan-Turkish chauvinism and trying to 'claim' Rumi as Turkish or part-Turkish.  
It is true that at that time the Persian language was more popular, and it is also true that some Turks (and others) wrote _some_ of their works in Persian. But in such cases, they _also_ have works in their own native language.  One example would be the great poet Qatran from Tabriz.  He has poetry in both Persian and Turkish. Another example is Iqbal Lahuri who has poetry in Persian and in Urdu (his native language). There are a number of other examples ... many examples in fact.  But there is not any example where one would not produce any works at all in his native language. Do you know of _ANY_ works by Rumi in Turkish?
Furthermore, if you study the poetry of the great poets of the Khorasan territory (the Greater Khorasan is where Rumi was born in, Blakh was part of the Khorasan province), many of them complain about the Turkish encroachments to their land. 
For example, Nasser Khosrow, also from Balkh, in his poetry says, and I am just translating and paraphrasing, "now khorasan has become a land of the Turks -- a free man (aazaadeh, in Persian) and a base (low) man ("doon" in Persian) do not fit in one place --  that a bunch of homeless and uncultured rascals (referring to the Turks) -- today have become Khans and Khatuns (Turkish titles of eminence for men and women) in this land.".
There are plenty of examples and evidences like the above that show that people disliked the Turks because they abused people and they were uncultivated and often violent, rogue and unfair in their practices.
In fact, many people left that land BECAUSE OF the Turks, and Rumi's family was no exception.  If you study the history accurately, you will see that his family left Blakh years BEFORE the Mongol invasion, and they did not leave to avoid the Mongols -- unless his family possessed a very good crystal ball that could inform them about the future!
For you to claim that up to this date in human history everybody has been misinformed and wrong to call Rumi "Rumi the Persian", including all the major encyclopedia of the world, is quite astonishing and remarkable.  So for centuries and centuries all academicians, including the two great Rumi experts from England and Germany where wrong to call him a Persian, and suddenly in year 2003 you are educating the world about his 'true' cultural identity?
You claim to be an educated man.  Let us keep the centries-old tradition of intellectual integrity and honesty in the academia alive and don't allow our personal prejudices and biases to interfere with facts.
Rumi was a Persian.  Also, even if somehow miraculously you manage to convince the world that he was anything else, the fact remains that there is only one people on earth who can truly understand, feel and enjoy his poetry, and that people is none other than the Persians.  There are too many subtlties in the Persian language, and in particular, in Persian poetry, that a translation, no matter how masterfully done, will never come even close to the original.  I myself have read his poetry, together with the works of many other great poets, since my early teens;  and I am no exception among Iranians.  Even before I could read them by myself I have been told stories from the Mathnavi as children's stories.  When many other peoples of the world rent a movie to watch after dinner, many Persians go the the wonderful treasury of Persian Literature after dinner.
Finally, you are also wrong in saying there was "no Iran" at that time.  Iran's history, geography, language, culture, calendar and traditions go back to much longer than that; but naturally, in such a long history there have been many ups and downs. If one truly understands the Persian language, one would CLEARLY see that even the very name of Khorasan is made up of parts that is relative to Iran.  I won't even mention the long long list of works before and after Rumi's time that contain "Iran" all over the work.
I am afraid, after reading what you have written, I am left with the impression that you are either allowing chauvinistic biases and prejudices overcome your good conscience, or you are honest about what you say but you are simply misinformed.
Sincerely,
Keyvan Partovi. 
P.S.  You also removed the part where I had mentioned Rumi's two major works. Really, essentiantially these two works are what the world knows him by, one is the Mathnavi and the other is Divan Shams, without even offering any reason why you removed that part.  It indicated (correctly, I might add) that these two works are two of the greatest works of all of Persian Literature and Poetry.  I can only think of one reason why you would want to deprive the article from such important and correct information.
------
Dear Partovi,
First of all, I want to assure you that I did not insist on writing that Turkish/Persian phrase as a result of any kind of nationalistic chauvinism. I have always been an opposer of this kind of thinking. Actually, it is my anti-nationalistic ideas that forced me to try to change this article. When I saw the phrase Turkish in one of the older versions of this article printed and then observed that it has been deleted, I thought that it was some chauvinistic person that has committed this action. This is why I insistingly tried to change this article. 
I have read several important works of Rumi and I think that I know his ideas quite well. I also agree that it is not good to label a person like Rumi, with this kind of nationalistic discussions. This is why I decided to put a more general title as Turkish/Persian, which symbolises the international feature of Rumi, which does not recognise any boundaries. If I had deleted the name Persian and replaced it with Turkish, then this would make me chauvinistic.  
If you were able to read Turkish encyclopedias, you would see that he is mentioned as neither Persian or Turkish. Usually his nationality is not mentioned or just expressed as Anatolian (which is also wrong for me).
I also tried to modify this article to draw people's attention to another important problem. It is true that many important encyclopedias refer not only Rumi but also many people living in the same area as Persian. There is also an ongoing discussion about the ethnicity of Avicenna, for instance. I will ask the same question again. How in the world can a present time person know the nationality or ethnicity of a middle age person? Even by the current genetic technology, this would be impossible, since after several centuries of intermarriages, genetic features of people living in Near Asia are quite identical to eachother. Now, we are living in a more nationalism based and dominated world and possibly the scholars feel themselves urged to label people of the past with some kind of ethnicity without necessarily having enough information about this. 
For me this was a good opportunity to make this point by using this article as an example. The fact that some mistake has been done by previous people does not mean that we should repeat it. In my opinion, we should not write something that we don't know exactly. In these kinds of articles, the best strategy would be to only write the birth and death places of these important people and also mention which dynasty, empire or country was controlling the area back then. But since it is difficult to change the old traditions and readers would always expect to see some nationality or ethnicity coined to a person's biography, I decided to put that ambigous phrase to draw the attention of readers on this topic. Besides, big encyclopedias can also make big mistakes. For example, I remember reading in some important encyclopedias that Turkish people are Chinese and in present Turkey death penalties are executed by impaling people on a wooden rod. It is sad to see that encyclopedia authors are also human beings and they are under the influence of political biases.
Additionally, as I tried to point out by Albert Einstein example, people's countries are not only considered by their birth country but also the country that they have produced their work. As an another example, Nobel Prize Winner Ahmed Zewail who has been born in Egypt but has made his scientific contributions in USA is usually being mentioned as Egyptian American. Examples can be increased of course. 
The fact that past time Iran people did not like the invading Turkish people does not prove that there were no prominent Turkish scholars or poets at this time. Additionally, I am well aware that Iran existed throughout centuries and played a very important part in history. I wrote this as an answer to your mentioning that since there was no Turkey (as a country) at that time, there were no Turkish people. 
I sincerely apologize for deleting some of your sentences. But I really did not know I was deleting some important information too. You have right to complain about this. Surely, these sentences should be added to the article appropriately. But you also deleted some of my sentences about the birth place of Rumi, while you were changing the paragraph. I am also sorry to evoke such hard feelings but I always though that what I did was completely suitable for Rumi's teachings. By changing the ethnicity phrase, I tried to emphasize that his presence should not be the game of excessively nationalistic people.
User:ErdemTuzun
------
-My dear Keyvan Partovi: Firstly, I accept that Rumi is most likely Persian and it should be indicated as such. However, your style and some of your claims are culpable! You claim that Rumi escaped not the Mongols but the Turks?! Is this the reason why he immigrated to Anatolia which was under Turkish Selchuq Dynasty? Does this make sense to you? (You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Turks). 
Also, you imply that Turks were uncultivated, rude etc!? It is sad that we seem to complain about nationalism but we are the ones committing it with our sometimes almost hate-filled writings. I don't think this is very healthy.
Secondly, If we claim to inherit Rumi's heritage, why do we behave so "unRumi?" Rumi is so great of a person that he is beyond anybody or any country to "own" him, much less to involve him in such a discussion. I think what Hz. Ibrahiym said renders this situation perfectly: "He then who follows my (ways) is of me."
Love, 
User:Lugalbanda
=== Rumi and Afghanistan ===
Interestingly enough, Afghanis will consider him as one of theirs. Much of the Afghani classical music will make use of his texts - similar as in Iran and probably Turkey. In Afghanistan he is usually called Jalal Al-Din-e Balkhi. This obviously widens the debate above. I suggest re-editing along these lines. Refdoc 00:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumi Yesterday and Today 

message: Interestingly enough, Afghanis will consider him as one of theirs. Much of the Afghani classical music will make use of his texts - similar as in Iran and probably Turkey. In Afghanistan he is usually called Jalal Al-Din-e Balkhi. This obviously widens the debate above. I suggest re-editing along these lines. Refdoc 00:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumi and Afghanistan 

message: Over half of the current article is about the whirling dervishes. While it is obviously significant to mention these. I think they are a) significant enough to justify their own article b) teh article would benefit by concentrating more on the actual person  or Rumi and his works rather than on an order founded after his death. I fact there is already a large article under whirling dervishes, while the reference within this article here leads recursively back to Rumi. I suggest cutting the whole bit about the order and leaving a short reference and transferring the cut material onto the already existing article + cleaning up links on the way too. Refdoc 18:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumi and the dervishes 

message: Done... Please tell me what you think about it! Refdoc 20:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear-out and re-organisation 

message: Currently there are two active links to the Sufi order founded by his disciples Mevlevi and The Whirling Dervishes. The article is at The Whirling Dervishes while mevlevi is a redirect. I would like this to be swapped around, as Mevlevi order is the actual name while the whirling dervishes is just a kind of nickname. This will need admin rights so i can just go ahead and do it. Refdoc 22:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whirling dervishes 

message: Is this really by Rumi? I've always seen it quoted as anonymous.
Dance, as though no one is watching,
Love, as though you've never been hurt before,
Sing, as though no one can hear you,
Work, as though you don't need the money,
Live, as though heaven is on earth.
~Rumi~
The style tends to be modern , it may be a free translation of Rumi poems.Pasha 04:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  really? 

message: I removed the word Persian before "Sufi Muslim ...." because his birth place and language is mentioned in the next sentences , I also placed poet before jusrist and theologian because he is best known as Sufi and poet , also replaced Sufi mystic with teacher of Sufism.Pasha 05:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening lines 

message: We need to add some references to the article. If you have any, please add them using the new cite format (see the one in the intro). Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: for those who claim that rumi was turkish just because he lived and died in a town that is NOW in turkey, doesnt make him turkish. at that time, that town was part of iran! your claims are crazy! i know, lets claim that einstein was actually origionally ethnically american, because he lived and died in the USA rather than in germany! LOL also, lets claim that columbus was portugese, because he sailed for portugal! LOL  you pan turks have no evidence for your claims, all you can do is talk. its only us iranians making logical arguments.
again, you are making fools of yourselves! i hate to see people ruining their own image.
--Iranian Patriot
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.181.241 (talk • contribs) 
Iranian Patriot could you please tell me when Konya was part of Iran??? Konya was a part of the Turkish Seldjuk empire that is some 1300 km from the Iranian border. Look at a map dude before claiming nonsense. Orrin_73
The man himself wrote he migrated from Persia to modern day Turkey out of fear of persecution, so what is the argument?Zmmz 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You cannot put modern borders on ancient empires! 

message: Some important refrences  that cite Rumi was Persian are, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarta, the Meriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries etc...etc.Zmmz 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain WP:CIVIL in your interactions with other editors. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritative Refrences

message: The whole world knows that Rumi was Persian. It is stupid to claim otherwise. Dariush4444 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironic how a man like him is being used for chauvinism. I wonder how much he cared about his ethnic roots. Anyway, his foundation and creation lives still in Turkey and we cherish his legacy; you can have all his DNA... although of course his descendants are today Turkish as well so we have the DNA too.--Kagan the Barbarian 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumi was Persian

message: I suggest that the page title be moved to Rumi. It's the most recognizable name, and there is no disambiguation issue, because Rumi redirects here. Cuñado  - Talk 19:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no disambiguation issue, which there isn't, then there is no reason to change the article's title. Besides that, to retitle "Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi" as just "Rumi" would be akin to retitling "Joseph Stalin" as simply "Stalin" (an identical redirect type, not coincidentally). The man's name was Jalal al-Din Muhammad (in one transliteration anyhow), and it makes sense to respect that (as far as I can see, at least). —Saposcat 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the case of Ali, which uses the simplest, most recognizable name for him. I'm not incredibly familiar with the subject of Rumi, so I'm not insisting anything, but I think he's best known as simply "Rumi", which is not equivalent to an English surname like Stalin. Cuñado  - Talk 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is, of course, Ali; you are right. However, the name "Stalin" and the name "Rumi" (who would ever have thought of those two polar opposites being yoked together in one phrase?) do bear similarities with one another and differences from Ali in that Ali is one of Ali ibn Abu Talib's given names, whereas both "Stalin" (Ioseb Dzhugashvili's adopted name, meaning "Man of Steel") and "Rumi" (meaning "from/of Anatolia") were names later taken on as distinguishing marks. Of course, by all means the "Rumi" must stay in the title, since that is indeed the name that the man is most identified by (at least in the West); but I think that it is best that the article's actual full title should stay as is. —Saposcat 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, if the longer title remains, it really should be Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi, and not "al-din". The "D" is a solar letter and when preceded by "al", the "L" becomes a "D". Cuñado  - Talk 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On this matter I certainly won't claim anything even approaching to expertise, but I've always thought that "al-Din" vs. "ad-Din" was just a matter of preferred transliteration styles, though as far as I know "ad-Din" does approximate the pronunciation much better (i.e., no one actually says "al-Din" with the "l" sound). Insofar as you probably know more on the subject than me, I would say that this change to the title seems valid (but if you make it, be sure to apply the appropriate redirect from "Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi" to "Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi"). Peace. —Saposcat 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the title and corrected the many re-direct pages. You can see them if you click the "what links here" link underneath the search on the left. Cuñado  - Talk 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  title 

message: An anon keeps reverting my clean-up of the intro. See this edit. My edits were improving the structure and clarity and were not even content related. Cuñado  - Talk
I made verifiable additions without taking away the 'label' attached for Rumi as a Persian poet - but removed Persian/Iranian and added extra arguments about the poet's father's lineage being unknown. I also added a music sample. I don't see how Mevlana was Iranian or should be listed in Iranian people. He would be more a Seljuk than an Iranian I'd guess. 82.145.231.219 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversion 

message: i think we should - unsigned by 194.247.244.240 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nominate for featured article? 

message: I think :Category:Turkish literature and :Category:History of Turkey are fine, but categories saying he was a Turk are misleading an incorrect. He was Persian, and I don't think people can really argue much about that. --Khoikhoi 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really bothered, but it is not misleading to add the Turkish people and Turkish poets categories - as although Rumi was undoubtedly a Persian by ethnicity, culture and language, he was Turkish in that he lived in Turkey most of his life, and as such hi nationality can be considered Turkish, just as I live in Britain, therefore I am British by nationality, but my ethnicity is undoubtedly Bengali. Likewise, Rumi was an ethnic Persian, but he lived in Turkey, led the Mevlevi order in Turkey and was a prominent person in Turkish society. But anyway, I'm not too bothered about this petty detail, just wanted to put forward Chrashmex's case, as I think he is correct. Tanzeel 12:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I removed claims that Rumi was "in exile" in Turkey, and that Khorasan was part of the Persian Empire. There was no Persian empire then. Balkh was ruled by the Khwarizmshah. However, I did make it clear that Balkh was part of the eastern Persian "culture province", so I don't think that I can be charged with trying to change Rumi's supposed "ethnicity".
I also made various small edits to straighten out convoluted prose and ungrammatical constructions. Zora 07:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khwarizmshah and Samanids were native Persians, and ruled Persia and Iran. They are considered a Persian Empire. --ManiF 08:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By whom? I have never seen the words "Persian empire" used of the Khwarizmshahs or Samanids, at least in any academic text. They were culturally Arabo-Persian, typical of post-conquest Khorasan and Transoxania, but they weren't empire builders on the scale of the Achaemenids and Sassanids. Oh, I see ... I type in Persia and I get "Persian empire" here at WP. I guess any ruler you tag as Persian gets an empire. Don't you think there's something a bit dodgy about that? Zora 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Samanids were a Persian dynasty of Iran or Persia . It's accepted history, and that's all there is to it. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. --ManiF 09:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ManiF, you are correct in your assertion that the Khwarizmshah and Samanids were Persian dynasties..However, it is incorrect to say that Rumi "died in exile in Konya" - yes, he did in fact migrate to Konya to flee the invading Mongols, but it was not an exile. Exile implies the expulsion, usually by authorities, from one's land to another land where one does not belong. This is not the case with Rumi, Rumi was not exiled, rather he volubntarily migrated, and not only that, settled in Konya permanently, not temporarily as is implied by exile. Therefore, Rumi migrated to Konya but he wasn't there in exile, so the caption is wrong - it's not POV, it's just outright historically inaccurate. This is the accepted scholarly fact and I'm sure a person as knowledgable and well-read as you can appreciate that fact. However, I am not one to pointlessly bicker and I shan't change the caption back to what it should be until you yourself realise the inaccuracy of the statement in the caption and the false notion that it asserts. This, although erroneous, is minor, and I don't want to be party to a petty editing war. No hostility intended, yours in peace, Tanzeel 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your comment Tanzeel. I see your point, perhaps exiled is not the best description, so I'm removing it from the caption. --ManiF 14:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's edits 

message: Greetings, I see that the term dervish is getting changed to darvish and back to dervish. On the page dervish, I read that "Dervish, especially in European languages, refers to members of Sufi Muslim ascetic religious fraternities, known for their extreme poverty and austerity, similar to mendicant friars. The term comes from the Persian word Darwīsh (درویش)." So I can understand the impulse to write 'darvish,' but that's not the English term. Shouldn't it read dervish in this English-language article? Best,--Anthony Krupp 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dervish, darvish: ?

message: When a man like Rumi contributes mightily to music, poetry, dance, literature, philosophy, and religion, it is hard to know how categorize him — or whether applying a category does more harm than good. I elected to use the "Philosopher" category for Rumi, because that group is so broad and expansive. If someone has a better idea, I would be glad to learn of it. I also faced some difficulty with categorizing his type of philosophy, and so elected simply to identify him as a Middle Eastern Medieval philosopher. It seemed the most neutral choice. — Aetheling 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Poet" is the usual qualification. Although he was a philosopher, his philosophy was recognised through his poetry and as a part of his poetry. Perhaps, it may be said that all poets are philosophers. Nevertheless, I don't disagree with you and the philosopher infobox is a good choice, as I'm sure most will agree. Tanzeel 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosopher infobox?

message: Dear new editors: please discuss here what additions you'd like to make. Please make sure they are correct, if possible! For example, Rumi's birth city is in present-day Afghanistan, not Iran. The lead section refers not to all of Khorasan (which was in what is now called Afghanistan, Iran, etc., etc.) but just to the city. Please be accurate.--Anthony Krupp 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion, consensus, [[User:Addtok]] and [[User:80.177.64.89]]

message: Realy?? has he been tajik??!!!
it is completely new!!! but there is no references
: Look up the meaning of the word Tajik, then you'll understand. Tājik 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I didn't know he was TAJIK !!!!!!!!??????? 

message: Nor Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu,Buddhist, Sufu, of Zen. Not any religion of cultural system. 
I am not from the East or the West, nor out of the ocean or up from the ground, not earth or air, 
not composed of elements at all. I do not exist, am not an entity in this world or the next,
did not descend from Adam or Eve or any origin story. 
My place is placeless, a trace of the traceless. Neither body nor soul.
I belong to the beloved, have seen the two worlds as one and that one [I] call to and know,
first, last, outer, inner, only that breath breathing human being.
 
As you know this is a Rumi poem. And this is the most real, most reliable, and most genuine source about him. He rejets religions and cultural systems here(islamic culture, persian culture and turkish culture). He says clearly did not descend from Adam or Eve or any origin story, therefore why are you doing Rumi persian? He clearly rejects these, all origin histories. Besides you emphasize his birthplace and lived regions. He says My place is placeless, a trace of the traceless. Under this circumstances, i'm moving his disputed ethnic origin, his disputed nation. He rejects all of these. While he rejects why are you sticking these labels by force? He rejects. This is most reliable source about him, because he has written himself, not iranian scholars. I have put this poem to references.--Karcha 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is extremely funny! Yes as a spiritual person he rejects all labels but does not change the fact that he was Persian and Muslim. My cousin say she is only a citizen of the world, an I am sure in her heart that is all she believes she is, but if we ever write a biography of her we have to mention that she is an Iranian born citizen of USA! She can keep her love for the world unity in her heart, facts are facts!Gol 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: He was indeed both Muslim and Persian, he was just using that as an expression to show that religion and beliefs are what is seperating people which is wrong.Khosrow II 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is your nationalist and mostly emotional conclusion. Everything is said by Rumi clearly.--Karcha 01:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the nationalistic one? I doubt it. You sincerely believe that his name was really Mevlana. That is the the Turkish pronunciation of his real name, because the Turkish langauge doesn't not contain the proper letters/sounds for the correct pronunciation.Khosrow II 03:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only Breath 

message: Indeed Rumi kept himself above the divisions of race, religion, and nationality.  However the fact is that he was a Muslim and Persian.  Anyone who read his original Masnavi knows that it was written in Persian language and had Quranic interpretation.  For this reason it is said, "Masnavi-e-Maulavi o Manavi, hast Quran dar zabanay Pehlavi" (The poetry of Mevlavi is Quran in Persian).
The dispute seems to arise from the confusion between the terms Iranian and Persian.  Persian empire included Iran but was not limited to it.  East of Iraq, West of Afghanistan, South of former Soviet Union, and large part of Turkey was part of the Persian empire and Persian is still spoken and/or understood there.  Hence Rumi was Turkish geologically, Persian culturally, and probably Tajik ethnically.  Hassanfarooqi 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between Persian and Iranian

message: I searched the whole discussion page for "protect" and all I found was:
* We should protect Mevlana from such Persian influences
* protected by Seljuq sultans
* protectors of the Persian culture
I also took a look at the edit history and nothing unusual stuck out. I personally wouldn't  have marked the protection a minor edit - it is very prominent in the article, and it certainly isn't unimportant, but maybe there's a policy for this that I'm unaware of. — Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this page protected? 

message: Listen, you fight amongst yourselves whether to use the Persian or Turkish. I don't care about your immature squabbles. But in the English speaking world he is not "simply known as Balkhi." That is just preposterous and insane to even suggest such an alternate reality - which somebody seems to be living in – and vandalising in. Somebody else can take this edit war up, as it's not my cause. And oh yeah, 'bout time to archive this sucker. ... some people are so immature... I pity them. Khirad 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved. It appears that some anon changed every instance of "Rumi" to "Balkhi", including the images and interwikis. As for the last thing you said, I don't know what you're talking about. ;-) Khoikhoi 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balkhi