Talk:Jami

Afghan?

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

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

Cause of herat is part of Afghanistan . Subhan Ahmad Sanjaranai (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sacred pederasty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What pederastic themes? Give a direct example. This discussion is going nowhere unless both sides can see the information. I tried googling for Jami pederasty, and the only sites that came up were mirrors of Wikipedia, sites which promote homosexuality, such as this one, and they were using Janet Afary as a source. I haven't found any actual direct quote of Persian poetry, just vague references such as “Classical Persian literature—like the poems of Attar (died 1220), Rumi (d. 1273), Sa’di (d. 1291), Hafez (d. 1389), Jami (d. 1492), and even those of the 20th century Iraj Mirza (d. 1926)—are replete with homoerotic allusions, as well as explicit references to beautiful young boys and to the practice of pederasty..." In all of the Iranian poetry I have read, I have never heard of any reference to pederasty whatsoever. So, show me the actual "homoerotic allusions" in Persian poetry. In fact, I see the opposite here, where the only reference to children is a girl! Kirbytime 06:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the use of "forbidden" themes such as the love of boys or the love of wine in Sufi teachings such as Jami's has been the topic of lively debate, with some claiming that the references are purely symbolic and mystical,[1] and others holding that they are the expression of authentic feelings and desires, whether or not they were actually acted upon. This addition by Haiduc reveals exactly why it is inappropriate to state subjective interpretations as fact, since there is clearly no consensus as to which interpretation is correct. Because that is the very nature of interpretations. SouthernComfort 23:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; but given the amendments which have been made, these statements are now in context of 'assessments' - in all matters literary this is a problem we run into - it is very hard to ask the dead guy what he really meant to say. So normally we provide the reader the interpretations and assessments that exist, and invite the reader to make up their own mind from the corpus of criticism available. And given that nobody to date has been able to provide a significantly competing assessment of Jami's work, the fact that the only interpretation available differs from either your own or what you wish it to be is unfortunate; I still see nobody arguing that if you find an alternate cited scholarly opinion it should not be printed in parallel - in contrast, there have been numerous invitations to you to provide additional material. Bridesmill 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And again, interpretations cannot be presented as fact, especially when there is no academic consensus. If you disagree, you have a POV. About providing additional material, I should not be expected to come up with more sources on the fly. That's absurd - again, some of us have lives and it won't kill you to wait and leave the tag up, especially when there is good reason to do so. The article is not NPOV - NPOV is not presenting subjective interpretation as fact. How many times do I have to repeat this, as I have been doing so from the very start? SouthernComfort 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To all: Isn't there something called 3RR? & Civility? To SC: "Acccording to Janet Afary" takes us out of that problem. it is NOT POV to say "Hitler said he hated Jews" it IS POV to say "Jews deserve to be hated". And here we are saying that Afary reads Jami in this particular way - NOT that Jami is this particular way. If you can find nothing that argues against this interpretation, sorry, but your best route is to do some scholarly work & publish it. Not liking something which is appropriately cited is not grounds to go on about POV. Bridesmill 00:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is something called 3RR and there is also something called civilty. Mel broke the first rule here before, in case you hadn't noticed. And civilty? I'm the one who has been lashed out at, who has been attacked as "disruptive" when I have made legitimate arguments and stressed legitimate points. But of course, it seems that WP now has a policy that subjective interpretations must be stated as fact. That every single Persian poet must now be classified as a "pederast" based upon these interpretations. No one seems to care that this is totally not NPOV and totally not appropriate. Well, I don't care anymore. I wash my hands of this filth. SouthernComfort 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I specifically addressed the 3RR civility comment "To All" - just to make sure you didn't take it as aimed at you. Plus 2 wrongs don't make a right. Secondly, some of your points where legitimate and have been acted on - the para in question is now plainly described as Afary's interpretation rather than 'fact'. Which makes it (much as pederasty is alien to me) NPOV as per the Adolf example above. How you read this one interpretation of one poet's work as automatically besmirching all literature persian is beyond me - yes this was a recurring theme, but in a MUCH different context than today, but even saying that, it is/was not a universal. Assuming that it is smacks of stereotyping. Which is *definitely* not NPOV. Bridesmill 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What matters is the fact that two users disputed the section, and they explained here what they disputed about it. Therefore they have every right to add the tag, it should not have been removed until the dispute was over. Revert waring gets nothing does, discussing does.

Also, why is it that none of the other encyclopedias mention these pederasty charges? --Khoikhoi 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not *exactly* what happened here. Material was presented in a factual context. This was contested, and material was changed to reflect that it is Afary's read of this material. POV issue gone. The fact that nobody can seem to find any 'other' interpretations of this material puzzles me, but that's the way it appears to be. Insofar as 'charges' are concerned, who said anything about 'charges'? I don't see anyone suggesting that Jami molested little boys or anything of the sort - we are speaking here of 'beauty of youth', and a very different historical context - not peodophilia. Which other encyclopedias? do they have cited different interpretations? if so, please add them.Bridesmill 01:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why we have to fall into the emotionalism trap, and why we have to project a moralistic slant on the works of a man we all agree was a major thinker and mystic. There is nothing degraded or "filthy" in the works of Jami, and it is just as appropriate to refer to his topos of chaste boy love as "pederasty charges" as it would be to label a discussion of his other Sufi teachings as "mysticism charges." Haiduc 01:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing filthy in the works of Jami - however, it is filthy to link his poetry with pederasty - that is, the practice of men having sex with boys. And as Khoikhoi has stated, it's very interesting that none of the major works or encyclopedias even mention the issue of "pederasty." Why? Because it's inappropriate - Jami, like all other Persian Sufi poets, wrote in metaphors to describe spiritual and abstract concepts of the nature of reality and deity and so forth. To link them with pederasty is absurd - and filthy. SouthernComfort 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we have here a question of semantics - pederasty, asp. in the sense of 'sacred pederasty' does not of necessity imply that there is a sexual relationship here; adoration of the youthful form, love even in a platonic sense, and metaphor which plays on these themes: absolutely. There is no need to say Jamui buggered anyone - I have a sense that you are conflicting the (as you aptly put it) metaphorical use of the theme, and the sensual, with the carnal. I can not vouch eitehr way ont he carnal aspects - but that is not our place. And to assume 'filth' is to put words into my mouth, Afary's mouth, and make assumptions about what was done and what was moral hundreds of years ago in a very different context.Bridesmill 18:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It must be stated that the subject of "sacred" or "spiritual" pederasty is nothing but a joke and not accepted at all in mainstream academia. No major works about Jami mention pederasty, let alone "spiritual" pederasty. It's a fringe concept promoted by writers who I can only assume have an unusual agenda of sorts. Where is the evidence that Jami was sexually active or was sexually attracted to young boys or ...? It is extremely difficult to counter these subjective claims since virtually no works about the man even veer anywhere close to this line of thinking precisely because the man was a devout Sufi and wrote in mystical verse. SouthernComfort 23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the scholarly books and papers that have be written exclusively about Jami, his life and his work, mention any of these pederasty charges. Even the fringe sources that are being cited here, all written from a particular political and social point of view, do not connect Jami with pederasty as a sexual topic. Just to get an idea of how insignificant of a minority view these pederasty claims are, try the following searches about Jami on Google Book Search:

• Jami + pederasty (2 Results)
• Jami + pederastic (1 Result)
• Jami (20200 Results)

Now if there was any truth or significance to these pederasty charges, you can be sure 20198 sources, plus every single encyclopedia out there, would have mentioned something about it. --ManiF 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It seems that the sources cited by Haiduc advocate a particular POV that none of the mainstream sources do. --Khoikhoi 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the stratagem of reducing Jami's pederasty - a device for awakening love in a man in order to approach the divine - to coital behavior by the artist (for which there never has been any evidence) in order to try to refute its inclusion in the discussion, will eventually fail, no matter how many times you, SC, try to resuscitate it in the face of repeated denials that Jami is in any way being implicated in illicit sexual behavior, which he is not. If you were just a Jami nut I might walk away from this and let you glom onto the article to broadcast whatever original research you might choose. The problem is that you are not only trying to control "Jami" but the whole pantheon of Persian writers and painters who had anything to do with the love of boys. That's not going to fly, and I will continue to dig up research and scholarship substantiating this aspect of the culture. The result will be articles top-heavy with pederastic references, which is not my intent at all, but has already happened because you have forced the issue time and again. This is not a cat that will go back in the bag, where do you expect to end up with this??? Haiduc 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur. This relation of Jami's poetry to a supposed accusation of peadophilia is a straightforward strawman. We have a solid work examining his poetry, the cite was accepted, now we change the tack of the argument. This is silly and immature. The fact that Google doesn't return a lot of hits is not surprising - google is not always exactly the only or best place to find scholarly work, and one can observe easily the effort on the part of uninformed & homophobic critics to relate this aspect of pederasty to child abuse. It is a spurious argument based on lack of contextual understanding. As was stated earlier - pleas provide some other works that give an opposing POV rather than playing the revert game. Bridesmill 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the results were from "Google Scholar" and "Google Book Search", the best places on the Net to find scholarly works. Second of all, please read WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA, before labeling editors who disagree with you as "uninformed & homophobic critics". Finally, as stated earlier by several other editors and myself, the fringe sources you are speaking of, advocate a particular POV that's so extreme and outrageous that none of the mainstream sources even mention or address, let alone give an opposing POV to. --ManiF 01:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3 deep breaths. You never specified you had used Google Scholar; and yes, that may be the best free place on the web, but does not really stand up agaimnst ebscohost & such IMHO. I meant no NPA; please reread what I wrote *calmly* thank you. Bridesmill 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if we're going to come to a compromise on this, I have a suggestion. It seems that there is too much in this article about him being pederastic. Remember, he wasn't famous for that, so why are we emphazing it so much? I really think one paragraph will do, if someone wants to go more in depth about it, perhaps we could have a Jami and Pederasty article.

I think that's a pretty fair deal - this page should mention his pederastic poetry, but it shouldn't make it seem like it was his claim to fame. What does everyone else think? --Khoikhoi 07:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have been saying all along. The pattern of 1. initial documentation; 2. denial 3. supporting the information; 4. agreement with the premise but opposition to the new volume of information; is an old one. We have been there before with other articles, hopefully we can evolve a better and simpler way of working with this material, since it will not go away. Having been the one to contribute this material, I will remove whatever is overly detailed and leave a balanced article. That having been said, if only a fraction of the effort that went into attempting to refute any mention of pederasty had gone into expanding the article, we would have a much better article by now. Can people who have more access to this material expand the section on his Teachings, which I added but cannot properly elaborate? Haiduc 11:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware. Anyways, I think it looks great. :) Hopefully this article can be more expanded now. --Khoikhoi 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian quotes

Can we have some of his poetry in Persian on the article? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How's that useful to the reader? Aucaman^Talk 09:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Many Persian poet articles have it and its always been useful for me -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be useful to me too, but this the English Wikipedia. Maybe you should put it in Wikiquotes and make a link from this article? Aucaman^Talk 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we could have the English translation of his poems. --Khoikhoi 21:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, preferably with sources. Aucaman^Talk 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

I didn't get to finish my edit summary here. Saying he was the greatest Persian poet of 15 century is a little too absolute of a statement - especially when unsourced. The greatness of Poetry in general is very subjective and varies from person to person. Aucaman^Talk 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed your grammar. Kirbytime 03:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How great of you. Aucaman^Talk 03:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal-attack edit summaries, etc.

IF SouthernComfort doesn't stop making personal attacks in his edit summaries, and removing material on the basis of no more than his claim that sources are inaccurate, he will be blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to warn one individual user as far as I know, I would recommend using his talk page instead. I don't think your reason is enough to revert his contributions to the page so I will rvv it. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, using administrative powers to intimidate other users in a dispute, is unethical and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Administrative powers may not be used to summarily adjudicate a POV question, especially one to which the administrator is a party. To do so is grounds for a RfC and possible RfAr. --ManiF 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks in my edit summaries? Where exactly, because I don't see any such attacks? If you continue to make these false accusations against me, I will report your behavior to the admin noticeboard. SouthernComfort 02:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks??? Μελ Ετητης, are you reading the same edit summaries that I am? Kirbytime 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SC. Some of the speech in his edit summaries may have been a bit gruff, but I don't see any personal attacks. And Kash is right, this isn't the right place to single out users about their behavior.

I also don't think admins should ever use their powers to their advantage in a dispute. --Khoikhoi 03:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, very interesting, how Mel didn't have a problem with Haiduc reverting my edits because they were "incomprehensible" [2], which is clearly and obviously a deceptive edit summary as anyone can see for themselves. But of course, I am threatened with a block. I get the picture there buddy, real nice and clear like. SouthernComfort 03:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. This peculiar chorus of diapproval ignores the fact that Talk pages are frequently used to warn users about their behaviour on particular articles.
2. I'm not using admin pwers; I'm making a point about SouthernComfort's behaviour and the likely consequences of it. I shouldn't block him, because I'm involved in the article; I should take it to other admins in order for them to assess the situation and apply whatever sanctions are appropriate.
3. "haiduc has made up false titles before to suit his pov", "rm inappropriate and pov link to error-filled article which haiduc insists upon", "cat that haiduc added back while falsely claiming that i had made 'incomprehensible edits'" — one or two (especially the first) are bad enough in themselves; one after another they're worse. This isn't being "gruff", it's making a personal attack upon a named editor.
4. To clarify further: saying that an edit is incomprehensible isn't a personal attack; to say that a named editor has "made up false titles to suit his pov" is. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc has, in fact, made up false titles with these images before until I took action, after which he corrected the titles, such as with this one [3]. Again, I find it interesting that you call my summaries "attacks" while when Haiduc calls my edits "incomprehensible" (an obviously deceptive summary) you say nothing. I'm reporting you for this harassment. SouthernComfort 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted it again as I don't think this matter should stop the article from including SC's contributions which seem valid - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no "contributions". He's actually removing a paragraph. Aucaman^Talk 10:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman you have been put on a revert parol by the ArbCom, I would suggest not to abuse this function by putting "(rv - as per talk. No explanation was given for the last revert." in the edit summary when it was clearly posted in this talk page, right above your comment. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is not sourced, but rather an original interpretation of Jami's poetry. The interpretation in that particular paragraph, is not supported by a secondary source, and hence should be removed in accordance with WP:NOR. --ManiF 11:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. To say that a passage is incomprehensible isn't a personal attack; nor, unless you know that the person in fact comprehended it, are you in a position to say that it was deliberately misleading.
2. Aucaman's comment wasn't prceded by an explanation of the edits that he reverted.
3. Haiduc and others made significant compromises in the face of your belligerent opposition, yet you still insist on getting things exactly as you want them, using bullying tactics and insistence in the hope that others will give up and let you do what you want. I'm told that this is not the first time that ManiF and SouthernComfort have displayed these tactics. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained my reasoning above your comment, and this is long enough already so I won't even bother repeating myself. However, I'm just going to advise you not to make any accusations against editors you disagree with, and respect WP:AGF,WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. As an administrator, you should know better. I find it rather ironic that you are warning Southern Comfort about "personal attacks in his edit summaries", yet you have no problem labeling half-a-dozen editors, who disagree with your point of view, as "bullies". --ManiF 05:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

1. SouthernComfort took his complaint about me to [{WP:AN/I]], and was told that he had been behaving badly and warned to stop.
2. I labelled just two editors, him and you; I understand why you'd want to try to make it look as though other editors were included, but they quite clearly weren't. I have no problem with disagreement, but your tactics are unpleasant and unwelcome &mdsash; a view held by other admins who have communicated with me on this matter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

An administrator or not, you and everybody else is obliged by Wikipedia to respect WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Next time, you make an accusatory comment against me instead of discussing the issues related to the topic, I will have to start preparing a RfC against you, and I'm sure that many other editors would agree with me that your conduct on this page has been very questionable to say the least. (ie blatant violation of 3RR for which you were blocked) --ManiF 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph that SouthernComfort was removing was unsourced. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

1. He wasn't only removing a paragraph.
2. The paragraph was not only sourced, it begins with the source:

   "In his Haft Awrang (see manuscript), an anthology of seven allegorical poems on wisdom and love, he gives further evidence that the pederastic relationshp needs to be a spiritual one. In the section titled A Father Advises his Son About Love, a father instructs his son, when choosing a worthy male lover, to choose that man who sees beyond the mere physical and expresses a love for his inner qualities." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Read "Haft Awrang" both in English and Persian, there is no mention of "male lover", "pederastic relationship" or anything similar to that, in any of its chapters. Therefore the paragraph is not sourced, it's simply an original research commentary on Jami's work, written by Haiduc based on his own interpretation of Jami's poetry. --ManiF 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my suggestion that we back off from this, study this matter more deeply by communicating with scholars in the field, document our research and return here after an appropriate time to compare notes. My experience of Southern Comfort and others here is that they can be reasonable and civil, and I would not want matters to escalate further simply because our tempers have become incensed. This debate has been going on for centuries, a couple more months will not make that much of a difference. Haiduc 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cooling off period?

In parenthesis, I would like to note that my picture "titles" were not false, a picture like that has no inherent title, merely a description. But, mostly, I would like to suggest that we all step back a few paces and not get caught up in what is becoming pointless turmoil. Editing should not be an exercise of force but of reason, and when reason fails force will not save the day. Let's all give this a rest. I am not interested in documenting the Persian boy love tradition in this or any other personage article if it will result in this kind of escalating violence. On the other hand I would request those who are opposing this line of thought to inform themselves by reading recent scholarship on this topic. What if we call a three-month time out for all of us to settle down and perhaps deepen our study of the topic before we return to it? Haiduc 21:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

I have read this article and this whole discussion and I have to conclude that some parts are scandalously inaccurate. I shan't comment too much, as all my reservations about the article have been highlighted by SouthernComfort and ManiF. Anyone who has a morsel of knowledge about Sufi poetry and mysticism woul know that the "forbidden themes such as the love of boys and wine" is metaphorical - this is not an interpretation, it is a fact that has been confirmed by hundreds of years of Islamic and Western academic scholarship. It's not just "some claiming that the references are purely symbolic and mystical" - it's the overwhelming majority, I'm not going to bother giving any references to this fact because anyone who picks even the most basic book about Sufi poetry would know this... The more literal interpretation that "they are the expression of authentic feelings and desires" is, however, existent and as such deserves a mention - but it should be made clear that it is a minority opinion. The representation of both interpretations implies that they are of an equal level of scholarly acceptability - this is not the case, clearly, as no source can be cited for it. It is true, he does defend Shahid-bazi, but the fact that you mention al-Ghazali here is ridiculous! If the person who mentioned Al-Ghazali has any idea about Al-Ghazali, he/she would realise the ludicrousness of this claim! I challenge you to give an authoritative source mentioning AL-Ghazali's practice of Shahid-bazi..you won't find one. Many parts of this article are entirely original research by Haiduc and not scholarly interpretations at all. Many claims by Haiduc across wikipedia reveal an ignorance about issues he writes about and he has an agenda and history of promoting unsourced claims of various sexual and homoerotic themes. Haiduc has rendered his inaccurate interpretations as facts and this is not acceptable. Tanzeel 12:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not qualified to stand in judgement of comments made by specialist scholars regarding Al-Ghazali, or any anything else. I have simply brought into the article a statement by Jim Wafer, which I have not checked for accuracy. A quick search for Al-Ghazali, pederasty and shahid-bazi yields:

Ahmad Ghazali, a major Sufi figure from Persia in the twelfth century, was an early supporter of "the game." [Peter Lamborn] Wilson describes a Sufi portrait in which Ghazali is portrayed "seated in his cell-retreat, staring at a young boy, with a single rose on the floor between them."[4]

and a chapter heading in a recent work,

"16 Stories of Ahmad al-Ghazali 'Playing the Witness' in Tabriz (Shams-i Tabrizi's interest in shahid-bazi)", in Reason and Inspiration in Islam : Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought; Essays in Honour of Hermann Landolt ISBN:1850434700

Obviously a case for further research. I have no other opinion or secret agenda, other than reporting accurately on a topic that by all accounts has been long suppressed.

As for your exposure of my ignorance and agenda, fine, but it would be a lot more useful if you could cite specific instances which I could either refute or use to mend my ways. As it is, your accusation reflects not on me. Haiduc 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

O, you are referring to Ahmad al-Ghazali...Ahmad is completely different to the more renowned Abu Hamid. "Al-Ghazali" was linked to the wrong article... Tanzeel 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I Just wanted to mention that there are also two Shams-tabrizi and the one mentioned above is not the one in relation with Rumi. This gay lobby tries to tag every single persian mystic with pederastic behaviour, what's wrong with you?F Mir 05:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And the tag "pedersatic poets" in the end of Jami article should be removed.F Mir 05:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The youthfull image is a description from the Qur'an (Surah Ar-Rahman) and does not denote any sort of sexual connotation. Can somebody bring the actual alleged verses that support explicit pedestary? --alidoostzadeh 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nazar_ill'al-murd about this kind of thing. I don't know if this poet is part of that, but according to an article from Iranica there is in fact pedophilia in "Persian love poetry". metaspheres 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to see the exact link that refers to Jami's work. How do we know these pictures match the description. Also the exact section in Haft Awrang (which of the seven chapers) would be useful. --alidoostzadeh 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Different full names for Jami

Trying to get the name right for another project. The article lead has his name as "Nur ad-Din Abd ar-Rahman Jami" but the Wikisource link has him as Abdorrahman Jami. Searching around I found other variations: Moulana Nuruddin Abdorrahman Jami and Nour o-Din Abdorrahman Jami. Anyone want to figure it out or add more variations? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909115246/http://www.maktabah.org/index.php/byauthor/383.html to http://www.maktabah.org/index.php/byauthor/383.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)