Talk:Sufism/Nasrudin

Wikipedia

Doesn't this belong on wikipedia?--Batjew 01:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't --Swift (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fishy Morality

I removed this interpretation from Fishy Morality: "Even a Mulla can be a Jewish mother." Does anyone know what this means? --Kernigh 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

What the *bleep* do those interpretations add to this all? They flatten everything out in a very moralistic way. I say, get rid of 'em. (IP 130.89.xx.xxx)

If you do not like the interpretations, try to add better ones. If we remove the interpretations, then we will need to move this page to a different wiki, because Wikibooks does not allow fiction. --Kernigh 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What is this?

I am very confused with this page. I caught it because it is one of the most heavily edited Wikibook modules on this project, yet it is not listed on any bookshelf, and the primary reference is on the VfD forum (in the archive). If not for that, nor on a few user talk pages, this would have been an orphaned book module. I very curious over how anybody has even found this page except through a Google search.

Since it survived a VfD already, I'm going to ask more politely to try and figure out what this is and why does it belong on Wikibooks? Keep in mind that Wikibooks is not a web hosting service, and it seems as though this page is being maintained almost exclusively by a group totally outside of the Wikibooks community, although User:Kernigh does seem to be involved, as are a few other old-timers on Wikibooks.

In addition, because there are some others participating, if it were to be put on a bookshelf, where do you think it ought to go? Literature? Games (aka grouped together with Puzzles and Riddles)? Religion? All three? --Rob Horning 16:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is a collection of sayings by a religious figure together with annotations (thus making it unsuitable for Wikisource), but I may be wrong. So yes Religion is likely the correct category. Garrett^Talk 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Kernigh: I have occasionally edited this module. I probably discovered it through Special:Recentchanges, because editors tend to flood Recentchanges by editing it section-by-section. From what I know, Nasrudin is a fictitious figure, invented for the purpose of including him in jokes. It is intended for (educational) humour; Nasrudin does not seem to be particularily smart.

If this page only contained jokes, it would be all-fiction and outside the scope of Wikibooks. However, it also contains random interpretations; there appear to be no established interpretations that one can site. This might invoke an obscure "no original ideas" clause in WB:WIW, but somehow I think that was meant to apply to entire books or sections, such as a book inventing a new language or religion, not to applications of existing concepts such as Nasrudin or Bourne Shell Scripting or even Zoph (when software developers put their manual on Wikibooks). --Kernigh 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also confused by this page. What is the source? As far as I can see, anybody can make up a story and attribute it here to Nasreddin. This is unsupported nonsense. There are several books of Nasreddin's stories (eg Houman Farzad), this mess is not one of them. I think it should be deleted, but for some reason it supposedly has survived while remaining inchoate. Here's a parable: where there's smoke, there's fire. This "book" should be deleted.Abitslow (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Interpretations?

Are these interpretation from Sufi philosophy? If so, could someone kindly direct us to a source pertaining to these Sufi interpretations?

Thanks, amesoliman 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting a Nasrudin story is kinda like interpreting a Zen koan. Or, to plagiarize the Tao, "The Nasrudin story that can be interpreted is not a Nasrudin story." (See 'Guest of Honor' interpretations to view my attempt at a Nasrudin story interpretation in the spirit of Nasrudin.) But of course, this is just my interpretation of Nasrudin stories ... John Elder 11:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs Serious Cleaning Up

I'm now going to remove some of the obviously false interpretations (yes, I know, it's all relative and they're all equally valid - in theory). For example the one with the Jewish Mother, the whole story of the biker bar, "you can't sing" etc. Please supply me with a valid argument for NOT removing these ridiculous interpretations - Wikigeek at gmail, 2 september 2007

Nasreddin

Not that I want to offend any Wikibookians by passing over their judgement for that of Wikipedians, but I was wondering if editors would accept moving this page to Nasreddin. That is the name Wikipedia has settled and I think their argument is good and valid. (That, and it's the name for the character I know from my childhood...) --Swift (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, remove away. The interpretations muddle the sharp wit of the stories themselves. Let each his own interpretation find. --jsleuth, 20:47, 12 June 2008