Talk:Nur Ali Elahi

Written like an ad?
Wikipedia mods: What's the applicability of the Advert template to this article, or any other template around first-party sources? Nearly all of the citations ("During," "Morris," etc) are first-party citations from books written and published by Nur Ali Elahi himself, his son, closest adherents, or sanctioned by the Nour Foundation that's helmed by Elahi's son. Asking because a lot of the books cited ("Spirit of Sounds" among others) are *required reading,* in a very literal sense, when growing up as an adherent of the Path of Perfection.

You can actually see the downstream effects of such reading requirements in the discussion around honorifics below, so I'm wondering if it makes sense to clarify that this entire article needs far more independent research than what was actually cited for the article. PoPthrowaway (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Additions to music section
I added a music clip to the music section, and though the section doesn’t reference the clip currently, which from what I understand it needs to in order to include a clip, I hope to expand the music section soon to add this information, and perhaps even add some additional music samples. Naolae (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Honorifics
Per lengthy discussion in the talk page archives, I have once again reverted the addition of the honorific "Ostad" from this article. Please do not add it back. Nur Ali Elahi was never known as "Ostad" during his lifetime, and his publications did not include that honorific either. He is known that way today by his followers, therefore, adding "Ostad" introduces a WP:NPOV violation in this article, as well as going against the style guideline WP:HONORIFIC. It is sufficient that the article contains a whole section about this honorific, and that Ostad Elahi redirects to this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nur Ali Elahi → Ostad Elahi – Per the Wikipedia policy on Article Names, in particular the section on Commonly Recognizable Names WP:UCRN, which notes that when there are multiple names for a topic, the preference is generally to use the most commonly used name (as determined by its prevelence in reliable English-language sources), I'm proposing that this article be renamed to "Ostad Elahi". I've provided the results of searches recommended at WP:SET below, which provide overwhelming evidence in support of the fact that the subject of the article is most commonly known as "Ostad Elahi" in reliable English language sources.

Google News Search

37 results for "Ostad Elahi"

0 results for "Nur Ali Elahi"

Google Books Search

2,000 results for "Ostad Elahi"

1,040 results for "Nur Ali Elahi"

Google Trends (Worldwide, 2004-present)

Ostad Elahi: 29 Nur Ali Elahi: 0

Google Scholar

157 results for Ostad Elahi

20 results for Nur Ali Elahi

Google Web Search

19,600 results for "Ostad Elahi"

2,940 results for "Nur Ali Elahi"

Google Ngram Viewer

No Valid Ngrams

In addition to the above, also note that:


 * The title of a recent 5-month long exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the subject of this article: "The Sacred Lute: The Art of Ostad Elahi"

http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2014/sacred-lute


 * A recent article in the New York Times regarding the same exhbition was titled: "Honoring an Instrument of Few Strings With the Strength of a Symphony: Ostad Elahi, a Tanbur Master, Is Celebrated at Met Museum"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/arts/music/ostad-elahi-a-tanbur-master-is-celebrated-at-met-museum.html?_r=0

https://itunes.apple.com/artist/id371413843
 * All of the subject's published CD recordings of his music refer to him as "Ostad Elahi":

http://label.chantdumonde.com/#/artists?view=disco&id=134

http://www.amazon.com/Ostad-Elahi/e/B000APELAK/works/ref=ep_artist_tab_w

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0791481204
 * All of the English language translations of his written works all refer to the author as "Ostad Elahi":

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=2911331028

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=2911331001

http://ostadelahi.com
 * All of the websites regarding the subject refer to him as "Ostad Elahi," including:

http://www.nourfoundation.com/Ostad-Elahi.html

http://www.saintejanie.com/en/malek-jan-ostad-elahi.htm

http://www.fondationostadelahi.com

http://www.ostadexpo.com

http://www.musicforthemind.org/ostadelahi.html

http://www.e-ostadelahi.com

http://www.ostadelahi-indepth.com

https://ostadelahi-inpractice.com

http://www.ostadradio.com

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5iFS79oo3on0vzidFGkovQ

https://www.facebook.com/ostadelahi Naolae (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. There was a previous consensus not to move this article (see various sections in the talk page archive).  Granted, that discussion took place almost 8 years ago, but I believe the points (particularly those made by Amatulic) still stand.  At the same time, 8 years later we still have MOS:HONORIFIC and those guidelines are there for a reason and they still apply today. In this case, the subject may be better known by "Ostad Elahi" but he isn't completely unknown "Nur Ali Elahi," and he published his books under that name.  Additionally, Ostad Elahi already redirects to this article, so anyone searching for "Ostad Elahi" is already going to find this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrofrog (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 October 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Comment: Shouldn't the official policy on article names be the deciding factor here? Even if there was a consensus 8 years ago about the article's title, WP:UCN didn't exist at that time. If the policy evolves, shouldn't the article be updated to better adhere to the policy? See WP:OFFICIAL as well (which also didn't exist when the previous consensus was reached), for a more in-depth discussion of why official names in other languages are often irrelevant when considering how to title an article, and that English usage overrides.


 * You state that MOS:HONORIFIC is relevant here, but that's just a style guide for how to refer to the article's subject in the body of an article - it's not a policy and it's not about how to an article should be titled.


 * You also mention his works were published under the name "Nur Ali Elahi," but that's not true in the English language (or any other Western language for that matter), and it's only how he is referred to in English that is relevant to the name of the English language article (again, see WP:OFFICIAL).


 * You correctly point out that the article redirects from "Ostad Elahi" to "Nur Ali Elahi," but that's also irrelevant to deciding what the article's title should be - see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.


 * If the subject is most widely known in English as "Ostad Elahi" (media, press, publications, music, exhibitions), what Wikipedia policy are we using to insist that the article remain titled "Nur Ali Elahi?" Naolae (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral. First I'll state that my original arguments in the archived discussion still stand, although the objective data provided in this proposal can't be denied. The point is well taken that WP:COMMONNAME did not exist at the time of the original discussion about naming. I disagree that WP:HONORIFIC shouldn't apply to titles; if it did, we may as well rename Jesus to Jesus Christ. I also object to the notion that just because something is a guideline, it somehow carries little weight and can be discarded on a whim. Policies are the rules governing our activities here, and guidelines are the best practices we follow. Both are equally important. Deviations from best practices should be done with care and caution, just as with deviations from policy. I am wondering if the preponderance of English usage of "Ostad" is due to the preponderance of English works by Elahi's followers that get cited in other works. The talk page archive makes a good case that Elahi wasn't referred to as "Ostad" until fairly recently. I also note some precedents in favor of this move, such as Master Juba and Mahatma Gandhi &mdash; but the primary difference between those articles and this one, in my view, is that the subject was known by an honorific during his lifetime. That clearly isn't the case here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding WP:Honorific and it's relevance here, there's no indication in that guideline that it was meant to apply to deciding what the title of an article should be. Honorifics is a subsection under Names > First mention, which implies that it's a guideline for using (or not) an honorific in the first mention of the subject's name in an article. In the absence of any other direction for how to title an article when there's more than one way of referring to the subject, it might make sense to look to WP:Honorific for guidance, but that's simply not the case any more. Instead, there's now a very detailed policy on how to decide on the title of an article, and it's clear that it says to choose the title of an article based on what the subject is most commonly known by in the English language. I'm not sure if the example of Jesus is an apt one; we wouldn't rename Jesus to Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ isn't the most common usage based on the criteria outlined in WP:UCN, not because "Christ" is an honorific.


 * Beyond that, there is in fact a distinction made between Policy and Guidelines (see WP:POLCON) and Policy takes precedent if there's ever a conflict between the two (not that there is one here, for the reasons that I've explained above).


 * The Wikipedia policy on titling articles is abundantly clear, and thus far no valid reason (ie., a reason based on Wikipedia policy) has been asserted as to why it shouldn't be applied in this case. If reliable sources in the English language predominantly refer to the subject as "Ostad Elahi," as I believe has been shown, then one's personal beliefs about how soon or by whom that name has been applied are irrelevant. Naolae (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the policy is clear, but the link examples above (as far as I've looked) make only a weak case for changing the name. Considering just the Google Scholar results: Did you actually examine them? The tally is irrelevant, it's the contents of the results that matter. If you exclude citations and patents, Google Scholar returns 116 (not 157) results for "Ostad Elahi". Most importantly, very few of those results are in English, about 10-20%, in my examination of a few pages of those results, resulting in a handful of relevant results. And several of the English results are trivial mentions (articles about Kurds in general), not articles about him. While a Google Scholar search for "Nur Ali Elahi" returns even less results, the proportion of relevance appears to be greater. Neither result is statistically significant. I observe also that two of the three translated books appear to have been translated by a relative or other author with a conflict of interest; sure, it's a reliable source, but it's a primary source, not independent. And the claim that "all of the websites" refer to him as "Ostad Elahi" is demonstrably false, as can be seen in a Google search, with results including significant reliable sources such as Encyclopaedia Iranica, as well as numerous books and recordings available on Amazon (falsifying the claim that all of the subject's published recordings refer to him as "Ostad"). The point is, while there may be a preponderance of sources favoring the title "Ostad Elahi", a simple tally of results isn't conclusive or clear-cut. The actual results do matter. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Opposed: "Ostad" is just a term of respect with a meaning like "respected master", "professor", "scholar" or "maestro". It's not really neutral and should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles and their titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, the Wikipedia policy is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. Please see WP:NPOVTITLE. To paraphrase the relevant portion: the title of an article should generally be what the majority of English language reliable sources use. When that name includes non-neutral words, then the prevalence of the name, or the fact that the descriptive word has effectively become a proper noun, generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. In this case, the article title I am proposing is clearly derived from reliable English-language sources and is the most prevalent name by which the subject is referred to by those sources, as I have shown in my original request to move the article above. Naolae (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you seem exceptionally personally invested in this article and this move. I have the strong impression that you don't have a "neutral point of view" on this topic. It appears that you have basically not worked on any other topic on Wikipedia in almost two years, and you are trying to dominate this conversation with long comments and with insistent responses to what others are saying (on my User talk page as well as here). I think this is starting to border on WP:BLUDGEONing, and I suggest to try to step back a bit and let others have their say. I'm not very familiar with this topic, but my impression is that there is some group of followers of this person who have a non-neutral interest in wanting him referred to as "Respected Master Elahi" instead of simply by his name, which is "Nur Ali Elahi". I generally dislike titles of that sort, as they seem non-neutral – although they may be appropriate in very exceptional cases such as Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi. Even when it comes to people who I have great respect for, I think an encyclopedia article is better if it is written from a very neutral "just-the-facts" perspective. I remain opposed to this move. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To follow up on this, I just did a bit of searching on Wikipedia. Many musicians, teachers, scholars, and philosophers are commonly referred to as "Ostad" by people who wish to express a sense of respect when referring to them. But Wikipedia does not use "Ostad X" as the title of any articles about people. The only "Ostad" titles on Wikipedia are about places, not people. I think this further supports my view that naming this article "Ostad Elahi" would be irregular and undesirable. (Similarly, there are probably very few articles on Wikipedia with the title "Professor X" or "Maestro X".) If it is common for recent sources to refer to this person as "Ostad Elahi", I think that is just because his fans like to refer to him respectfully and to assert that his work demonstrates mastery. But I believe the neutral-tone identification of him is simply his name, "Nur Ali Elahi". —BarrelProof (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think your personal likes and dislikes, or your opinion about mine, serve as an appropriate basis for deciding how an article is titled. My edit history has always been based on a neutral "just-the-facts" perspective, just as this proposed move is. If someone is unwilling or unable to provide a policy-based reason for opposing the move, I think I deserve to point that out to them without being accused of "bludgeoning." In addition, your research into the usage of "Ostad" in article titles doesn't support not using it in this particular article; it would only be "irregular and undesirable" if it wasn't chosen as the article title in spite of the fact that it was the most common way that the subject was referred to in reliable English language sources. Neither is it clear what you mean by his "fans" (which must include the New York Times, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Sorbonne and various scholars by your analysis) being responsible for his name. Your personal feelings to the contrary notwithstanding, the Wikipedia policy makes it clear that it doesn't matter how or why a subject is called what it is called, what matters is how he is most commonly referred to by reliable English language sources. Please respect Wikipedia article titling policy in this matter, which you have not once referred to. Naolae (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, as nominator: I'd like to remind everyone who chooses to comment to please follow the directions in the yellow request box above to "base arguments on article title policy." See my nomination above for the details of why I think Wikipedia article title policy clearly indicates that the name of the article should be what reliable English language sources refer to the subject as, which in this case is "Ostad Elahi." Naolae (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.