Talk:Ali-Shir Nava'i

Guild homeHow to copy editTemplatesBarnstarsParticipantsCoordinators

RequestsDrivesBlitzesMailing listNewsletters

Talk:Ali-Shir Nava'i/Top

Talk:Ali-Shir Nava'i/Left panel

Talk:Ali-Shir Nava'i/Right panel

Copyright violation

It should probably be noted that big chunks of this article are simply lifted, unaltered or only very slightly so, from this page. Though the page in question is mentioned in the references at the end of the article, lots of the article needs to be rewritten—or, at least, properly cited—so that it no longer continues to be a copyright violation, which much of the article essentially is right now. —Saposcat 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Certain parts of the article do not seem to be academic and rather reflect a personal, un-neutral point of view. Tājik 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

This new name for the page is daft. Wikipedia article titles should not contain diacritics (what's the point, if you're giving the spelling in the Arabic script anyway)? And in any case this is a German transliteration, not an English one. I shall move it to Mir 'Ali Shir Nawa'i some time over the next few days, unless someone gives me a really good reason why we should retain this absurd spelling. Sikandarji 16:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed the mistake and moved it to "Mir Ali Shir Nava'i" ... anyways, the old spelling ("Alisher Navoi") was wrong. Tājik 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great. You're right, the old spelling was wrong (that's how the Uzbeks spell it, and we all know how they've "claimed" Nawa'i). Thanks a lot. Sikandarji 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one am glad that it used to be "Alisher Navoi" before. I don't care how daft that spelling is, because that's what I came across in another context. And that's what I used to find this article. Now if you had a good reason to move the article, that's OK with me. But obviously there is a lot of "Alisher Navoi" going on in the WWW. (see the article's weblinks!) It seems that that is a faithful transliteration of the Russian spelling, and it seems that the man in question is held in high esteem by the russians (Statue in Moscow, commemorative coin, ...). What I want to complain about is this: The Article does not even mention, that the spelling "Alisher Navoi" is also widely used.

Now that I look more closely, I have to object to the current title on several grounds: One, "Mir" is a title. Two, "Nizam al-Din Ali Shir" suggests that "Ali Shir" is just a surname. Three, "Navai" is only a pen name, not his proper name.

I propose moving the article to "Nizam al-Din Ali Shir", or whatever is more appropriate to get closest to the official wikipedia guideline

You can probably tell, that I don't know much about arabic names. Please always remember that you're not writing for yourself and some experts, but for the stupid rest of the world.

And what ist that "(Heravi)" supposed to mean? Please explain in the article.

--BjKa 09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to reflect the most common English name, isn't it? Google gives us 14 600 hits for Alisher Navoi and only 345 for Mir Ali Shir Nava'i. And then, why do you transliterate شير (as far as I know, it means lion) as Shīr following modern Iranian Persian pronounciation, instead of Sher, as this word is pronounced in classical Persian and modern Dari an Tajiki? Don Alessandro 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into a huge scrap over something I know little about, we should note that many of those Google hits seem to be scrapes of previous Wikipedia articles. I note, Don Alessandro, that you use Russian Google, and perhaps your preference reflects the Russian usage rather than the English one? Britannica uses 'Ali Shir Nava'i. As for your discussion of "sher/shīr", it tends to be the case that names are transliterated by today's standards rather than those of the time. In any case, Don Alessandro, so long as the other name is directed here, there is no big problem, is there? We need not fight too much over correctness, so long as we are using a name that is at least recognisable. Reverse Gear 06:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I note, Don Alessandro, that you use Russian Google, and perhaps your preference reflects the Russian usage rather than the English one?

Sorry. ) But English Google gives almost the same - 14,500 for Alisher Navoi and 372 for Mir Ali Shir Nava'i Navoi is definetly more popular.

it tends to be the case that names are transliterated by today's standards rather than those of the time

Hm... It may be so, but why should we use modern Iranian standart of pronounciation, instead of modern pronounciation of Dari. Navoi lived in Herat - this is present day Afghanistan, not Iran.

However, I have no intention to start a "war of edits" or smth like this. I only want to poit out the things that seem to be strange. Don Alessandro 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dari is the standard pronounciation of Farsi. And the Uzbek spelling Navoi is just taken from the Tajik pronounciation of the standard Persian Navāī (in Tajiki-Persian, the ā becomes an o). Besides that, please do not confuse Fārsī-e Darī (= Dari) with the dialects of Kabul and surrounding areas that are also - mistakenly - called Dari. The dialect of Herat is Khorāsānī-Persian and quite different from the standrad Kābulī dialect (which is wrongly called Dari (of Afghanistan)). Tājik 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that it should be Nava'i (the literary standard, as it were), rather than Navoi (as pronounced by Tajiks)? As I say below, I don't think it much matters which name we use (both seem equally possible: one is preferred by Britannica -- a very good source for English usage; the other seems widely used. So long as everyone who feels there is something at stake will consent on this reasonably minor issue, I think we can go for either one. Reverse Gear 04:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a great specialist in these things. I only wanted to say, that in modern "fārsī-ye kābulī" (which is mistakenly or not, but officially called Dari) and in classical Persian (the language of Navā'ī's epoch) "milk" is šīr, and "lion" is šēr, while in modern "fārsī-ye irānī" both are šīr. Am I right? Don Alessandro 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removd "Mir" from his name, because it is a title. Also, perhaps this page should be moved to Alisher Navoi. It doesn't really matter which one is "right", it matters which one is most commonly used in English, see WP:UE. Khoikhoi 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one should note though that English Google also calls up pages from elsewhere, and many of those hits seem to be in foreign languages. Google is a bit of a false friend in that regard. I don't think it really matters which name it is at, so long as one redirects to the other, and I'm not a fan of allowing decisions on the basis of narrow nationalist sentiment, but OTOH, I don't have a strong view. As I say, so long as all consent, it seems to me we could have either one, because we have the redirect. If someone were to feel very strongly, maybe those who don't could consent to their choice prevailing? Reverse Gear 04:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding Subjective material

Somebody keeps adding a "subjective" opinion of an English scholor.

1. This is about Nava'i not about the English scholor 2. This is an objective page about Nava'i and his works, an extract of one of his most imprtant works has been used. The English Scholors views are subjective, we could include another scholor who agree's with Nava'i, the point is it doesn't matter what "Nava'i's" views are were just giving an example of one of his key works.

Johnstevens5

You are right, this page is about Nava'i, and not about his works either! The part you are talking about is not about Nava'i, but about his work "Muhakamat". Either we delete that information from this article and put it into a seperate article in which all points of view are presented (including the critics), or we leave it just the way it is now: quoting the "Muhakamat" and mentioning the view of modern scholars.

Besides that, this article is flooded with POV anyway, for example the following sentense: He defended the superiority of the Chagatai Turkic language from various points of view in comparison to Persian. The correct NPOV version would be He believed that Chaghatay Turkic language to be superior to Persian, and defended his belief in that work ... No language is superior or inferior to another one.

Tājik 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is "one" modern scholor, if I was to copy and paste a lengthy praise of his work by another modern scholor it would be totally biased.

Your correct about

The correct NPOV version would be He believed that Chaghatay Turkic language to be superior to Persian, and defended his belief in that work ... No language is superior or inferior to another one.

It should be changed to your suggestion, in the section of the "Muhakamat" included I removed any referance to Persian language.

--Johnstevens5 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with your last edit. However, I further suggest to remove any detailed information of the Muhakamat and instead put it into a seperate article Muhakamat al-Lughatayn, comparable to Ferdousi and Shahnama.

Tājik 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Turkish"

Could we please stop referring to Nava'i as "Turkish"? Regardless that he spoke a Turkic language, in English "Turkish" is restricted to natives of Turkey or those who are unambiguously of Turkish ethnicity. Nava'i was neither. This is not in any way a cultural issue but simply one of the English language. Reverse Gear 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)