Talk:Nur Ali Elahi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nur Ali Elahi, NOT Ostad[edit]

Ostad means master in the Farsi language, that is not a part of his name. He was named Ostad Elahi after his death by his followers. During his life time, his name was always Nur Ali Elahi, NOT Ostad. As reference look at all the books that have been published before his death in 1974, there is not even one mention of Ostad in any text. Do not remove my post again, it is against Wikipedia policy and considered vandalism.-Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.71.240 (talkcontribs) 10:24, 17 August 2007

I 100% agree with you--Persianhistory2008 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Relevance of Honorific Titles[edit]

Once public personalities are given honorific titles, before or after their deaths, it is self-evident that we do not perpetually refer to such individuals by their birth names, especially in the case of contemporary personalities such as Ostad Elahi whose life and works continue to be posthumously studied by the public. A very good case in point is Mother Teresa, who was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu. Today, nobody recognizes her by that name, nor is anyone reasonably expected to.

Indeed, since the 1990s there have been over 20 books, CDs, and videos published in Europe and North America on the life and works of Ostad Elahi. The centennial of his birth in 1995, which essentially introduced Ostad Elahi to the western world for the first time, was commemorated by several symposia in Paris, London, New York, and Los Angeles, as well as a concurrent exhibition in Paris entitled "The Life and Work of Ostad Elahi." Moreover, two governmental-approved public organizations have been founded based exclusively on the philosophy and teachings of this individual under the name of Ostad Elahi, along with multiple websites, including the official website of Ostad Elahi. Even if we were to just consider his music, we would once again find that the eight digitized CDs of his music gradually published since 1995 and currently available to the public have all been released under the name of Ostad Elahi as the artist.-Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.wiki (talkcontribs) 02:31, 3 October 2007; comment deleted by 68.175.71.240 (talkcontribs) 06:21, 12 October 2007; comment restored by 24.199.71.181 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 2 November 2007

Intellectual Integrity[edit]

It saddens me as the creator of this article to witness so much discussion and apparent bitterness about matters that, although clearly important to the individuals expressing them, have no relation to the personage or philosophy of Ostad Elahi, who passed away over 32 years ago in Iran as a retired and highly respected jurist. It is clear that this article is not the appropriate forum for raising such tangential discussions, which ultimately serve no purpose other than to discourage, dissuade, or deter visitors from seeking information about Ostad Elahi and, more importantly, from contributing to the meaningful and substantive expansion of its content.

Unfortunately, not only are such comments and discussions wholly irrelevant to the personality and philosophy of Ostad Elahi, more importantly they also detract attention away from the purpose for which the article was written: to introduce a man whose personal life has inspired me, and whose spiritual philosophy has provided meaning and direction in my life.

As the author of this article, therefore, I respectfully ask in the open and collaborative spirit in which Wikipedia was established, that all visitors henceforth focus their discussions, opinions, thoughts, and ideas-each of which is valuable and respectable in its own right-on the actual philosophy and person of Ostad Elahi and any of the multiple roles that he assumed during the course of his lifetime: mystic, father, judge, musician, philosopher, or simply a compassionate human being.

In making this request to my fellow Wiki users, I am not unmindful of the fact that the biographical introduction of a contemporary historical figure such as Ostad Elahi inevitably provides certain individuals bearing ulterior motives an opportunity to lodge various allegations or complaints against those who may be peripherally related to, or associated with, his persona or philosophy. Nevertheless, it remains essential that we separate precisely these kinds of allegations and claims from those that actually pertain to some aspect of Ostad Elahi's character and thought in order to keep future discussions academically honest and intellectually unbiased.-Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.71.181 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 2 November 2007

Do not try to change history[edit]

His name was Nur Ali Elahi, please don't try to chage history. Ostad means master in the Farsi language and you know that. There is nothing in print in the 1920s,30s,40s,50s,60s, and up to 1974 when he died with the name Ostad Elahi, but there are hundreds of things printed in the 1920s-2007 with the name Nur Ali Elahi. ALL THE BOOKS HE WROTE IN FARSI ARE PUBLISHED WITH HIS NAME, NUR ALI ELAHI, NOT OSTAD ELAHI.--Persianhistory2008 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

I came here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. This dispute relates to the two articles Nur Ali Elahi and Ostad Elahi. We must not have two articles about the same person. That constitutes a POV fork in a sense, which violates the neutral point of view policy.

The solution is to retain both article titles, but have one redirect to the other. This is very simple to do. I recommend that Ostad Elahi be redirected to Nur Ali Elahi. You simply edit the Ostad Elahi article, and replace the entire contents with the single line:

#REDIRECT [[Nur Ali Elahi]]

That way, anyone searching for either name will be directed to the same article.

Rationale for my opinion on choosing Ostad Elahi to redirect to Nur Ali Elahi:

  • We have some official guidance on naming biography articles. Refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names. In particular item 6 states:

    Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix) such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title of a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it.

  • "Ostad" is a courtesy title.
  • So, should "Ostad Elahi" be the article title? No, because it fails to meet the final criterion quoted above, in that the individual's name is still recognizable without it. However, "Ostad Elahi" should definitely be mentioned in the opening sentence.

So keep both article titles, but update this article and redirect Ostad Elahi. Simple solution. I hope this helps. -Amatulic 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected Ostad Elahi to this article. This is not meant to stifle further discussion but, as Amatulic points out, we can't have two articles about the same person. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
After the redirect took place, I noticed that the Ostad Elahi article contained significant additional encyclopedic content and sources, so I restored that content in this article. -Amatulic 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, and thanks for catching it. The redirect had ping-ponged from one article to the other quite often, without apparent changes to the actual content. I should have watched more closely. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Amatulic, what you write makes the most amount of sense. During his life time, his name was always Nur Ali Elahi, NOT Ostad (means master in persian). As reference look at all the books that have been published before his death up to 1974, there is not even one mention of Ostad in any text! "Globalpeace", "24.81.123.111" and "Global.wiki" keep removing any opinion I write on the discussion board or anyone else that writes what they don't like. If you look at the history you will see he deleted EVERYTHING that was on the discussion board before. I know this is against Wiki policy. How do I get them to stop? --Persianhistory2008 07:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Title[edit]

I would like to thank those who have intervened for their assistance in preserving the integrity of this article. In the same way that Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright cited in item 6 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names, is more recognizable to readers than Augusta Gregory, Ostad Elahi is far more recognizable to readers than Nur Ali Elahi, to the extent that the latter name would be unrecognizable to the majority of readers seeking to discover more about him.

While I respect the third opinion that the article should be redirected from "Ostad Elahi" to "Nur Ali Elahi," I ask that this opinion be reconsidered in light of the overwhelming evidence below:

1. To conclusively establish this point, a simple Google test advocated by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is sufficient. While a Google search on "Nur Ali Elahi" pulls up some 500 results, a Google search on "Ostad Elahi" pulls up approximately 28,000 results, 56 times the number of hits!

2. Two nonprofit organizations, the Nour Foundation in New York and The Ostad Elahi Foundation in Paris, have been founded on the philosophy of Ostad Elahi and continue to introduce his life and system of thought under the name of Ostad Elahi.

3. Ostad Elahi wrote 3 books in Farsi during his lifetime. One of them has been translated into English and published by the State University of New York Press with "Ostad Elahi" listed as the author, not Nur Ali Elahi. In addition, since Ostad Elahi's passing, more than a dozen books have been published in different languages discussing various aspects of his life, all of them under the name of Ostad Elahi.

4. As a musician, Ostad Elahi composed and played hours of original music. Since 1996, there have been 15 CDs published under the name of Ostad Elahi, as seen on Amazon.com Music Page.

5. The official site of Ostad Elahi and all the other fan sites (cited in reference 6) are solely identified by the name "Ostad Elahi."

In the aggregate, the 5 points above establish that the name Ostad Elahi has become substantially more recognizable by readers and the general public than the name Nur Ali Elahi. Since interested readers would have enormous difficulty learning about Ostad Elahi if they had to search for him by his birth name, that is why you should reconsider your position and redirect the article from Nur Ali Elahi to Ostad Elahi.

Global.wiki 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, yesterday's redirect does not preclude further discussion on the matter; the overriding concern was not having two active articles about the same person. I see your point with the comparison to Lady Gregory; similarly, the article about Paul Hewson is named Bono since that's how he is generally known (on the other hand, he's made a conscious decision to use that name). I wish to point out that, with the redirect in place, a search on "Ostad Elahi" will direct the reader to "Nur Ali Elahi". I strongly doubt that we have to worry about anyone having difficulty with searches. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll also point out that the Wikipedia guidelines recommend using the individual's title only if the individual's name isn't recognizable. The fact is, the name is recognizable, perhaps not to everyone, but given that he published books under his own name, the name should be regognizable nevertheless, notwithstanding google search hits.
If the concern is that people won't find this article searching for "Ostad Elahi" then try it; you'll see the search works perfectly well.
I don't really mind either way which article serves as the redirect and which serves as the content; my third opinion above was based on my understanding of published guidelines. However, among the four of us (Amatulic, Gyrofrog, Global.wiki, and PersonHistory2008), the consensus leans to keeping the redirect arrangement as is. I'd like to see more people weigh in before we swap the redirect and the content. -Amatulic 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The man was born in 1895, and throughout his life time and for many years afterwards his name was always Nur Ali Elahi, NEVER OSTAD (Master in farsi). All of the sudden in the 1990s, after 100 years of the name Nur Ali Elahi, his rich son decided to change his name to "Ostad" Elahi. This is a major case of tampering with history. All his books were published with his own name "Nur Ali Elahi". There are hundreds of pages printed with his name "Nur Ali Elahi", and NOTHING with the name Ostad Elahi from 1895 to the 1990s.--68.175.75.156 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Amatulic about leaving things as they are until more people weigh in. Also, it would help to back up any arguments with verifiable and reliable sources (e.g., where does it say what his rich son did? Are there ISBN numbers for the books Elahi published in his lifetime?) Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in print before the 1990s with the name Ostad Elahi, but he died in 1974. His books are in Farsi, but the Library of Congress and the New York Public library have them in the computer system with his correct name of Nur Ali Elahi.--Persianhistory2008 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you can back up your statements with sources, then please provide them. Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem, will do. A lot of information so have to type it in. Thanks--Persianhistory2008 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For what it's worth, searching for "Elahi, Ostad" in the University of Texas at Austin's library catalog gave the following result:

  • "'Elahi, Ostad, 1895- ' is not used in this library's catalog. Ilāhī, Nūr ʻAlī, 1895- is used instead. Try a search for Ilāhī, Nūr ʻAlī, 1895- ."[1]

A search for "Elahi, Nur Ali" gave the following:

  • "'Elâhī, Nūr ʻAlī, 1895- ' is not used in this library's catalog. Ilāhī, Nūr ʻAlī, 1895- is used instead.Try a search for Ilāhī, Nūr ʻAlī, 1895- ."[2]

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately each translator uses there own spelling for names. French translators spell things VERY differently than English speaking translators. If you go to the Library of Congress and look up any middle eastern or Asian name, you have to spend days trying out different spelling variations (of the same name). The Russians at the St. Petersburg library spell things completely different. This is a major universal problem for scholars that has to be fixed! Even the most read book in the world, the "Quran" has many spellings. Penguin Classics has published the book as Koran, some others as Qurean. Its all very problematic and can drive a person crazy if they can't read the alphabet of the language!--Persianhistory2008 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
PS-If you google "Nur Ali Shah" or Nur Ali Shah Elahi" you will find many other articles and books.--Persianhistory2008 06:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I just tried a WorldCat search where "author = Ostad Elahi". There are 13 results for "Nūr ʻali Ilāhi", 8 for "Nūr ʻalī Ilāhī", 2 for "Ostâd Elâhi", and 1 for "Ostad Elahi". Also several credited to "Fondation Ostad Elahi". It looks like some titles overlap more than one name. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

After carefully reading everyone else's opinion on whether to use Ostad Elahi or Nur Ali Elahi is the main title of this personality, I have the following comments:

1) I believe all the energy and time that everyone has put behind this page should be focused and directed at the content of the article itself, instead of it being targeted at a mere title of a person. We should comment on the merits of the article, and state our personal views on the life and works of this person, but we seem to be completely focused on form instead of substance.

2) Even though PersianHistory is correct about Ostad being an honorific title given to someone in Farsi, our discussion is taking place in Wikipedia English, not Wikipedia Farsi! Despite the fact, again correctly stated by PersianHistory that all the books written by Ostad Elahi prior to 1974, were published under the name Nur Ali Elahi, he is known to the western world, including yours truly, as Ostad Elahi. I was neither born prior to 1974, nor could read the original works in Farsi. The name Nur Ali Elahi only makes sense to someone who is either capable of reading Farsi and has had access to his books published prior to 1974 (as PersianHistory correctly alludes to) or to someone who is a historian and knows about the origin of Ostad Elahi's name.

3) We are not here to discuss why Elahi's name was introduced to us westerners as Ostad instead of Nur Ali. Nor are we here to accurately pinpoint on what exact date such introduction took place! What is obvious however is that to us living in the US and the rest of world excluding Iran, he has always been known as Ostad Elahi. And since Wikipedia's target audience is the world at large and not scholars in Persian history or Farsi language, Ostad Elahi should be the primary name used, with a redirect to the original name Nur Ali, and not the reverse order as suggested thus far.

4) From what I have learned about Wiki, this great informative site is about ease of use, pragmatism, and helping everyone find what they are seeking to learn. It is great for someone searching something on Ostad Elahi to also learn about his origin and birth name in the process. But to put the main reference article under the heading Nur Ali Elahi instead of Ostad Elahi and giving it the precedence over Ostad Elahi, would be to ignore how the entire world sees and knows this person, in favor of a few who happen to know the Farsi language and also happen to know the entire biography of Ostad Elahi!

I would therefore ask you to use Ostad Elahi as the main page, with a redirect to Nur Ali Elahi.

Wikipedia introduces one of the greatest Yankees of all times as "Babe Ruth" in its heading and title of the page, and then refers to him as George Herman Ruth, his real name at the beginning of the article. The same logic should hold true for Ostad Elahi as well. His title of the page and the heading should be under Ostad Elahi, with a reference given to his real name, Nur Ali Elahi, in the beginning of the article and with a redirect, and not the other way around!

If Wikipedia had put that page under George Herman Ruth, Jr., and insisted on that being the main page with a redirect to the name that the entire world knows this ball player under as a secondary reference, how many people do you think would have missed out on seeing this great "Babe Ruth" page?

I am certain we are not going to lobby anytime soon, asking the makers of "Babe Ruth candy bars", to rename their chocolate bars "George Herman Ruth Jr. Bars " for historical accuracy just to satisfy a few historians of baseball, while writing a caption on the inside of the wrapper giving reference to the name "Babe", a name the everyone else in the world truly knows this baseball great under, instead! -Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephAlberti1 (talkcontribs) 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear "Josephalbeti1", first of all, in my opinion your new account is obviously a sock puppet for "global.wiki", you have no history and you obviously have not done your homework about Nur Ali Elahi. I am also in the wester world (US) and always have been. He has always been known as Nur Ali Elahi to both the western and eastern world. There is absolutely nothing published from 1895 to 1990s with the name "Ostad Elahi", but there are many books in English, French, and Farsi, that all have his name as "Nur Ali Elahi". The first time his name was ever published as "Ostad Elahi" was by his son Bahram Elahi in the 1990s. There are tons of metiral in almost every library and institution with the name Nut Ali Elahi. When Nur Ali Elahi died in 1974, there were obituaries in US news papers, again with Nur Ali Elahi. Your analogy of "Babe Ruth" is absolutely ridiculous. Ironically Babe Ruth was also born in 1895 just like Eahi, but you will find thousands of articles published during his lifetime with the name "Babe Ruth". I challenge you to find one article or book that published his name as "Ostad" master Elahi during his lifetime, or even after, up to the 1990s!
By the way, if you think it is such a waste of time to discuss his name, why are you wasting your time and writing such a long opinion about it?--Persianhistory2008 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate your derogatory and demeaning comments, PersianHistory. Wikipedia has been created as a forum of expressive knowledge where people can exchange their opinions freely, without having to resort to insults and accusations. We must remain courteous while maintaining the spirit of camaraderie, instead of attacking one another.
I have simply stated that despite the fact Ostad Elahi's original name was Nur Ali Elahi, an overwhelming majority of people outside his native land of Iran, have gotten to know him post 1995. Many of these individuals have not heard the name Nur Ali, especially those who have purchased his CDs or any books written over the past decade. Since the English version of Wiki is reaching to the English speaking population of the world, I thought it would make much more sense for the title of the page to be Ostad Elahi, matching the name that most of the people of English language know him under. It goes without saying that using the name Nur Ali is indeed very correct, but majority of people who come to this site are not familiar with that name.
If we are to continue our dialogue, PersianHistory, please try to be civilized at least. We can agree to disagree at anytime, but we must respect one another and remain polite at all times! -Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephAlberti1 (talkcontribs) 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that recent books and CDs would at least mention his full name. Joseph, can you corroborate your assertion that Ostad Elahi is "the name that most of the people of English language know him under"? Please note the library catalog results I've posted in the previous "Article name" section. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually they don't, which can be verified by simply viewing the CD covers or their accompanying booklets online. As for books, Ostad himself only wrote a total of three books between 1963 and 1969, and only one of those has been translated into English and French. Both those translations list the author has Ostad Elahi, as visibly seen on the covers. In Prof. Morris's "Knowing the Spirit," he mentions on page 21 that "Ostad Elahi is the honorific by which he is most widely known." (Morris, James W. Knowing the Spirit [Ma'refat-ol Ruh], Translator's Introduction and Notes, (State University of New York Press, 2007)). Global.wiki 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, the record label is Le Chant du Monde. Harmonia Mundi is its distributor. I checked th Ostad Elahi page; I have to say I find it a bit strange that biographical text would omit his birth name. It also seems to me that this article might have copied some of the tone - if not exact wording - from this webpage. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Library of Congress has catalogued his name with the spelling Nūr ʻAlī Ilāhī does not directly affect the larger question of which honorific or name he is most widely recognized by today. One cannot ignore the vast number of books and articles written about Ostad Elahi and his philosophy posthumously, particularly over the past 12 years from 1995 to 2007. [See reference 3] Global.wiki 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ostad means master in Farsi, not English. Absolutely no derogatory and demeaning comments, just facts. Sorry if you don't like the facts. Thank you for teaching me about Wikipedia, the English language and how to have better manners, but now back to the facts. What you wrote is the exact opposite of the truth. Ostad is a Persian/Farsi word which means Master, not an English word, so it would be absurd to state Ostad is what the western world knows him by. Why would an English speaking person change his name after a 100 years into a persian name? Does that make any sense? Absolutely not! In my opinion the only source who would lose if his name was not "Ostad Elahi" is the one source that sells the "Ostad Elahi" CDs and books.
We have already listed an authoritative source that indicates the full range of the term, which is broader than just "Master." See [1] Dehkhoda Dictionary. In fact, the term "Ostad" has multiple meanings in Farsi, including professor, instructor, and artisan. The definition cited by "Farhang-e Amid" (Farsi to Farsi Dictionary) is: "Teacher, Educator, Knowledgeable in a field of science or art," "an individual who trains or tutors others in learning a science or an art." In "Dehkhoda's Loghat Nameh," the most extensive philology and etymology ever written on Farsi words and terminologies (45 volumes covering more than 20,000 pages), the word "Ostad" and its applications occupies many pages, beginning at page 2001, and defines the term as "skillful, with skill, having proficient skill." Global.wiki 22:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
My opinion does not matter, his name has always been Nur Ali Elahi and always will be. There is nothing in print in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, up to the 1990s with the name Ostad Elahi, but there are hundreds of things printed in the 1920s-2007 with the name Nur Ali Elahi. ALL THE BOOKS HE WROTE DURING HIS LIFETIME ARE PUBLISHED WITH HIS NAME, NUR ALI ELAHI, NOT OSTAD ELAHI.--Persianhistory2008 07:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What are these "hundreds of things printed" you have repeatedly asserted for which you have not provided a single reference or source? Global.wiki 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI I have tagged the article with {{Disputed title}}, in hopes of giving the dispute more visibility to other parties. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's safe to say that Persianhistory2008 and Global.wiki's feelings on the matter are fairly polarized. No offense intended, but I can't give much credibility to the edits from 24.81.123.111, Globalpeace, 68.175.75.156, JosephAlberti1 or 12.0.30.180, as they all appear to be sockpuppets and/or single-purpose accounts. When Amatulic suggested that other editors should weigh in, I was hoping to see more opinions from established Wikipedia editors with substantial edit histories. However, I wanted to assume good faith so I didn't say anything about it at the time. I think it would be better to hear from more Wikipedians who are not so polarized on the issue and/or do not seem to have as much invested in the fate of this article. I've already taken steps (hopefully) toward this end: I added {{Disputed title}} as I mentioned yesterday, and I've also added the article to WikiProject Iran and WikiProject Kurdistan so that the people involved in those projects might see it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC?[edit]

Is this argument still going on? Come on, people. Both article titles are accessible here. I echo Gyrofrog's sentiment that we need opinions from established editors with a wide range of subjects in their edit histories. I will also say to those of you who make few edits outside of this subject: You have stated your case eloquently (and verbosely), so it's time for you to settle down and let others who don't have a vested interest in the subject review the arguments, discuss, and decide. Perhaps an RFC is in order to make a wider community aware of this issue. --- Amatulic (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

YesY Done. Good idea, thanks! I've added a new section at the bottom. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof he was only known by the name of Nur Ali Elahi, and not Ostad Elahi[edit]

Nur Ali Elahi was born in 1895, and the following will serve as documentation that his name was Nur Ali Elahi and that he was only known by that name, NOT "Ostad" (Master is persian) Elahi, which is a fictitious name invented decades after his death in the 1990s. The documentation I have provided spans from 1910 - 2006. I challenge anyone to find only one article that uses the name Ostad Elahi from 1895 to 1990. Please keep in mind that he died in 1974.

  • 1910 - Forgan ol-Akhbar, (University of Cambridge #02-482-5592X), unpublished manuscript from 1910, "Nur Ali" introduction and the biography of his father under the title of "Kashf Al-Haqa'iq" (which is approximately the first 14 pages of the manuscript, and features Nur Ali Elahi's calligraphy)
  • 1963 - Burhan al-Haqq, by "Nur Ali Elahi", (first edition) (Library of Congress call number BP195.A4 I42 1963 - card number:75-284686)
  • 1964 - Iranica, by Vladimir Minorsky, page 310, "His son Nur Ali Shah Elahi wrote the biography of his father (in 1910)"
  • 1964 - Burhan al-Haqq, by "Nur Ali Elahi", (second edition)
  • 1966 - Hash-e Bar Haqq Al-Haqaiq, by "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1966 - L'ESOTERISME KURDE, by Nur Ali Shah Elahi, ASIN: B0000DT5EZ, http://www.amazon.fr/L%C3%A9sot%C3%A9risme-kurde-Nur-Ali-Shah-Elahi/dp/B0000DT5EZ
  • 1966 - Shah-Nama-ye Haqiqat, Le livre des rois de verite, Volume 14, by Hajj Nematollah, copyrighted by Mohammad Mokri, page 7 "de son fils Nur Ali Shah
  • 1969 - Marifat Al-Ruh, by "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1971 - Shah-Nama-ye Haqiqat, volume 15, by Mohammad Mokri and Henry Corbin, "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1974 - The Tehran Journal (English newspaper), october 23, 1974 "Last saturday, the world lost one of its great spiritual leaders when Nur Ali Elahi passed away at his home in Kermanshah. Born in Jayhonabad near Kermanshah in 1895, he lived a life devoted to the perfection of the human spirit".
  • 1976 - La Voie De La Perfection, L'enseignement De Nur Ali Elâhi, by Bahram Elahi. (first edition)
  • 1978 - Asar ol-haqq, the teachings of Nur Ali Elahi, by Bahram Elahi.
  • 1979 - Encyclopaedia Iranica "Elahi was known as Nur Ali, in recognition of the new soul"
  • 1982 - Haqq al-haqayiq, by Mujrim, (Library of Congress call number BP195.A4 M79 1982) "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1987 - La Voie De La Perfection, L'enseignement De Nur Ali Elâhi, by Bahram Elahi.
  • 1987 - The path of perfection, the spiritual teachings of MASTER Nur Ali Elahi. ISBN 1852303921.
  • 1988 - Scandal: essays in Islamic heresy, by Peter Lamborn Wilson, ISBN 0-936756-13-6, Page 150 "their later masters such as Nur Ali Shah"
  • 1990 - The Yaresan, by M. Reza Hamzeh'ee, ISBN 3-922968-83-X. The name Nur Ali Elahi is mentioned dozens of times in this book. Page 22 "Borhan Ol haqq and Asar Ol-haqq, Those two books were written by Nur Ali Elahi, son of Hajj Ne'matollah. Elahi can be regarded both as a reformer and a conformist and tends towards Sufism... Borhan ol-haqq, which he published in 1964, is the most important document as regards Yaresan rituals.
  • 1991 - The Ahl-i Haqq: Towards a Study of the Contemporary Maktab of Nur ‘Ali Elahi. by Bradley Scott Satkin, Reed College Library.
  • 1992 - Satan's psalmists, by Martin van Bruinessen, "I first heard of this devil-worshiping sub-sect of the Ahl-e Haqq from a member of the reformed branch of this religion in Tehran, Iran that is led by Bahram Elahi, (son of Nur Ali Elahi).
  • 1993 - Sacred Drift, Essays on the margins of Islam, by Peter Lamborn Wilson, ISBN 0-87286-275-5. Page 85, "The tehran Ahl-e Haqq were led by a Kurdish pir, Nur Ali Elahi, a great musician... Ahl-e Haqq considered him a renegade..."
  • 1993 - The Way of Light: The Path of Nur Ali Elahi , by Bahram Elahi, ISBN 1852303816.
  • 1993 - Kayhan International (Newspaper) Thursday, Novmber 18, 1993, vol. XIV 3726, "Nur Ali Elahi, Lute Master".
  • 1993 - July 22, 1993, Daily News, serving the San Fernando and Nighboring Valleys, page 14, "Master Nur Ali Elahi's School of the path of perfection..."
  • 1994 - Redefining the Truth: Ahl-i Haqq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, by Ziba Mir-Hosseini, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1994), pp. 211-228
  • 1997 - Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East, by Krisztina Kehl-Bodrogi, ISBN 9004086552, page 191 "Nur Ali Elahi himself is held to be the last manifestation of the Divine Essence".
  • 1998 - Alevi identity, By Tord Olsson, ISBN 0700710884. Page 201 "Hajj Ne'mat's son Nur Ali Elahi, in his books Borhan ol-haqq and Ma'refat ol-Ruh, presents the Ahl-e Haqq as a Shis mystical order..."
  • 1998 - LE CHEMIN DE LA LUMIERE: LA VOIE DE NUR ALI ELAHI, by Bahram Elahi,
  • 1999 - "Sih guftar-i tahqiqi dar ayin-i Ahl-i haqq", by Muhammad Hasan Khan, ISBN 964-6254-33-0, "Nur Ali Elahi"
  • 2001 - Kurdish Culture and Society, By Lokman I. Meho, ISBN 0313315434, page 257 "Nur Ali Elahi".

Encyclopaedia Iranica

Failed Verification[edit]

The first reference listed in the article is an incorrect citation of both the correct year of publication (1993) and the correct title, "The Path of Perfection: The Spiritual Teaching of Nur Ali Elahi." (ISBN 1852303921). This is problematic because there does not appear to be any mention in the 1993 edition of "The Path of Perfection" of Ostad Elahi as a "religious leader." Please provide correct citation and page number referencing "religious leader."

"The Path of Perfection" is an English translation of the original French book by the same title "La Voie de la Perfection," first published by Éditions Seghers in Paris in 1976, and subsequently published by Albin Michel in Paris in 1982, 1990, and 1992. The book was substantially revised and republished by Albin Michel under the same title in 2002 (ISBN 2226132600), which was subsequently translated into English in 2005 by Paraview, Inc. under the title "The Path of Perfection" (ISBN 097649860X). The preface of this book contains a section called Ostad Elahi on p.11 that begins with the sentence "Nour Ali Elahi was born on September 11, 1895...."

Please make sure to cite relevant and reliable information such as the publisher of the work in cases where no ISBN is listed or available. Also, revised or superceded editions of works should be cited (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). For instance, of the books that Ostad Elahi himself wrote in Persian, "Borhan ol-Haqq" [Demonstration of the Truth, ISBN unavailable] is currently in its eighth edition, and Ma'refat ol-Rouh [Knowing the Spirit, ISBN 9649088083] is currently in its fourth edition. -Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.wiki (talkcontribs) 21:15, 18 November 2007

RfC: Article name[edit]

The dispute concerns the use the subject's birth name or honorific name as the name of this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: Sorry if I wasn't more clear about this (the RfC instructions emphasize brevity). Presumably, any outcome should keep both article names, but using one of the names as a redirect to the other. Carry on... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll get things started. My third opinion above was to have both article names but have the honorific name redirect to the birth name; that's my leaning at this time although I don't particularly mind either way. Note to others: please review pro and con arguments above before leaving commments. Commentators should have a neutral point of view and no stake in the outcome, unlike most of the participants in the arguments above. --- Amatulic (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As a historian, my one and only concern is historical accuracy. I think the aforementioned documentation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his name was only Nur Ali Elahi. There is absolutely NO mention of the factitious name of "Ostad Elahi" until decades after he died in the 1990s. I think it would be very strange if we tried to rename Abraham Lincoln, "Master Lincoln" over a hundred years after he died. Unlike certain others, I have absolutely no personal gain to make from this and have made over 450 edits on Wikipdia on many various subjects. I have also created many knew topics, unlike certain individuals who have ONLY edited the Nur Ali Elahi page.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Persianhistory2008, please re-read Amatulic's boldface comment. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain he's referring to both you and Global.wiki: You've both already made your positions very clear, and seeing how the dispute is between the two of you, neither of you could be considered a neutral party. This section is intended for those who have had no previous involvement with this article, and who have no interest in the outcome of the dispute. Thank you for your consideration. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll start my declaring my non-interest. I had never heard of this person before today and have no particular interest in the topic. I note that the supporters of using the honorific cite Google hits in support of their argument. For a person who died in 1974 I do not think that this is appropriate because the Internet was not around then, at least in anything like its current form. I also do not accept the analogies with Babe Ruth and Mother Teresa, because they were both known my their honorifics during their active lifetimes, and Babe and Mother are neutral terms, whereas Ostad, if it is equivalent to Master, is a POV designation. A better comparison would be with Jesus and Muhammad, which are used as the main article titles rather than the POV Jesus Christ and the Prophet Muhammad which are redirects. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am a university professor in France. My contributions are usually made under French language in Wikipedia French, and I have also posted this comment on my French talk page. I am responding to the RFC made on this article based on my experience in France, UK and Germany with the name of Ostad Elahi.
I came across Ostad Elahi's name in 1995 for the first time when I visited an exhibition on his life at the Sorbonne's Chapel in Paris. Since then, I have gradually integrated certain aspects of his philosophy into my courses on ethics. Because Ostad Elahi's mother tongue was Persian and he never wrote in English or in French, his philosophy has been either translated or disserted upon in Europe by several scholars which speak Persian.
Based on my readings of his works in French and English [1], my understanding is that Ostad Elahi had three fields of expertise: music, the Ahl e Haqq order, and his personal philosophy on metaphysics and ethics. It seems to me that if one focuses on his contributions to the Ahl e Haqq, Nur Ali Elahi is the name that is most widely used in that context. On the other hand, if one focuses on his music or his personal philosophy on metaphysics and ethics, then all of the literature that has been translated and commented on after his death uses the name Ostad Elahi. Although I'm not a specialist of ancient oriental religions and orders such as the Ahl e Haqq, I can say that Ostad Elahi is more widely known as a thinker in the field of applied Ethics based on Plato's thoughts, at least in Europe. Therefore, I would say that it makes more sense to redirect the birth name to the more known honorific.
[1] A. CHOURAQUI, "De l'unité des religions" et "Conclusion" [Unicity of religions and conclusive remarks on the Symposium (Sept. 1995)], Cahiers d'Anthropologie Religieuse, n° 5, under the direction of Professor Michel Meslin, University of Paris-Sorbonne Press, 1996, pp. 25-33 et 187-188.
C. DEVILLE, Introduction to Connaissance de l'âme [Knowing the Spirit], Ed. L'Harmattan (2001), pp. 21-32.
J. DURING, "La musique d'Ostad Elahi" [The music of Ostad Elahi], Cahiers d'Anthropologie Religieuse, n° 5, under the direction of Professor Michel Meslin, University of Paris-Sorbonne Press, 1996, pp. 147-155.
B. ELAHI, "Le spirituel dans la pensée d'Ostad Elahi" [the concept of spirituality in Ostad Elahi's thought], Cahiers d'Anthropologie Religieuse, n° 5, under the direction of Professor Michel Meslin, University of Paris-Sorbonne Press, 1996, pp. 128-136
S. MARIN et F. AMELI, « Le rôle de la traduction et de l'interprétation du droit en Iran dans la première moitié du XXème siècle: l'exemple d'Ostad Elahi (1895-1974) » [Role of translation and interpretation of law in Iran during the first half of the 20th century: The Example of Ostad Elahi (1895-1974)], Droit et Cultures, Revue trimestrielle d'anthropologie et d'histoire [Anthropology and History Quarterly], publiée avec le concours du CNRS [published in collaboration with the National Center for Scientific Research], 44/2001, pp. 183-201.
S. MARIN, « Ostad Elahi et les droits de l'homme : Ethique et modernité » [Ostad Elahi and Human rights : Ethics and modern way of thinking], in Le Code civil et les droits de l'homme, [French civil Code and Human rights] textes réunis et publiés par Jean-Luc Chabot, Philippe Didier, Jérôme Ferrand, ISBN 2747588939, L'Harmattan (2005) pp. 418-434.
S. MARIN, « Une philosophie du droit en Islam ? Un exemple iranien" [A philosophy of law in Islam ? The example of Iran], Journées de la recherche en théorie et philosophie juridiques et politiques, p.23
S. MARIN, Vérité et jugement : Ostad Elahi, juge et philosophe iranien (1895 - 1974) [Truth and judgment : Ostad Elahi, Persian judge and philosopher (1895-1974)], thèse de l'Université de Paris-X, Nanterre (2006) [Thesis leading to the PhD Degree - University of Paris (2006)].
J. MORRIS, « La pensée d'Ostad Elahi » [Ostad Elahis's philosophy], Cahiers d'Anthropologie Religieuse, n° 5, under the direction of Professor Michel Meslin, University of Paris-Sorbonne Press, 1996, pp. 137-146.
J. MORRIS, Introduction to Knowing the Spirit, SUNY Press (2007)
F. TERRE, "Ethique et droit" [Ethics and Law], Symposium in the French Supreme Court (Sept. 1995), in Cahiers d'Anthropologie Religieuse, n° 5, under the direction of Professor Michel Meslin, University of Paris-Sorbonne Press, 1996, pp. 179-186.
A de VALLON (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)- A de VALLON (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See also fr:Special:Contributions/A_de_VALLON.
  • No change. I also live in France and sorry for my little english, the foundation Ostad Elahi is a big problem in france. Maybe Nur Ali Elahi was a good man, but he died a long time ago. His name should not change from Nur Ali Elahi, because my wife has his book, and it says Nur Ali Elahi. Why change name 20 years after he dies. I think it is crazy.--Franklyon (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)- Franklyon (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The name should be Nur Ali Elahi. That was always his name...--12.0.30.180 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Your opinion has already been noted in a previous section, thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely uninvolved respondent to the RfC. Phil Bridger above has stated the policy exactly. Don't use honorifics unless absolutely necessary which in this case it is not. Redirect Ostad Elahi to Nur Ali Elahi. Mention both in the lead. Itsmejudith 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw this on the Iranian messageboard. Suggestion: Change the name of the article to Nur Ali Elahi (Ostad Elahi)'. Then redirect Nur Ali Elahi and Ostad Elahi to Nur Ali Elahi (Ostad Elahi) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The RFC bot has removed the RfC template, as the discussion is now a month old (at least, I assume that is how the 'bot works). The last comment was 10 days ago and I think it's safe to say that the consensus is to keep "Nur Ali Elahi" as the name of the article, with "Ostad Elahi" as a redirect to the article. "Nur Ali Elahi (Ostad Elahi)" is also a redirect to the article. Anyone who wishes to re-open this discussion will need to manually apply a new RfC template. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nour Ali Elahi" instead of "Nur Ali Elahi"[edit]

I created Farsi version of this article under the name "Nour Ali Elahi", but I also call him "Ostad Elahi" in the article because he is well known by this title for many years. Also, I think the English spelling "Nour" instead of "Nur" sounds closer to the pronunciation of the word in Persian. The explanation about the history of his name and how he got it is important so I have added it to the article.Fhariri (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement for any particular name, but in the event that we decide to move the article, please do so properly, or ask for help if it seems problematic (e.g. the target name already has a page history). This article has already been subject to at least two cut-and-paste moves, resulting in some rather tedious maintenance work. Thanks in advance, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The move you did on the Nur Ali Elahi page was very disruptive and extremely inappropriate. Please read the talk page and you will understand. Nur Ali Elahi spelled his name with "Nur", not "Nour" (as can be seen on his business card and books). There are many Wikipedia users who have discussed the issue of his name (please read above). The majority have agreed on keeping his name "Nur Ali Elahi". Do not make such drastic moves without discussing it on the talk page first and reading what others have to say about it. Also, since you have no history on wikipedia and have a newly registered name that has only made these changes, please make sure to read the rules about being a "sock puppet".--Octavian history (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 99% of all the books spell his name with "Nur", just look above for the list.--Octavian history (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit puzzling that Fhariri went ahead with the move, given all of the previous discussion. However: I don't believe this was disruptive (thankfully, there were no cut-and-paste moves on anyone's part), nor does it constitute vandalism. I might have been more skeptical if the RfC were still open and he instead moved the article back to Ostad Elahi (but the RfC has been closed for a while, and this seems to be a lesser issue about spelling). As for his being a newcomer (and presumably, you meant "Wikipedia" not "eBay"), he said "I created Farsi version of this article", which I understood to mean he works on the Farsi-language Wikipedia (see here). My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree. I find it to be VERY disruptive after so many Wikipedians have been discussing the issue for the past many months. Also, he absolutely has NO history on the English Wiki.--Octavian history (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I am compelled to point out the irony of your last sentence. It seems that a few Wikipedians got their start with this particular article. One has to start somewhere, no? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, how mysterious that so many "new" users all make drastic changes ONLY on the Elahi page (with no history on wiki). That is a lot more ironic if you ask me.--Octavian history (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion: History of the Name "Ostad Elahi"[edit]

The section that I added on the history of the title Ostad Elahi and its references add a lot of useful information and facts to the article for interested readers. I was very surprised that it was removed.

Also I changed the spelling of the first name because I wanted to make it sound closer to the Persian. The spelling Nur is used mostly in Arabic-English. From what I read, the past discussions did not talk about the variations of his first name. Fhariri (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a well referenced section with some problems:
  • Some of the material is already written in sections above (such as the part about being an ascetic).
  • You have citations referring to other citations by number. The numbering is dynamic; that is, if someone inserts a new citation anywhere, the numbers change. You should refer to citations by name. The first time a source is used use <ref name="cite_name">citation goes here</ref>, where "cite_name" is a unique identifier you specify. For subsequent references to the same source, use <ref name="cite_name" />.
  • Much of the material could be merged into other historical sections such as "Early years".
  • This is the English Wikipedia, not the Persian Wikipedia. Here, we use English (or in this case Arabic-English) terminology. Please spell Nur Ali Elahi's name in a manner consistent with the rest of the article. Use alternate spellings only in the context of describing the variations. It is jarring to come across a paragraph suddenly referring to him by his honorific, which makes it appear the article is pushing a particular point of view.
  • The section is rather long, violating the undue weight principle on Wikipedia. It should be shortened or merged into other sections.
I imagine that if this section was deleted earlier, the above reasons might explain why. -Amatulić (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Amatulic that the references had to be rearranged. So I've changed all the static references to dynamic ones as indicated by the Wiki guidelines.
The new section (The History of the Title "Ostad Elahi") should also remain under the "Legacy" section as it describes his life from when he was born until after he passed away (his Centennial commemoration in 1995), so it clearly won't fit in the "Early Years" section. Global.wiki (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Nur Ali Elahi[edit]

Dear Global Wiki, 1. Your false accusations are worthless because anyone who looks at my history on Wikipedia will immediately realize that I have made over 1000 edits and created many new pages and corrected numerous names. You on the other hand ONLY make changes to the Nur Ali Elahi page, have no history on Wiki, and obviously have an agenda. I have no agenda, I only want to make sure history is preserved accurately and not according to the wishes of cult members or individuals who want to force there wishes on others.

2. You claim I don't list my references or make citations. Anyone who reads the above section "Proof he was only known by the name of Nur Ali Elahi, and not Ostad Elahi" will realize that I spent many hours going through books in the library to be able to give wiki users such a long list of books. I documented all the books and listed many citations.

3. You claim I am hiding under a new name, that is absurd and childish name calling. I publicly made a request for all administrators to see my request for a name change and they accepted. I am very proud of the edits I have made and have nothing to hide.

4. I have documented above that his name was spelled Nur and not NOUR. Again, I will demonstrate why his name is spelled Nur Ali and not Nour.

  • 1910 - Forgan ol-Akhbar, (University of Cambridge #02-482-5592X), unpublished manuscript from 1910, "Nur Ali" introduction and the biography of his father under the title of "Kashf Al-Haqa'iq" (which is approximately the first 14 pages of the manuscript, and features Nur Ali Elahi's calligraphy)
  • 1963 - Burhan al-Haqq, by "Nur Ali Elahi", (first edition) (Library of Congress call number BP195.A4 I42 1963 - card number:75-284686)
  • 1964 - Iranica, by Vladimir Minorsky, page 310, "His son Nur Ali Shah Elahi wrote the biography of his father (in 1910)"
  • 1964 - Burhan al-Haqq, by "Nur Ali Elahi", (second edition)
  • 1966 - Hash-e Bar Haqq Al-Haqaiq, by "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1966 - L'ESOTERISME KURDE, by Nur Ali Shah Elahi, ASIN: B0000DT5EZ, http://www.amazon.fr/L%C3%A9sot%C3%A9risme-kurde-Nur-Ali-Shah-Elahi/dp/B0000DT5EZ
  • 1966 - Shah-Nama-ye Haqiqat, Le livre des rois de verite, Volume 14, by Hajj Nematollah, copyrighted by Mohammad Mokri, page 7 "de son fils Nur Ali Shah
  • 1969 - Marifat Al-Ruh, by "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1971 - Shah-Nama-ye Haqiqat, volume 15, by Mohammad Mokri and Henry Corbin, "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1974 - The Tehran Journal (English newspaper), october 23, 1974 "Last saturday, the world lost one of its great spiritual leaders when Nur Ali Elahi passed away at his home in Kermanshah. Born in Jayhonabad near Kermanshah in 1895, he lived a life devoted to the perfection of the human spirit".
  • 1976 - La Voie De La Perfection, L'enseignement De Nur Ali Elâhi, by Bahram Elahi. (first edition)
  • 1978 - Asar ol-haqq, the teachings of Nur Ali Elahi, by Bahram Elahi.
  • 1979 - Encyclopaedia Iranica "Elahi was known as Nur Ali, in recognition of the new soul"
  • 1982 - Haqq al-haqayiq, by Mujrim, (Library of Congress call number BP195.A4 M79 1982) "Nur Ali Elahi".
  • 1987 - La Voie De La Perfection, L'enseignement De Nur Ali Elâhi, by Bahram Elahi.
  • 1987 - The path of perfection, the spiritual teachings of MASTER Nur Ali Elahi. ISBN 1852303921.
  • 1988 - Scandal: essays in Islamic heresy, by Peter Lamborn Wilson, ISBN 0-936756-13-6, Page 150 "their later masters such as Nur Ali Shah"
  • 1990 - The Yaresan, by M. Reza Hamzeh'ee, ISBN 3-922968-83-X. The name Nur Ali Elahi is mentioned dozens of times in this book. Page 22 "Borhan Ol haqq and Asar Ol-haqq, Those two books were written by Nur Ali Elahi, son of Hajj Ne'matollah. Elahi can be regarded both as a reformer and a conformist and tends towards Sufism... Borhan ol-haqq, which he published in 1964, is the most important document as regards Yaresan rituals.
  • 1991 - The Ahl-i Haqq: Towards a Study of the Contemporary Maktab of Nur ‘Ali Elahi. by Bradley Scott Satkin, Reed College Library.
  • 1992 - Satan's psalmists, by Martin van Bruinessen, "I first heard of this devil-worshiping sub-sect of the Ahl-e Haqq from a member of the reformed branch of this religion in Tehran, Iran that is led by Bahram Elahi, (son of Nur Ali Elahi).
  • 1993 - Sacred Drift, Essays on the margins of Islam, by Peter Lamborn Wilson, ISBN 0-87286-275-5. Page 85, "The tehran Ahl-e Haqq were led by a Kurdish pir, Nur Ali Elahi, a great musician... Ahl-e Haqq considered him a renegade..."
  • 1993 - The Way of Light: The Path of Nur Ali Elahi , by Bahram Elahi, ISBN 1852303816.
  • 1993 - Kayhan International (Newspaper) Thursday, Novmber 18, 1993, vol. XIV 3726, "Nur Ali Elahi, Lute Master".
  • 1993 - July 22, 1993, Daily News, serving the San Fernando and Nighboring Valleys, page 14, "Master Nur Ali Elahi's School of the path of perfection..."
  • 1994 - Redefining the Truth: Ahl-i Haqq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, by Ziba Mir-Hosseini, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1994), pp. 211-228
  • 1997 - Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East, by Krisztina Kehl-Bodrogi, ISBN 9004086552, page 191 "Nur Ali Elahi himself is held to be the last manifestation of the Divine Essence".
  • 1998 - Alevi identity, By Tord Olsson, ISBN 0700710884. Page 201 "Hajj Ne'mat's son Nur Ali Elahi, in his books Borhan ol-haqq and Ma'refat ol-Ruh, presents the Ahl-e Haqq as a Shis mystical order..."
  • 1998 - LE CHEMIN DE LA LUMIERE: LA VOIE DE NUR ALI ELAHI, by Bahram Elahi,
  • 1999 - "Sih guftar-i tahqiqi dar ayin-i Ahl-i haqq", by Muhammad Hasan Khan, ISBN 964-6254-33-0, "Nur Ali Elahi"
  • 2001 - Kurdish Culture and Society, By Lokman I. Meho, ISBN 0313315434, page 257 "Nur Ali Elahi".

Encyclopaedia Iranica

This backs up the spelling as "Nur" rather than "Nour." However you did not address why you removed a large section of text that cites its sources (diff). The last time you removed this text you said you would comment on the talk page, but you haven't addressed it. Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. The deleted text was sourced, reasonably well written, and interesting. My only problems with it were the undue weight given to minor details (that is, the section is too long), and inconsistent spelling of names. Instead of deleting it, Octavian History should have addressed these shortcomings. If Octavian's promised explanation isn't forthcoming, then I support restoration of this section and fixing it up. The variety of names is an issue notable enough to deserve some text in the article. -Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Octavian: Not surprisingly, your redundant response did not address any of the points raised in my comment, which had nothing do with the spelling of the name; the name has remained constant since the RfC period closed. Try to show a little integrity Octavian and re-post the section that you deleted before fhariri or the administrators do so. Erasing comments on your talk page from those whose contributions you deleted won't make them go away. Global.wiki (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's enough of a consensus. I have restored the section, but copy-edited it for consistent spelling of Nur Ali Elahi's name, as well as attempted to make it slightly more concise. -Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of citation and neutrality tags[edit]

Since no explanation or justification was given for the Refimprove and POV tags that were placed at the top of the article, and a POV tag in the "History of the title" section, I have removed them once again. Before placing any tags on the article, please elaborate here on the discussion page what the specific rational is for including each one, so that the issues that prompted insertion of the tags can be addressed. Unexplained insertion of tags is not a constructive way to make improvements to this article. Global.wiki (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The tags are self explanatory in simple English. "The neutrality of this article is disputed". READ the above disputes! "This article needs additional citations for verification". I have also added "This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text." Some of the citations in this section are not correct. I will give them when I get a minute or if anyone else wants to step in.--Octavian history (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please state specifically which section and/or which paragraph requires additional citations. Currently, there are over 30 references for the 4 main sections in the article. You also note that "some of the citations in this section are not correct." Please do no insert these tags before explaining details of these claims. Global.wiki (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced Octavian History's tags with a general conflict of interest tag, which I suspect is the message Octavian History might be trying to convey with his tagging (Octavian, correct me if I'm wrong). It can't be denied that this article does have contributions from people who are too close to the subject matter, as indicated by the extensive discussions on this page. -Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, but would also point out that there is a clear difference between seeking to sway readers through exaggeration or embellishment of one's personal viewpoint, and stating well-established facts that are corroborated by supporting citations and references. My aim has been to present factual information about the life and work of a contemporary figure backed by a diverse range of references, not to present a partial or exaggerated viewpoint. If you believe that the COI tag is still warranted after your recent edits and there are other sections that require more neutral language, please elaborate on them here so that they may be addressed. Global.wiki (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The COI tag is still warranted because (a) the text of the tag is factual, and (b) the only person so far who has made a pass at cleaning up embellishments, peacock terms, biased phrasing, etc. has been me. And I honestly don't know anything about the subject of this article; I was just copy-editing. I'd like this article to be reviewed by more than the three of us before the tag is removed. -Amatulić (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that additional copyediting and trying to give a more neutral tone can only serve to improve the article, some of the deletions that you recently made [3] were based on well-referenced sources by respected ethnomusicologists, academicians, and professors of Eastern spirituality and mysticism. Some of these deletions go beyond mere copyediting, and I think that before removing any substantive information it is important to make sure that the referenced sources are first consulted and that any concerns are identified so that other editors can weigh in before referenced content is removed from the article. Global.wiki (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I eliminated peacock terms and phrases. The neutrality policy is quite clear on this: An article must never describe the subject in the same biased, glowing terms used by the cited sources. It is fine for an article to use such biased terminology if it is clear that the sources, not the article, are making the claims. This is especially true for biography articles; please read and thoroughly understand the official policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The edits you reference do not alter the meaning of the text, and do not misrepresent the sources by eliminating the superlatives. No substantive content was removed, only POV language. The language I removed failed to meet Wikipedia's standards for biographies.
I understand how being personally close to a subject can cloud one's neutrality. That's why Wikipedia has conflict-of-interest guidelines stating that one should avoid editing articles about such subjects on Wikipedia. -Amatulić (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your repeated claims that I am "too close" to this article or "not neutral" is not grounded in anything factual. The first time you made this comment was in response to my removal of the section posted by Octavian history on "a dangerous cult" because it was irrelevant to the article, as well as potentially libelous and unsubstantiated by any English source. Moreover, it was never shown how this section would supposedly improve the article. Ironically, you yourself had requested that Octavian history voluntarily "refactor" this section because it was irrelevant[4], which of course that user didn't do. You later agreed that it was unrelated to this article, but still did not remove it. The vast majority of discussion on this page has involved dialogue with this ill-intentioned and abusive editor who has now been properly banned. Yet you repeatedly assumed good faith regarding this user when he was clearly making personal attacks and using offensive and derogatory language. It would have been proper to engage in a little more background research on such an editor before weighing in on such matters. If you think defending this article from the whims of such an abusive editor indicates that I am "too close" to this article, I would ask you what your response would be to such an editor wreaking havoc on an article that you are involved with.
Unfortunately, you seem to have taken my comments regarding your copy-editing personally and have reacted by condescendingly referring me to Wikipedia policy on neutrality and on the biographies of living persons, the latter of which is wholly irrelevant here since Ostad Elahi died in 1974. This is troubling considering that you have readily acknowledged in comments above that you "honestly do not know anything" about the subject matter of this article. [5] I'm sure you have noticed among Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines that one must use common sense when determining if one is "too close" to a subject. Experts and those who are committed to a subject are welcome to contribute to articles; otherwise, we wouldn't have much of an online encyclopedia.
Unless there are some specific reasons that you can cite to validate your claim that there is a conflict of interest regarding this article, I am going to remove the COI tag. Similarly, unless you can state why the section posted by the banned editor on the accusations of being a "cult," which you previously stated was "irrelevant" to the article and requested its removal, is now suddenly relevant and should remain, I will remove those specific sections as well.Global.wiki (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Your own comments of this talk page reveal how close you are to this subject. The edit history here contains examples of you getting offended at criticism levied against the subject. That's taking things personally.
I don't recall taking anything personally here. The only personal reaction I have is when I see non-neutral terminology presented as objective fact. That's my only interest. I came here originally due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion regarding the name of this article. I have hung around only because I see the article needed work. My edits have been solely to neutralize the language and eliminate redundant or irrelevant text, without affecting the overall content. The objective content I must leave up to those like you, with greater expertise. "Objective" is the operative word, however.
I did not refactor Octavian History's comments because he was able to make a case that they were intended for the purpose of improving this article. I disagreed, but the case was made. You seem personally offended at the presence of the "cult" comments. Put that aside, please.
I apologize if I sound condescending. At the same time, I am consistently amazed that you seem unaware of some basic concepts about neutrality and objectivity, with your insistence on introducing unqualified opinions of sources as if they were fact.
My lack of knowledge about this subject in no way inhibits my ability to detect subjectivity and non-neutral viewpoints. By all means, one must use common sense in determining who is too close to a subject. But when I see opinions of sources presented as fact, like "thoroughly transcend", "unparalleled master", "inspired saying", and so forth, the conflict of interest becomes crystal clear.
Remove the COI tag if you want; I only put it there as a compromise between Octavian History's tag and no tag at all. However, if you insist on re-inserting opinions and flowery descriptors as fact into this article, the COI tag will reappear. -Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
To claim that I was offended by attacks levied against the subject simply isn't true - because there never were any attacks directed at the subject. There were, however, several instances where Octavian history made personal attacks directed at me, including calling me a fanatic[6], and insinuating that I am member of a "dangerous cult" trying to "control things" on Wikipedia[7][8]. Telling me to "put aside" the offense that I've taken while you continue to misrepresent it as an indicator of COI/non-neutrality is unreasonable. Given what we now know about Octavian history's, well, history, I'm doubtful that these thinly disguised suggestions for "improvements" were made with anything resembling good-faith. Global.wiki (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of Deleted Text[edit]

There were several referenced phrases deleted by Amatulic [9] that warrant restoration to the article. I have explained the objective and substantive nature of some of them below:

  • " ... Hajj Nematollah (1871-1919), was a charismatic mystic and prolific poet who was revered as a saint."

Charismatic is an historically accurate and sourced term that describes his personality. The fact that he was a prolific poet likewise deserves mention: for example, one of his twenty published manuscripts is an epic poem consisting of 15,000 verses. See The Spirit of Sounds (pages 24-25) and Knowing the Spirit (pages 2-3).

  • "Revealing a profound knowledge of human beings, these inspired sayings demonstrate great erudition in the service of an innovative thought."

"This characterization of Ostad Elahi's collection of oral sayings stems from Prof. Morris's objective description and analysis of these two published volumes in "Knowing the Spirit" (page 9).

  • "He wrote two scholarly works, both authoritative treatises in the fields of religious science and authentic spirituality..."

This statement is not embellishment and is properly sourced - see the Translator's Introduction in Knowing the Spirit, page 9.

  • "A musical prodigy who began playing the tanbour at the age of six..."

The term prodigy is descriptive and objective. In the realm of music it refers to someone who has achieved adult-level mastery of an instrument at an early age. In the case of Ostad Elahi, when he was a young child learning the tanbour, he would only have to listen to a piece once in order to memorize it, a characteristic that many musical prodigies display. By the age of nine, he had "reached an unequaled level in the art of tanbour" such that "the masters had nothing left to teach him and, according to custom, would no longer play in his presence as a sign of respect." In The Spirit of Sounds: The Unique Art of Ostad Elahi, pp.28-29, Jean During devotes an entire section entitled "A Child Prodigy" to discuss the nature of Ostad Elahi's "uncommon" musical aptitude as a child.

  • "...thoroughly transcend its simple and elementary repertoire..."

Jean During devotes the entirety of Chapter 2 ("The Transfiguration of a Tradition") in The Spirit of Sounds to detail how Ostad Elahi's music substantively transcended the existent repertoire, method, and techniques of the tanbour - which is important in understanding the scope and level of mastery that he achieved.

  • "...His skillful ornamentation and complex playing technique... "

This musical terminology refers to specific techniques that were used by the left hand to provide "ornamentation" or accentuation to the melody being played by the right hand, for which Ostad Elahi devised a separate innovative technique called a "shor." Again, Jean During devotes a distinct section titled "Ornamentation" to this aspect of Ostad Elahi's music, and the degree of technical skill needed to implement it on pages 57-58 of The Spirit of Sounds.

Again, the deletions cited above were unwarranted and thus inappropriate because the terminology and adjectives stem from referenced sources, and not the article itself. Global.wiki (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrases above are violations of WP:NPOV in the way they are presented. They contain peacock terms, which are basically unqualified opinions. If a notable source puts forward such an unqualified opinion, it's appropriate for the article to attribute that opinion to the source, but these opinions are presented as if Wikipedia is taking the same position. As such, they are violations of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, they are totally irrelevant to the article, the sole purpose being to inflate and aggrandize the subject. Wikipedia articles have no business dictating opinions onto readers. Readers should be able to form their own.
Every single example above introduces unqualified opinion and non-neutral terminology.
Biased terminology is biased terminology, peacock terms are peacock terms, clear and unambiguous. No amount of arguing will change those facts. I have once again excised some of these terms, although in other cases I left them in, attributing the opinions to Elahi's followers rather than having Wikipedia claim the opinions as its own. These are not objective facts, sorry. They are the opinions of critics and followers of Elahi. If they are presented that way, I have no problem with them. -Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Amatulic's comments. It's one thing to say "John Doe describes Elahi as being a musical prodigy", quite another to put "Elahi was a musical prodigy." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am looking at this site at the request of one of the participants in this discussion.
Now, Mr. or Mrs. Global.wiki, I appreciate your full attention to this project, but you seem to be projecting your own feelings about the subject of the article instead of finding sources that will say the same things. Much of that material you've put here on the Talk Page could be put into the article itself, but with a source credited. I must say, however, that any encyclopedic article is always better if the writing is understated: More people will pay attention to it that way. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the problem lies with how specialists in a particular field may use a phrase and how a general reader may interpret the very same phrase. As I have attempted (unsuccessfully, it seems) to explain above, some of the terms that may seem to be "puffery", biased, etc. to a casual reader actually mean something particular and not necessarily even aggrandizing to someone with a background in the topic. That said, your points regarding citing sources in the article proper as opposed to inline are well taken. Global.wiki (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

'Elahi's followers'[edit]

I'm curious as to how you feel comfortable making the determination and editing the article to attribute certain statements to "Elahi's followers". Portraying a writer's expertise, research, agreement, or even praise of a particular subject as being a partisan of that subject seems a bit disingenuous. Consequently, I have reworded these claims. Global.wiki (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Global.wiki's editing of this section. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. I didn't feel comfortable adding those attributions; however, Global.wiki objected to my deleting such praising statements the first time around. Instead of having Wikipedia present these views as objective fact, I attributed them to Elahi's followers, in an attempt to reach a compromise. Then Global.wiki deleted these statements anyway, which is what I wanted to do in the first place. Thanks. -Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A good page to read[edit]

WP:Ownership You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states: If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Judicial career (1)[edit]

Did he became a judge immediately on leaving the School of Jurisprudence? Or did he practice law first? Did he really cease being a mystic, or did he just outwardly do so? (It seems to me that once you are a mystic you remain a mystic: His post-judicial career would seem to indicate so.) We need this info in order to edit the paragraph knowledgeably.

I am troubled by this sentence: "Despite constant pressure from the influential families who played the role of lords in the quasi-feudal structure of the country and an environment rampant with corruption, Elahi's insight and judicious verdicts soon became apparent to others." We need a Source for the first part of the sentence, and I don't think we need the second part because he certainly was not the only judge in the world who had insight and wrote "judicious" verdicts: One hopes that most judges would do so.

I'm rewriting the paragraph in hopes that some of the above material can be reinserted if it is cleaned up and supported by some Sources.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Judicial career (2)[edit]

Well, never mind all that. I found the answers at http://www.ostadelahi.com/english/life/html/chronology.html. Gratefully, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Manifestation of Divine Essence[edit]

he was believed to be "the last manifestation of the Divine Essence" by his followers.

This is an essential pillar of Ahl-i Haqq or Yarsan religion. Its followers believe that in every age, divine essence manifests itself in a human form, which according to them is the leader of their sect. Please check the source as well, available on books.google.com Heja Helweda (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been an effort to make this article's tone more neutral, and the sentence you've reinserted is a step backward in this regard. The lead paragraph of a biography isn't the place to put aggrandizing (to say the least) beliefs about a person. Without any context, there's no way to understand who these "followers" are and what relevance (if any) their beliefs have, or even what it means to be "the last manifestation of the Divine Essence". I have looked at the source you provided and that particular section is an interpretation of another book's contents - leaving us with your interpretation of another author's interpretation of what may or may not be a reliable source. There are enough good sources to use for this biography without having to rely on the purported beliefs of undefined group of followers.Teleomatic (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is also important to note a few things based on actual sources and references. First, both in his writings and sayings, Ostad Elahi has never introduced or held himself out as a spiritual master. Second, although he was born into a mystical lineage rooted in the Ahl-e Haqq tradition and his father was a prominent figure in that mystical order, Ostad Elahi clearly parted from that tradition and its accompanying lifestyle at a young age, and pursued an entirely different spiritual course, which is why many Ahl-e Haqq are in fact opposed to him and his views. Thus, the primary tenets of the Ahl-e Haqq order are properly left to the article on the Ahl-e Haqq. And third, the source that is cited regarding the claim that "Nur Ali is held to be the last manifestation of the Divine Essence" refers to a book titled The Way of Light. However, the source in question does not cite any page number or chapter in support of this statement. Having read that book, I am unable to find any such assertion or statement made by its author. Thus, the statement itself is unreferenced and appears to be the personal opinion or view of the author of the article.Global.wiki (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)