Talk:Zdravljica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page protect?[edit]

Some over-zealous kid keeps changing the lyrics to what he feels is the better translation. I propose a protect of the page until such time as this idea leaves his head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.56.62 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lačni Franz[edit]

Zdravljica was recorded and performed by Lačni Franz, and not Pankrti. Also, apart from Hej Sloveni, each of the republics in ex-Yu had it's own national anthem. For Slovenia that was Naprej zastava slave. Maybe there could be a link here? -Nik 193.77.150.213

God[edit]

"God's blessing on all nations"? Prešeren doesn't mention any God in Slovenian. --Eleassar my talk 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most translations of poetry are not 100% literal, word-for-word translations. In this case, the standard translation captures the original spirit of the poem very effectively, at least IMHO. WorldWide Update 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the original of Zdravljica contains the lines "Bog našo nam deželo, Bog živi ves slovenski svet," which proves that this hysteria (IMHO) over the word "God" in the aforementioned translation is totally out-of-place. After all, would translating "Živi naj Wikipedija" as "God bless Wikipedia", for example, also change the intended meaning of the phrase? Of course not. (And this is an atheist speaking.) WorldWide Update 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would, actually. The standard phrase for translating "Žive naj" is "Long live", I don't see any problems with it, so I don't understand why should "God bless" be used in preference. I --Yerpo 08:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Žive naj" can be translated both as "long live" and "God bless"; the two phrases have essentially the same meaning, and there is no single, standard way of translating a given phrase in literary translations. "God bless" is used here because this is the phrase used in Janko Lavrin's standard translation, which is universally accepted. I still don't know what the fuss is about.--WorldWide Update 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word "God" shouldn't be in the translation. This reminds me of American Christian zealots, they added the words "under God" to the American Pledge of Allegiance in 1952, and "In God We Trust" on their money in 1956, which is against the First Amendment of their constitution - and people are now quarelling over it (check the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H4QI_n_b9g Love-rich (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you think the word "God" should be in the translation doesn't change the fact that the word "God" is in the standard, official English translation of the anthem. The role of Wikipedia is not to propose how things "should be", but rather to present them the way they are. --WorldWide Update (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is standard in English is not important at all - and besides it is not standard, quoting some "English standard" just a made up nonsense. Prešeren in that line doesn't say "Bog živi vse narode" but "Žive na vsi narodi" (There is a God mentioned in other stanza of Zdravljica - "Bog živi vse Slovenke" - "God bless all the Slovene girls"). Apart from that, there can not be "God" mentioned in an anthem of a secular state of all of it's citizens, regardless of their religious conviction. (be it Christian, Buddist -where gods are just moral beings like and other, and God in Christian sense doesn't exist-, Hindu -where apart from gods also God/Apsolute exists for instance in Vedanta-, agnostic or atheist. To mention God in an anthem of a modern state is simply wrong - except of course for a theocracy - so I am changing this verse back to "Žive naj vsi narodi/Long live all the nations". Žarišče (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the translation is cited, [1], it should not be modified. I've fixed it and removed the 9th stanza. The latter is unofficial and is known from previous versions. It can be, eventually, included somewhere in the article separately but not as the official version. --Tone 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian anthem: Only the 7th stanza?[edit]

The sentence about the Slovenian anthem being only the 7th stanza is probably incorrect or at least an oversimplification. Two articles have been recently published by eminent Slovenian scholars regarding this question.[2][3] I believe we should write that the anthem of Slovenia de iure is the whole Zdravljica, whereas de facto it is only its 7th stanza. Or am I mistaken? --Eleassar my talk 21:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed an ongoing debate. However, according to [4], Himna je sedma kitica pesmi Franceta Prešerna "Zdravljica", na melodijo iz zborovske istoimenske skladbe skladatelja Stanka Premrla. (The national anthem is the 7th stanza of Zdravljica by France Prešeren, using the melody by Stanko Premrl.) So I suggest we stick to that (it's the law after all). What is important is, that the anthem always includes the music or is even performed just by instruments (Himna se izvaja z glasbili, s petjem, ali z glasbili in s petjem.) This means that the 7th stanza itself is not the anthem and all the articles should be corrected correspondingly. --Tone 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's about the law. However, according to the law expert Letnar Černič (reference provided above), the act is contrary to the constitution and the constitution has priority to acts in Slovenia; "Iz ustavnopravnega vidika je jasno, da je himna Slovenije celotna Zdravljica, ne samo njena sedma kitica." --Eleassar my talk 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are pointing to an interpretation of inconsistency between the constitution and the particular law. I suggest we leave the anthem in the Slovenia infobox as it was and dedicate a couple of sentences about this question in this article (as there already are). The law was implemended a couple of years after the constitution, in order to comply, the constitution would have to be modified and that's not an easy task. --Tone 22:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be good to add a footnote to the infobox stating "According to the Act on ... " and perhaps add a link to this article here or even better to a new article about this act where the controversy can be explained. --Eleassar my talk 22:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that - even before I saw your comment ;-) So, I guess this is fixed now. --Tone 22:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what went on from 1991, when the constitution was passed, till 1994, when the act was passed? Did Slovenia change its anthem in 1994? Did the act made the constitution obsolete? Probably it's not to us to give priority to one or another in the infobox, but to state both or none. --Eleassar my talk 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I am not an expert on the topic. And, according to the articles you mention, there is no general consensus about what exactly is correct. I think we've done all what we can here, I'll return to edit Slovenia article. --Tone 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Fair enough. --Eleassar my talk 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting the history of the song. When the constitution was written, Zdravljica was already a solemn song of Slovenia and Slovenians (but not an anthem) years before 1991. It's seventh stanza was sang and played every year on the Cultural Day, Slovenia only holiday, with all the ceremony that comes with an anthem (flags, standing up...). It is true that in 1991 the then official anthem of (Socialist) Republic of Slovenia, Naprej zastava Slave was demoted to ordinary song and Zdravljica lifted to anthem status, but Zdravljica, specifically it's seventh stanza, functioned as an anthem years before that. Žarišče (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem with the translation[edit]

I'm afraid the translation of Zdravljica by Janko Lavrin in Zdravljica#Lyrics is copyrighted and not irreplaceable. Would anyone be willing to translate the poem with his own words? This a particular honour in my opinion: the first free translation of Zdravljica. --Eleassar my talk 10:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do we need a free translation of the national anthem? Who told you that? 64.231.144.111 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See here: "A translation is a derivative work, and only the copyright owner can authorize a translation that will be distributed. [...] There are translations that definitely would meet the originality requirement--for example, a new translation of an ancient Greek play or epic poem." Per Cornell University, it is copyrighted for 95 years after publication date, as "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases)".[5] It was published in London in 1963.
Per Wikipedia:NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
See also this comment. --Eleassar my talk 22:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could do as Hungarians have done: they've published a free literal and a free poetic version. See Himnusz. --Eleassar my talk 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Zdravljica be merged into National anthem of Slovenia. I think that the national anthem of Slovenia should merge into the Zdravljica article because it should not be separate into two separate articles. 64.231.144.111 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The poem has a history of its own, independent of its current role of being the national anthem of Slovenia. Also, the latter one does not include only information on the current one, but about the historical anthem, too. Besides that, the logic of your argument exhibits this logical fallacy.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Zdravljica has its own history, and the national anthem of Slovenia its own. Please, consider that mostly only the 7th stanza of Zdravljica is considered the national anthem, and we have to describe the entire poem in 'Zdravljica'. On the other hand, there were predecessors and alternatives to Zdravljica as the national anthem, and these should be described in the 'National anthem of Slovenia'. --Eleassar my talk 21:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I may just interject for a moment, it seems that the Slovene Wikipedia doesn't have a counterpart to the Anthem of the Slovene nation article, but only to the article on Zdravljica, which seems to suggest to me that they merged the two into one article and had no problem with doing so or never had two separate articles in the first place. So, to play devil's advocate here, if merging the two is good enough for actual Slovenes, then why not over here on the English Wikipedia? Indeed, checking the page histories, it seems that originally English Wikipedia only had one article for this but somewhere along the line it split into two.

Anyway, as for the dual histories part, many national anthems have dual histories as they had been around long before they were adopted as national anthems (such as the case with the U.S. and Yugoslavia) but only have one article a piece anyway. Just recently I had to change a redirect: Slovenian National Anthem led to the article on the poem rather than the article on the national anthem itself as would've been more appropriate. I can see how this could lead to confusions. Besides, isn't the entire poem legally speaking the national anthem (even if in practice only the 7th verse is treated as such)? Case in point: Germany. Their national anthem is only the third verse (technically making it a different thing than the song) but they have one article for both the song and the state symbol. Mexico's too, the state symbol uses certain verses of the original song rather than the whole thing.

Best, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Rather than merging, I'd say we move Anthem of the Slovene nation back to National anthem of Slovenia. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of National anthem of Slovenia into Zdravljica[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given that the two topics are distinct and readers are best served by having them discussed separately; by analogy with separate pages for related films and books. Klbrain (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a decade ago there was a proposal to merge Zdravljica into National anthem of Slovenia which never really gained traction due to arguments that the poem predates its usage as a national anthem. However, because of that, it makes sense to merge the latter into the former as both articles are relatively short and around the same length. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reasons cited ten years ago. Merging the poem and the anthem on the basis of a shared name would be akin to merging the film Gone with the Wind and the novel Gone with the Wind, to cite one parallel. The poem and the anthem have their own unique histories. Doremo (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. The poem and the anthem are extensive subjects in themselves. --TadejM my talk 10:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zdravljica&oldid=1198482669"