Talk:One Thousand and One Nights/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hezar VS Hazar

• Just for some of my fellow editors on here, who cannot actually read or speak Farsi/Persian...Hezar is the modern, generally "Tehrani" pronunciation of the term...Hazar is more correct from both a modern and historical context. It is still used in proper written Persian, and only becomes "bookish" when spoken in informal conversation. I would hope that would clear the issue up. The Scythian 01:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we can goad you into a useful, constructive post like this one I suppose we have achieved something, anyway. If you can raise so much unjustified abuse when you basically agree with us snyway, goodness knows what we'd get from you if you were disagreeing! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, didn't someone already write: "Hezar" is modern Persian pronunciation, "hazar" is how the people who wrote the book would have pronounced it? --Folantin (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I mentioned that he agreed anyway! But the question is actually one of transliteration, what a particular letter in the Arabic (Persian) alphabet is generally held to correspond to in the Latin (English) alphabet. Since "a" and "e" sound differently in different English words, not to mention different varieties of English, that really HAS to be the case. I mean what does "Hezar" is modern Persian pronunciation, "hazar" is how the people who wrote the book would have pronounced it actually mean?? Nothing whatever, unless you add IPA notation, I'm afraid, since we'd all read that sentence differently (out aloud, anyway). And I'm sure none of us non-Farsi speakers would get either one to sound remotely right anyway. I called this a helpful post largely because it endorses the "hazar" transliteration, and gets us out of that particlar quandry. As I said - all I care about when it comes to this point is that we spell the word the same way throughout the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, it is more of a question of pronunciation than transliteration. You can't technically transliterate the first vowel in "hazār/hezār" because it's not actually written in Persian, only the second vowel (a long "a") is. In IPA the difference in pronunciation of the first vowel is between /æ/ and /e/. I do in fact know some Persian but I'd rather base everything in the article on what reliable sources say. Which is "hazār". Which is what everybody in this thread agrees to. --Folantin (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Flying Carpet

The "thread" (if it can be described as such) about this one has been (mercifully) achived but it seems to still be necessary to mention it yet again. Apart from the Disney version of Aladdin the fact is that flying carpets are NOT an "Arabian Nights" thing. Not only is there no flying carpet in the original tale of Aladdin - but the only other story (The Three Brothers) that has a Magic Carpet is very specific (unless the original Burton translation is grotesquely inaccurate) that the carpet doesn't actually "fly". It magically moves itself from place to place "in an instant" - typically from one indoors location to another. In science fiction terms it "teleports" (although this may not be an awfully good analogy - magic and science DO work on fundamentally different premises). One might add that The Three Brothers is (like Aladdin) most probably not part of the original 1001 nights collection anyway - the fact that it is tucked away in a supplemntary volume of Burton is highly suss. The "flying" magic carpet in the form of a handy little prayer mat affair is much more a part of Russian folklore than Arabian - while "Solomon's carpet" is a very different item again - whole armies could ride it in a fairly stately way. In fact it was so vast that even jouneying from one side to the other would have been quite a feat! Western "retellings" of the stories may well "do a Disney" and add a Russian style flying carpet here and there, but I think it is important to keep this idea out of the article, even in the form of a misleading illustration. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible Indian origins.

These come before a consideration of Hazār Afsān because they would be historically earlier, not because they are more important, or more likely. Put afterwards doesn't make sense. If the Indian works mentioned had an influence on the nights (which is by no means certain) then they would have done so by influencing Hazār Afsān, which in turn influenced the nights. The question is one of time (hence chronological), nothing to do with putting the "best" stuff first. Please, if anyone is serious about rearranging this text - could you raise your reasons here rather than repeatedly attacking the article? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no good reason for the change. Discussion of the work's surmised ultimate Indian origins (there's a clue in the word "origins" there) obviously comes first chronologically. This is perfectly objective. --Folantin (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This article has been hijacked

By mostly "soundofmusic" it seems. Seeing the history of it, it seems this person undos anything related to Persian in regards to it. There is absolutely no reliable source to put this as an Arabic literature. But clearly any sign of this being Persian gets removed instantly by soundofmusic or folantin. Thousands and one nights is mostly a Persian literature, and has been proven to be so by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica.

Someone who actually edits here, please pay attention to this matter. This person has a high agenda here, as obvious in his constant reverts of the facts, making this work look all Arabic. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very simply entirely untrue - possible "Persian" influences in this Arabic work are fully covered and sourced. Why don't you read the Encyclopedia Iranica entry? It is much closer to the substance of this article than your "facts". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"This person has a high agenda here". A classic case of psychological projection.--Folantin (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Folantin - various phrases etc lead me to suspect that this is a sock puppet for someone that we (not to mention other responsible editors of this article) have had to do with on several occasions in the past. For instance you had occasion to describe him as "some guy on the internet" if I remember rightly, and he has taken that as a "new" username. "Hijacked" on the other hand was my own description of the state of the article when it was very extensively vandalised a good while ago. Fortunately, he or she doesn't seem to know how to scroll down to read the rest of the article, so their vandalism is limited to attacks on the lead. Do we need to bring this to the attention of an administrator? Putting a permament block on the IP concerned would save a lot of grief. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Persian Name of the book

As i know and also stated in article, "the tales themselves trace their roots back to ancient and medieval Arabic, Persian, Indian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian folklore and literature". also mentioned that : "the frame story, are most probably drawn from the Pahlavi Persian work Hazār Afsān (Persian: هزار افسان‎, lit. A Thousand Tales)"

And we know that many names in book are Persian and we know that in Islamic ages, the Persian ancient kings turned to Arabic Caliphate and .... So what is the problem if I insert the Persian name as Arabic name is mentioned!? برسام (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the archives. We've been through this time and time again. The Persian name you inserted is simply a modern translation of the Arabic. We already cover speculation about the lost Persian prototypes in the article. --Folantin (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Even the Encyclopaedia Iranica entry on this topic is under the Arabic title. --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI in French, German, Spanish, Turkish, Azeri, Kurdish, Russian ( and many other languages) Wikis , the Persian name mentioned beside the Arabic name. برسام (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's NOT the "Persian name". It's the Arabic name translated into Persian. We don't list the Arabic name translated into French, German, Spanish, Turkish, Azeri, Kurdish, or Russian. We only list the English name because this is the English Wikipedia. If there IS a "Persian name" then it would be Hazār Afsān. But although a mention of that (sadly, lost) work gets (and quite right too) a mention here, it is not the subject of this article. That is a long-standing consensus for English Wikipedia - what they decide on other Wikis is their business. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The lost Persian work is called Hazār Afšān (or variants). Nobody knows what the precise relationship is between it and the existing Arabic Nights because it's been lost. Plus -to take another example where we do know the relationship - Racine's Les Plaideurs is heavily influenced by Aristophanes' The Wasps but we don't give the Greek equivalent of the French title in our article. Neither do we give the Danish title of Hamlet. As for what other Wikipedias do, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. They are obviously more vulnerable to POV-pushing editors. What we've tried to do with this article is to base it on scholarly, objective sources rather than on negotiations between various groups of nationalistic Wikipedians. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess Dunyazade picture

There is no reference to Princess Dunyazade in the article itself, and in the article about painter John Frederick Lewis this painting is called "The coffee bearer", so its relationship to One Thousand and One Night is at least questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.102.249 (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Some Suggestions to Consider

1. Persian (Parsi or its Arabicized name "Farsi") and Indian are very close and are grouped as the Indo-Aryan Language (please see Indo-European Page). Therefore, may of the ancient names are common and at times exactly the same (Parviz is one of them).
2. Shahrzad (female) and Shahryar (or Shahriar; male) are most common names in Iran during recent history.
3. Shahr in modern Parsi means city and it has the same meaning or connotation in both the female and the male names above.
4. An example of current use is Shahr-dar which means "mayor" because he or she is the keeper (dar) of the city.
5. Zad means "born"; therefore, Sharzad's literal meaning is "city born"
6. Yar in Sharyar means "friend" or helper, which has the same effect as "ansar" in Arabic.
7. In old Persia, they titled Kings as Shahryar (or the kings titled themselves as such) to emphasize that they were people's friends and helper.
8. Shahr-zad, in the old days was a title of a lady who was civilized (born in a city) as opposed to have been raised in rural vilages. That is why queens are titled as Shahrzad.
9. It is also important to remember that before conquest of the Persian Empire, Arabs were nomadic and there is very little history that indicates there was a wealth of literature or an advanced written skills.
10. As you have referenced Tabari (who was born in Tabarestan, present day Mazandaran) was a geneous who had memorized Quran at the age of nine. He was very fluent in Arabic to the extent that he was brought into the Khalifat's court at the age of 22 (or so). If you read history, there are hundreds like him whom Arab Khalifat supported to write and develop Arabic language. That is why there are so much mention of Persian names and places in some of these literature and historical books. Perrymonty080 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding point 9, I think you should actually read history rather than blindly winging false stereotypes as historical fact. Most Arabs were actually urbanised and far wealthier than the Sassanians. A good name look up Hira and the Lakhmanids prior to the destructoion of their advanced civilisation by the Persians. However, there were also some semi-nomadicherders/pasturalists among the Arabs - just as there were amongst the Sassanians. The purely nomadic camel herders of Arabia (and even city-dwellers in the Hijaz) were actually Arabised relatively late. Secondly, regading the names, the frame story is more likely written by Arab Authors. The names are likely the ancient Arabian version of the English Literature "in a land far, far away". They purposely used names exotic to them and their readers to make the fantasy aspects of the stories more feasible. Also, these characters were based on Indian Loyalty,not Persian Loyalty - they spoke similar indo-aryan languages. Finally, there is no proof whatsoever of Persian origins to the stories. Tabari was from a Persian-speaking ethnic group in central asia (not necessarily Persian), and he became completely Islamised and Arabised. Your attempt to take credit or associate yourself (as a Persian) to Tabari are wholly illogical. 89.242.34.47 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hezar/Hazār Afsān

There are several different ways of spelling this in English (the second word has several versions as well) - most of them are "correct", just depends how you convert the Arabic and Latin alphabets. This one was selected (by consensus) many many moons ago - it is at least as "correct" as any of the other spellings. Please leave it as it is and find something more constructive to do! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

After the above controversy - which resulted in a prolonged edit war - it is sad to have to confront a further attempt to change the above, and several other transliterations from the article. PLEASE, at least do us the courtesy of discussing these here, or (even better) accept that transliteration from Arabic (and even more so, Persian) into English is more an art than a science - among other reasons, Persian has a different set of vowel sounds than English, which are not consistently "spelled" (or even represented by letters at all) in either language. Some transliterations, especially of Persian (and Arabic) names, are also very much better known in English by transliterations which may break the "rules" of strict transliteration, even allowing for the above flexibilities, and certainly may not reflect how they are pronounced in Persian (or Arabic for that matter). The Persian (or Arabic) versions of the names are of course also noted (as they should be) in their original forms, but in some the English version of the name long ago ceased to even attempt transliteration, and has become a more or less Angicised version of the name. This is the English version of Wikipedia, after all - articles, even on "foreign" subjects, do need to be in English. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis

The synopsis of the plot (in particular of the frame story) may well be subject to improvement - but NOT by adding adjectives and adverbs to sentences and attempting to raise dramatic tension and "colour". This is an encyclopedia article, and the synopsis needs to be as accurate as possible, but at the same time a succinct summary rather than the kind of retelling we'd give it in book, especially one for children. Read the original (preferably in Burton - although one of the modern translations will also give you the drift). NOT a kiddie-widdie retelling, because this is one point where vigorous bowdlerisation is actually necessary! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated point-- in the first paragraph of the synopsis, the sentence that says the king's grief determined his view of women, I believe, is incorrect; according to the Harvard Classics edition the king was struck by a woman's ability to subdue an Ifrit and her words about the perfidy of women, and that this encounter added to his brother's wife's infidelity was what pushed him to execute his own wife and all his subsequent wives. However, I'm not sure if there are different translations or editions, and I haven't changed the synopsis because of this; any comments? --[User:TheWildHunt|TheWildHunt](talk) 8:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This is only a brief synopsis, there is certainly a great deal of detail we leave out - among other reasons because the original has some pretty "rough" passages. As someone once said - "Wikipedia is uncensored but not gratuitous". The King is shocked by his sister-in-law's blatant adultery (the original goes into great detail) - and is then saddened by the discovery that his own wife is just as bad (again the original is VERY graphic). The arrant wives are (naturally) both executed on the spot (more graphic detail - swords cleaving both wife and "lover" in a single blow while they are still at it etc.) - but the two kings are both so shamed and grief-stricken they go on a kind of retreat together to recover - it is here they meet the sleeping Ifrit (or Djinni?) and are propositioned by his human concubine - the deal is basically "service me now or I will awaken my husband and accuse you of attempting to rape me". The job done, she takes their rings - and shows them her large collection - all taken from other men she has had in similar circumstances. If even the Ifrit cannot protect his honour... and so on.

I think on the whole that - given that we don't have "room" for a full retelling of the story, and MUST omit some detail - the current synopsis is a pretty fair one, but I am by no means against someone, working from the original or an unexpurgated edition of a "real" translation (say Burton) rewriting this to fit the original more closely. This particular synopsis is the one that was here when I first saw the article - and I have in fact often wondered if we might Bowdlerise a little less severely. The point is that we need a synopsis here, not a full blood-and-gore retelling! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed that 1001 Nights is not by a single author?

A "citation needed" tag was recently added that on the surface seemed to ask for just that. But I concede it's not quite that simple. Someone (from a cited source) made a point that different versions of a story sometimes follow each other, one rather less serious than the other, and suggested this might be a form of "self-parody". Someone else (apparently) thought this a little far-fetched, and suggested that this "assumed a degree of editorial control inconsistent with the history of the work" (or something to that effect). Three things we could do here -

1. We could just cut the whole passage, on the grounds that any suggestion that there is sophisticated editorial control at work here is nonsense, and doesn't need to be mentioned, even if someone, somewhere thought it did.

2. Leave the passage as it is - but retain the "comment" - as while it is uncitable it does add a common sense note of caution to a rather unlikely statement.

3. Leave the (cited) "self-parody" content, but delete the uncited (and uncitable) comment.

I really think No.3 is untenable, even if it seems on the surface to be closer to "the rules" - and that it's practically a choice between 1. and 2.: on the whole I prefer 1., and in fact I will chop out the whole thing unless someone comes up with an argument in favour of keeping it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Muhsin Mahdi

The article mentions Muhsin Mahdi's work, but doesn't cite any of them, which is a pity. For example, I found his The Thousand and One Nights: From the Earliest Known Sources very complete, interesting, and useful (though I've only read a tiny bit, and so far I haven't used it much in WP edits). Other editors may wish to consult it. Unfortunately, it is very expensive (but snippets are available on Amazon...).

Similarly, Husain Haddawy's translation using Mahdi's text is mentioned in the text, but doesn't get a full citation. Besides the translations themselves, it includes 25 pages of introduction. And it is reasonably priced. --Macrakis (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems whatever if you want to add cites from these sources, or include them in the Bib/Further reading section/s. Good idea in fact --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Casual references

Not sure that we need to (or could) mention every reference to the Nights by every writer, however prominent - especially when he is mentioning, or expounding on, an old tradition, rather than making an original remark. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To get down to specifics! The fact that Orhan Pamuk makes a comment on the Nights might on the face of it warrant a mention here. But it really is just a casual mention. And not saying anything startlingly new (or apposite) about them either - just repeating a very old saying - with a "not very new" twist to it. Incidental to the essay in which it occurs (it is a common ploy to end a speech or essay on a light, inconsequential note) even more incidental to the great man himself, and more incidental yet to the Nights (the subject of this article). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ibn al-Muqaffa' and 1001 Nights

A new editor brought a very interesting article to our attention. (Easily found by "Google or similar"). It reads as a little too speculative to fully solve the mystery of the origin of the Nights and its exact relationship with Hazar Afsan - but coming from a distinguished Iraqi literary critic it is well worth mentioning. We have an article for Ibn al-Muqaffa' which mentions a number of his translations and original works in similar genres to the Nights, but does not mention this idea of Khulusi's that he may have been the first Arabic translator of at least part of Hazar Afsan. Would someone like to add this information, (with its references) to the Ibn al-Muqaffa' or the Safa Khulusi articles? They are straying to the very edges of my own knowledge and interest. Some other information from the Khulusi reference (such as that Ibn al-Muqaffa' was an Islamic convert with a "Magian" (i.e. Zoroastrian) background, might also add some interest to the al-Muqaffa' article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Another "possible prototype"

The following very long addition was made to the article by an obviously well-meaning editor. It is very interesting, and I think a brief precis of its salient points could well form an interesting addition to this article - but at least in its present form it is seems to be far too long and involved. It may very well deserve its own article of course (assuming for the moment it hasn't got one already). The relevance to THIS article, which is about a (quite different) Arabic story collection in a similar tradition, is relatively peripheral - so we really don't want all this detail just here!

The second paragraph directly describes the Nights themselves - most of what is really relevant here is already covered at an appropriate part of the article!!

A possible prototype could be the Sanskrit Tantropakhyana, a work inspired by the Panchatantra. The Sanskrit original is in fragmentary condition but its translations and adaptations exist in Tamil (Panchantantravachana), Lao (Nang Tantai), Thai (Nang Tantrai) and Old Javanese (Tantri Kamandaka). The text begins with a king named Aishvaryapala or Manda Chakravarti (perhaps a corruption of Nanda Chakravarti, the Magadhan emperor) who sees a wedding procession and consequently conceives a desire to have a new bride himself every day. He gives order to his chief minister to supply a beautiful new girl everyday for this purpose. After many days, the minister finds he has despatched every possible girl to the palace and is in despair at having no bride for the next day. His daughter Tantra offers to go herself, saying simply that she would tell the King stories so that there would be no more trouble. She convinces her father by telling him stories to convince him that she can save his life. The minister is forced to agree. Tantra takes with her her maid. After the union the king rests on his bed and Tantra with her maid attends on him. The king appears to sleep, but Tantra says to the maid that they should not sleep, so she will tell her stories to pass the time. The text continues with the first book of Panchatantra called Nandaka-prakarana (the tale of a lion king duped by his minister), followed by (original) Pakshi-prakarana (the successful election of the king of the birds), Manduka-prakarana (the tale of the king of the frogs duped by an external enemy) and Pishacha-prakarana (the failed election of the king of the goblins) - all of which contain emboxed fables with animals as characters. The stories tend to be instructive and especially to serve as warnings against rash actions. Often the matter is such as might appeal to the interest of a king, which of course is most appropriate for the situation in the frame story but calls for the discretion of veiling in beast fable form. One might say that Tantra, though her main aim is to entertain and beguile, holds the mirror to tyranny. When Tantra has narrated the prakaranas the king is so delighted with her that he makes her his chief queen.

The frame story of Scheherazade is similar to that of Tantra. But the stories which follow are mostly quite different from the anything in the Sanskrit work. They are largely of rascals and trickery among men and women, though some may be traced to Indian originals outside the Tantra collection. The voyages of Sindbad especially suggest the voyages of Sanudasa in the Brihatkatha, whilst the genie deceived by a girl he thinks safely locked in a chest he carries with him goes back to the demon in the Samuggajataka and the Milinda Panha who is deceived though he swallows the chest. Similarly, The Tale of the Bull and the Ass and the linked Tale of the Merchant and his Wife found in the frame stories of the Nights could be traced back to The Jataka Tales, a collection of 547 Buddhist stories, which are for the most part moral stories with an ethical purpose. But many of the stories in the Nights reflect the society of the Arab storytellers and their audiences. They apparently seem to incorporate the characteristics of oral tradition. It is impossible to say whether this process of freely introducing new stories into the old frame had begun already in the lost Pahlavi source of the Arabic versions. The king and Scheherazade have Persian, not Indian, names, which shows some degree of adaptation of the frame story, though Shahryār is called king of India and China.

Perhaps the following has all the really relevant information - What does the original editor think?

It is possible that the influence of the Panchatantra is via a Sanskrit adaptation called theTantropakhyana. Only fragments of the original Sanskrit form of this work exist, but translations or adaptations exist in Tamil, Lao, Thai and Old Javanese.

The frame story is particularly interesting, as it follows the broad outline of a concubine telling stories in order to maintain the interest and favour of a king - although the basis of the collection of stories is from the Panchatantra - with its original Indian setting.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally - I am sorry to have to report that I have been right through the reference given and can't quite see the relevance to the matter here. It DOES still need a reference, and a "real" one too. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Argument accepted. The above gist seems apt. Adding the relevant page number in one of the references.Dharmabhanjaka (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish "Origins"

There may very well be individual tales with Jewish origins (or at least influences), in fact it would be very strange if this were not the case, when you think about it - this may even be relevant and notable - although since we don't detail the possible Persian or Arabic (or other) origins of individual tales - this may be a little hard to work in, especially in a proper context.

But the Indian and Persian "origins" sections are not about particular tales but the collection in general. I don't think there is any argument that the collection as a whole is really Jewish? In fact, most regrettably, it must be said that several of the tales have slighting references to Jewish people/culture, and most Jewish characters are stereotypes.

In any case - the amount of detail (about the tales themselves) one ought to go into in a general article about the collection as a whole is debatable. There are just so many stories that to single out some for particular attention (which has been suggested) does present problems.

This is of course an invitation for debate, not a "fiat from on high" (or as in my case, "from on low"). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

--

What do you mean by "whole"? This is a collection of tales which are derived from several sources, many of them are Jewish. The references i provided point out a significant contribution (or at least not insignificant). whether it's complete stories or other elements(like proverbs). Don't you think it has a place in the article? Perhaps "Jewish origins" isn't accurate but what about a section of "Jewish influence" or "Jewish contribution"(or anything like)?--Infantom (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thick books have been written on various interesting but peripheral matters such as the role of magic in the Nights (in fact I'm reading one now - good stuff, but hardly material you'd use to improve a Wikipedia article). To return to the point - other (older) collections of tales are often cited as prototypes of the Nights as a collection. Without going into very much detail we really have to mention these. The precise analogy with possible Jewish influences is at best something rather different: perhaps more akin to (say) the Greek literary (and folk) influences some writers have detected. We very deliberately don't go into this kind of thing (or anything else connected with individual tales) very much in this article (although some tales have their own articles, of varying quality). Apart from the sheer number of stories "from" the Nights, not to mention the very doubtful origins of quite a lot of them, we'd quickly have a cumbersomely long article. The very idea that two folk stories with with similar (or for that matter identical) themes and/or plot outlines are necessarily connected at all, much less that one has "influenced" the other is not one you can take as obvious: two stories from cultures far more widely separated than those of the Jewish, Arab and Persian peoples can be really strikingly similar without there being any traceable "influence" at all (either way). So we come up against the limits and boundaries of the subject. This article cannot (and should not) try to cover such basic questions as the nature of the folk tale. Still not saying we couldn't fit something in, but to avoid problems with relevance and balance it would need to be very brief and to the point - not to mention sourced from writers without a particular axe to grind. Plus we'd need to set everything in its proper context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Title

A consensus, beaten out from long and at times acrimonious discussion, says that the Arabic title is included here because it is after all the original - and the alternative English title ("Arabian Nights") merits a mention because it is in some quarters, at least, even better known than the correct one.

The "Persian title" is simply a translation of the Arabic - in the same way that the Tibetan or the Swahili titles would be. No need whatever to have it in the English language version of Wikipedia. The Persian influence on the Nights is through a quite different work called Hazār Afsān which is, sadly, lost. Read the article, where all this stuff is covered. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight to Persian origins

This article presents the Arabian Nights as a Persian book, although no Persian version of this book is ever known. This book is entirely in the Arabic language, and it is set in an Arabic culture. It is amazing how this article characterizes the book as a Middle Persian book, although the Middle Persian origins of the book are just theories and speculations. The article needs a serious revision.--HD86 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This article has for a period of years struggled to maintain some consistency with the scholarly consensus - it has been under continual attack - mostly by highly partisan editors wishing to press a "Persian", agenda, but also from people arguing equally strongly for a more or less complete rejection of any Persian links whatever. To clear the air - it is necessary first to return to the version which we managed to achieve and more or less maintain over recent months BEFORE raising specific concerns here. Vague "this looks biased" tags inserted into the lead ("lede" if you like) by people who show no indication of having read the article of which the lead is a summary do not help. The "Persian" sources in the "Nights" (the ones described in the long-term form of the article) are well referenced in the body of the article. PLEASE do not further meddle with the article without reading the whole thing, and THEN bring any specific concerns here (to this talk page) first. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead (and the entire article) should make it clear that the earliest known version of this book is that which Antoine Galland recorded from a Syrian man in Aleppo in the 18th century. The sentence which reads "The work was collected over many centuries by various authors, translators, and scholars across West, Central, South Asia and North Africa" is utter nonsense and outright lie, because this book was recorded for the first time in the 18th by Antoine Galland. There are fragmentary manuscripts which go back to earlier times, but all of those are in Arabic and none of them is in Persian or Sanskrit. The current lead (and the entire article) does not make these simple facts clear. It gives undue weight to the possible origins of the tales (not the book) and uses manipulative tactics to deceive the readers and make them think that this book was formerly recorded by Persians and Indians, which is not the case.--HD86 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stories are not found in earlier manuscripts - and this is already clearly mentioned in the article, in fact the better known of the so called "orphan" stories (Aladdin, Ali Baba etc.) are named. While the very earliest Arabic manuscripts (which do go back "many centuries) tend to be fragmentary - and the (pre-18C) textual history of the work is not simple, it is not the case that the work was "was recorded for the first time in the 18th (century?) by Antoine Galland". The book was not written down once and for all by one person like a modern novel - it is a collection of stories that has existed in many forms, and has been added to over a very long period. The bulk of the collection was around for a very long time before Galland - otherwise we would be not be recording it as an Arabic work at all, but as a French one. Or is this what you want us to say? As I have said more than once now, please read the article because most of what you are saying is already in the article - as you will soon see if you only read it. As for the stories, it is agreed by pretty well everyone who has actually studied them, Arab scholars as well as Westerners, that many of the stories are of Persian or Indian origin. The actual frame story of the whole book (the story of Shahryār and Scheherazade) is a clear example. We cannot discuss the book without discussing the stories and their origins. The fact that some of the stories appeared for the first time in other books is simply true. We can't leave it out because some people may draw wrong conclusions. Can you give an actual example of a "manipulative tactic", and a specific "deception of a reader"? And I mean in the article as it appears here NOW, not with the latest explosion of "Persian" stuff that I just reverted.

Every famous book in every language draws on earlier works just as every important book also gives rise to later works - in an article like this one we mention many books and stories based on the "Nights" as well as books that came before. This is a normal part of the study of any work of literature. This is true (for instance) of the English novel Robinson Crusoe. Read the Robinson Crusoe article too (when you have finished reading this one) and you will see what we mean. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I admit that the article is good and has much information, but my suggestion is to make a clearer distinction between the famous book called Arabian Nights and the tales contained in the book. The article currently mingles these two issues. The sentence "The work was collected over many centuries by various authors, translators, and scholars across West, Central, South Asia and North Africa" will make some readers believe that we have old manuscripts of the current work in Persian or Sanskrit, whereas we do not even have complete Arabic ones. In my opinion, the Article should say the following "the current book was compiled by Antoine Galland in the 18th century. There are incomplete Arabic manuscripts that date to earlier periods. There are no known Persian or Sanskrit manuscripts, but scholars believe that the Arabic book is probably based on older Iranian and Indian literature, at least in part. There is evidence that the part such and such is taken or influenced from the such and such Persian or Indian work." --HD86 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, have you read the article? Just how much of what you want is in fact exactly what the article has said for years? Not counting the bits that our Persian friends have interpolated into the lead from time to time.

The book is a collection of tales. The article is about the book, and we don't waste time trying to re-tell the stories, except for the frame tale. But to give an encyclopedic idea of the book we do need to at least summarise their nature, including their very varied origins. The many people who collected the stories that went into the collection took them from all over. Which is one of the reasons for the success of the collection. Somewhere or other, preferably right up at the top, we just have to say this. If "some readers" will read one thing and believe another (and alas there is probably some truth in this) then what do you suggest we can do about it? Perhaps we should write something less true, in the hope that what "some readers" believe will somehow be truer? An encyclopedia article can't be perfect, but that doesn't mean it can be built on a crazy idea like that.

BUT no - "the current book was compiled by Antoine Galland in the 18th century" simply isn't true. If it was then all we would need to say would be "the so-called Arabian Nights is a French fake". Which simply isn't so either. There is a whole section about the textual history further down in the body of the article. Have you read it? Is this article about an Arabic book at all, in your view? If it isn't, as you seem to be trying to say, then what does the "lack of Persian manuscripts" have to do with anything in particular? According to you there really isn't a (complete?) Arabic manuscript either? Then what exactly did Galland (not to mention Lane, Burton and all the others) translate? And what are the modern, "authentic" versions, some of them by Arab scholars, based on? The 10th century fragments aren't all we have, fortunately.

We don't give undue emphasis to the "Persian" aspect (in spite of pressure to do so - just read some of the archived material from this page) - nor, on the grounds that the French (and English) translations are on the "free" side in places, and include bits that aren't in the original, do we just dismiss this Arabic classic as a French fake. As for the rest, what you say you want is actually what is already there, and has been for years. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In Arabic culture

This section is (at least on the face of it) well cited - to the degree that ANY excision really needs to be justified: either on the grounds that the cited source(s) do not support a particular statement - or that the source itself is unreliable. The sentence that has been tagged as needing a citation is in this case so consistent with the sentence that follows, not to mention the section as a whole, that tagging it as needing further citation(s) cannot be lightly justified. If the existing reference is in some way spurious, then one ought to be able to (boldly) delete the sentence itself, explaining that the author cited says nothing of the kind (perhaps telling us what he does say instead). If on the other hand the tagger has in fact no idea what the source says one way or the other, because he has not looked, then one can only observe that even a "cn" tag can constitute WP:OR. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for semi-block

The constant reinstatement of irrelevant material in the first sentence of the lead of this article has reached the point that it constitutes deliberate vandalism. The point of not having a Persian translation of the title in this article is covered in the note under "Title" above. Don't like to suggest this, but the IP(s?) from which this nonsense emanates probably need banning, too --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Where is the frame set?

A recent edit tried to change the setting of the frame from Persia to Baghdad. But the Hadaway translation clearly states that Shahrayar ruled in India and Indochina (which seems outside the Sasanid Empire), and that Shahzaman ruled in Samarkand. What to other translations and scholars say about the location? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In the Penguin Classics (Lyons) version, Shahriyar is a "Sasanian king" who rules "in the islands of India and China". So neither Iran nor Iraq then. This is pure fairy tale stuff with little relation to actual geography or history. --Folantin (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that there's no relation to history or geography. I just wonder if we want to say the frame tale is set in Persia when we could say "in a fictionalized version of India". Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt if it's worth even that. Maybe we should just use lots of inverted commas, i.e. "Shahriyar, whom the narrator calls a 'Sasanian king' ruling in 'India and China'." BTW The IP probably added the Baghdad reference because Scheherazade tells stories about Harun al-Rashid, the Arab Abbasid caliph who was born a century after the fall of the Sasanian dynasty. Baghdad, too, did not exist until 762, whereas Sasanian rule ended in 651. The authors of the Nights clearly didn't care about historical and geographical accuracy and we shouldn't try to add false precision to the article. --Folantin (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis

There are many twists and turns in the plot of the frame story - the story of the slave woman of the Jinn, who keeps a large collection of the rings of the kings with whom she has cuckolded her "husband" - blackmailing them into having sex with her by threats to awaken the sleeping Jinn - is one case in point - another is the details of exploits of the two adulterous queens who raise the whole trouble in the first place. At some stage or other we do have to call a truce and decide on a synopsis or summary that gives the broad outline, does not introduce detail that makes it harder to understand, and above all does not take up too much space! Unless we practically retell the story at more or less its original length the effect of adding what are effectively extra "sub-stories" will be to muddle and confuse as much as inform. In any case, a good synopsis shouldn't "spoil" too much of the yarn (it is quite an entertaining one when all is said and done). All a matter of balance of course, but I think we actually reached a pretty good balance years ago with this one. Open for discussion, this one, naturally. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I get your point, but I think it's crucial that he does NOT start murdering virgins as soon as he discovers his wife's infidelity. I tried to keep the summary of that episode as brief as I could, but I'm interested in hearing other ways of clarifying that his murderous turn is not immediate. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see your point too, of course - in a way it is a shame to have to leave anything out - but sticking to the main line of the story is probably the only way we are going to get a synopsis that is clear and succinct and makes "sense" in its own terms. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One Thousand and One Nights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120511173551/http://www.freemmostation.com/2010/08/nadirim-exclusive-interview.html to http://www.freemmostation.com/2010/08/nadirim-exclusive-interview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward William Lane NOT the last word on "nights" scholarship. Quite a lot has happened since he passed away.

To cavalierly dismiss all research since the 1870s - on this or any other subject - is probably not vrey encyclopedic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a classic strawman. The following passage needs a reference: "Most scholars agreed that the Nights was a composite work and that the earliest tales in it came from India and Persia"

According to this source, there is a debate to whether or not the tales had a Persian or Indian origin. What is not debated is that the majority of the stories are Arab.

Not a strawman at all, classic or otherwise, in fact in is very far from being exaggerated - a simple statement of the intent and effect of the original edit. The very dated (and doubtful) authority of Lane (who produced one of the early English versions, and died in 1875) contributes nothing worthwhile in any contemporary sense to the textual history of the Nights, as now understood by most scholars. The argument for better citation can often be justified, and the article may well be improved by extra references, but please read everything the article has to say on this subject before setting up your own "strawmen" - the article is already fairer than you seem to think - the Arab origin of many of the stories is already very specifically admitted; the ambiguity of presumed Persian and Indian origins is also pointed out. A good reference, incidentally - should be to a specific statement (on a stated page of the text cited) that actually directly supports the argument - not a vague "this writer seems overall to agree with me about this". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Lane has long been superseded in this area by more recent scholarship. --Folantin (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference

Origins of the 1001 Nights Stories

It's obvious from the names of the characters and the language of the stories that they all originated from the old Persian empire to the Arab caliphates thru narrations by the storytellers as Arabs did't know how to read Persian literature.Later they were translated to Arabic by the Persians who were hired by the caliphates and the original book destroyed just like many other Persian books that were burned or destroyed after the take over by the Arabs.In fact in the book itself these stories are narrated by a story teller named Shahrzad (Persian name for ladies) who was trying to buy her life back by extending the number of the nights she was given by the caliphate before being beheaded.I don't know of any Arabic literature before the invasion of Persia other than Quran which has stories in it and of course those stories are from the bible.

Not that simple at all. Read the article. The frame story has no direct connection with any of the tales - the basic idea of a king's concubine telling stories to postpone her execution seems to be taken from an Indian collection of stories, and in the book itself the king is called a "Sasanian king" (OK, that much is "Persian") ruling in "India and China". Macbeth is set in Scotland, Hamlet in Denmark and Romeo and Juliet in Italy. Rather knocks your "obvious" on the head, but they're all by (the same) English person. Where a story is set has no bearing on where it originated. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Supplemental Nights, Baghdad Edition

I changed the "six" to "seven" as the number of volumes in the Supplement. I own an unnumbered copy of the "Baghdad Edition" (1000 impressions), and it has 7 numbered physical volumes in the Supplement, even though internally they're a little goofy.

In physical volume 3, stamped as such on the spine and listed as such in the title page, Burton complains in his foreword that his planned sequence has been completely "dislocated" by the Curators of the Bodlean, and says the whys and wherefores will be explained in due time. The TOC is for volume 3, but it lists more stories than the body of the volume actually contains.

In physical volume IV, stamped and titled as such, he goes straight into the tales with no TOC or Foreward. It turns out that this physical volume is the second part of the 3rd logical volume, with The Caliph's Night Adventure being the first story. It's unclear whether this is the result of the "dislocation". It might be something the printer did, so that the vol III would not stand out in the bookcase by being twice as thick as any of the others.

Physical volumes V, VI, and VII, stamped and titled as such, are logical volumes IV, V, and VI. 98.118.17.62 (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

questions regarding the r.f. burton translation, the b.a. cerf selection and the "Egyptian recension"

I have two questions regarding the r.f. burton translation, the b.a. cerf selection and the "Egyptian recension":

"The first European version (1704–1717) was translated into French by Antoine Galland from an Arabic text of the Syrian recension and other sources. This 12-volume work ... included stories that were not in the original Arabic manuscript. "Aladdin's Lamp" and "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves" (as well as several other, lesser known tales) appeared first in Galland's translation and cannot be found in any of the original manuscripts. ... As scholars were looking for the presumed "complete" and "original" form of the Nights, they naturally turned to the more voluminous texts of the Egyptian recension, which soon came to be viewed as the "standard version". The first translations ... and then by Sir Richard Francis Burton..."

now amazon says about the burton-translation, that it contains the stories that Galland seems to have added (see below). so one must conclude that the "Egyptian recension" contains the Galland-version... can this be right? and if so, how did it get there? back-translation?

(http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/0812972147?keywords=one%20thousand%20and%20one%20nights&qid=1442962946&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books-intl-de&sr=1-1

The Arabian Nights: Tales from a Thousand and One Nights (Modern Library Classics) (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 1. Juni 2004 von A.S. Byatt (Einleitung), Richard Burton (Übersetzer)

"This volume reproduces the 1932 Modern Library edition, for which Bennett A. Cerf chose the most famous and representative stories from Sir Richard F. Burton's multivolume translation, and includes Burton's extensive and acclaimed explanatory notes. These tales, including Alaeddin; or, the Wonderful Lamp, Sinbad the Seaman and Sinbad the Landsman, and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves...")

and finally - if I may -: how much (%) and what did Bennett A. Cerf omit? does the text lose authenticity for a connaisseur?

thanks! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

From my reading of the article it seems pretty clear that Galland's additional stories were not from either the "Egyptian", nor the "Syrian" versions, both of which are entirely in Arabic. The two "recensions" differ, especially in the number of stories they contain - in fact different manuscripts are also inconsistent. Galland's so-called "orphan" tales, however, are the ones not sourced to ANY Arabic manuscript. Existing Arabic versions of Aladdin, for instance, are generally believed to be translations of Galland's French! Exactly where Galland's stories originally came from is problematic - he claimed to have taken them down from a middle-eastern story teller and then translated them into French, in the same way as he translated the "main" text - less than charitable critics have even suggested he made them up himself to string the book out a bit and add interest (it has to be said that many of the original tales have limited appeal for Western readers, or modern Eastern ones for that matter). No one seriously supposes that "Galland's orphans" are an authentic part of the Nights - they usually appear in modern editions, but more out of tradition and habit than anything else. Sir Richard Burton' translation uncritically included Galland's additions, and also added authentic Arabic literature (Sinbad, for instance) that no one had previously associated with the Nights, but significantly, a lot of this added material he assigned to "supplementary" volumes rather than the main set covering the "authentic" part based on the original Arabic.

Which translation to read? If you are a native French speaker, I believe that Galland himself has been admired as a writer, and that his version of the Nights is a French classic. Of early English translations, Burton's has been admired as literature in its own right - although much of the "Arabic flavour" is just Burton being flowery rather than especially "authentic". Or there are a number of more accurate modern translations available. If you're seriously interested I suggest you try reading whatever you can get hold of! If you have access to Bennett A. Cerf and Burton you might try doing your own comparisons? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I'll add: My sense is that virtually no editions or translations of the Nights have any very good claim to "authenticity" because of the haphazard ways in which they were all cobbled together -- so in general, the best criterion is probably one's personal preference for the style of the translator. The exception seems to be the Muhsin Mahdi edition of 1984. This has been translated into English by Husain Haddawy in 1990, and possibly into other languages as well. (Haddawy's introduction includes a brief but useful history of versions, as well as a critique, with examples, of the translations of Lane, Payne, and Burton.) The catch is that what makes Mahdi's edition "authentic" -- other than emendations and lacunae it is based solely on a 14th-century Syrian ms -- makes it exclude many of the most popular tales: Alladin, Ali Baba, Sinbad, etc., because these were evidently later additions. But it might be argued that the "authentic" Nights is an evolving collection that retains some impression of each of the meddling hands that have touched it over the last thousand years. In that case, the sprawling Egyptian versions (and Galland, Burton, and the rest) are the real thing.

Regarding Cerf's 1932 selection, while I see that it boasts a hefty 823 pages, it is no match for Burton's 16 volumes of about 5,000 - 6,000 pages (my bargain reprint of Payne weighs in at just over 2,000). Any way you slice it, Cerf's done a lot of selecting. However with Burton there was a lot of padding ... and you have to ask yourself, do you really want to read 6,000 pages of anyone's translation? Phil wink (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken somewhat. Muhsin Mahdi's point was that European editors and Egyptian informants modified, edited, expurgated and censored the tales to a.) please conservative taste of the 19th century, b.) meet European demand to supplement the missing nights by replacing them. Yes you can proceed from the idea that the Nights are always defined by accretions but then again there is a difference between a set evolution and just altering the text to the point of destroying its style and consistency haphazardly. That's what Egyptian editors did. They excised from the tales all of the sexually explicit and obscene materials that they did not like, tried to tamper them down to fit a more conservative taste and added a bunch of other stories inconsistent with the Middle Arabic style of the core group of surviving stories, even deviating thematically from the themes of the core group (which mostly dealt with kingship). I don't necessarily agree with Mahdi that the Syrian tradition is "authentic" (which is near impossible when dealing with an evolving oral folklore tradition) but the relative consistency of the stories and order in the Syrian manuscript tradition (which is the only pre-modern, pre-colonial tradition surviving) with their relatively constant set group of stories preserving the same linguistic register, with Classical Arabic for the poetry versus the later 19th century Egyptian and European editions more inconsistent ordering, randomly added stories and expurgated character definitely indicate that the medieval (Mamluk era) folkoric tradition of the Nights is not particularly well represented by the Egyptian and Calcutta Nights or the editions by Burton, Lane, etc. As for Ali Baba and Aladdin, those are recent colonial forgeries that were added by Galland to help spice up the Nights for European readers, along with other additions like Sinbad, Ebony Horse, etc. While Arabic manuscripts exist for Sinbad, Ebony Horse, etc (albeit from traditions separate from that of the Nights), Aladdin and Ali Baba have none. He says he heard them from a Christian storyteller in Aleppo but no evidence of that exists. It's quite possible he made those two up. It matters not ultimately, depending on how you choose to approach the Nights. The Syrian manuscript tradition (as edited by Mahdi) best reflects the pre-modern Arabic Nights tradition as it survives today, and gives us clues as to what stories were commonly associated with the collection in the Medieval era, considering the same set remained in the same order in successive Syrian manuscripts. If you are interested in pre-modern Arabic literature and writing, the Mahdi-Haddawy Nights is best from a scholarly point of view (its my personal favorite). However, if you take a broader literary view of the Nights and appreciate the literary influence of the Nights in its various incarnations (including 19th century European Orientalist ones when it became a major work of world literature), then the Egyptian tradition and its European translators would the real thing for you. Both have their strengths. When it comes to the latter tradition, I prefer Burton. Granted his translation does not reflect the Arabic faithfully, if at all. But it did define the collection for the Victorian reader. It is significant and important, if only as a work of British orientalist literature rather than as an Arabic one. When it comes to the earlier tradition, Mahdi-Haddawy all the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.87.73.241 (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Minor edits of wording

At least at its best, the wording of Wikipedia can be very precise. A recent well meant (good faith) edit rendered a long standing edit from the lead as: It is also known in English as the Arabian Nights, as the first English language edition (1706) rendered the title as The Arabian Nights' Entertainment. The changes were:

1. "often" rendered to "also". Nothing clearer, or more grammatical, of even better punctuated about THIS bit. What's more, we lose an important nuance - probably "Arabian Nights" is the title most familiar with English-speaking readers, and indeed the article has in the past been known by that title. We do really need "often" rather than "also" here. As a general rule, few edits that makes text less specific are an improvement on the original.

2. The conventional English title is taken FROM the title of the first English-language edition. It is not identical - the "entertainment" bit was cut off. This what the original text says, pretty precisely. The modified text also says something fairly precise, but it is something different, and less accurate. Again - editing to make text "clearer" needs to be based on a full understanding of what existing text says. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see in the list here of publications those by Robert Heron?

Arabian Tales, or continuations of Arabian Nights' Entertainments, translated from the French, 4 vols. 1792. Robert Heron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heron_(writer)

Should it be entered or is his publication not considered a true ANE? Just wondering

Just putting another note as I forgot to log in under my wikipedia name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanslune (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Arabic gloss

@Tarook97: I don't know why you called this edit "arbitrary". It reflects the standard Arabic spelling and pronunciation of the title, and I'll now cite a standard reference. If you think that pointed vowels and formal case endings better reflect the body of RSs per WP:NPOV, please present sources to demonstrate it. Eperoton (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Point made. I'll remove the reference, no need for it to be there. Tarook97 (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, the Nights are part of Abbasid literature and are heavily associated with the Abbasid-era, so a Classical Arabic spelling such as [1] would be much more befitting. Tarook97 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tarook97: We don't know what the hypothetical Abbasid-era translations looked like, and the earliest extant manuscript are quite distant from the high classical register. In any case, in relation to the issue at hand this line of reasoning is WP:OR, in particular WP:SYNTH. The question we can ask here per WP policy is how the title is spelled in the body of RSs, in Arabic script and transliteration. I've never seen it spelled with pointed vowels or case endings in sources I've came across myself. You googled for the formal spelling and found it in a couple of books, but presented no evidence that it's a predominant usage, whose use would be compliant with WP:NPOV. As you can verify by another Google search, the spelling alf layla wa-layla is much more common. Not only that, it appears in authoritative references: EI3, which I've cited, EI2, Mahdi (author of the standard critical edition), Iranica. Please don't remove the citation. Content which is likely to be challenged (as you're doing here) needs to be sourced per WP:V. Eperoton (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Viaros17, i would appreciate a clarification regarding these edits : [2] (removal of "one thousand and one nights" in Persian) and [3] (Shahriyar is a Persian name and is written in Persian, with the Perso-Arabic script of course, this is not an Arabic name). Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Just in case you did not notice, I was simply reverting two edits here that were added by two random users with no explanation .[4][5] Regarding the "Persian title" inclusion, it has been discussed here several times before. So please check the archives[6]. As for the name Shahriyar. I know it is a Persian name. The article clearly state the Persian origin of the name along with an Arabic transliteration since the work was compiled in Arabic. The user Ali mjr, however, changed the language with no explanation[7] and I simply reverted the article to its original form. Viaros17 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your answer, i agree that the Persian title should not be included in the article (according to some consensus reached on the TP), however, writing "ar" next to "شهريار" ("Shahriyar" in Perso-Arabic script) instead of "fa" is misleading, therefore, i'll revert your last edit to the previous version. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to a Persian name it is better to write it with the two languages; because the language of the story is Arabic, and the origin of the name is Persian. So you cannot remove anyone of them.

هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with "Arabic versions" for a section heading?

Changing something over and over again doesn't necessarily make it right. If you want to change something and someone else wants to keep the existing text, then it is up to you to justify your change. In general a section heading needs to be the simplest and most straightforward possible description of the section - this particular section has had this heading for a good while and has not been a bone of contention before now. So please justify this edit. A flat assertion that you are "correcting an error" obviously isn't enough. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair - there's very little room in an edit summary! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals

Hi, the problem with the current section heading is exactly the opposite of what you said. It does not provide a correct description of the section. The Nights, though derived from a pre-Islamic Iranian prototype, took its current shape in the Arabic tradition, and that is after undergoing major developments and additions in different places, first in Iraq, and later in Egypt and Syria. Calling this phase a mere "versions" is very misleading and distorts the historical development of the book. The original core of the book (the Indo-Persian stories) was relatively small. The current Arabic book contains also an Iraqi layer of stories recorded between the 10th to 12th centuries, and also a further Arabic layer that developed independently in both Egypt and Syria between the 11th and 15th centuries. The Arabian nights, therefore, has developed from a much smaller Indo-Persian core, it was not just a "version" or translation of that core.

Unfortunately, since the Nights is a composite work and has had a complex history, some of the early contributors to the article has misrepresented the history of the book, and until now there are still many inaccuracies in the article. So just because a certain section heading was there for years that does not make it a correct one, especially when it contradicts the information from the very same section it describes. Best regards. Tvhs91 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Just because something has always been like this doesn't automatically mean we mustn't change it, but a change to something like this does need to be justified (on the good old principle of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". It is true that the section includes contentious matter but (I believe) it does now constitute a fair summary of something reasonably close to the consensus of scholarly opinion (in so far as such a consensus exists, and within the constraints of a general, popular encyclopedia article). But "Arabic versions" remains as good a title for the section as it ever was. It is succinct, plain and immediately comprehensible, and after all is what the section is mainly about. It is not anything like a complete summary of the section, but then that is not, with respect, what a section title is for. The original titles for the works we know as Robinson Crusoe and A Modest Proposal are examples of what section titles would start to resemble if we tried to make them cover everything in the section. What does "Arabic development" even mean? A reader, as opposed to "me or thee", might well wonder. In this context the title is not the place to raise difficulties - plenty of them in the text to follow. Sorry if this post is a little longer than what I had in mind, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals

The section does not contain a contentious matter IMO, it is just that its contents are misrepresented by the current heading. There are indeed Arabic versions of the Nights (the surviving Arabic manuscripts of the work), these manuscripts, however, are "Arabic versions" relative to an earlier Arabic original, not to a pre-Arabic one as the current title might imply. When we name the section heading as "Arabic versions", we are implying that there exist a non-Arabic version of the book which is wrong. There are no "versions" or "orginals" of this book that are extant in any other language than Arabic. And that is of course does not negate the historical relationship and connection between the current Arabic book and the pre-Islamic Indo-Persian one from which it inherited the frame story and some story cycles. When you have a composite work, it is more natural to speak about "layers" which considers the gradual historical development of the work. That is why scholars speaks about a "Persian layer", an "Indian layer" or an "Iraqi layer" and such.

By the way, I have no problem with keeping the "Arabic versions" title within the section but not as the section heading which is misleading and wrong. You might be right regarding the "Arabic development" title which I am thinking about changing into "Arabic transformation". This is a more appropriate term and a commonly used one when discussing literature. I am open to other suggestions from your part as well. So please don't make this discussion long and lets compromise, specially when we are arguing over a one word change. Tvhs91 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Contentious? Perhaps mainly in the sense of "contended over" - see some of the arguments we have had with Persian chauvinism (mercifully now mostly archived) on this very page. I agree that one word may seem petty, but that cuts both ways, especially if there is doubt about what the word should be. No section heading, perhaps, was ever all things to all men, but I will probably always remain bemused about what is actually wrong with a short simple and very far from irrelevant heading like this one. Time to move on to more vital matters? Not a matter of "winning" - especially with an article like this, which has a very high "hit" rate - the reader must always come first. The heading as it is not only misleads nobody, but it also fails to confuse, a worthwhile aim, when all is said and done. A thought - might "Evolving Arabic versions" - putting an adjective at the front, cut the knot? But I still can't see there is really a knot to cut, or that we are looking at a new heading that is one whit better than the old. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals

I am quite aware of those arguments. What I meant is that the section in its present form reflects the current scholarly consensus fairly well. The only problem is with its title. Dealing with uninformed nationalist users is of course another story like you said.

Regarding your proposed title, well, I am not quite sure. The thing is that I am against the word "versions" itself. This word denotes that the work underwent little changes, and is still linked to its supposed original inherently. In terms of literature, versions usually refer to translations, adaptations, abridgments and such things. That is not the case with the Nights, however. Here you have a large composite work with a complex history of authorship, development and collection, in a process that took up centuries to reach its final form. The current Arabic book we have today is a stand-alone work and not a mere version of any previous one whatever that might be. The fact that the Arabic work incorporated a certain pre-Islamic Indo-Persian core, or that an Arabic version of that core had existed at some point in history is irrelevant and beside the point. The section should be discussing the Arabic rendering of the book covering all things related to it from versions, translations, additions, collections, manuscript traditions ..etc. That is why I am more inclined to use the word "transformation". This word is more general and it covers the historical development of the book more comprehensively. It is even used at the beginning of the section itself. So what's your problem with this word exactly? I am willing to settle on a title like "Arabic transformation and versions" or "Arabic version and transformation" if we agree on that. I don't think that 3 or 4 words are too many for a section heading. If you see it that way, however, than I am for "Arabic transformation" title. Your opinion? Tvhs91 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing whatever in the dictionary or ordinary use of the word "version" to support your assumption that it implies a "mere" or minor variation - take as an example the "Disneyfied version" of almost anything! "Versions" is of course the right word here - I am totally bemused by the idea that "transformations" would be better in any way. On the other hand do have a look at the heading as it is now ("Evolving Arabic versions") which might be thought to make the nature of the different versions clearer. (Frankly I don't - I much prefer the original, before this argument started!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally pursuaded by Tvhs91's arguments here. Johnbod (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Arab Culture"?

I noticed this article is being "classified" as an "arab culture" article. This is incorrect as the One Thousand and One Nights book is multi-cultural series of stories encapsulated by a Persian frame story. I think the Arab culture classification is misleading and should probably be removed.Xarhunter (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Persian have no thing with Arab culture , and the official language of Islamic civilization was the Arabic. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. "1001 Nights" is NOT Arabic, nor is it related to Arabic culture. It was translated to Arabic from Persian because of an Arab ban on the Persian language during the Islamic Arab conquest of Persia. The original works of Hezar Afsaneh ("1000 tales") in Persian are certainly referred to in historical documents as being the source of some, if not all, of the stories, but they were incinerated by the Arabs as "pagan" according to some sources. The fact that the Frame-Story is 100% Persian is proof in itself. This article is in serious need of a revision. Will mark it as as such.Xoltron (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hezār Afsān and the "Nights"

As if it were necessary to defend this article yet again from another set of POV attacks! The scholarly consensus of the relationship between these two works has been well covered for many years and is not disputed by any reputable source (even, so far as I know, by an Iranian one). Not every article in an encyclopedia will ever please everyone - but Wikipedia rejects (as it must) every kind of unconfirmed personal opinion or prejudice. If we can't always find the full truth - especially as Hezār Afsān no longer actually exists (for whatever reason) and it is not possible to objectively assess exactly what relation it had to either the "Arabic" work (the subject of this article, for good or ill) or the Indian prototype - or, for that matter, what stories it might have contained. Any surmise claiming the consensus of scholars to be erroneous is totally beyond our brief here - if they are wrong then it is simply not our place to correct them off our own bat, replacing what is generally believed with something else - however much we want it to be so. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read my entry above. Also Correct Hezar Afsan no longer exists, as most pre-islamic Persian texts were deliberately destroyed during Persia's islamizattion - but it certainly did exist as there are existing historical texts which clearly cite it is a partial source and origin for "Nights". https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=fa&tl=en&text=%D9%87%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86 Xoltron (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

All I see is your personal analysis/commentary without providing any source for your claims. HAZĀR AFSĀN: The Persian title of The Arabian Nights, the world-famous collection of tales. See ALF LAYLA WA LAYLA. Looking at your contributions shows an obvious pattern of POV-pushing. Current revision of this article is an accepted revision (read previous discussion). Don't change it without consensus. Also stop edit warring. You think current revision is wrong?! Then open a new section. Suggest your revision, provide sources that support your concerns, and wait for other editors' comments. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

My recent grammar/usage correction.

Before I edited the page, the two sentences around line 32 read: "Shahryār is shocked to learn that his brother's wife is unfaithful; discovering that his own wife's infidelity has been even more flagrant and he has her killed."

The informational content seems fine to me. However, "...discovering that his own wife's infidelity has been even more flagrant..." is a participial phrase that is clearly meant to refer to "he" in "...he has her killed." If this participial phrase is joined to "he has her killed" by "and", the whole thing becomes a dangling participial phrase, and lacks parallel construction, as well. These are, in my opinion, not obscure points of grammar (especially the former) and shouldn't need further citation.

Based on the edit history, it doesn't appear that my edit was specifically targeted for reversion, but was rather part of a sweeping change by the user. I suspect he/she may have saved his/her version, and merely copy/pasted it as part of the single edit. If so, I hope that he/she (and any other interested parties) will opt for a more "surgical" edit in the future.

I haven't tracked back through the edit history but the correction you have just made seems obviously sensible to me. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree! At least insofar and cutting out the extraneous "and" - although the original punctuation was better - almost a text-book example of using a semi-colon rather than starting a new sentence before the old one is really finished. What actually happened here is that this article has been under heavy "vandal attack" - with several consciencious editors trying to keep things under control. This situation is fraught with "baby with bathwater" edits, that remove changes best left together with others that really need reversion. One more reason no9t to edit in a wild and wooly way in the first place, of course. Anyway well-picked! and as you surmised, it wasn't your edit in particular that was reverted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Names as Arabic or Persian

I am currently engaged with an argument with an IP over at Scheherazade about the language tagging of the name Scheherazade. The article previously had it tagged as Arabic, but an IP changed it to Persian. This was reverted by another editor. Either the same or a different IP (the address keeps changing) then changing the name to no language and upon my reverting, claimed that I must prove that the name is Arabic. I would appreciate some outside input on the matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is a joke, exclusion, possibly politically motivated

Why is Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc EXCLUDED from the list once the list of the origins for the 1001 nights starts listing religions? Are those religious cultures assumed included by naming "India"? To mention one religious culture while excluding others is a glaring omission of facts.

The above (unsigned) post is most strange - there is no "list of religions" in the article - nor is "India" a religion anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2019

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

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 01:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't One Thousand and One Nights redirect to Arabian Nights? Since this is English Wikipedia and Arabian Nights is what people call it in English, plus One Thousand and One Nights just sounds weird. Beevest (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

One Thousand and One Nights → Arabian Nights – Arabian Nights is what it's called in English, and this is English Wikipedia. NightBag10 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not! Strictly not even (quite) the same thing! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, uh uh, wait just a darn minute..., One Thousand and One Nights is one of the most famous and honored names in literature. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close ridiculous. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose " just sounds weird" isn't a valid RM argument, especially when One Thousand and One Nights is an extremely well-known title in English. Time to turn off Disney's Aladdin, despite its catchy opening number Ribbet32 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Biased Version regarding origins of the Nights

It is absolutely striking how biased the English version of this article is! In particular the introduction. I invite the multilingual community to look at the other versions available and draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.0.160.167 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Hezār Afsān and the Persian background to the "nights"

This work is (alas) long lost. The scholarly consensus, (not to mention a very long outstanding Wikipedia consensus) is pretty much as we have it here. Its relationship with the subject of this article is mentioned in the lead, as well as having its own section. The archives for this talk page have many pages of discussion as to whether we should give more emphasis than we do to the Persian background to the nights - the current text is in fact based on the sources (including the Encyclopedia Iranica) and a very long-standing consensus. Anyone wishing to raise NEW arguments please raise them here first - and they'd better be scholarly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Arabian Nights"

Editors supposing that the bare mention of this (English) title is somehow "biased" need to recognise that this is in fact the usual English name for the subject of the article. It is of course patently unscholarly - which is why strong pressure to actually rename the article has been stoutly resisted for so long, but surely we are allowed to mention it - if only so that our typical English reader will recognise he has found the article s/he is looking for. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

On the Persian Origins of the Nights

In all, the article is quite judicious in its subsections in conveying the inextricable pre-Islamic Persian origin of the work (a direct translation of Hezār Afsān or “1000 Tales”), as reflected in its literary style, tales, settings and characters (Shahrazad, Shahryar, Dunyazad, Ja'far, Zumurrud, Princess Paribanoo, Shah Zaman, Sindbad, Morgiana, King Yunan, Khusrau Parviz, Shirin, etc.). It later expounds on the idea that many of the tales were superficially modified to include Arab Islamic names and settings in place of pre-Islamic Persian ones (Ali Shar, Prince Ali, Prince Ahmed, etc.), and even many of the Abbasid-era characters who were later added particularly in the medieval Baghdad cluster are Persians, or their stories take place in Persia (Ja'far al-Barmaki, Ishaq al-Mawsili, Ibrahim al-Mawsili, Abu Nuwas, etc.). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_One_Thousand_and_One_Nights_characters

Indeed, the Nights bares a striking likeness to the vast compendium of secular Persian literature and prose which has no equivalent in the scant pre-modern Arabic literature, except for apparently this work from over a millennium before present (which again, was originally a translation of a Persian book). This is not, however, reflected in the introduction, which makes use of the imprecise term “Middle Eastern” (its only incidence in the article) and goes so far as to ascribe Greek, Turkish, and even Jewish pedigrees to the tales, which has no evidential basis or justification in any scholarship and, again, is not explained in the remainder of the Wikipedia article (indeed upon closer examination of the reference, the Marzolph book merely uses the same sentence without providing any examples or justification.) Readers with even a rudimentary understanding of the region’s demographic history are immediately struck by the fact that Turkic tribes had not yet migrated from Central Asia/Siberia into the Near East when the original Persian and Abbasid versions were composed, and that implying an elusive Jewish presence in the Nights is nothing short of inane.

A more reasonable introduction would address the issue of the English moniker “Arabian Nights” being regarded as a misnomer, and in doing so acknowledge the disproportionate Persian provenance and nature of the Nights, which is addressed thoroughly using primary sources in the body of the article. If the moderators view relocating the etymologies of the two main characters Shahrzadeh and Shahryar from the synopsis section to the introduction (where they are first mentioned) or questioning flagrantly unfounded claims of Turkish, Greek, and Jewish presence in the Nights as “chauvinism”, I encourage them to reexamine their own biases in the way in which they subconsciously view this piece of literature-- that is, removed from the distorted Orientalist lens of Western historiography. 108.49.112.200 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There is (generally, at least) no need to list the sources of our sources (where would it end?) Marzolph is regarded as a "reliable source" by the usual Wikipedia criteria for these things - the statement on the varied ethnic origins of individual tales we take (perhaps too literally) from him does not, on the face of it, require further citation, although it would indeed improve the article to locate the particular tales Marzolf had in mind. Failing to locate any such tales does not really count as evidence though, does it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism

In searching for sources backing up the content in this article, I came across this webpage, which contains substantially similar content to this article. The earliest snapshot of the webpage on the Internet Archive is from 2016, which is much later than the content was added to Wikipedia. Judging from the editing history of the article, I believe the webpage has copied and pasted from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. I've added {{Backwards copy}} to this talk page. Feel free to correct if I've made a mistake. MClay1 (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't gone so far as to check your work, but I have little doubt you are quite right. This often happens - not only blogs and websites but even published print books do on occasion plagiarise Wikipedia (copying short or in some cases quite long passages, even whole articles, word for word). The legal situation is not altogether clear in some instances - at least if "we" are acknowledged as a source, as Wikipedia is not formally "copyright". And of course the reverse also happens (perhaps even more often?) - which is something we can actually do something about - a matter of checking "history" and dates, as you have done, and where appropriate changing (hopefully improving) our text. It may even be that Wikipedia and the blog (or whatever) in question have both both plagiarised the same original source. A dead giveaway is where it is an older, less accurate (even misspelt or ungrammatical) version of the WP text that has been plagiarised! I even cam across one case where the WP text was actually very bad indeed, but had got itself reproduced in a printed book that post-dated our article. I applied the obvious remedy of rewriting "our' text - and also sent a complaint to the publisher in question. The real danger here is that inaccurate information can get the imprimatur of "circular citation". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

reference/citation format cleanup in-progress

I am still in progress with a reference/citation format cleanup. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted all these edits. I made an error in conversion right at the start. The work still should be done to make the references more maintainable. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

1001 Nights

Is it possible for the page to accept the digits with the word both combined as "1001 Nights". 137.59.221.36 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Woman characters and romance

1001 Nights has based itself in Baghdad and intends to tell stories that took place when the Islamosphere claimed its "Golden Age".

I have noticed that description of women characters are missing and that the romance that this page once presented has become absent. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)