Talk:One Thousand and One Nights/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Origins

What cracks me up the most about this retarded debate about Persian vs. Arabic is that most of the stories that people are familiar with have European origins. Galland, Burton and others freely made up stories and shoved them into the collection at will. So your Persian/Arabic connection is really English, French and German mainly, with a few Persian and Arabic names and words tossed in for good "Oriental" mystique, which European readers loved during the 17th-18th centuries. The 9th century manuscript has only a few stories and the oldest Arabic version has only about 100 stories. The Persian collection called "Hazar Af Saneh" has never been found, though it was mentioned in the Fihrist of Al-Nadim, but only so much as the names of the 2 main characters. So before anyone goes crazy about whether it's Persian or whatever, do your research, go to the library, read books about the history of the 1001 Nights, anything, and unfortunately you'll see that most of the stories in there come from Europe. You will never find a first edition of the Nights because one does not exist. That is why they are so cool. stan goldsmith 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add some things... First of all, the gentleman above is completely wrong about the "European" origin of the stories. The cause is very simple: just try to write fake stories of this kind, and of this extend. You will need 100 lives, and the result will be notably "West European"... No Jinns, no ghosts, no flying carpets...

The most important thing I have to say, is that I know a fairy tale from my grand-grandmother, from Kallikrateia, East Thrace, outside Byzantium, that precedes the story of "Ali Baba & the Forty Thieves". The forty Thieves in this version are "draki" "δράκοι", that means vampires! My studies indicate that many myths were created in ancient Thrace, including the Orphic texts, and also strange religions! I will write a book about my discoveries, in which I will also refer to versions found in Northern Tibet! As for that, I have to thank Wikipaedia that published the similarities with Sanskrit texts already, and so the public is more ready to accept my discoveries.

Themistoklis Eleftheriadis 27 February 2010 (Greece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.158.225 (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro and Timeline

Why was my intro and timeline deleted? It was the most encyclopedic version of the collection? Especially the timeline. WTF??? Wikipedia just lost my contributions. I'm tired of putting in so much work just to have it deleted for no apparent reason. The 1001 Nights is the topic of my PHD diss, so I think I have some experience with researching it. You know what? Don't put them back up, they are now private content and I'm going to put the info on my own website. You guys can keep this shabby 4th grade version of something. stan goldsmith 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the timeline was particularly useful. Why has it been deleted? According to my sources it was accurate. I will add it back in if there are no further comments on the topic here in the next few days. Taranah 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I got mad. I worked hard on that info. What about the introduction? My introduction was much more comprehensive and gave a good overview of the Nights than what is up. Not sure why there has to be Farsi translations of the names of the characters too, unless you also want to include Arabic, Urdu, Russian, etc.

stan goldsmith 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't allow insertion of original research (WP:NOR). - Marmoulak 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the policy about no original research, but the timeline was compiled from two specific references that Stan listed:

• Dwight Reynolds. "The Thousand and One Nights: A History of the Text and its Reception." The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Arabic Literature in the Post-Classical Period. Cambridge UP, 2006.
• Robert Irwin. The Arabian Nights: A Companion. Tauris Parke, 2004.

Both references are considered reliable and authoritative. I have not read the modified introduction carefully so I can't comment on whether any original research was introduced, but I would certainly like to see a scholarly timeline included in the article. Taranah 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a small amount was -- the part regarding the mystery of the Nights is the sort of thing that'd need sourcing, I think. We can't make a claim like that on our own. Most of the other changes are simple to verify from the text of the Nights itself; it's easy to see, for instance, that some of the stories are framed within other stories. As far as the timeline goes, it all appears verified between those two sources. I see no explanation for the removal of Galland, and it certainly seems rather important in the publication history according to those sources, so I've reverted that as well. I would ask for a more detailed discussion here before any further removals of any of this information, since it seems consensus is toward its inclusion. Shimeru 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks & as for the timeline it is original content created by myself that was culled from information in those books (not copyright infringement).stan goldsmith 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, sorry if that wasn't clear. What I mean is, it isn't original research in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term -- it's verified in third-party sources, not something you came up with in its entirety. Shimeru 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Armand Phillips translation of Thousand and One Days cited as a translation of the Nights? The François_Pétis_de_la_Croix article suggests it is a 17th century Persian work by Derwish Moqlas. StephenEugeneTaylor (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "Scheherazade"

This article says "townswoman"; the main wiki article about her says "of noble realm", and the linked article in Encyclopaedia Iranica says "of noble lineage" (with čeh rather than shah). Someone please research what it really is and insert a sourced explanation.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be terribly confused - since "townswoman" is about as likely as the others I have left it as a possibility with a new footnote referring to her own article's section on her name. I don't think we're going to score an explanation that will tell us "what it really is", or give us a single source we can take over other equally acceptable ones. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I do like "of noble lineage" better - but I'm leaving in the "possibly"!!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert but in the version which I herd in India when I was a kid it was shehejadi (pronounced as spelled) literally meaning princes. Also logically, if all the virgins in the kingdom are already dead, as stated in the article, how can there be someone from sheher (meaning city) whom the king marries 'reluctantly'. So I personally think the kings daughter is the better explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.11.198 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jonny Quick

The narrator's standards for what constitutes a cliffhanger seem broader than in modern literature. While in many cases a story is cut off with the hero in danger of losing his life or another kind of deep trouble, in some parts of the full text Scheherazade stops her narration in the middle of an exposition of abstract philosophical principles or complex points of Islamic philosophy, and in one case during a detailed description of human anatomy according to Galen—and in all these cases turns out to be justified in her belief that the king's curiosity about the sequel would buy her another day of life.

"The most beautifully written sentence I have ever read in my life." - Jonny Quick

Jonny Quick (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Jonny Quick

"We have collected"

As an outsider, reading an encyclopedia read "we have collected" in the opening paragraph, really confuses me. Who is we? An "I" included in that "we?" Probably not. But who is included then? Could "we" be replaced by "Persians?" Or "anthropologists?" "We" is far too ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.19.99 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• But that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS AT ALL!! Pasted from the article - the text reads The work as we have it was collected over many centuries by various authors, translators and scholars across the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa. If that's ambiguous, why, after it's been there all these years, and in a widely read article (just look at the discussion it generates), has no one else remarked on its supposed ambiguity? In fact the meaning is plain enough, but to explain anyway - "as we have it" means something like "in the form in which it is currently known". It is a relatively common English phrase in this kind of context, and expresses the meaning we want succinctly, unambiguously and clearly. Having said all that, if you can think of an even better way of putting what we want to say, by all means... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest "Persian edits"

The following was posted to the editor's "message" page.

Thank you for your good faith edits to the above article.

The rationale for the versions of the "titles" mentioned in the first paragraph is as follows:

• 1. The literal English translation of the Arabic/Persian (this IS an English Encyclopedia).
• 2. The Arabic title (the oldest existing manuscripts, in fact ALL existing manuscripts are in Arabic)
• 3. The Persian title (given the Persian origin of the frame story, and some of the tales)
• 4. The ordinary (common) English title - (inaccurate as it is both as a translation of the Arabic/Persian - and as a description of the content/origins of the tales)

If you read through the discussion page you will notice that we have had a lot of arguments etc. around this and other aspects of the origins and content of this collection of folk tales. I do think we probably have the Arabic/Persian balance just about right - in particular the Persian aspects receive due weight in a number of different sections. This has been achieved in spite of attacks on the article by partisans for both the Arabic and the Persian "sides".

If you disagree, we would appreciate your bringing up any difficulties you may have with the text of this article on the "discussion" page, at least in the first instance - so that other interested editors may also have their input before we decide on any non-trivial changes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Titles

Do we really need every single language's version of the title of the 1001 Nights? Like Bulgarian? Can we delete all except for Arabic since the oldest existing book of stories was in Arabic?stan goldsmith 19:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, Stan. The long list is excessive, and most other books don't list all translations of their titles. My guess is that consensus will require keeping both Arabic and Persian. If the other names are important to some readers, perhaps we can create a subsection below with a reference to it (as in the Vienna article referenced in WP:MOS). — Taranah 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are wikimedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.65.130 (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you say such a thing Stan since the Hezar Afsaneh(written in Persian) came first according to Masudi....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveh94 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Persian Backstory?

The backstory Characters names are definately Persian, I am not debating that. However, that in no way automatically transpires to; 1) Them being Persians themselves. 2) The backstory being of Persian origin.

This is because firstly because just prior to the Islamic conquest of Mesopotamia, it was under Persian rule. Many of the Arabs who resided there - especially of the Lakhmids who were under Persian influence and control and used against the Roman-influenced Ghassanids took up Persian names. Just as most Persians after the Islamic conquest took up Arabic names. How would anyone feel if I were to automatically claim Avicenna was Arabic due to his name only? Also, many of the Indian loyalty at the time (and even today) have Persian names, which again does not make them Persians. The backstory is also likely set in India.

Secondly, immediately before and during the Islamic conquest of Persia, it was still viewed with intrigue by most and the same is true of Arabian perception of India back then. This is similar to the romanticised orientalist view of India during British rule. It is most likely that the back story was Arabian in origin, but used Persian names to set it in India or Persia as Arabs viewed those places with intrigue and romanticism back then. This allowed for all the magicians, based loosely on Arabian misunderstanding and ignorance towards the Indian and Zoroastarian religious establishment at the time.

My point is that there is no definative proof that only because their names are Persian that it means they are automatically Persians themselves. Unless someone brings hard literary proof from the Arabian Nights or unbiased expert opinion, I am removing any mention of the characters in the backstory being Persian. Encyclopedia Iranica is a reliable source, though by definition, they will try to link as much things with Iranian culture in order to justify and allow for more articles. Unless their sources in turn are reliable and from the original manuscripts or from unbiased expert opinion, I will question their reliability and integrity in terms of my point here. There is far too much mention that their names are of Persian origin, but I will leave that in for the sake of all those Persian Nationalist racists out there.

Peace out. User:Nabuchadnessar (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid writing such forum style texts (wp:forum). Wikipedia works like this: POV of wikipedia is strongly based on what the experts say (wp:RS) even if you think the experts are living on another planet. A reliable source on the subject is Encyclopaedia of Islam. This source states explicitly that: The book is Persian in origin, style, ... Please read their article. Thank you. Xashaiar (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Thousand and One Days

1714 — The Thousand and One Days: Persian Tales by Ambrose Philips. The earliest English translation with an attributed author. - But isn't The Thousand and One Days something different than One Thousand and One Nights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.231.132 (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources I can find give this as a translation from the French of F. Pétis de la Croix, and date it at 1722 rather than 1714. What relationship this has with Galland's (1704) translation I have no idea - it seems likely they are connected, at least, with the same work - but we'd need a really good reference before we could put this into the article! Why "days" instead of "nights" is also problematic - one suspects deliberate parody! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a translation of Pétis de la Croix's Les mille et un jours, which is a hoax. It claims to be based on a Persian translation of Indian tales, but it is merely a cash-in on the vogue for Galland's edition. [1]. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic first line

Giving a translation of the title The Thousand and One Nights in Persian alongside the Arabic is a violation of our policy on undue weight. Yes, the collection is believed to be based on a Persian prototype, but that was called Hezar Afsan (The Thousand Tales). The introduction already deals with this quite adequately. Hezar Afsan no longer exists and ideas about its contents are speculative. It did not bear the title Hezār-o yek šab. All existing versions of The Thousand and One Nights are based on the Arabic work bearing this title. This includes Persian translations of the collection. There is no reason why we should privilege Persian translations from the Arabic over any other language version. --Folantin (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

While this is an English language encyclopedia we have to face the fact that English is no longer exclusively "our" language - it has become an international language - and we need to allow for the fact that our readership will include people of many nationalities. In this context, have you considered that keeping the Persian version of the title in the first sentence effectively makes the very point you want to make? The subject of the article is in fact Hezār-o yek šab - NOT the probable prototype of that work by the name of Hezār Afsan. Some Persian readers confuse the two (hence several long running edit wars!!) - just as well to make it abundantly clear at the very outset that what we are talking about here IS the Arabic work known in Persian as Hezār-o yek šab. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? This is the English-language encyclopaedia for anglophone readers. Persian-speakers have an entire Wikipedia of their own. If anyone wants to know what the Persian version of the title is they can click the relevant link in the left-hand column. The same goes for the French, German, Italian, Hindi etc. versions. The only relevant titles for Wikipedia.en are the original Arabic and the English translations thereof. Putting the Persian title in the first sentence gives the misleading impression that there is a Persian book called Hezār-o yek šab that isn't merely a translation of the Arabic text.

Warring over foreign titles in the first line on Wikipedia often has more to do with tom cats marking their territory than any concern for encyclopaedic accuracy as this drive-by edit by User:Samy23 ironically accusing me of "Arab nationalism" makes clear [2]. --Folantin (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I tend to agree with most of your second paragraph! But be fair - the "tom cats" with the long silky coats and the squashed in faces DO have a teeny weenie little point here which we might just as well concede. I know that some of them are far from content with this and want every mention of the word "Arab" removed from this and every article on Wiki - but provided we treat this with the contempt it deserves I don't think it does anyone any harm to concede that, when all is said and done, the "Arabian Nights" DO have a Persian frame story, and at least a few of the tales are Persian too. The same certainly can't be said for the French, Germans or Italians (and not really the Indians either, although the very idea of a "tale collection within a frame" is Indian in origin). Wait a minute - we DO cover all this in the lead already! So what is the great big deal about mentioning the Persian name for this Arabic book (with its strong Persian background). As I mentioned before - mentioning both the Persian title of the book AND the (different) Persian title for its very likely prototype "implies" very roundly that they are two different things. Which is something that a certain type of very nationalistic Persian NEEDS to be reminded of.

And as I have already pointed out, English is an international language - and an English edition of just about anything is an international edition. It's really not JUST for (native) "anglophone readers". We have many readers (not just Persians either) whose education was largely driven by English language text books. We can take a pride in this of course, and it saves us the bother of learning Arabic or Chinese, or even Esperanto - but it does mean that we don't "own" our native language the way that the speakers of Tongan or Cherokee or even Dutch or Finnish own theirs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as you say, the Persian influence is dealt with in the introduction anyway. Do we really want to cater for a small minority of ultra-chauvinist readers who can't be bothered to read beyond the first sentence? Plus, to take one loose parallel, many of La Fontaine's Fables are based on Aesop, but we wouldn't give a Greek title in the first line of the "La Fontaine's Fables" page. The point is the Persian title Hezār-o yek šab is simply a translation of the Arabic and has no more right to be in the first sentence than any other language. (Incidentally, it's not entirely true that the "1001 Nights" has more claim to a Persian than a French title. After all, the earliest versions of many famous stories such as Aladdin are only to be found in Antoine Galland's French edition. Some people even claim there are no earlier versions, i.e. the tales are really French in origin).

My method for dealing with the "tom cats" is to show zero tolerance for any of them, rather than humouring them. Otherwise, as one editor put it, we end up with an encyclopaedia that says 2+2= four and a half. --Folantin (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a matter of "toleration" or "humouring" anyone (as you know - I am a stubborn old git) so much as trying VERY hard to see the other person's point of view and balancing a sensible rejection of any hint of "2+2=4½" with due concession to any valid point someone else might have. The Persian references in the lead to this article are probably about right - the fact that we get sniped now and then from both sides makes me think we've got it pretty right. I quite agree (none more) that there are times one needs to stick to one's guns - but I don't think that the long standing and on the whole fairly sensible consensus on this one is in any need of disturbance. The lead to this article (which I fear is all that any of the nationalists read) is on the whole a reasonably balanced and more or less factual effort (in so far as we even HAVE the facts) that I don't think we need disturb.

BTW (and on a much lighter note) was it coincidence, do you think, that you picked a French work as an analogy? When it comes to mindless nationalism without reference to reality I think the French (as in so many other things) certainly far excel us all! Incidentally, there doesn't seem to be an article as such on la Fontaine's versions of the fables - the fables themselves mostly get individual articles, and there is an article on la Fontaine himself, but... Interesting that.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What's a "Tom Cat," if you don't mind me asking? I see an image of a certain plane when you say that, which ironically is only currently still flown by the Iranian Air Force. Weird... The Scythian 04:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals, Folantin is probably right. Giving the Persian title will fool the reader into the assumption that there is a historical Persian work known by this title. Based on what the article is aware so far, "Hezār Afsān" is a term used in the 11th century. If "Hezār-o yek šab" is a historical title of the work in some Persian version, the burden will lie on you to substantiate this with decent references. The "Persian origin" thing is already completely overblown in the article as it stands. This is not surprising, as Persian nationalism is one of the most persistent pests of the project. You would do well to keep this in mind every time you find some mention of "Persian" anywhere on the wiki. Chances are that such an article is periodically destroyed by expatriate Persian teenagers in an identity crisis. This is the internet, after all, you don't expect to meet nice people by default. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Though I actually agree with your point(had my own recent battle a few weeks back), your wording comes across as rather prejudicial. Just substitute the word "Jew" or "Black" for "Persian," and see how it may sound to some ears. A little tact goes a long way. Just a thought. The Scythian 04:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It took me two minutes to google this, and perhaps five more minutes to insert it into the article with proper references. So much time could be saved if people simply sat down and did some research instead of settling for a "dispute" on talk.

1. The earliest Persian translations of the work date to the 19th century. They are already influenced by the first English edition of 1814 printed in Calcutta.
2. This is distinct from the hypothesis of an early "Persian phase" of tradition which is presumed based on textual analysis.

The title "Hezār-o yek šab" clearly forms part of topic (1.) above, not topic (2.). --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the way the lead is written. It simply does not give enough attention to the Persian origin of the work as it deserves: what does it mean that "[it] is a collection of Middle Eastern and South Asian stories and folk tales". I propose using the exact wording of Encyclopaedia of Islam (Three): page 30:

“A thousand nights

and one night,” is an oriental collection of stories that is constituted by a frame-tale focused on the narrator, Shahrazād, telling stories for a thousand nights. Derived from a pre-Islamic Iranian prototype that relied partly on Indian elements, the collection gained fame in the Western world by way of the French translation adapted from various Arabic sources and published by Antoine

Galland between 1704 and 1717.

I am going to change it accordingly. wikipedia follows RS. Xashaiar (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing's ever Persian enough for you, is it, Xashaiar? Even if this means surreptitiously purging an article on The Arabian Nights of its Arabic content in the introduction, including the name of the book in Arabic, under false pretences. There's an overpowering reek of tom cat round here. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(added a blank line to clarify the start of Xashaiar's post, no other changes) --Mirokado (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Xashaiar has left the building. Permanently. --Folantin (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we concentrate on the article instead of personal attacks against users and bringing up their nationality (which is against rulers of Wikipeda). Of course dab is a lasher (and sometimes has mistaken legitimate difference of opinion with nationalism due to a users background and this is unfortunate), but some people might be suprised by the strong Persian undercurrent to these stories. So I think his initial assumption about Xashaiar is wrong. And unlike what dab claims (11th century), this undercurrent is already mentioned in the early 10th century. Since Al-Masudi passed away in 956. Please see [3]: "The most ancient testimony to the existence of a collection of tales bearing this title is given by Masʿūdī (d. 345/956; see Morūǰ IV, p. 90; ed. Pellat, sec. 1416). He refers to work full of untrue stories translated from Persian, Sanskrit, and Greek, including the “book entitled Hazār afsāna, or the thousand tales, because a tale is called in Persian afsāna. This volume is known to the public under the title "One thousand and one nights;" it is the story of a king, his vizier, his daughter Šīrāzād, and her slave Dīnāzād.” "[4] So here is a 10th century source already connecting these two terms. I believe a detailed discussion of Hezar Afsan per the Iranica article is warranted. Also I will quote: "..The fact remains that the names of the three personages who played a principal part in the prologue are Iranian, and a fourth is an Iranian compound." and "Thus the theory which ascribes to the prologue and frame-story an Indo-Persian origin is no longer open to doubt; as for the tales of the collection, those have three different, though unequal, sources: Indian, Persian, and Arabic"[5]. I think there is a strong Persian component here (which dab probably did not know about), but I am not sure if there is any wikipedia rules dealing with foreign languages. At least the names of the characters which Iranian origin (note the baba in AliBaba is also Persian word and Indo-European cognate with Pap /Pope..). As long as all statements are sourced with WP:RS, there should be no problem. But I think the primary of Persian, Sanskrit and then Greek origin of the stories should be highlighted as do both the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Iranica. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Xashaiar The lead (introduction) as it is already faithful to our cited sources - it does NOT follow their precise wording for the very good reason that would be copyright violation.

@Khodabandeh - I agree this is getting personal - and that it shouldn't.

@Dbachmann I think your addition to the timeline is great - I wish I could think that everyone would read that far down before they made up their minds that the article was biased!

@Folantin much as it pains me to admit it - we might as well omit the Persian name, especially if it is the title of a specific 19th century Persian translation.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued: History of the evolution of the Nights

I've looked at the article by Dwight Reynolds in The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature Vol 6. (CUP 2006) p.270ff. He basically says that, judging by the references we have from al-Masudi, al-Nadim et al., the Persian Hazar afsan was the prototype for the Arabic version (some scholars believe there may have been even earlier Indian versions, but this is pure speculation). However, how much of the Persian prototype survives in the Arabic 1001 Nights we possess to day is another matter. Reynolds writes, "Once translated into Arabic, as al-Nadim notes, men of Arabic letters did indeed begin to make some emendations of their own. Some of the earlier Persian tales may have survived within the Arabic tradition altered such that Arabic Muslim names and new locations were substituted for pre-Islamic Persian ones, but it is also clear that whole cycles of Arabic tales were eventually added to the collection and apparently replaced most of the Persian materials. One such cycle of Arabic tales centres around a small group of historical figures from 9th-century Baghdad, including the caliph Harun al-Rashid (died 809), his vizier Jafar al-Barmaki (d.803) and the licentious poet Abu Nuwas (d. c. 813). Another cluster is a body of stories from late medieval Cairo in which are mentioned persons and places that date to as late as the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries." (Reynolds, p.271)--Folantin (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems there are variety of opinions of the origin of the story. I disagree with the Cambridge source on several accounts: 1) lack of Indian origin stories. 2) The translation of Ibn Nadim provided by the author. 3) On the 'Iraqi cyle, it is attributed to a whole Arab culture while it seems to be at least a Hybrid culture. Harun ar-Rashid's mother was Iranian and he followed Pro-Persian policy. Barmak was the Vizier of the Abbassids and he was actually Persian. Then Abu Nuwas himself was of Iranian or partial Iranian origin. Baghdad itself is a Persian name. There was a strong Iranian element in Baghdad of the Abbassids.

However, my main point with Reyonld's translation is the usage of the word "Emendations" which is unclear, and could mean "change" or "correction". However, the Persian translation gives "Shaakh o Barg aan raa zadeh" and I believe it is more faithful to the Arabic original below. "Shaakh o Barg aan raa zadeh" literally means they pruned its branches and leaves. I found the original Arabic of Ibn al-Nadeem and it seems to be using the same expression (pruned): http://webtemp.idm.net.lb/al-hakawati/arabic/Civilizations/book15a28.asp قال محمد بن إسحاق أول من صنف الخرافات وجعل لها كتباً وأودعها الخزائن وجعل بعض ذلك على ألسنة الحيوان الفرس الأول ثم أغرق في ذلك ملوك الأشغانية وهم الطبقة الثالثة من ملوك الفرس ثم زاد ذلك واتسع في أيام ملوك الساسانية ونقلته العرب إلى اللغة العربية وتناوله الفصحاء والبلغاء فهذبوه ونمقوه وصنفوا في معناه ما يشبهه فأول كتاب عمل في هذا المعنى كتاب هزار أفسان ومعناه ألف خرافة وكان السبب في ذلك أن ملكاً من ملوكهم كان إذا تزوج امرأة وبات معها ليلة قتلها من الغد فتزوج بجارية من أولاد الملوك ممن لها عقل ودراية يقال لها شهرزاد فلما حصلت معه ابتدأت تخرفه وتصل الحديث عند انقضاء الليل بما يحمل الملك على استبقائها ويسألها في الليلة الثانية عن تمام الحديث ...

"They took it from the Persians and pruned it..." In other words emendation here should be more towards "correction" but not exactly. It means to prune.

I found another source: Robert L. Mack -, "Arabian night's entertainments",ford University Press, 1995 . "Al-Mas'udi's observations reinforce the suggestion that many of the stories in the 'Thousand Nights' are of Persian origin".

I tend to agree with Encyclopaedia Iranica on the three fold origins: A) an Indo-Persian section b) an 'Iraqi section c) An Egyptian section. On the cambridge Arabic source, I was not able to find this statement: "as al-Nadim notes, men of Arabic letters did indeed begin to make some emendations of their own" in the actual Arabic of al-Fihrist. Pellat's conclusion is of course more stronger than Reynolds: "Apart from the few tales used by novelists, poets, musicians, or script writers, the prologue of the Thousand and One Nights has exercised the greatest influence on occidental culture and through it on contemporary Arabic literature, which has sought in it a source of inspiration truly Arabic, even though the protagonists bear Persian names. Such exploitation is an indirect tribute to the Indo-Persian storytellers who provided the foundation for a monument long disdained by the Arabs and then revealed to the world by a West that has not yet finished taking delight in it."[6]

I did find "The Arabian nights Encyclopaedia" which states a different opinion though: "Taken together, these arguments do not constitute a definite proof for a Persian origin of the Arabian nights. On the other hand, they at least incidate the Persian material has been incorporated into the collection at certain phase of its developlment" [7]. Unfortunately, only page 672 of this whole Encyclopaedia on the topic shows up. It says on that page: "Apart from the frame of the story, love romances such as the stories of Ardashir and Hayat al-Nufus, and Taj al-Moluk and Dunya appear to be part of the Persian heritage rather than originating from the Arabic-Islamic source.. the same arguments..".

Overall, it seems there is no agreement though on this issue. We can definitely say the frame of the story is Persian (thousand nights, one story per night), and this is mentioned by Ibn Nadim. At the same time there was an 'Iraqi and Egyptian cycle added to the corpus of the current texts later on. It is too bad, the Hezar Afsaan has vanished (maybe it will be found in a library in some corner oneday), so some assertions become unprovable. But wether some of the tales are Persian, Arabian or Indian or etc. is much harder assertion to prove, although I did do a search for "Indian origin" and "Persian origin" in the Encyclopaedia of Arabian niughts and got some hits [8]. So Indian origin at least for some tales should not be discounted. Perhaps Xashaiar or someone can read page 666-671 in their local library. This seems like better source than Encyclopaedia of Islam or random articles, as it is a whole Encyclopaedia on the subject of "one Thousand and one Nights".. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Just a note freom Pellat: [9]. "But von Hammer’s scheme is to be preferred: the core corresponding to the Hazār afsān, translated at the latest in the 3rd/9th century; a group of tales added in Baghdad in the 4th/10th century; and another group added in Egypt ca. the 6th/12th century. Some of the original tales were eliminated during the two last phases. It is unlikely that the contents of Arabic origin could be due to a single Egyptian and a single Iraqi compiler (in spite of Jahšīārī’s 4th/10th century collection of Arabic, Persian, Greek, and other tales mentioned in the Fehrest, p. 304; tr. p. 714)."--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't just dismiss Dwight Reynolds, who is an actual professor who specialises in this literature, because you don't like his conclusions. His piece isn't some "random article" and it's more recent (2006) than Peillat (1984). The quotation about "emendations" isn't a translation of al-Nadim or anyone else - it's Reynolds' own comment. I would be interested to see what the Arabian Nights Encyclopaedia says (although I would not trust Xashaiar to relay the info objectively). I have spent most of the day reading Robert Irwin's The Arabian Nights: A Companion (2005), an entire book on the subject. His conclusion about the history of the Nights is as follows: "It seems probable from all the above [referring to the scrap of Arabic manuscript from the 9th century found by Nabia Abbott] that the Persian Hazar Afsaneh was translated into Arabic in the eighth or early ninth century and was given the title Alf Khurafa before being subsequently retitled Alf Layla. However, it remains far from clear what the connection is between this fragment of the early text and the Nights stories as they have survived in later and fuller manuscripts, nor how the Syrian manuscripts related to later Egyptian versions." (Irwin, p.51).--Folantin (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Irwin gives an even fuller account of the "consensus view" of the history of the development on the Nights on page 48: "In the 1880s and 1890s a lot of work was done on the Nights by Zotendorf and others, in the course of which a consensus view of the history of the text emerged. Most scholars agreed that the Nights was a composite work and that the earliest tales in it came from India and Persia. At some time, probably in the early 8th century, these tales were translated into Arabic under the title Alf Layla, or 'The Thousand Nights'. This collection then formed the basis of The Thousand and One Nights. The original core of stories was quite small. Then, in Iraq in the ninth or tenth century, this original core had Arab stories added to it – among them some tales about the Caliph Harun al-Rashid. Also, perhaps from the tenth century onwards, previously independent sagas and story cycles were added to the compilation, such as the epic of Omar bin al-Nu'uman and the Sindibadnama (or, as the latter features in the Burton translation, 'The Craft and Malice of Women'). Then, from the thirteenth century onwards, a further layer of stories was added in Syria and Egypt, many of these showing a preoccupation with sex, magic or low life. In the early modern period yet more stories were added to the Egyptian collections so as to swell the bulk of the text sufficiently to bring its length up to the full 1,001 nights of storytelling promised by the book’s title. At the same time, older stories were modernised in small ways, so that one finds references to guns, coffee-houses and tobacco in some stories which certainly pre-date the invention or discovery of those things." --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually Reynold says, "as al-Nadim notes, men of Arabic letters did indeed begin to make some emendations of their own", but the word emendations is sort of ambigious. I am not dismissing any WP:RS source for usage in Wikipedia, but I think Reynolds dissmissing any Indian origin for the story and also attributing a statement to Ibn Nadeem which can be taken differently (I take it to mean "pruning"). On, 1984 is fairly recent, but I think Pellat's article is more thorough with respect to origin than Reynold's article. That is much more is devoted on the study of the origins of the story while Reynold's article talks more about the plots and less on origin. Of course both opinions are valid enough for Wikipedia, I just wanted to comment on Reynold's point and the portions I disagree with. It does not mean his points cannot be put in the article. I am just pointing out that the different opinions should be put in the article, but I tend to personally agree with Pellat's conclusion which meets WP:RS. It would be interesting to see what the Encyclopaedia of Arabian nights states on origin. I agree the work is a composite work, but the whole concept of these stories, prologue and frame has its roots in the Indo-Persian tradition as mentioned by Pellat: "Apart from the few tales used by novelists, poets, musicians, or script writers, the prologue of the Thousand and One Nights has exercised the greatest influence on occidental culture and through it on contemporary Arabic literature, which has sought in it a source of inspiration truly Arabic, even though the protagonists bear Persian names. Such exploitation is an indirect tribute to the Indo-Persian storytellers who provided the foundation for a monument long disdained by the Arabs and then revealed to the world by a West that has not yet finished taking delight in it.". This does not dismiss Arabian origin for many of the stories in the present volume. On Irwin's theory, if that is a concensus viewpoint, that should be mentioned. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reynolds and Irwin basically agree: there was a Persian core but it has been supplemented by huge amounts of Arabic material added at various later stages. According to Reynolds, speculation about the further Indian origins of the collection is based on finding parallels with Indian literature. The frame tale is a popular Indian storytelling device as is the use of talking animals in fables. --Folantin (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this conclusion, except that no one can really know the percentage of Indian, Arabic and Persian materials from the tales. I disagree with Reynold's comment (it does not mean he is not RS) on lack of anything Indian since other sources including Encyclopaedia of Islam mention a lot about Indian. And some could be a hybrid sources. I also found some additional sources which I believe are balanced as well. They are written by Arabic writers and Japanese writers respectively:

• Husain Haddawy, Muhsin Mahdi, "The Arabian Nights", W. W. Norton & Company, 1995 pg xi:"The stories of the Nights are of various ethnic origins, Indian, Persian, and Arabic.

..It is certain that the Hazar Afsana supplied the popular title as well as the general schemes -- the frame story of Shahrazad and Shahrayar, and the division into nights -- to at least one such collection, namely "The Thousand and One Nights".

• Yuriko Yamanaka, Tetsuo Nishio,"The Arabian nights and orientalism: perspectives from East & West",

I.B.Tauris, 2006. pg 84:*We all know that the origin of this work was a translation into Arabic of a Persian storybook: Hazar Afsana, or "Thousand Tales.". In the medieval Arabic world, the work was extended by integrating many tales which had been made indepedently of it"

• Nabia Abbot describing the successive evolution of the tale (this I think would be good to include in the Encyclopaedia):
• [10]
  • I: An eight century of Hazar Afsana
  • II: An eight century Islamized Arabic version of the Hazar Afsana title Alf Lailah
  • III: A ninth-century compose Alf Lailah containing both Persian and Arabic materials.

..etc.

Overall, I think we can agree that the frame of the story, prologue, origin and the main characters of the story are Persian (or with regards to the main characters have Persian names). Some names are composite like "'Ali Baba" (the Ali being Arabic and the Baba being Persian). However, what percentage of the tales from the original Indian and Persian sources are in the actual story, is not known. There are definitely some though [11] (Persian origin) and Indian origin [12] (city of Brass in Sanskrit literature). Pellat and Mcdolant seem to think the Perso-Indian elements are overwhelming while Reynolds or others are taking different viewpoints. To tell you the truth, we will never know.

• I am not sure though what was the original argument between Dab, Xashair and Folantin, however I wanted to make Dab aware of the Persian basis which later on evolved (an might have changed significantly) through amaglamation of various cultures into the modern work. I personally did not see any nationalistic behaviour from Xashaiar, and if the argument is about the introductory name, I think even the French and Persian (possible Indian) names are relavent in the sense that these cultures had connections with either popularizing or providing the basis for the story. Overall, I do not know what the general policy with regads to foreign names are in Wikipedia, but I usually have taken a broadview "Relavence in some form or fashion". This is mentioned at least by one scholar whose name keeps popping up with regards to the One Thousand and One Nights:"Since Iran has contributed decisively to the genesis and characters of the Arabian nights, it appears natural that this body of world literature is appreciated in today's Iran as part of the country's literary heritage". (Ulrich Marzolph, "The Arabian nights in transnational perspective", Wayne State University Press, 2007). As long as there is no clear cut policy on foreign names, then I think given the Persians/Iranians decisive role in the genesis of the story, the Persian name is not "nationalistic". I have seen foreign names in some articles with much less relavence. However, dab's comments about "Teenages" and etc., were off-topic and furthermore, incorrect. Teenagers rather play video games. I am not going to push or edit anything in the mainpage, but I do not see any wikipedia policy on relavent foreign names (which is unfortunate). If there is a policy, then someone can point me to it. Else I just take the Persian name to imply the major role played by the culture of Iran (without excluding any other cultures that played a role including the French and I have no problem with the French name), in providing the basis, prologue, frame and also many of the stories, as well as providing the ultimate basis of the book through the Persian work Hezar Afsan. Of course other saw it as stating an independent Persian book by the same title, but as I said, this issue can be discussed when Xashaiar comes back in calm. The unfortunate aspect as I said is a definition or guideline on relavent wikipedia policies with foreign names in the introduction.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The vast modern popularity of the Nights began as a Western phenomenon. The Nights was never very highly regarded in the Middle East, where it was just one collection among many. As Irwin says, "It is almost certain that only the accident of its early translation into French and its finding favour with eighteenth-century European taste rescued this particular story collection from obscurity and possible oblivion." (p.81) So it owes its modern fame primarily to Antoine Galland. The earliest Persian translations of the work date to the 19th century, reflecting that interest.

If you are referring to having the Persian title in the lead, then look at the title of Pellat's Encyclopaedia Iranica article - the whole thing is under the Arabic name Alf Layla Wa Layla [13]. --Folantin (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about the name of the title, but rather name in various scripts like French (I think Galland makes it significant enough) or Persian or etc. In general, I do not see a clear wikipedia policy with foreign names and this has been recurring theme in many articles (I persume that was the argument of the above thread originally). Either way, it doesn't bother me if there is a Persian name or not in the introduction, but my general approach to this wikipedia problem has been if it has a strong relationship with some culture (wether in the past or today), it becomes sort of relavent. But I am not saying my approach is not necessarily correct, it is just the approach I have followed in Wiki. Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, there is no justification for putting the Persian Hezār-o yek šab in this article in any script. It is not even mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Iranica article (an article in an encyclopaedia devoted to Persian culture gives the title only in Arabic). The only relevant foreign-language/foreign-script title in the first line is that of the Arabic work on which all existing translations are based. The only reason we give foreign versions in the first line is for their encyclopaedic value, not to appease flag-wavers.--Folantin (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloody great to have an intelligent exchange, citing scholarly sources, rather than the juvenile chauvinistic ranting we've often had to deal with in the past. I now agree with Folantin about cutting the "Persian Title" from the first sentence of the lead - not for his reasons, but because it seems to have only surfaced as a title for a late Persian translation of the original Arabic. I think we have all learned a lot while fighting to keep this article scholarly and unbiased. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Um ,that is my reason for not including it. Per my first post "All existing versions of The Thousand and One Nights are based on the Arabic work bearing this title. This includes Persian translations of the collection. There is no reason why we should privilege Persian translations from the Arabic over any other language version." --Folantin (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Persian name Hezar o Yek Shab seems recent. Iranica though redirects Hezar Afsan to its article 'Alfa... However, I think the current names and languages are acceptable. But the introduction needs some rework, specifically the word "probably". Also I think the 6 stage evolution mentioned by one of the sources I brought would be a good topic to include in the article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The evolution is covered by the Irwin quotation. I count six stages there. The introduction is not good and needs to be altered to fit the revised article (e.g. it's not true that Shahriyar is named in the early versions - only Scheherazade and Dinazad appear in the Syrian fragment and Al-Masudi). --Folantin (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:KizkulesiminiatureNusretColpan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KizkulesiminiatureNusretColpan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Science fiction elements -- a nitpick

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginary but more or less plausible (or at least non-supernatural) content such as future settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, aliens, and paranormal abilities. Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas". Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.[2] It is similar to, but differs from, fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).-- Wikipedia, article on Science fiction.

It therefore seems to me that the heading 'Science fiction elements" is erroneous, and at least some, and probably all, of the matters considered under that heading should be under a 'Fantasy Elements' heading instead. I see nothing in the 1001 Nights that is derived from 'scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws'. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Eric

I tend to agree - where in fact does this idea come from (i.e. is there a source mentioned?) Could we repair things with a few words, or is this bit something that really needs to go? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Kitab" in title?

It seems that I am forbidden to touch the page! fine.. can you make it clear that the "Kitab" means book? (Kitāb alf laylah wa-laylah) means "book of One Thousand and One Nights".. one last thing i reall don't want to engage in controversy (and my english doesn't help me!) therefore, please be flexible.. my request is very simple, Thanks in advance --Σύμμαχος (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course "Kitab" means "book" - people who perhaps know no other word of Arabic tend to be aware of that one, I think. Not a matter of being "flexible". The point is that in this case (as in some others) the word "book" is part of the title - or at least we have been treating it as such. Of course you are allowed to change any article - but every now and then you may be asked to justify your changes - as I have said in two edit summaries - do this on the talk page of the article (top left hand corner, next to the "article" tab). As you will notice, the titles used in the first line of the article have been subject to endless controversy - which is why, having acheived a measure of stability on this point, you will need to convince others that the word "Book" does not form a regular part of the title in Arabic. You may very well be right - just that we need to get confirmation (perhaps the title page of a couple of Arabic editions that do not include the word "Kitab", but present the title without it??)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

see this.. There are many examples if you want or search in Google in Arabic (ألف ليلة وليلة) --Σύμμαχος (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not surprising, surely? Even if the word "Kitab" were a part of the usual title? That's all you're querying, isn't it? I am copying this to the talk page for the article - where, as I keep saying - this belongs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Magic Carpet

I actually can't remember a specific story in the Nights with a magic carpet - although Disney sneaked one into their (per)version of Aladdin (which is not a real "Nights" story anyway!!). In any case the (nice) magic carpet graphic was at best misplaced. If someone badly wants to put it back - please find a story it relaltes to and put it in a more appropraite place in the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

it doesn't seem to be in the burton version, although of course who can ever be sure of that, but it does seem to be in mardrus and payne and possibly others. i think burton mentions it in a note in one of the supplemental volumes (see e.g. here towards the bottom but i this is a different edition from mine and i can't actually find it) i don't have time to think about the image in the wp article right now, so i'm putting these here in case someone finds them useful before i have a chance to get to it:

1. Joseph Charles Mardrus; E. P. Mathers (31 December 1990). Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night. Psychology Press. p. 558. ISBN 978-0-415-04541-4. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
2. John Payne (1884). The book of the thousand nights and one night. R. Worthington. p. 235. Retrieved 27 October 2011.

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor keen to preserve the image we're talking about did a google on the subject and came up with a book, evidently for children, about city life in the Muslim Golden Age. And this is not only NOT a reliable source - but again inserts a similar illustration to ours next to a very brief (and not very accurate) snippet about the "nights" - with no mention of which story they were illustrating. I strongly suspect that they would have said "Aladdin" if you'd asked them - but there is no magic carpet in the proper Aladdin story, only in the Disney (per)version. If you can quote chapter and verse and the name of the story - then by all means. In the meantime this needs a proper reference. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I've done some searching of my own! We DO have a magic carpet in 1001 Nights - in a story called "The tale of the three Princes and the Princess Nouronnihar" - Prince Husain the eldest of the sons of the Sultan of the Indies uses a magic carpet. The snag is that it doesn't fly, but "instantly translates" its passenger to where he wants to go. So the picture IS irrelevant. Sorry, but I did my best.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Recently Soundofmusicals has put up an intolerant and irrelevant argumentation regarding the existence of Flying Carpets in the 1001 Nights...well FYI:

The flying carpet is indeed one of the most enduring images in 1001 Nights and it is affiliated with many stories, and traditionally Prince Housain in the story of "The Three Brothers" is the one and only person to fly on a magic carpet in the collection of stories from the 1001 Nights.

This answers the stubborn edit conflict and the odd question put up and aggressively placed by Soundofmusicals... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.47.117 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What does "affiliated with" mean in this context? How can a story be "affiliated" with an object that does not play a part in it? Or for that matter rate a mention in it! I have tried very hard to find a story with a magic carpet in it somewhere in the nights. I am a retired librarian, and my research has involved Google of course, but also a search of various printed texts. The only one I can come up with is the Three Brothers or "The tale of the three Princes and the Princess Nouronnihar", which in various versions comes up over and over again. Three princely brothers are all in love with a princess - her father sends each of them on a quest to find something that will restore her to health - one brother returns with a magic tube that helps diagnose her illness, one with a magic apple that cures her, and one with a magic carpet that returns the three brothers to the princess in time to save her. The problem is that the carpet is NOT a flying one - even more marvellously, it "teleports" its user to any place he can think of. I have been though all your internet sites (most of which I had already seen myself) and none of them mention any story but this one. Not one mentions another story actually containing a "flying" carpet a la Disney, nor for that matter a teleporting one either. Broadly, that is precisely the conclusion I finally drew from my own research.

People may very well THINK of flying carpets when they think of the Nights - but I'm afraid this is all down to a certain (very much altered) animated version of Aladdin. Aladdin, it need not be said, certainly does not include a carpet, flying, teleporting, or otherwise - at least in the original version.

I have repeatedly asked you to mention a story from the nights with a flying carpet in it - in order to justify the illustration of one in our encyclopedia article. In the circumstances this is hardly "argumentative", or "agressive", much less "intolerant" or "irrelevant". This article is meant to be part of an authoritative encyclopedia - we can't "tolerate" nonsense, "relevance" refers to the point in question. It is NOT a junior high school project. You have been blocked (not by me) for your conduct in repeatedly reinstating a (very nice) picture that simply does not belong there - without any attempt at justification. I explained why I deleted it - and until now you have made no attempt whatever to answer me, except to remark (quite incorrectly) that there were lots of flying carpets in the Nights. Not so, there aren't any. Incredible as it probably sounds, I'd be delighted to be proved wrong here - but it will need a real Arabian Nights story that really and truly DOES have a flying carpet in it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so interested in this irrelevant argument Soundofmusicals...but you are wrong. -- Template:Unsigned IP -->

It is mentioned in the following references that: "The wind took up the Flying Carpet and transported it (gliding through the air)"...

In another place it says: "Prince Ahmad buys a Flying Carpet and together with his brothers they fly to the aid of a dying Princess"...

This Magic Carpet had the special property of transporting whoever sits on it from one place to another...Prince Husain's enchanted Flying Carpet can transport the person standing upon it to any place he desires, just like the Flying Carpet of Solomon son of David...

The Muslim story of Solomon son of David's Flying Carpet was the main inspiration behind the Flying Carpet of Prince Housain.

Prince Housain's Magic Carpet hastened to her (Princess) therefore it moved by itself...it naver Teleported at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.244 (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

None of your random websites is a valid source - and in any case none of them mention an Arabian Nights story with a magic carpet other than The Three Brothers anyway!!! See Brewers dictionary of phrase and fable p. 305 if you want a reference - and please read the above. I am interested because, like all non-vandalistic editors over the mental age of 5, I want this encyclopedia to be accurate rather than a repository of childish nonsense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Text from Brewers below -

Carpet The magic carpet of Tangu. A carpet to all appearances worthless, but if anyone sat thereon, it would transport him instantaneously to the place he wished to go. So called because it came from Tangu, in Persia. It is sometimes termed Prince Housain's carpet, because it came into his hands, and he made use of it. ( Arabian Nights: Prince Ahmed.) (--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

Soundofmusicals you have totally exaggerated and falsified the Teleportation thing, by yourself...

No I haven't - see above --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Teleportation via Magic Carpet is not mentioned anywhere in the 1001 Nights, in fact only Jinn's have the ability to do that, not the Flying Carpet of Prince Hussain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.244 (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is how Burton describes the carpet - Whoever sitteth on this carpet and willeth in thought to be taken up and set down upon other site will, in the twinkling of an eye, be borne thither, be that place nearhand or distant many a day's journey and difficult to reach. . This procedure is followed several times in the story.

This is NOT "falsified" or "exaggerated" but is a straight cut and paste of the text itself!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is based on various "as retold by" versions of certain tales from the "Nights" - Disney of course, and earlier "adapters for children" who also took major and minor liberties with some of the stories. The original tale (as translated by Burton) does have a carpet that "instantly translates" the user - there is no description of it rising from the ground or being wafted by the wind - the "journey" is not described at all - except that the traveller is unaware of how he got there (!) In fact the first jouney of the carpet specifically begins and end INDOORS (from the back room of the merchants' shop to the prince's room at the Khan). Sorry - but this IS an encyclopedia, not a book for kiddies. The fact is that there are no flying carpets in the nights, nor do the Genies give "three wishes". The flying carpet actually comes from Jewish and Russian folk tales, while the "three wishes" is from Celtic and Germanic folk tales of Pixies and Dwarfs, not Arabic Genies!!!

Casual websites from here and there are not necessarily terribly good souces - much better are original scources like Brewer and Burton himself - although the results of Google searches can often give us a good idea of where to look for something with authority. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hazar - Hezar

These are quite possibly both right as transliterations from the Persian, as there are a number of different transliteration schemes around (not to mention the odd ambiguity, even within the one scheme).

The point is - changing from one to the other needs some consultation - since some quite scholarly editors have been at this one, "Hazar" is evidently the one in the sources they have used - and we'd need a good and sufficient reason, and possibly a consensus, to change it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Islamic Culture

The Nights ARE firmly associated with countries that happen to have Muslim majorities - how much this makes them part of "Islamic culture" is a bit debatable however. The so called "Persian prototype" dates from a time when Persia was still Zoroastrian, for instance - while the Indian roots of many of the tales have a Hindu background. Finally - the "fairy tale morality" of many of the tales is certainly not consistent with Islamic values (or those of any other religion for that matter). It would be different if it were a collection of religious parables or moral fables. But what do others think? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclined to agree, given the ambiguity of "Islamic". We wouldn't really describe Boccaccio's Decameron as a work of Christian literature. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Labeling the stories as "Islamic" would be a "misnomer," as many stories predate Islam. The Scythian 02:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to get agreement on this one! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Literature

The claim that the work contains Turkish influence is simply wrong. It has an ancient Indian basis which was later collected in a Persian tradition. That Persian tradition was enriched and Arabized, adding to it folktales from Egypt and Arabia. There is no Turkish influence. First of all, because Turkish literature did not exist back then. And secondly, because it was written and finished in an era and in a region, when Turkish had no influence or importance yet. The caliphate was slowly beginning to integrate Turkish slave soldiers into the royal army. If anyone claims otherwise, please support it with reliable sources. Which element of 1001 is supposed to be of Turkish origin or has been influence by Turkish?! --Lysozym (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this from my talk page (not the place for it) to here. Even if you are right (as you may well be) tales went on being added to the Nights for centuries after the early period you describe. Better wait until some of the scholars who have added to this article have had a chance to respond, as we need to avoid any appearance of chauvinism. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't be bothered pressing this one - anyone know of a Turkish story or two that got incorporated into the "Nights"? - otherwise probably not important enough to go to war over, especially while the article is under much more serious attacks. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Persian Nights"

I actually argued FOR the retention of a Persian language name for the nights when we had the discussion that established the current consensus - I was however convinced by the arguments of people who obviously knew far more about the matter than I do. The Persian work Hazār Afsān (or Hezār Afsān?) (Persian: هزار افسان, lit. A Thousand Tales) is in fact another work, which is mentioned both in the lead, and in its own section in the article. However much (or little) this work (alas, lost to us) influenced or fore-shadowed the "Nights" which are the subject of the article is not the point, the fact remains that this is NOT the name of any existing version of the subject of this article. As for Hezār-o yak šab - this is not the name of the (lost) Persian story collection, but that given to (modern) Persian translations of the Arabic version.

But, as the article, with great circumspection, reference to scholarly references, and, to be quite fair, a complete lack or chauvinism, makes abundantly clear, the story collection as we have it is an Arabic work. There is no precedent for including any name for a foreign language work in English Wikipedia other than the original name, and the English name. It really is as simple as that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Our consensus on the opening sentences of the lead NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED HERE rather than made the subject of another edit war. Please could anyone with objections to this passage bring up their objctions here rather than edit warring again. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Bull. I am for including this works collection of names, English, Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Etc...Problems is, we have editors, such as yourself, who label anyone who disagrees with them as both "Persian" and "troll." That is incredibly racist, and one need only read through this discussion thread, to see this crap being thrown around. The Scythian 02:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So where would you stop? Do we want to include a mention of every language into which the Nights have (or might have) been translated? Then go multiply that by every literary work with an article in Wiki! Would we have any space left to talk about literature at all? Put it another way - I'm sure Shakespeare and Euripides have been translated into Persian too, but the Persian names of their works are only of interest in a Persian version of Wikipedia, not the English one. A simple rule - like "a. English name, b. name in original language (if not English), c. any importand alternative English names" saves us all an awful lot of pointless bother. And just a bit of advice from someone more than likely old enough to be your father, if not your grand father - if anyone around here has a tendency to "label everyone who disagrees with them" it is (alas) you. Personal abuse and point scoring gets no one anywhere - the abuser least of all. If you don't want to give the impression of being a troll - perhaps behaving a little less like one might be a start? You seem an articulate and intelligent person, I'm sure you're capable of suggesting useful improvements to this and many other articles. So why is it that you never have and probably never will? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see the name of the 19th-century translation of this work into Persian, they can click the link on the left of the article. Using this method, you can also find out the name of the book in Turkish, Turkmen, Basque, Belarusian, Fijian Hindi etc. etc. etc. It's a gloriously simple system which avoids clutter at the top of the page. --Folantin (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed renaming to "Arabian Nights"

The article admits Arabian Nights is the more common english name of the collection. And the sources also seem to use "Arabian Nights" so i propose renaming it to "Arabian Nights" per WP:COMMONNAME.Lucia Black (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas, we skate on very thin ice here. There has been a very long battle (happily the results are now archived, but you can look them up if you really must) about mentioning this name at all - or indeed (at least in this article) the words "Arabian", "Arab", or "Arabic". Our Persian friends, in particular, seem to have the idea that any such use of these words in this (or indeed, one suspects, any) context is a deliberate racist attack on the people and culture of Iran. All levity aside, it must be pointed out that "Arabian Nights" would be a far from "neutral" title in terms of WP:COMMONNAME.

Much more seriously, "1001 Nights" is, when all is said and done, the "correct" name, being a more or less literal translation of the Arabic, and also a name very commonly used in English, especially when referring to the original work, as opposed to the various "kiddie" versions. Indeed in this context it would probably be a bit of a toss-up which name is more "common" (at least among adults), even in North America or the British Isles. While this is the English-language Wikipedia - the use of our language is by no means restricted to the so called "Anglo-Saxon" countries - for some of the people most interested in this subject "1001 Nights" is by far the most "common" name. Both names are pretty well equally "natural" and "self-evident" in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. Incidentally the article, far from "admitting" that "Arabian Nights" is the more common name, makes no judgement on the subject whatsoever.

I don't think one can make a blanket claim that the "sources use Arabian Nights". They are in fact divided - on the whole more modern sources tend to use "1001 nights" while older ones use "Arabian Nights" - although this is far from a consistent trend - and some sources use both terms indiscriminately. For what it is worth - "Arabian Nights" Googles 9 million hits - while "Thousand and one Nights" Googles 11 million - a lot of these hits are duplicates of course.

"Arabian Nights" redirects here, as it should, and receives a mention in the second sentence of the lead, as is appropriate, but it is not the name of the article by very long standing consensus. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That is also innacurate search as "One Thousand and One Nights" is used in multiple media irrelevant to this such as manhwa and manga and several songs with that translation. Also to believe it is "racist" is more against NPOV if its based on editor interpretation.

But for the sake of accurate search, "One Thousand and One Nights" 412,000 results, "Arabian Nights" 13,300,000 results. Granted both are used for irelevan media. Regardless, in order to prove such thing for sources, then more sources need to be brought up.Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You and I may both have an opinion about editors who see the term "Arabian Nights" as non-neutral in itself. The fact is that they do - and that therefore it IS non-neutral - (non-neutral is as non-neutral is perceived: our opinion about the commonsense or even sanity of the people to whome it is NPOV is not the point). As for sources - both terms are very widely used indeed. In fact they are very often (as in our article) used together (i.e. in the same document). To me this gives no stong support per WP:COMMONNAME to change the title of the article.

For me the main point is that this is after all the article for an Arabic book (ducks as Iranians throw pots at his head) - not an English one. It's not as if an accurate translation of the correct name (as in the present case) is going to seem contrived or be grossly unfamiliar. In fact the current title is both natural and self-evident - there is no reason according to to WP:COMMONNAME not to use it. Any literate English speaker who might search for "Arabian Nights" and be redirected to this article under its present name would at the very least immediately recognise that they were in the right place - even without reading the second sentence of the lead. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

so if one opinionates that its non nuetral it is therefore it is? On what basis? And wp commonname says what is enforced, not if theres an exception. It really doesnt matter if its an accurate translations...with many japanese media ive edited, many original names have been changed during its english translation even when they had their own english title at the time before translation.Lucia Black (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is it may not be NPOV to you or me - but we can recognise that it is to others. We don't have to agree with them to see that they have their own point of view - where possible we ought to use a title everyone can at least live with - I mean that's what NPOV means, otherwise OUR opinion would always necessarily be the "neutral" one. And where the accurate title in Japanese was also as well known or nearly so you'd probably take that one. It would be quite different if 1001 nights was an esoteric title that only a few specialists would be likely to have heard of - it IS very well known, as well as the title most likely to be used in academic sources, as well as modern translations - as opposed to "retold for children" ones. (Although I agree the situation here is by no means clear - many sources seem to use both titles, almost as if they were variations).

The current title is based on a very old consensus, in fact it was originally "Arabian Nights", got changed to "Book of the Thousand and One Nights" and then to its current name (with "Book of" cut off). We would need to establish a new consensus - involving as many interested editors as possible - if it were to be changed. You're obviously not going to convince me, and I'm probably not going to convince you - so there's not a lot of point in us going on any further. We need to see what others think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Im torn at your reasoning of how NPOV works and show many exceptions to get around WP:COMMONNAME. This isnt about my opinion on whats based non-nuetral, its wikipedia's policy. WP:NPOV if anything your "opinion" on how NPOV works seems to go "against" it. And a title used to avoid racism while may be more bias to think so if they arent familiar with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. On a lighter note, Barns and Noble is selling a more recent edition of the book as "arabian Nights". Im just sticking with policy and with information already given.Lucia Black (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how to answer you without repeating myself - as I say - time for us to shut up and see if anyone else wants to but in. We can't alter such a long standing consensus on the basis of our discussion alone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

if you repeat yourself, your not really giving an answer just stating what is still not accepted. Regardless of what your opinion is over WP:NPOV, it is solely policy and does not revolve around the opinions of users. In fact, that is bias if it did. Whether you agree or not. Its not about what we "think" is non nuetral, its what we know. If we have no ground, then we have no reason to say using "Arabian Nights" isnt a nuetral term.

Therefore, unless new info comes out that proves "Arabian Nights" is a bias name, we really cant say "its non nuetral" and expect it to be affective. Your reasoning also fails...you show many exceptions in trying to avoid WP:COMMONNAME and give a more "casual" defense. I insist, you alone attempt to change my mind.Lucia Black (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I repeat - this article has been under its current name for some time under a long standing consensus - you need to get a new consensus before this article is moved. We two are not enough, especially when we disagree. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I see a bigger issue. whats stopping you from using the same flawed reasoning against another article? thats why i told u to see if u could change my mind. consensus means nothing if its always based on the same flawed reasoning.Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely my last word - I really want to step back from this whole question, and I think you should do the same. There is very obviously no pressing need for this article to be renamed - and unless the is a consensus that the current title is inappropriate in some way it sould probably stay as it is (consensus is important in Wiki - since we are never all going to agree about everything).

This time I will put my most important argument - and one you have NOT answered that I can see first.

1. Both titles fulfil the conditions of WP:COMMON quite well. They are BOTH often used in the sources - in fact very often in a double-barrelled way (like 1001 Nights, often called the Arabian Nights - OR Arabian nights - also often called the 1001 nights). Neither title is unusual, or esoteric, or strange in any way - neither is either too academic, or too popular - although we may or may not see one or the other as more academic or more popular this is not reflected consistently in the sources. Hence for instance it is possible to find "popular" sources using "1001 nights" and academic ones using "Arabian nights".

2. One drawback of the title "Arabian Nights" is very simply the emphasis it gives to the "Arabian" (Arab, Arabic) side of the collection's origins. There is a POV (or point of view) out there that this is unfair to various other threads in the origins of the story (read the article itself if you don't already have a clear idea of how complicated the origins are in fact - and how different scholars have differed). There are users out there who see the title "Arabian Nights" as a bull sees a red rag - and even go so far as to edit it out of the article altogether! I hesitated to point you at the posts where we argued through this one (they are archived now) because a good deal of the arguments were most unedifying, but it might be an idea for you to get a clear idea of what is involved. No one (not even they themselves) would say that their' point of view is a neutral one of course - but it is a POV. NPOV tries to "balance" POVs (without giving undue weight to any that are patently silly). But who is to say who is silly? Especially when different legitimate sources do in fact differ? In the context of point #1 above (neither title is really ruled out by WP:COMMON) it does make sense not to pre-empt the question "how Arabian are the Nights" - by using instead a more "Neutral" title. The question itself is of course covered by several sections of the article.

3. ESPECIALLY when, after all, "1001 nights" is the strictly "correct" title anyway! (i.e. a literal translation of the title in Arabic) - AND to partly recap argument #1 - it is at worst a close runner up in the "most common title" stakes - certainly it is not in any way estoteric or strange.

This is the same argument I have already given in several quite long posts - I am MOST definitely not going to boil my cabbages again, sorry. If you have not come to agree with me that it is your own argument that is "flawed" then that's fine - but we have (really) to step back and let a consensus of other users decide. Do remember that the only question is "does the current title remain an appropriate one - and if not why not? "Broader issues" are best raised in a broader sense - like "How appropriate are some of the clauses of WP:COMMON?" An entirely different question of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FOr 2 and 3 i fnd them flawed. it's not about the correct title (whch is incredibly "subjective") THe fact that its still continued to be published as "Arabian Nights" does not mean it's incorrect. Its called localization. And many articles have the common ENGLISH name over the original language name even if one believes the original language one is much more accurate. It's not about User's NPOV, but about wikipedia's NPOV. Because, theres no such thing as "NPOV" for the user. that automatcally makes things subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The name Arabian Nights Entertainments (1706) was given to the first English translation of Galland's Mille et Une Nuit (1704). Arabian Nights has been a commonly associated title with this story collection since then, particularly in English. The book was wildly popular in English in the 18th century and as such its English title seems to have stuck, and been commonly referred to and titled as such, as an alternative to 1001 Nights. You can see more evidence of this with references on this blog post: http://journalofthenights.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-is-arabian-nights-1001-nights.html

Richard ruffian (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Richard (although I have sworn to say no more on the subject) the matter in dispute here is not the history of the name "Arabian Nights" (see the article - right at the top!) - nor that, at least in English, it is at least as well known as "1001 nights" (if not better). Both names are obviously very well known, although "1001 nights" does have the plus (for what it is worth) of being closer to the original title of the book in Arabic - not to mention the names by which it is known in other languages. Many applications of the title "Arabian Nights" refer to adaptations for children rather than the subject of this encyclopedia article. I admit several times in all the guff above that this is far from universal - and that many sources use BOTH names (as we do, for goodness sake).

What IS in dispute is which title should be used for the title of this article. Neither name fails the test of WP:COMMON (they are both common names that identify the work at once to almost anyone)- my main argument is that since there is a good deal of dispute over just how "Arab" the "Arabian Nights" are (this includes legitimate scholastic differences as well as some silly chauvinism, and is, incidentally, covered in the article!) it is better, all other things being equal (or nearly equal anyway) - to use a term for the title that does not appear to take sides in this contention. NPOV doesn't mean a thing if it only recognises one POV - and the idea that the "Arabian Nights" are more Persian than Arabian is at least a legitimate POV, even if you and I don't happen to share it.

Remember that the title was originally "Arabian Nights" - got changed to its current title as a result of some debate - and has remained as it is by consensus for some time. I really think the onus is on anyone who wants to change the name to show that it would be a useful and positive step, and muster a consensus for this view. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Had a look at that blogspot by the way - and IT uses "1001 nights" as the primary title - although (like us) it refers to "Arabian Nights" in the body of the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There are many articles relating to foreign language media that uses the "most" common English name over the official translation (even if known as common name). Most often when mentioning both, it is abbreviated to as "The Nights". I don't see the problem as why it "shouldn't" be Arabian Nights as all other reasons don't seem to be actual NPOV issues according to wikipedia standards.Lucia Black (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Both titles should redirect/be mentioned I think. However, what is most problematic with the Nights is that each "version" is quite different from one another, I think this article does an ok job of saying in general some things, but the fact of the matter is that ideally each version should have its own page, or at least have their own sections on this page. Yes "the Nights" is the standard when speaking very generally about this text.Richard ruffian (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Richard but you've lost me completely. "Thousand and One Nights" and "Arabian Nights" are two terms that refer to the same work, there is very simply no way that each "version" is quite different from one another or that each version should have its own page. You might be less confused if you read the article as a whole rather than dwelling on the first sentence or two. The two synonymous titles are of course both mentioned in the text - and the variant not used as the article's title (Arabian Nights) is linked to the article. Throughout the body of the article we tend to avoid either term - using "The Nights". This, so far as I know, has always been the case.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Leave it where it is Yes, it's also well known as The Arabian Nights in English, but it's equally well known as 1001 Nights. A lot of hassle would be involved in moving it in return for very little encyclopaedic gain. So long as the famous alternative title is boldly indicated in the opening paragraph (which it is), I don't see the problem. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain One Thousand and One Nights. As others have said here, both names are common in English (in fact, I searched for "One Thousand..." to get to this article). The difference is that with "Arabian Nights", we get a common name that can mislead people, whereas with "One Thousand...", we get a common name that is not misleading and harks to the original non-English name. It's a no-brainer. Nojamus (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Persian"

hi, i'm a iranian, so i can speek persian

you should know something: 'Hazar' is incorrect. the correct Pronunciation is 'Hezar' or هزار

hezar meaning Thousand in persian

how many times you read this book?

هزار و یک شب meanings One Thousand and One Nights

but (Arabic: كتاب ألف ليلة وليلة) hasn't mean One Thousand and One Nights

كتاب ألف ليلة وليلة ≠ One Thousand and One Nights ?[hi i'm arab, and (كتاب ألف ليلة وليلة) means in arabic "The book of one Thousand and One Nights", and (ألف ليلة وليلة) means "one Thousand and One Nights", and sorry i don't know how to use this thing (editing talk).

هزار و یک شب = One Thousand and One Nights

forgive me. i can't speek english vey well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.122.221.113 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think, as we said, that both English spellings are probably acceptable transliterations of the Persian in this case. In fact in different places in this article as it was a moment ago we used first one and then the other, which ISN'T right, as we should be consistent. For the moment I have changed all instances of "Hazar" to "Hezar" so at least we spell it the same way right through the article - leave it to the scholars to change this back again if it needs to be (although we will have to be consistent and change them all). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK "Hezar" is modern Persian pronunciation, "hazar" is how the people who wrote the book would have pronounced it. As in all such instances, we should go with what the referenced sources write rather than introduce our own modifications. --Folantin (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You obviously don't speak Farsi. The Scythian 01:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what should we write, oh Farsi speaker? (Incidentally a compatriot of yours once abused me (or at least my ignorance) for calling the laguage "Farsi" rather than "Persian"). I am utterly indifferent on this issue, provided we use the same transliteration every time. A couple of people claiming to be Persian have insisted on "Hezar" - in fact one of them (apparently a new user) slapped in a revert on the strength of this that disturbed things s/he probably didn't intend to change. Since the title in which this word occurs is (rightly) mentioned several times in the article we did (and do) need to have it spelled the ame way right through the article, and not chopping and changing (as it did). As I'm sure I hardly need mention in such learned company, the transliteration of vowels between the Persian (Arabic) alphabet and the English (Latin) one is complicated by the fact that vowels in both English and Farsi/Persian are not written (or pronounced) in a particularly consistent way. I would be prepared to take The Scythian's word for which transliteration of our word for "thousand" is the most correct - all I want is it to be spelled consistently - looks neater, besides giving the impression we might collectively know what we are talking about. The only reason I pre-empted the question was to leave us free to settle more pressing matters. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I only wasted enough time to skim through what you wrote, and then realized it is nothing more than self-righteous and delusional crap. I do not have any "compatriots" on here, I am not Iranian(American of Irish extraction by about five generations), and really don't care for internet "tough guys" like yourself. If you are fighting with a bunch of teenagers in Tehran over this article, that is not my problem. I, in fact have fought with a few "Persians" myself(try editing military related articles). I also have had to deal with Islamophobic psychos, Arab nationalistic freaks, Euro-nationalistic garbage, Asian racial supremacists, and America "firsters," who are generally outright racists towards anything remotely "Middle Eastern"...Which category are your "compatriots, Soundofmusicals? I am guessing the last one. I mostly write for and edit articles related to military and aerospace affairs, and due to my "real life," have a good deal of knowledge of the Iranian military, economy, and industrial base. That is my interests. Not some bullshit folklore from the 10th century. I have no doubt though, that if I actually had time to spend on this article, your lack of knowledge of the subject, would be easily shot-down. What we need here is an actual scholar on the subject, such as a published University professor of Near Eastern literature. Certainly not some con-job like yourself. The Scythian 01:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Encyclopaedia Iranica has Hazār Afsān, as does Irwin's The Arabian Nights, Marzolph's The Arabian Nights in Transnational Perspective etc. etc. But clearly the Persian of 1000+ years ago was exactly the same as the Persian of today. Some Guy on the Internet is telling me this so it must be true. However, following Wikipedia's evil and bigoted policies against original research, I've gone with what the sources say. --Folantin (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to some "guy" on the internet like yourself, claiming otherwise? If you actually bothered to learn the language, you would realize what a damned fool you sound like! Clowns like you are killing the credibility of Wikipeida, when it comes to things like this. As for the Persian langauge changing over the last 1,000 years, it really hasn't. One can read the Shahnameh, much like an American can read literary works from the mid to late 10th century(I've done both). Like I said above, what is needed here is a scholar...Not you. The Scythian 01:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Irwin, Marzolph et al. are all "damned fools" and not scholars. I bet they don't speak Farsi like what you do. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To the troll - if you have had a Western Education, and imagine that you, or anyone who hasn't studied Anglo-Saxon as a language in its own right could read a tenth century "English" text then you are the "damned fool". I can read a thirteenth century ("middle English") author like Langland or Chaucer in the original - but I bet you can't. Nothing to do with the point in hand, but you raised it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this debate but I can't resist saying something here. I am a Greek speaker and can EASILY understand Greek from the 1st century AD; it's far more similar to modern Greek than Middle English is to modern English. I can also understand classical Greek from the 5th century BC albeit with difficulty. Clearly not all languages in this world have changed as much or as rapidly as English, so please give the Persian speaker a break. And don't call him a troll. (In fact, the first person to make a personal attack here was you, with your quip, "Oh Farsi speaker.") Nojamus (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(to Folantin) I'm sure that makes you a "racist" along with me and everyone else a certain troll encounters, here or (I suspect) anywhere else. Thanks for being reasonably sane - the loonies around here are getting to me!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're so smart! Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll! Wow, that's so refreshing. From my own vantage point though, I would never call you a troll. Uneducated and totally uncultured perhaps. Never a troll. The Scythian 01:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)