Talk:One Thousand and One Nights/Archive 1

older comments
My memory has misled me. The Book of Esther does not say that the king would execute a bride per day. I don't know why I thought so, but I just reread the story (at []) and I was wrong.

Even if 1000 represents infinity, 1000 + 1 would not be a transfinite number larger than infinity. Although I suppose if "1000 + 1" is taken to mean "The first number after infinity", then it does represent a transfinite number.

"moribund detail"??? - Jmabel 03:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My Burton edition claims that Aladdin is actually from a book called "The Blue Fairy Book", and is included with the rest of the tales just because it is so good. But I don't know anything further - anyone else up on this? Graft 23:39, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No, but the whole text of Andrew Lang) Blue Fairy Book, including the selections from Arabian Nights, is on-line at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/LanBlue.html Wetman 23:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The article of which this is the talk page notes that Aladdin is a late addition to the collection, but not that late: the earliest edition in which it is found predates The Blue Fairy Book by nearly two centuries. For that matter, the Burton edition also predates The Blue Fairy Book, although by an interval closer to two years than two hundred. --Paul A 06:48, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

"Shahrastini"
'...better-known in English as "Scheherazade" or "Shahrastini" ' (italics mine). Really? I've never heard "Shahrastini" in my life. Unless someone can vouch for a well-known edition that uses this variant, this should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 17 December 2004 (UTC)

easy reading but not bowdlerized
does there exist a version of English translation such that it is not censored in anyway but with more moden easy-reading style than Sir Burtons? Xah Lee 22:32, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 * The answer is in the article, "a critical edition based on the 14th century Syrian manuscript in the Bibliotheque Nationale, compiled in Arabic by Muhsin Mahdi and rendered into English by Husain Haddawy, the most accurate and elegant of all to this date." OneGuy 03:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I found it on amazon.com, and will check it out at library if i have a chance. I was reading Burton's version, fully enjoying it, and thought about translating it myself. Btw, if any are interested in Burton's version with interesting words or phrases highlighted as a way of studying English, here it is: http://xahlee.org/p/arabian_nights/an1.html Xah Lee 02:26, 21 December 2004 (UTC)

Iran/Persia
In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. But there isn't an explicit connection to Iran in the present article anyways, more should be added.   – Kaveh (talk)   12:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but why is this appropriate? The use of the name "Iran" in English is entirely to refer to the modern nation-state. Our article Iran is entirely about that modern nation-state. Wouldn't Persian Empire be a more appropriate link? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, 18 April 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a very common misunderstanding. "Iran" is not only the modern nation-state. In fact, "Iran" is completely and exactly the same (and has always been the same) as the "Persian Empire". There has been no significant change to the status of the country or its status of being an empire, the only thing that happened is that Iranians asked the people allover the world to use the same name for this country that has been always used by its people. It is relevant to stress this point in order to prevent the misunderstanding that Iran is a new country merely standing in the same place where the Persian Empire once was (Such as Iraq or Turkey, for example). Iran IS the Persian Empire. In fact, until the 1979 revolution the official name of the country was the Empire of Iran, and the government was called the imperial government of Iran. The king (Shah) had the status of an emperor, which is why he was addressed with the title "Imperial Majesty", and not only Majesty. Even today the essence of the government has to a large extent remained the same. I think it is important to stress these seemingly insignificant but important details.

There has been no significant change to the status of the country or its status of being an empire
 * That is the utterly most disturbing and ignorant claims I’ve ever heard. The answer to the question is YES, there have been significant changes in the geography of Iran for the past 200-150 years. Most of the States in the Caucasus and Former USSR states in Central Asia were part of the Persian Empire during the Qâjârs- In case you wouldn’t know, the Qâjârs were another Iranian royalties (before the Pahlavis) and after the fall of the Qâjârs and the crowning of Rezâ Shâh, The Persian Empire/Iran became what we know today. And yes it is also wrong to connect the term “Iran” for 1001 nights, simply because parts of Turkmenistan, Mongolia, and other non-Iranian states were officially under Persian ruling even in the late 1800.
 * It is important to note that the Persian Empire was far larger than the current "Islamic Republic of Iran" and, indeed, it's establishment was under many Zoroastrian kings. The 44 years between 1935 when the country name was changed to Iran and the revolution in 1979 are short in relative history, hence people associate Iran with the current "Islamic Republic" and Persia to that of the "Persian Empire". Hence, you will hear many Zoroastrians not referring to themselves as Iranian but Persian (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury#Ethnicity) even though the term Iran can be traced back to the Zoroastrian Avesta (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Etymology) and even the term Parsi refers to a Persian (not Iranian) origin (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi).

1001 nights has Persian roots
The name of the storyteller is Shahrzad which is a pure Persian name. I have heard from some Professors of Persian literature that 1001 nights originates from 1000 Afsane (1000 Legends). It is also noteworthy that the name of the city which many of the stories take place in (Baghdad) is Persian. (anon 8 Aug 2005)
 * Baghdad was the capital of the Islamic world for a significant time, Baghdad is where the Caliphate ruled from after Damascus, I think you are stretching it a wee bit. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It helps to check Wikipedia itself as to the origins of Baghdad. You will see that there is no "stretching it" and the origins of it is Persian. (Babak October 11, 2005)

"Medieval"
The article states that the stories are "a piece of medieval Middle-Eastern literature". But then it says that they were compiled in the 9th century. So which is it? Jonatan 20:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some people consider the Middle Ages to begin after the fall of the Western Roman Empire; by that standard, this would be medieval. The term "Dark Ages" certainly does not apply to Persia, though it would reasonably apply to Europe at this time. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Abbasid or Arab
Which should it be? the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid or the Arab Caliph Harun al-Rashid? Philip Stevens 12:41, 22 October 2005. How about both? Yuber(talk) 12:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is an Arabic and also an Abbasid Caliph. It doesn't matter what you say. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.81.122 (talk &bull; contribs) 15 Jan 2006.

Prince of Persia?
Why is the Prince of Persia linked here, does it have anything to do with the Nights? Philip Stevens 15:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Shahrzad
I may be completely wrong, but I don't think it is correct to say that Shahrzad means "born in the city". Considering the alternate ways of pronouncing the word "Shahrazad" or "Scheherazade" it seems that the word is a simplified version of Shahr+Azad or Shahr+Azade, which would mean the libertarian, or liberator (Azade) of the city. Also, "Shahr" in older persian usually means country, or the whole nation, not simply "the city". I think this meaning would also be much more consistent with the role her character has in the story. I'm looking forward to read your opinions about this. (anon 19 July 2005)
 * I believe that you are correct because the writer put both Shahryar and Shahrzad that both contains shar-which means city- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.81.122  (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is Persian
The story is completely Persian because of the names and also it was the Arabic version of 1000 myths or Hezar Afsaneh which was completely Persian. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.81.122 (talk • contribs) 15 Jan 2006. Yes I also believe that this is Persian and Arabs want to be unfair to us. Iranians have to prove their identity to the world. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maziar fayaz (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Indian Roots
I just listened to this podcast about the Abbasid Caliphs (MP3), where they claim the origin of the stories is actually India. It is claimed that the stories travelled from India to Persia. 20:40 in the podcast. Jaco plane  20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think most scolars agree that it has indian roots, but the majority of the stories were added in two periods in the middle east. The fist bunch of new additions often contained magic and mythological creatures. The other bunch was added in Baghdad and the more urban style made most of the added stories relativley realistic. Then various stories were added and removed. Many of the more ertotic stories are for instance of egyptian origin. // Liftarn

According to most scholars, many if not most of the stories in the Nights have origins in ancient Indian story collections such as the Panchatantra and the Jataka. The others are of Persian and Arabic origin. Overall, I see it as an Persian-Indian-Arabic work. The basic framework, however, is Persian. Afghan Historian 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I wrote a bit down on this page there are three layers. There are also other influences liek Jewish and different versions also contain different stories so they may for inctance include stories from Egypt too. // Liftarn

Inline citations
Some of the facts in the article, while plausible, are a little surprising. Would inline citations be practical in this article? Andjam 12:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend cite.php over inline citations, but something like that, sure. - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One of my first encounters with the book was ascribed to Edgar Allen Poe, yet I see nothing here about him, but I had been under the impression that he had had a hand in at least some western versions of the myths. I have encountered much confusion (including my own) as to the origins of the story---Dragonwlkr 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this what you are referring to? The Thousand-and-Second Tale of Scheherazade Philip Stevens 13:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Only Translations Available?
I admit I haven't looked as extensively as I should have, but offhand I don't see links to anything that's not a translation. (I am making an assumption that there is an original language for this, in Arabic...or Persian...or something that's not written in the letters I'm typing at the moment. I've seen one site that has a picture of two pages in Arabic script, but that appears to be it.)  Given I'm studying Arabic, I would love to find a site that has the stories in the original language (if one exists). And for those who dislike translations as a rule, it would be nice to have easy access to a good untranslated copy. Anyone know where one might exist? Kilyle 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Arabic WikiSource
http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81_%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9_%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9 Here you can find the tales in arabic (the original tales) but also if you are studying Arabic I think that the tales text is not easy.
 * There are many collections of tales in Persian and Arabic, and you'll find many with similarities. But you won't find exactly the set translated by Antoine Galland in the eighteenth century, which we know as The Book of One Thousand and One Nights. --Wetman 06:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What is a "literary epic" ?)
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The correct question was "What is a collection of tales within a framing device." What was your wager? --Wetman 07:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Calender
What is a "Calender" ? I have a (grossly overabridged) version that contains several stories about Three "Calenders" - each blind in one eye who were sons of kings. Unfortunately, the modern Wikipedia entry under calender is about a machine involved in the paper industry...
 * It's the admittedly misleading transliteration of the Persian word for a Sufi mystic. There's an article about them on Wikipedia under the title of "Qalandar."  Haddawy refers to them as dervishes with a footnote describing them as, "Members of a Muslim order of mendicant monks, vowed to a life of poverty." (Haddawy 1990:76) Mjannin 23:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Burton's translation and the rare book market
Good article. How much would Burton's edition be worth on the rare book market? In 1998 a Lebanese friend of mine, and a lover of rare books, found the complerte set of Burton's rtanslation for sale in Baghdad in the Bookseller's Market (Mutannabi Street), for $200. It had a bookplate from the British Council - in fact the entire library was for sale there on the footpath. PiCo 02:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently nearly US$3000 in very good condition. In general, Abe Books is a great place to answer this sort of question. If it's English-language and on the market at all, there is about an 80% chance of finding it on that one site. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Alasnam
There is an orphan article Alasnam that looks like it should be linked to from this article. I do not have the knowledge of this subject to included it, can someone here do it? Jeepday 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is badly written and deals with a subject of extremely minor importance (or of extreme unimportance). I don't think it's worth linking. PiCo 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks PiCo, I will make appropriate notations on that article. This section can be deleted in a week or so Jeepday 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We generally keep them, and eventually archive them. It might lead someone to give that article some attention. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd inclusion
Why is there a mention of a musical piece called La Noche de las Noches? The title (which means "the night of nights") doesn't suggest any obvious connection. - Jmabel | Talk 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dawood?
No mention of Dawood's English version? It's only relevant to English I guess, but this is the English wiki :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.184.20 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic or Persian?
Now I assume that there is a strong Iranian presence here, and that's why people are changing the article to make it say this book is Persian. This is the only explanation I can think of, there being no factual evidence offered. To those people I say: please stop spreading mis-information. If you have a good argument, then present it here on the talk page, else don't change the page to reflect your own prejudices. As far as the actual 'case' goes, all we can say is that the book is a collection of stories, and this collection has grown over several centuries. It is a tenable position that some of the oldest come from Persia, India, or other places, but there is little evidence to support this thesis. In fact, some of the more typically 'foreign' names in the book may have been invented by Arab bards just for that purpose: to sound foreign and imposing. IMHO, once the first stories were written in arabic, they formed a snowball effect, and the book continued to change until it has acquired its most recent form, sometime in the 18th or 19th century after the invention of printing came to the Arab World. As such, the core and the meat of the book is defintely Arab, even if we accept the idea that it's 'nucleus' is not. Now let me add that this isn't a matter of national pride, it is a matter of historical accuracy. As such, one also must recognize that the book's fame comes from its reputation in non-arab countries (especially the west) much more so than it's reputation in the Arab World. This is also the case with the 'Rubaiiyat of Omar Khayyam' and to a lesser extent with the Chinese "Journey to the West'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.153.128.12 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC). Note: This article is literally littered with the word 'Persian'. Will you stop that?
 * Please log in. Also stop this nonsense. The fame of 1001 Nights was far more heard in Iran than in West. for centuries Iranians told these stories. Same for Khayyam. And Persia is a NON-Arab country and it not a part of your so called arab World. Also, you're humble opinion is also wrong. This book was first written in Persian (just spend some time reading it and you'll see it starts in the Sassanid Persian Empire. And it wasn't a book which got added up. It was a collection of stories, from the beginning, written by a Persian, which wrote many folk and other stories in a single book. The stories and originally from all over the Asia, but it was written by a Persian.
 * Note: This article is literally littered with the word 'Arab'. Will you stop that? --Arad 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Arad :

I found in some website that the original version of 1000 nights and night is in (The oriental institution)not sure about the translation, in Chicago University and it is in Arabic from the 9th century this is the article in Arabic if u can read the source because I am not good at translating or writing in English قطعة قديمة جدا تعتبر الأقدم في العالم حتى اليوم، موجودة في المعهد الشرقي بجامعة شيكاغو ترقى الى القرن الثالث للهجرة، راجع (كوركيس عواد : المخطوطات العربية في الدور الأمريكية ص 34 الرقم3) وللدكتورة نبيهة عبود دراسة مفصلة عن هذه القطعة بعنوان:Abbott(Nabia) A Ninth Century Fragment of (Thousand and one Nights), Journal Eastern Studies, Vol, VIII, 1949, PP 129-164. And remember, I agree with u that there is some Persian influence but this does not mean the tale is completely Persian.....There are a lot of stories from Arabic heritage; Basra, Baghdad and Damascus were mentioned in the stories. I have written there it is an Arab-Indo-Persian tale and u deleted that and wrote Persian only.....Why? Aziz1005 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, i see your point. I never said the book's stories are all Persian. Of course they all come from around Asia and some maybe from Africa. But I said the book was written by a Persian. And also, I never deleted the Arab-Indo-Persian. If I did, I'm sorry, but I think it was another user. But thank you for the research you did. Have a nice day --Arad 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Synopsis repeats the Intro. Merge?
The first section and the Synopsis are almost identical. They both relate the set-up for the stories as well as mentioning the most common characters and well-known tales. Could they be merged? Ninquerinquar 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hazār Afsāneh
The book "1001 Nights" is based on an older, Pahlavi-Persian work known as "Hazār Afsāneh" ("1000 Myths"), a collection of ancient Iranian and Indian folk tales. The work was mentioned by al-Tabari and others, yet, for some reason it is not mentioned in this articles. Someone should add a paragraph or two about this work into the article, since the frame story of the modern "1001 Nights" is certainly copied from "Hazār Afsāneh". Other stories, mostly of Egyptian and Syrian origin, were added later. While "1001 Nights" was written in Arabic, it is important to mention that the origins of the work are Non-Arabic, and go back to ancient Persia and India, as well as to ancient Egypt and ancient China. --82.83.135.55 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Scheherazade
In my opinion, and according to my reading of Wikipedia's naming conventions, the encyclopedia should use the most common spelling in English, which is overwhelmingly "Scheherazade". There is a poll about this at Talk:Shahrazad. –Taranah 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am responding to the ongoing spelling changes of Scheherazade (or Shahrazad). The spelling issue is complicated, but I still lean toward using the most common spelling in this article.  There is a good argument that "Shahrazad" is a better transliteration, but it is not as easily recognized.  Once again, see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Scheherazade. –Taranah 05:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

About the Shahrazad cartoon's music
Hi, I wondered whether anyone knows about the cartoon's music that played in the beginning in the cartoon. I would be grateful if anybody writes its song's name or its composer. Thank-you. Happy editing, -- Bahar (Spring in Turkish)  &#9997;  09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1001 Nights
I want to know who says most of the stories are arabic!? yes, There are some Indian stories and A FEW Arabic stories. I want to answer the people who says It`s an Arabic story. Why do all the main characters of the Arabic stories have Iranian names(whithout any changes)? It`s very strange that names of the main characters of local stories be foreign. We know in many years ago each name that entered in Arabic language had been changed alot. For instance, Khosrow (Persia=خسرو) became Kasra (Arabic=کسری), Pirooz (Persian=پیروز) became  Firooz (Arabic=فیروز), Kwaz (Persian=کواذ) became Ghobad (Arabic=قباد) and too many other names.Sandbad(means A wind that comes from Sand river), Shahrzad, Shahryar and etc. But there are many names like Sandbad, Shahryar, Shahrzad are existed in Arabic (without any changes). 1001 Nights story spreaded in Arabic countries, because of its popularity and its names became common without being Arabicized. If you want to know about the oldest version of 1001 Nights story, apparently you can not find it in Persian, since Arabs burnt any books that were written in Persian to destroy Iranian culture and language in Ummayad dynasty, According to Biruni's From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, Because of this nowadays there are lots of Arabic word in Persian, But Arabic words do not contain 30% of Persian language. That`s one of reasons why there are many ethnic problems between Iranians and Arabs. About Hezar Afsaneh and its relation with 1001 Nights has been discussed in this page and there is no need to talk about it anymore. 1001 Nights has range stories not only from Hezar Afsaneh and Iranian stories but also from Indian stories and A FEW Arabic stories. Why did most of stories of 1001 Nights occure in Iraq and Baghdad(nowaday)? It has a lot of reasons: 1.Iraq had always been in Iranian dynasties(Achamenid, Parthian, Sassanid, Seljuk, Safavid and etc.). 2.Iraq in Arabic pronunciation is Aragh(عراق). Aragh is Arabic form of an Iranian name, Arak(اراک) means related to Aryans. Baghdad (Arabic=بغداد) is also a Persian name and its real pronunciation is Bagdad (Persian=بگداد). BAG in middle and ancient Persian means God and DAD means blessing. You`d better know 90% of the names of Iraq`s cities are Persian. 3.Another point is Iranian scientific and literature atmosphere of Iraq and its cities in those times, Although there were lots of anti–iranianism rules. You can investigate about how Gundishapour university was ruined by Umar and how it was founded again in Iraq by Iranian teachers of Gundishapour university. The existing of Iranian stories in 1001 Nights like Sandbad is another reason to confess this story is an Iranian story before it be Arabic or Indian. But unfortunately Arabs are trying to adopt them and introduce them as an Arabic story like many other things. Roudaki Iranian poet versed the stories of Snadbad that its name is Sandbad Nameh. Sandbad was a real Iranian person who lived in Siraf court, his birth place in Iran. An interesting point is that there is no distinctive or indistinctive person in Arab`s history that was named Sandbad. I`ve got something else to say, Kellile Va Demneh is an Indian story. At first it had only five stories, But when it was translated into Persian by Borzouye In Sassanid era. Borzouye added too many stories in his translation. And Iranians have never said ``that is an Iranian story``. I mentioned it for people who think most of the stories of 1001 Nights are Arabic. Anyway, if they be right, we should not say it`s an Arabic story. After all, we can not deny most of the stories of 1001 Nights are Iranian.

Sorry, because of my broken English. Because I`m 14-year-old boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.36.6 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Arabian nights & nothing else
The Arabian "1001" nights has its basis in Baghdad that was established by the Abbasid leader Abu-Jaffar Al-Mansour & the whole story flourished under Harun Al-Rashids time which was considered as the golden time for the Abbasid empire....& it describes Arabic culture mixed with stories collected from all parts that where under the rule of Arabs including "nowdays Iran" & the reason it has names from other cultures is because the Abbasid/Arabic Empire was multicultural & multinational & widely spread again under the rule of Arabs, no one can deny that!!!....it has always been known throughout the world as this & we're not gonna change history now because some people "persians" are racist against Arabs & I wonder why so much persian mentioned....maby from now one we should mention Arabic beside every name given to some one from persia then all the Iranian related articles will be full of Arabic but ofcourse persians ignore that...havn't you people noticed the urge of persians in all Arabic-related articles to manipulate everything Arabic & change it to something else???193.6.158.33 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Persian Hijack!!
What is the basis for the recent attempt to systematically expunge all reference to "Arabian" from the article and replace it with "Persian"? If there is actually a good case for this it should be brought up in discussion. If it is simply that the collection must be Persian because the framing story is set in Persia - then on the same grounds Aladdin must be a Chinese tale, since it is set there. This is palable nonsense of course. In any case the collection is almost universally known as "The Arabian Nights" in English, so that even if the rest of the "Persian Hijack" eventually makes it this will have to stand. Soundofmusicals 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Be careful not to make racist comments! Aside from 1001 nights, most of the contributions of Persians to science, music and philosophy etc are labeled in the west under names other than persian. Obviously persians are not those who are stealing works of others! Ignorance of orientalists (and generally people of the west) about middle east is the main reason behind all these confusions. The original name of the collection in both Persian and Arabic languages are "1000 tales" or "1000 nights" no reference to "Persian" or "Arabic". Labeling it as "Arabian nights" was the invention of some translators. The connection of the collection to Persia/Persian culture is much stronger than what you have noticed. The collection is considered a multi cultural work. Calling it exclusively "Arabian" is not fair either. As far as I can tell based on direct evidences: there was a Persian collection of Asian/Indian/African stories under the name "1000 tales". It was translated to Arabic under the same name and later to other languages. And possibly some translators may have added or deleted some pieces. The collection evolved until today. Sangak  Talk 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Persian hijack" refers to the article, not the 1001 Nights themselves. Please read this before you accuse people of racism! The introduction mentions the varied sources, including Persian, Indian, Arab, Egyptian, Classical Greek etc. etc. in the tales. It is well known that the traditional English language name for the collection (The Arabian Nights) is not accurate, but it remains the name that most English speaking people know the collection as - probably because it first appeared in English as translated from the Arabic. All the same, we know that this is not the original name - which is why the article's main heading is under 1001 nights. What the editor did was go right through the whole article and replace "Arab" or "Arabic" or "Arabian" with "Persian". This needed to be reverted, obviously, and what the phrase "Persian Hijack" above referred to. Soundofmusicals 08:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Persian/Arabian balance
It may be that the article as it stands (if that is the right word in the current flurry of drastic editing!!) has an "anti-Persian" bias. In order to avoid undesirable POV (Point of View) this needs to be discussed rationally and specifically. The heading "Perisna Hijack" for the above section simply referred to a specific "mass edit" that changed all mention of "Arab" to "Persian" - not to any suggestion that this collection does not have a strong specifically Persian element (along, incidentally, with an Arabic one!).

Please air complaints about the article here - to establish a consensus about the best form for the article - rather than getting emotional and thrashing about like a trapped gazelle! This is an on-line encyclopedia, not an ethnic competition site. Soundofmusicals 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Versions
If you want to be faithful to the history of the Nights there should be different pages for each different version with what we know about them on the pages. IE Burton's translation should have its own page, as should Haddawy's, etc. I rewrote most of this page to reflect certain academic truths about the Nights: 1. There are too many versions for it to be "one" piece of literature and 2. There is absolutely no historical basis to say that the stories all come from one place. The part of this page discussing literature and film seems like it should be taken out or made different pages and is badly written but I kept it in because it all seems verifiable. stan goldsmith 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Stan, for your dedication to this page! It looks good, and I am glad it is grounded better in academic scholarship.  After reading the intro and the synopsis, I'm thinking of moving a few things around a bit.  It seems to me that the full description of the frame story belongs in the synopsis section and the intro should just mention that there is a frame story and that the other stories follow it.  Taranah 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Taranah. stan goldsmith 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I contend that the claim of the Haddawy version being "the best" is unprovable and therefore should be removed from this page. It's a shame that these obvious Peacock words were ever used on the public page here; I've run across them on past visits and thought that someone would have removed them by now. Rather than edit directly, I thought it politest to point out the error here in the discussion page: In Versions, "... [specific version described] by Husain Haddawy, by and large the best English language version to date." Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagasek (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the Indian name?

 * Does anyone know the Indian name of 1001 nights? I think it shuld be added along with the Arabic and Persian names.
 * I don't think it ever was compiled (or it may have been, but it haven't survived), but it was spread westward as oraly transmitted folktales. Some indian compilations include Pañcatantra and Kathāsaritsāgara. The 1001 Nights has several layers and you can see three distinct types of stories. First there is the stories of inidan origin with creatures like djinns (according to some people it may come from Pañcatantra). Then some persian folk tales were added (I don't have my reference handy, but I think this includes stories like Ali Baba and Sinbad). The third major layer was added in Baghdad. This layer contains no or very little supernatural creaturs, magic and such. Examples are the story of the little judge (or was it caliph?). // Liftarn


 * I don't think Ali Baba was a Persian folk tale (the name is Arabic and was not used in Persia before Islam), and there is no way djinns could have Indian roots! The Jinns (i.e. Genies) are supernatural beings in ancient Arabian Mythology, so they must have Arabian roots.
 * The jinn in these stories serve the same functions as fairies, elves, goblins, spirits, boddhisatvas, deities, devas, immortals, etc etc etc do in other cultures. The Chinese even tell stories about about the legendary Yellow Emperor subduing and punishing magical spirits similar Suleiman's suppression of rebellious Jinn in Arabic mythology.  "Jinni" along with its partial synonyms Ifrit, Marid, and Shaitan could easily be the closests available translation, like we refer to the Chinese 'long' as a 'dragon'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.130.154 (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, as I said I don't have my reference book handy, but there are indeed three different layers of stories in the collection. // Liftarn

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The Book of One Thousand and One Nights → One Thousand and One Nights — Allow the Nights go by many names, in English 'One Thousand and One Nights' is one of the best known and the most faithful to the original Arabic name ('A Thousand Nights and a Night'). Also, to call the Nights a book is misleading as they were not written down for many centuries. —Philip Stevens 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Strong Oppose - This book is much better known in English by its current name. Reginmund 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. —  AjaxSmack   05:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Not only is it not better known without "The Book of", the current name does not even appear to be the exact title of any English translation. Is Reginmund thinking of Burton's "Book of the thousand nights and a night"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he isn't. Reginmund 00:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, per PMAnderson. Hera1187 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Comment, can you cite this assertion? --Philip Stevens 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare the internal links. Reginmund 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of internal links on Wikipedia is not a good indicator of which name is the best known in English as most editors try to avoid redirects. A Google search shows that there are five times as many results for "One Thousand and One Nights" as for "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights". --Philip Stevens 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is because the ommissions of the appendage will include the titles with "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights" and others that don't. That's less of a good indicator. Reginmund 06:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, however I subtracted the result of the second and first search and "One Thousand and One Nights" had five times as many hit as "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights". --Philip Stevens 07:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you. Google gives me 1,170 for One Thousand and One Nights and 12,200 for "the Book of One Thousand and One Nights". Reginmund 00:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't advocate using Google to decide these things but, if you choose to do so, you need to refine the search better. Your searches above were for One Thousand and One Nights -the -Book -of and "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights" but, without quotes around "the Book of," all instances of pages with any of those individual words anywhere in the text would have been eliminated.  (E.g., A site with the sentence, "One Thousand and One Nights" is a book of great renown," would be eliminated because "book" and "of" appeared.)  Also, excluding Wikipedia and mirrors from the results is a good idea.  Try "One Thousand and One Nights" -"The Book of" -Wikipedia versus "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights" -Wikipedia instead and you get very different results (54,600 vs. 4,530). —   AjaxSmack   03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That search is even more ambiguous. If you skim the search 9/10 are completely irrelevant to the Arabian Nights. Most of the hits are about manga and artwork. Reginmund 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What this change seems to ignore is that "Kitab" is the Arabicv word for "Book". Eclecticology (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute for the name Arabian Nights
Well there is no name dispute that it has always been known throughout history as Arabian Nights & the majority or people knowing about it, also know it as the Arabian Nights. But the increased persian influence which I think is very unfair compared to other Arabic-realted issues that disregard Arabic influence. An example is that next to Shahryar & Schehrazade it says that its Persian name, well how many Persian realted issues have Arabic names & it is not mentioned that it is Arabic eg. Ibn Sina(Avicenna), Al-Ghazali,Abd Al-Rahman Al Sufi,Ibn Abi Sadiq,Omar Al-Khayyam,Muhammad Ibn Musa Al-Khawarizmi, Jafar Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Shakir,Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn al-Farakh al-Farabi and HUNDREDS others. IF we mention persian name origin next to the names in this article then we should mention the Arabic name origin in ALL other articles, which I think persians will not agree upon. So it should be removed from this artilce or we should add to ALL other articles.

This was just one example of things NOT being FAIR in Wikipedia nowdays & many things are being modifyied without a guard. Best regards193.6.158.33 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually - as has been pointed out here - the current work as known internationally, outside the Middle Eastern Islamic world - is in fact not identical with ANY particular "authentic" (in Arabic or Persian) version - it contains interpolated tales - some of which may not even be of "Eastern" origin. One COULD in fact view the (so-called) "Arabian Nights" entirely as a European artefact - calling it a collection created by Galland and Burton from earlier collections of Middle Eastern stories. Mind you, I don't like this idea - just pointing out that you can look at something from more than one point of view!!


 * I have done a fair bit of research on this one, and it seems to me we probably have about the right balance in treating the many and varied influences and sources of the modern collection. Trying to project modern nationalisms into a world essentially predating the very idea of nationalism - and in which the nationalities concerned did not even exist - seems particularly pointless. Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but as you admitted yourself, it's original research, namely yours. While I respect your point of view, extraordinary and controversial assertions are required to be cited and one is not provided.   Therefore, I'm going to remove your assertion of "inaccurately" until it is reliably verifiable.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Arabian nights" is not the original title (hence calling it that is inaccurate). Nor is it an accurate description of the collection of stories, because many of them are not of Arabian origin (although on the other hand many ARE). On what grounds can you say it is an accurate title or description - where is your evidence? In fact if the title "Arabian Nights" IS accurate then most of the rest of article becomes wrong.


 * On the other hand, the title "Arabian Nights" must be mentioned, if only because that title is so well known, at least in the West - in fact it is actually the "normal" title of the collection in Engish, and this is, when all is said and done, an English language encyclopedia. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See, here's the rub. I'm not trying to put anything into the article, so I don't need evidence.  You, on the other hand, are.  Therefore, what you put in must adhere to the three pillars of verifiable, neutral, and no original research.   I certainly respect your point of view, and to degree I agree with it.  I don't think I would have any issue with a sentence in the header saying that despite its popular name, the stories are not all Arabic.   That's supported by well-sourced facts and isn't original research.  However, that's quite a bit different that to imply the common title is wrong.   That's taking the cited information and inferring more than is presented.   That, unfortunately, constitutes original research.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing a word from the article (especially a negative word) IS adding something, at least by implication! But then real point is probably not whether the name Arabian Nights is "accurate" or not - but that

1. It is NOT an ancient name for the collection at all - just what westerners started to call it sometime in the 1800s:

2. In any case the name doesn't prove that every tale in it is Arabian - any more that the fact that the main characters in the frame story are Persian proves that they are all Persian.

It is not an individually authored epic, but a collection of folk tales that grew organically over several centuries. Read the article, and then read a grownup's version of the collection (or at least dip into it). Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording as I left it was "also known as Arabian Nights". It is known by that title and that is incredibly well documented.   As for items 1 and 2 -- they don't have anything to do with this discussion.   I honestly don't care how old the title is, nor do I really care about proving the source of these stories.  Those are not issues in this discussion, and I'd greatly prefer not to muddy the water with side issues.  The ONLY issue on the table is if your assertion of the accuracy of the title is original research -- nothing more.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 10:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On a side note, don't try to convince me on the accuracy of the title. I also don't care about that either.  We are only interested in verifiability not truth.   -- ShinmaWa(talk) 10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals -- your new edits look really good. Thanks for that. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 10:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The rather circumstantial paragraph I added was simply to make my point about the "inaccuracy" of the commonest English term for the collection quite clear. This point WAS necessary - because a some people with VERY heavy axes to grind were making remarks like "It has always been called the Arabian Nights and nothing else through all the ages". Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1001 Nights
The German Army reference (to Kampfgruppe 1001 Nights) seemed out of place here, so I’ve moved it to a disambiguation page.Moonraker12 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Origins (2)
I have moved these recent posts from further up the page - just to make sure they are not missed!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand, the first published edition of what we today would recognize as the '1001 Nights' was the French version by Galland, compiled mainly from oral traditions, and scattered Arabic sources. This would mean the Grims citation (note 2) is wrong. It is only a century after Galland that 2 Arabic manuscripts of '1001 Nights' appears. These Arabic manuscripts are then translated by Lanen and Burton into English, but ironically they are ost likely based on the French. My source for these assertions was a panel presentation on The Tibetan Book of the Dead, with Donald Lopez and Pericles Lewis, Council on South Asian Studies, Yale University, November 2007 212.219.238.159 (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC) R.E.D.
 * I would dearly love this to be true - if only to resolve the Persian/Arab bickering over the "original source"! If "published" be taken to mean "printed" then the first statement the first published edition ... was the French version by Galland could well be correct - but of course it all depends on a good definition of what we today would recognize as the "1001 Nights" - we know that there have been innumerable different versions. It is certainly true that Galland did incorporate tales not found in his original - to imply that the original did not exist is a big ask - making Galland the greatest (and most successful) literary fraud in history. Somehow I suspect the truth is nearer to the version currently found in the article as it now stands. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Arabian Nights"
The "Arabian Nights" is NOT an ancient title for this collection in any of its versions, but it IS the name most commonly used (rightly or wrongly) in English. People objecting to this title on the grounds that it is inaccurate, and not the original name, have (rightly) had the artile moved to "One thousand and one nights" - but a mention (and explanation) of the "Arabian Nights" title is still necessary. I have endeavoured to give a suitable explanation. If anyone has a better, more scholarly one then by all means insert it instead. But please cease repeated deleting anything with "Arab" or "Arabic" in it from the article. It does nothing for anyone's regard for Persian culture - which is a rich and noble thing, and deserves more sensible and scholarly defence than this!! I have to point out that ALL existing Persian versions of the Nights are translations, either from the Arabic or from a European Language. Original Persian texts, if any ever existed, are lost. In these circumstances the article bends over backwards to be fair about the possibility of a Persian Origin for at least the germ of the collection. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Persian Nights"
The 1001 nights, as we now have it, has very mixed origins indeed - although the original idea of a major collection of folk tales within a "frame" story is (as the sources cited confirm) almost certainly of Indian origin. The legitimate point various Irani editors have made that the title "Arabian Nights" is inaccurate, and a nineteenth century English name for the collection rather than its "ancient" name is now well covered. PLEASE don't change the article - in particular don't make it contradict itself or the sources - unless you have something a lot more definite than a bare assertion. This is an encyclopedia - we don't really know what exact proportions of Persian/Arab/Other sources comprise the collection as translated/compiled by Galland and Burton - so it would not be scholarly to pretend we did. The European translators, especially Burton, were fairly unscrupulous about adding their own changes, and interpolating additional stories, which further muddies the waters. If it is really that important to you - why not start a "Persian Nights" website of your own?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirection from Persian names for "1001 Nights"
I have added redirections from several versions of the Persian name(s) for this collection - with and without diacritic marks (although all in Latin letters of course). Just for a giggle - I have even added one from "Persian Nights" - although I suspect admin or someone will want to delete this as it is NOT a name (I suspect) that has ever been used outside this discussion!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Themes and techniques section
Much of this is very interesting and informative, although applying techniques of literary criticism to something like the nights (for instance, assuming a real guiding hand, if not a single overall author or editor) has even more than usual of the well known tendency of literary criticism to descend into nonsense or bathos. The nights were patently NOT written by one person at one time, and assumptions based on the idea that somehow they really WERE (however eminent the person doing it) are fundamentally flawed.

I am particularly concerned about the "satire" section, which seemed to use a very different and much looser definition of the concept of satire than is found in the wiki article on the subject, and the idea of a similar tale being intended as a "parody" of another because of a similar plot outline (folk tales are simply like that, for heaven's sake). Parody and satire are NOT the same thing, either, although parody is sometimes used with satiric intent. I have slightly rewritten those paragraphs - trying to put the sourced matter in context, without deleting anything interesting or stimulating. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This section does not treat the work as if it was written by a single author. It is simply explaining why the editors of the Nights often incorporated slightly altered versions of the same stories several times into the book, often for no other reason than for humour, suggesting a form of parody. Jagged 85 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In the section `repetition' where the article discusses 'leitwortstil' it cites David Pinault's "Story-Telling Techniques in the Arabian Nights" as saying that the earliest use of the leitwortsil technique is arabian nights. Mr Pinault's book categorically states no such thing, but merely says that the techinique is used in versions of the nights. (Clearly the statement that 1001 nights was the first to use the techinique is ridiculous; the technique is littered through many other works of antiquity, including the torah and the iliad for pity's sake, predating nights by millenia)!

Arabian Nights Entertainments
What about the English translation of the first French translation that was used for so long? I've been reading it, and I notice that at least one risque passage (and presumably more) has been left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ) Presia is not arab and i dont understand why they called as arabian night ,, presian nights...!!! they have to stole every thing from us they are removing us our history, culture, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.88 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Violence Against women?
Err, Reading the book now, the amount of violence against women is incredible. One of the first stories, about a man who if he tells his wife the story will die, is resolved when the man decides to beat his wife with a Stick untill she stops nagging him, or dies. She stops nagging him, and they live happily ever after... WTF!!! --195.7.55.146 15:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book does contains some violence towards women, but there's also plenty dealt out to the men.

You seem to be implying that the book is sexist or misogynist in some way - this is absurd in a book in which women outwit men throughout. Sdrawkcab 17:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab
 * Thats because every second woman happens to be a Witch or a sorceress, it is very misogynist. Just re-reading a piece where a man is seduced by not one, not two but three women with a terrrbile Secret (Aside from that they happen to prostitutes) --Irishpunktom\talk 13:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accusations of misogyny (and racism) are not absurd at all, and I'd say the misogyny in 1001 Nights is extremely vicious. But does it matter, in the end? It did not detract from my pleasure in reading the book. 201.81.252.13 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * GROW UP, ye victims of political correctness. This stuff was compiled from stories 1-2+ thousand years old. A king that married and then killed off virgins back then made lots more sense than a president or dictator slaughtering virgins in the now... Yet, just some 30-40 years ago, we've had a fair share of cannibals, serial rapists, and mass murderers commanding countries across the globe. People are BAAAAAD, deal with it. Aadieu (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. stories about how messed up people can get are actually a good thing, as history ignored is doomed to repeat itself, and every tale has a grain of truth to it. Aadieu (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Book of One Thousand and One Nights
The Book of One Thousand and One Nights is an Arabic Literature master piece, which combined Folk Stories from many countries, including persia. It should not be confused with the persian "Hazar Afsanah" (A Thousand Legends), which is apart from the frame-story of Shahrazad totally different!!
 * So tell us how the name Shahrzad and Shahryar are Arabic. Also tell us how Arabian people had big cities before Islam, they used to live in small town-as Mecca was the biggest city- and in "tribes" so how it could be Arabic if their name is Shahrzad. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.81.122 (talk &bull; contribs) 15 Jan 2006.


 * you fail to understand what the pervisou person was trying to say, you mention that sheherezade and sheheryar are persian names, yet Ali baba, Aladin, and almost ALL names in the book are arabic, plus the arabs did not only like in small cities such as mecca, have you not read about petra, and the nabateans, anyways, the point is, the stories were originally arabic, that talked about things that happened in otehr places, i mean its not neccessary if the movie forbidden kingdom was shot in China, it doesnt mean that the creators where chinese, or kingdome of heaven, doesnt neccessary mean that the director was either european or arab..

user:Arab League (Arab Hafez) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism: `1001 Nights` is A Mere Translation of the Persian Masterpiece `1000 Myths`
How unfortunate that a story that begins with, “This is a story about a Persian (Iranian) King who lived during the Persian Sassanid dynasty...... ”, and a story whose main characters at the nucleus of the story are ALL Persian, with pure--original Persian names like Shahrzad, is being represented to the world as `Arabian Nights`. It is very much possible that `the Voyages of Sinbad the Sailor` chapters in the book were inspired by some Indian-Chinese mirabilia; however, there is nothing wrong with that, such that the Persian author who penned this masterpiece was simply inspired by them. Wasn’t Shakespeare inspired by some old Jewish, European, and even Oriental folktales? That is what authors do; they get inspired, and then they use their imagination. Yet, what is important to realize is that the written [proof] indicates where the story is from, and it is useless to try and go beyond the physical evidence, i.e. the facts. And, all the evidence proves this was an Old Persian folktale. Nevertheless, 1000 years ago there were no plagiarism, or copyright laws, because if there were, this Persian body of work would have rightly been called, `The Persian Nights`. About Baghdad: Baghdad is where Babylon used to be, and back then it was a province of the Persian Achaemenid Dynasty, and Ctesiphon in Babylon was the capital of two enormous Persian Empires; namely the Parthian and the Sassanids. Later-on, Arabs move in the area, when the Persian `Sassanid Dynasty` fail. The city Baghdad was designed and built by a Persian Jew--Mushallah, and the name is Persian, meaning, Bagh=garden, and dad or daad=gave. It is mind boggling that over 90 percent of Islamic scientists, tales like 1001 Nights, even architectural designs, poetry, paintings, you name it, were the contribution of Persian poets, scientists etc., yet Arabs take credit for it. Zmmz 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC) -- "back then" that area was a province of Babylon. Babylon is not Persian. Later Persians moved to the area from the east. It is not suprising to see some "persians" again trying to "own" everything middle-eastern. -Ur

Verifications?
From Borges, The Garden of Froking Paths:
 * I remembered too that night which is at the middle of the Thousand and One Nights when Scheherazade (through a magical oversight of the copyist) begins to relate word for word the story of the Thousand and One Nights, establishing the risk of coming once again to the night when she must repeat it, and thus to infinity.

Can anyone verify whether this actually happens? (Or does happen in some well-known erroneous version?) This was one of Borges's fictional works, so it's hard to say whether he's making up his references. Also, how many stories are there? It isn't exactly 1001, as I understand. How many is it? Or are the interconnections too vague to make an exact count possible? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.21.64 (talk • contribs) 12 Feb 2006.
 * The whole idea is that she makes every story into one or more cliffhangers, thereby staying her execution the next morning. Thus, there are certainly fewer that 1001 stories in older manuscripts without more modern additions from European translators. Aadieu (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Article (by discussing the five 19th C. editions)
I think something more should be said about the textual and editorial history of the Nights. For instance, it's my understanding that most modern translations are based on one of five 19th-century editions, refered to by their place of publication: Calcutta I), Bulaq / Cairo I (1835), Calcutta II), Breslau) and Bulaq II. The Burton translation is a free rendering of Calcutta II, and I think Mardras translated Bulaq I.  Maybe a seperate section should be added to the article dealing with this kind of information, as well as a list of various translations. Kmbush40 07:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have something solid and citable on this, this would be an excellent addition. - Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. ( very interesting how the publisher released a complete Burton edition only for subscribers) --NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This book is Persian
This book is Persian. For any Arab who doesn't understand, just read it once and you'll see that the core history is in Sassanid Persian Empire. The stories were collected by Persians and written in a single book. Of course, after all those uncivilized Arabs burning Persian and Egyptian book (in the Alexandria Library for example) that many original versions of books will be lost. --Arad 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is a collection of Persian, Arabic, and Indian stories. The origin of each story can be determined by looking at the setting, what creatures it contains and if it contains magic or not. // Liftarn
 * Yes, indeed they were collected from all over Asia, but the person who wrote the all in one book called 1001 Nights and edited them and used different name (Iranian name obviously) was in fact Persian. --Arad 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can u give an evidence about " Of course, after all those uncivilized Arabs burning Persian and Egyptian book (in the Alexandria Library for example) that many original versions of books will be lost. " It is well-known when Alexandria Library destroyed!!!!!!. Also you should know that old Persian is different than Middle Persian and modern Persian, and around 30% of the Persian language vocabularies were brought from Arabic. Educate your self then write. And stop being racist. Aziz1005 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My dear Arab. If you had a bit of education you could see that: In 642, when Arabs attacked, "The library and its contents were destroyed in 642 during the war. The Lighthouse was destroyed by earthquakes in the 14th century, and by 1700 the city was just a small town among the ruins." (from Wikipedia itself). Also, indeed after that bloody conquest of Arabs, there is going to be many words from Arabic into Persian. And please stay away from subjects you don't know. And don't judge people when you have no idea. --Arad 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Alexandria library was destroyed by Christians in the 4th century. q.v. Durant Story of Civ. vol. 4 p. 283 --WittyMan1986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.248.160 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs
These now constitute a fairly stable entity - in fact they represent a very delicately balanced compromise between several different points of view. PLEASE do not alter anything - even a bold or italic indication - without raising it in discussion first!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE do not edit in contentious matter to the introduction - even if "sourced". Speculation about the "origins" of the nights, especially in "pre-Islamic" times are fairly meaningless anyway - since the canon of the collection has very obviously been growing for a very long time, and probably bears little or no direct relationship to any "original" version. Theories about an Iranian origin may very well have some truth (viz Persian names in the frame story) but we simply do not have an original Persian version - the oldest manuscript is in fact in Arabic. Many of the stories are certainly Arabic - while others seem to have Iranian, Indian, Greek (Homer!), and other origins. The familiar frame story may very well not even belong to the collection we have anyway! The last thing we need is another hurricane of ill-informed vandalism from offended Persian and Arab editors feeling their cultural roots have been "slighted" when we don't really know for sure where the nights came from anyway!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about? the fact that 1001 nights is an iranian+indian must come first and before anything else. encyclopedia of islam states explicitly that Like all Orientals the Arabs from the earliest times enjoyed imaginative stories. But the intellectual horizon of the true Arabs being rather narrow, the material for these entertainments was borrowed mainly from elsewhere, from Persia and India... you can not be nice to everybody. this is the reality. 1001 nights is persian+indian in origin.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been over this ground MANY times. The current opening paragraph gives ample scope to the very varied origins of this folk tale collection. There is no Persian version of the work that is not a translation from Arabic - and the frame story leading the collection may have in fact been added later - so the "Persian origin", while not impossible, is most problematic, and certainly not an established fact. Remarks like "the intellectual horizon of the true Arabs being rather narrow" (regardless of source) are unacceptably racist - we would have to rewrite most of Wiki if we were to accept this kind of thing as legitimate thought. We are not being "nice", just sticking to verifiable fact, and steering clear from racism! In any case, how could anyone consider that borrowing stories from many sources showed "narrowness"? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * try to make rational comments and not simple street-talk. "there is no persian version available anymore", is not a justification of inclusion of "north african" and (non-iranian)"middle eastern" in the creation of 1001 nights. the reason why there is no persian version available is because it has been burnt, and guess by whom... arab contribution to 1001 nights is simply translation which is not an authoritative work. moreover, the persian origin is not only possible but actually the only accepted-by-scholars theory. 1. most encyclopaedias indicate this: 1001 nights is an iranian + indian in origin. 2. if comments by ibn khaldun and such reliable sources as encyclopedia of islam on arabs are unacceptable comments, then why should not we, the people, read and write about those comments? 3. verifiability, as far as wikipedia detentions are concerned, is not a problem here: we have given source, the source is a signed article with references and bibliography. so what are you talking about? 4. on your last comment on how you understand narrowness, i have to ask you to read once more the quote from ency. of islam.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok - let's get down to the hard and gritty here. You want us to take as authoritative and scholarly a work making (according to your quote) speculative assumptions based on racism. Imagine if we had an Arab or American Nazi website that stated "The 1001 nights can't be Persian as it is well known all Persians are dead-head retards - actually if we had the records they burned when they ruled Arabia we'd know that all good things about so-called Persian culture were pinched from the Arabs anyway". Do you think we would take that as a source, and publish conclusions based on that kind of rubbish in Wiki? Of course not. This kind of thing is not "logical" or "academic" or in any way acceptable. Persons propagating it prove conclusively they have no right (on any number of grounds) to the title "scholar". But frankly, that's what you're asking us to do here. If you want to pursue this get arbitration - but I think you will see my point all for yourself if you back off for a moment and try to see this through the eyes of someone not sharing you own nationalist sentiment. Or if that's too hard - imagine, as I suggest above, that the boot was on the other foot - that is that the remarks you (or Ibn Khaldun, according to you) make, were being made about Persians rather than Arabs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you are violating wikipedia rules, what is this non-sense word "racism" in your comments? see your previous comments on this page and count the number of times you have used this term.
 * according to you ibn khaldun is racist and anti-arab, right? but he was arab! and about arabs he says in his prolegomena to study of history that they have the least aptitude for the arts and even goldziher goes much further, that i will not quote him here as i am a so-called cultural person! did you get the point?
 * encyclopaedia of islam issues racist statements? this is quite new here. and you compare it with your made-in-1-minute virtual websites of a nazi or an arab?
 * even in that case, since examples must follows imaginations, would you please make it clear for us, how is it possible for someone to imagine that people in arabia in ancient time had books and burnt by persians? have you already made a website on this so that people can use it to vandalise wikipedia? that was a your confession in front of your computer.
 * logic is what i can talk about. in your previous comment you proved to the reader that you did not manage to understand the 10th-step-before-the-start-of-logic, that is: the reliable source encyclopedia of islam stated that: since the intellectual horizon of the true arabs was rather narrow, hence the material for these entertainments (1001 nights) was borrowed mainly from elsewhere, from persia and india. it does not say, borrowing is a reason for having rather narrow intellectual horizon. did you get this point?
 * make more interesting comments.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that anyone who said Persians were "not amenable to the arts", or that "true" Persians were of "limited intellectual horizon" would be classed by you as a racist. (And by me incidentally)!! This is a racist comment, whoever makes it - and sullies the source it was taken from. Remember I am not saying the "encyclopaedia of islam" issues these racist statements - YOU are. I am just saying the statements as you quote them are racist. I make no claim that the statements you quote are authentic (I sincerely hope they are not).

BUT re-read your own quotation - racist and unscholarly as it is, it does not even support your contention. No one is for a moment saying that there are not many Persian and Indian stories included in the 1001 nights - there are and this is in fact mentioned in the original version before you edited it. There are also stories from many other sources. The tales that can be traced to Homer, for instance, would not justify us claiming that the 1001 nights are Greek - nor do the many Arab tales indicate that the collection is entirely Arab. Whoever compiled the collection very obviously borrowed from all over the place - in this sense the collection is "international". None of this is any help in determining where the collection (as a collection) comes from. Which is why the article before you attacked it avoided coming to any conclusion.

The example I gave of the (quite imaginary) Arab or Nazi site was of course an example of something we would NOT want to accept as a source, because the statements were racist (as well as ridiculous, of course). People DO make racist comments about Persians, you know. Would my example have been better if I had followed some of these? The point was simply that racism is nasty and stupid, as well as totally illogical. You seem to think it is just fine, provided it does not denigrate Persians. Well sorry, I have a great deal of respect for Persian culture - I am acutely aware that the Persians had great civilisations and empires at a time when my own Germanic ancestors were barely out of the stone age - but racism against anyone (even the Arabs - who among other things gave you your religion) is equally unacceptable. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to the above - I note that your latest edit is actually far more reasonable and sensible - I have further edited this. 1. It seems to make sense to actually say what the 1001 nights IS (= a collection of stories) before we go into where it may have derived from! 2. Slightly reworded - the concept of a frame story introducing a collection of tales is of course originally Indian, and probably reached the Middle East through Persia - to me that is the legitimate bit of information from your edit. 3. Continuing with the derivation of the individual tales, which you left untouched in your last edit anyway. How's this now? I think our "point scoring" discussion above probably reflexts poorly on both of us - and I'm sure we would agree the important thing is to have a good and factual article on this interesting subject. I only hope we now don't get a load of Arab nationalists jumping in to wipe out the Iranian bit! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * that was my first edit and the only edit. what i, personally, would like to see is something as follows. 1. 1001 nights is a collection of stories, 2. it is not a collection of isolated stories. that's why we need this frame-tale (and this is what iranian prototype with partial indian elements comes in). 3. since 1001 nights is kind of reworked book, when we indicate immediately after the title that "derived from iranian prototype with partial indian elements ". we are telling the reader that 1. there has been evolution in the writing of this book. 2. it is not entirely new and original to the islamic world. 3. we are talking about a work basically in the eastern region of birth of islam. these are all important. moreover you changed the order of the sentence i added to a second sentences and changed it "the original concept is probably derived from a pre-Islamic iranian prototype that in turn originated from indian elements"??? and give reference to my reference! do you not really see the difference between these two? my original quote from enc. of islam does not imply what you have written. so i revert to my original edit and discuss here and see what others have to say.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it makes no sense to say where it is derived from until we have the idea fixed as to what the 1001 nights IS. The order you have is at best a bit cryptic - the reader does not need to know that the nights has a derivation from the Indian "frame story" tradition, through a Persian intermediate form, before he even knows what the nights are! Any encyclopedia article about Islam, for instance, will start with the statement that it is a religion - a discussion of any work of literature will start with a definition of its genre (novel, play, story collection etc.). Often it makes effective writing to tell a story in which things fall in place as we go - in the context of an article like this we need each sentence to add information to the one before, not the other way around. So we need to establish the basic notion of a collection before we start to hit the derivation. I don't like the word "oriental" in this connection - in every-day English this word more often applies to the "Far-East" (China and Japan) than to the "Middle East" (North Afric, the Arab world, and Iran). It is important to be specific here, assuming a mainly western readership. I don't believe that the version from your last edit adds anything about the evolution of the collection to the original passage - we all know that nobody sat down and wrote the nights one fine morning - hence the point of the "many" translators, editors etc. - in fact a major point of this whole paragraph is the evolving nature of the work as we now have it. I'll basically revert my edit for the moment - please have a look at it, and change specifically what you don't like, explaining here. I think that's the way to the best version we can devise. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your latest version will do just fine - although "most likely" for "probably" is an Americanism that grates a bit - and I still don't think much of your source (at least as you report him). As I said before, brace yourself for the Arab nationalists! Glad to have this argument over, and sorry for being a bit uneccessary - but I hate nationalistic prejudice and racism, in fact I may be in the habit of seeing it where it is not really intended. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

edits by سلمان آریامهر
The Arabic title is first - because the work as we have it (as opposed to prototypes on which it may have been based) is in Arabic, not Persian.

I would actually prefer "Persian" here, as the prototype concerned pre-dates the modern state of Iran - BUT "Iranian" is the word used in "The encyclopedia of Islam" that is used as a source for the "prototype" - hence it is a more accurate representation of what our authority says here than "Persian". In any case we don't need both.

By all means let's discuss this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest "Persian" attack on introduction
Please - the fact that something is Persian doesn't necessarily need mentioning three or four times in the one sentence - nor does the word "Persian" automatically come at the head of every list! There is a difference between justifiable pride in the traditions of a great civilisation and childish chauvinism!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. but how can you say "he was speaking british"??? Its better to say "he was speaking British English" or "American English". We have the same problem here. Pahlavi, itself has many different meanings, but "Pahlavi Persian" shows that it is a form of Persian language (Middle Persian). or when someone reads "sassanids" he doesnt understand what is sassanid, who is sassanid, but when we write "Sassanid Persia" or "Sassanid Iran" or "Sassanid Persian empire", he/she will understand approximately, who were Sassanians/Sassanids. Another example can be


 * The language of Iranian emperor 'Cyrus the great' and 'Nadershah' was Persian

It is correct, but it will more correct if we say:


 * The language of Iranian emperor 'Cyrus the great' was old persian and the language of Iranian emperor 'Nadershah' was modern Persian.

So it helps us to improve the article. Please be polite and careful about using the words like "childish chauvinism". - Thank you --Wayiran (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "British" is not the accepted term for British English, Pahlavi is the accepted term for Pahlavi, and you are not supposed to lecture academia about terminology. Our readers are not idiots, if they don't know what the Sassanids or Pahlavi are, they will click the wikilink. We are supposed to use the terms current in the literature, not invent adapted ones. The Byzantine Empire was basically Greece, but we don't write "the Greek Byzantine Empire" each time. Some may not know that "Iran" and "Persian" are related, so you may as well ban one of these words, or introduce "Persian Iran" or "Iranian Persian". I, too, believe, that the real motive behind such additions is childish chauvinism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to write meaningful sentences that are related to subject. I do not understand why your comment is in this talk page and not in this page.Xashaiar (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for promptly responding to my comment and addressing my concerns. You have convinced me. Live long and be happy!--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Arabian Nights" as "alternative title"
I have reverted the return of this title in the first paragraph of the article twice now - the following explanation is probably called for:

1. The subject of the article is first and foremost the original Arabic language work - NOT the many translations and "retellings for children" of certain of the tales in English. (Although the latter quite rightly get a lookin, of course.) Early English versions (e.g. Burton) used a translation of the original title - the "Arabian Nights" bit came comparitively late, and almost never refers to an adult translation of the whole work.

2. "Arabian Nights" will bring up this article - and this title is not only mentioned but set in context later in the introduction.

3. We have finally managed to get some stability into this article after pronged dispute and edit wars from Arab and (especially) Persian editors who took severe exception to the use of "Arabian Nights" (and other matters). Just read some of the "discussion" above!!!

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Wikipedia policy says we use the most common name in English. Since Arabian Nights is at least as common in English as The Thousand and One Nights, it should be mentioned in the first line. I believe The Arabian Nights' Entertainments was the title of the first translation into English (the so-called "Grub Street edition" from Galland's French in the early 18th century). The OUP World's Classics reissue certainly goes under this title. Looking at the most recent translations (1990s to last year), Hussain Haddawy uses The Arabian Nights and Malcolm Cameron Lyons and Ursula Lyons use The Arabian Nights: Tales of 1001 Nights. Robert Irwin's book on the subject is called The Arabian Nights: A Companion. So "AN" is very much still in common currency.


 * More importantly, we are here to reflect scholarly consensus and common English usage, not to appease warring gangs of tendentious chauvinists. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy. --Folantin (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The original french translation was entitled Les Mille et une nuits, contes arabes traduits en français. Have you found a title page for the Grub Street version? In any case "The Nights" is an Arabic work NOT an English one. Certainly the "Arabian Nights" title is common in English - and it is (rightly) mentioned in the lead, but it has no connection with the work's real name. Finally - stability and consensus are important - taking notice of others' views is not necessarily "appeasement" - and suposing that everyone with a different nationalistic outlook to your own is a mere "tendentious chauvinist" is in itself a prime example of chauvinism (tendentious or otherwise). Put those last remarks into context by reading the exchanges I had with the people you are talking about mind you. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops!!!! I have found a title page for the Grub St. edition and it DOES use "Arabian Nights' Entertainment" - although later translations from the Arabic to English (viz. Burton) did use "1001 Nights". Looks as if we are both wrong (or at best both right but only partly), and the lead need some re-writing!! Give me a chance to do this myself (with references). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have completed the above - and also moved the "new, improved" bit about the common (mistaken) "English Title" to the first paragraph. Hope this meets everyone's approval. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is The Thousand and One Nights commonly known as The Arabian Nights in English or not? Yes. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. It's a fact. Are we here to appease the anti-Arab sentiments of a few users? No. --Folantin (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also removed this bit of editorialising: "although more scholarly versions (such as that of Burton) have often used a more correct translation of the original Arabic title." I seriously doubt that Burton was more of a scholar than the most recent translators, Haddawy and Lyons. --Folantin (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very obviously the Grub St. edition that I am comparing with Burton - not more recent English versions. Nor is anything written to "appease" anyone (if so the word "Arab" or "Arabian" would be totally expunged from the article!). Nonetheless I have less your edit stand - just in case this relatively unimportant sentence could be read ambiguously. I have however once more removed the mention of "Arabian Nights" from the first sentence - before you once more reinstate it, consider if the other matter concerning this English title in the first paragraph gives it quite enough prominence. I think it does. Finally - "The Arab World" is not really appropriate here, and I have reverted this to the more specific mention of the Middle East and North Africa. The literature and folklore of many non-Arab peoples - including ones mentioned in this introduction, have been instrumental in the elolution of the Nights. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is becoming tremendously silly. The Arabian Nights is as famous a title in English as The 1001 Nights. The Encyclopaedia of Islam entry is under Arabian Nights. No question it should be in the first sentence. --Folantin (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals writes "supposing that everyone with a different nationalistic outlook to your own is a mere "tendentious chauvinist" is in itself a prime example of chauvinism." I'm sorry, but that's a wholly unwarranted statement. Folantin has demonstrated no "nationalistic outlook" that I can see. If you are implying that rejecting nationalism is itself a nationalistic outlook and that we should be sensitive to non-westerners who show ethnic prejudice that's patronage mispresented as liberal egalitarianism. We follow the policy which says that common names in English are used on English Wikipedia, whatever they may be. Whether the Arabian Nights are "really" Arabian or not is irrelevant. That's one of the most common names. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, Paul, if you read ALL the relevant posts on this page in their chronological sequence you will get a better idea of where we are actually at. The bulk of this discussion has actually been between myself and a definitely "chauvinistic" user, arguing in very much the opposite sense! You will note that I fought long and hard for "Arabian Nights" to be retained in this article long before you lot appeared. I think going too far either way, and taking an extreme position on what is rather a minor point when all is said and done, can constitute "chauvinism", and this attitude has no place in an encyclopedia, entertaining as it may be in other contexts.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chauvinism (exactly like other faults) is far easier to recognise in others than in ourselves. The idea than (say) Persian chauvinism is somehow nexessarilly worse than (say) Western chauvinism is a dangerous one, and risks, at least, degenerating into much worse chauvinism. The name "Arabian Nights" DOES need to be included, and in a prominent position. I fought for that - including a long and barren revert war and an emotionally exhausting "discussion". On the other hand the other side did have a point. It is not "patronising" to recognise this. I think, to be honest, that the "Arabian Nights" bit is best put in context rather than blatently hammered in the very first sentence. I think that someone from a non-Western background could possiby take offence at the way it is at the moment - while they could not (legitimately) object to the version as I last left it. That is not, in itself, necessarilly a fsult, now is it.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Tedious PC posturing. And clearly nonsense - nobody is trying to name this book "The Western Nights". Or are the Arabs "Western" now? The "other side" was merely indulging in a bit of good old Shu'ubiyya. Guess what? The "West" doesn't have a monopoly on ethnocentrism and racism. We're an encyclopaedia, we report the facts. If people don't like those facts, they can leave. --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yawn indeed - taking up sentences three and four with an explanation of how the most common English language name for "The Nights" came to be what it is, rather than a translation of the original Arabic title seems to me to render hammering the fact in the first sentence as well a bit superfluous at best. It makes better sense to put the "Arabian Nights" title into context before we mention it - and thereafter basically just call it "The Nights". I agree it is a fairly trivial point - but one which you found worth reverting a number of times (between yawns perhaps?). If you stopped yawning for a moment (and, for that matter forgot about the interethnic Persian/Arab/English stupidity, which is entirely irrelevant to the case) and actally read the intro again you might comr to conclude that calling the work by its proper name in the first sentence - then explaining about the most common English name in the very next two sentences - is not a bad mix, and doesn't "patronise" or "appease" anyone. It will also be more likely to be stable in the long term - and I think when you can combine that with a good, well measured and encyclopediac approach then that is an outcome not to be altogether despised.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Orphan Tales"
The so called "orphan tales" (Sinbad, Aladdin and Ali Baba) were collected by Galland and added to the Nights. Their exact provenance is uncertain, although they were not part of any Arabic edition of the Nights. I would prefer to leave the mention of this in the lead to the article as it is, since it states exactly what we are sure (and almost sure) about - without mentioning stuff we cannot be so certain of. If are less that certain that the works aren't Persian then it IS conducive to article stabilty and consensus to leave the "Arab" bit open rather than insist on it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone mention the most famous in the intro please
The intro is missing what I think might be the most explicative information: what might I know these stories as?

I mean, everyone has probably heard many of the stories from this collection, but if you don't know that they were stories from this collection, then the intro won't jog your memory. It currently talks about the dating and the language and gives three examples of Arabian stories that are not in this collection, but says nothing about the stories that are in this collection.

Can someone with basic knowledge of this subject (I can't tell if I do or not) please mention a few examples of recognisable story names in the intro? Thanks. Gronky (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion. There's a lot of history, literary theory + pop culture examples, but little about the stories themselves.  It's possible that in the age of Internet + Wiki, people are more interested in links than in the stories themselves.
 * The "See also" section refers to the table of contents for the Burton edition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stories_within_One_Thousand_and_One_Nights At the least, the introduction could link to that page.  Preferably, the intro should also mention the most well known or interesting stories.--NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at List_of_stories_within_One_Thousand_and_One_Nights - any stories you see there that you are familiar with? If so by all means work in a mention of them - either in the intro or elsewhere. Otherwise (if the only ones you are familiar with really are the "orphan tales" - Aladdin, Ali Baba and Sinbad) then it wouldn't serve the purpose of "jogging the memory" to mention any others, would it? To be fair, if you read the whole article there is quite a lot "about the stories" in the body of the article itself - although they are very naturally discussed (from a "literary theory" point of view) rather than just being narrated. This is an encyclopedia article. There are far too many tales to include a re-telling of any of them except the frame story. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I skimmed the list just now, but unfortunately, the only three I recognise are Sinbad, Ali Baba, and Aladdin, which the intro says aren't part of the real collection. However, the names on that page are very undescriptive ("The First Shaykh's Story", "The Barber's Tale of his Sixth Brother", etc.), so it's possible I would recognise some of the stories but by other names.  Sorry to throw this back to yous, but some basic knowledge is once again needed. Gronky (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you just answered your own question - if the idea is to "remind" people of tales and the only ones they are likely to remember are the ones mentioned then ... In any case the last thing we want here is a long list of tales, this is only the introduction, after all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So, none of the original tales are widely known? You could be right, but that's very surprising for a collection who's name is so well known. Gronky (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not saying that at all - but I do think that this is your idea (potentially quite a good one, too) and that it probably needs you to run with it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, many other articles and non-Wikipedia projects also need my attention. I'd have to spend quite some time reading some of this collection or do fairly detailed research to achieve this rather modest goal, so I'll have to pass.  Someone who has already read some of this series, or someone who already has a reasonable quantity of knowledge about this topic should be able to achieve modest goal with very little effort (if any of these stories are widely known - I wouldn't have questioned it before, but now it's seeming possible).  Gronky (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My own opinion, and I could very easily be wrong, or perhaps only partly right - is that while most people have heard of the collection this is mainly through one of its numerous cultural spinoffs - and knowledge of the stories themselves is probably more or less zilch, except (coincidentally?) for the infamous "orphans". Most people have heard of the Bible - but they very obviously have little idea what's in it, or all the churches and synagogues would be out of business overnight!! To return to the Nights - I can think of a few stories that might fall into the category you want (like the Fisherman and the Djinni) - but even these typically occur outside the context of the Nights themselves in such altered, bowdlerised forms that you'd have a real relevance problem. Having said that, I'm not in the business of rubbishing your idea. If you're brave enough to have an original idea it's up to you to follow it through, and either prove or disprove it to your own satisfaction before you spring it on the rest of us. That's the grown up, educated way. If you can spare the time from your many other projects the Nights would make a fascinating read, anyway. Burton tries a little too hard to capture an English equivalent to the "classical" Arabic style - one of the other English renditions (while they are all inferior from a literary point of view) may be more accessible. Go for your life. I'm told almost no one reads it in Arabic anymore - it's just too "hard". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above contains a lot of POV remarks that would be 100% unacceptable in a Wiki article. I think that is what discussion pages are for? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)