Talk:The Perfumed Garden

Merge stopperage
I propose merging The stopperage into this article or making it a redirect here. It has no particular notability that I know of and the article is currently dominated by a single quote. --Strait 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Scented Garden
I have added a short sentence or two on Richard Burton's attempt to translate the Perfumed Garden more fully than he managed in the first instance. My source is "The Devil Drives - A Life of Richard Burton" by Fawn Brodie (ISBN 0907871232). The relevant page references in my edition (Eland 2002) are 344-345 for the description of what was left out of the first translation, and references to the Liseux manuscript he worked from, and 376-378 (Chapter 28 "The Burning") for details of Isabel's destruction of the manuscript. This is all I have time for at the moment, but I will return later, if it's OK, to add some more detail. Thanks. Icarusfall (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's probably worth noting that Fawn Brodie's biography was first published in 1967, so there are no comments in the biography regarding the faults in the translation identified by the most recent translator.Icarusfall (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Burton translation

 * The book first became widely known in the English speaking world through a translation from the French in 1886 by Sir Richard Francis Burton. The Arabic manuscript that Burton translated from...

So, which was it: from French or from Arabic? Tempshill (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation or parody? 2011 version.
I wonder if the 2011 translation is actually a parody, in which case Wikipedia needs to represent it as such. For example, although I don't know the notability requirements for external links, mentioning it there as a parody might be appropriate. I don't have the wherewithal to research this, so I'll post my thoughts here in hopes someone will review its status as a translation and where it should be in the article (or not) due to its probable lack of notability (see B--or would a translation of a famous work inherit its "parental" notability?).

A. When skimming some of the 22 pages (a number including the title page and the like) posted online in PDF, the aim of the author seemed to be amusement rather than historical sensitivity.

B. Is there a "Samarkand manuscript" that is a reliable source, and is it known enough to scholars of such literature to be given such a brief and unspecific identifier? Or is it a phrase included to made a parody sound more official? Searching Google for:
 * Samarkand manuscript perfumed garden

...brought up nothing but sites restating this Wikipedia article or mentioning the PDF. Adding -flabby to the search brought up nothing relevant, except one amusing typo: "The Fwabby."

C. I copied the following from the title page. The double-the is their typo.
 * KOHL’IN AL-DEEN THE FLABBY
 * OR
 * Divers Cures For A Tiny Willy
 * From the
 * The Perfumed Garden Of Sensual Delight
 * الروض العاطر في نزهة الخاطر
 * (The Samarkand Manuscript)
 * of Sheikh Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Nafzawi
 * Translated By Qubla Al -Kuss
 * Poems By C Dean
 * Translated By Qubla Al -Kuss
 * Poems By C Dean
 * Poems By C Dean

Google translates the line of Arabic script to: "Ater in the nursery school picnic Khater." Then again, that's Google Translate.

... Ugh. I had a few more points to make, but they're not conclusive and you, dear reader, might be as tired as I suddenly am. Thanks and I hope whoever verifies whether this chapter is a translation or a parody at least has a fun time of it! --Geekdiva (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

From the my edit to the article:
 * Help request to verify translation status and notability. Added dubious template. See the talk page for my questions. Thanks!

--Geekdiva (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just removed it. It does not meet WP:N; it is a dubious incomplete translation which is isolated from scholarly acknowledgement or even review of any kind.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the entry in question 2011: A new translation of a chapter from a Samarkand manuscript

Kohl’in Al-Deen The Flabby from The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delights

If you say the entry is dubious then prove it give us facts not just speculation or what others just speculate


 * What a shameless logical fallacy! The burden of proof is on you; you are the one who has to supply evidence that the translation fulfills Wikipedia's WP:N rules. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong you are committing the fallacy you deleted the entry because YOU CLAIM IT IS DUBIOUS SO PROVE THAT AND DONT JUST PARROTS OTHERS SPECULATIONS
 * I just put the entry back as you have not supported your claims with any facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzammel (talk • contribs) 14:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed. Unless you can provide us proof that this "translation" is notable as per WP:N, then it has no place in this article.  As for proof that the entry is dubious, how about that the ISBN number supplied in the external links section for your "translation" is a fake?  --Amlz (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, you know what, since I'm here, let's break down why exactly this "translation" is a load of bull.
 * If we look at the description of the document on scribd, we see the following text:
 * "Erotic poetry by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean of gamahucher press"
 * which in and of itself suggests that this is not a translation, but perhaps some poem or set of poems inspired by The Perfumed Garden. This is further substantiated by the attribution "Poems by C Dean" on the title page, and that the main character of this piece, one Kohl'in al-Deen, has a name rather homophonous with the author's.
 * Looking further into the piece, we also notice that the footnotes almost completely consist of materials copied from other sources, and in one case from Wikipedia, links and all (see page IX).
 * Finally, doing an online search for this Colin Leslie Dean fails to turn up evidence of anything except a pattern of shameless self promotion via masquerading as supposed readers of his poetry/papers/theories and vehemently defending/promoting them in religion/psychology/mathematics online forums.
 * So, in conclusion, what we have here is a long erotic poem, perhaps somehow inspired by The Perfumed Garden, by a completely unknown poet, and as  Blue Rasberry   pointed out above, "isolated from scholarly acknowledgement or even review of any kind."  Clearly non-notable as per WP:N, completely unreliable as per WP:IRS, and having absolutely no place in a Wikipedia article on The Perfumed Garden.
 * Unless the defense has further evidence to present, I rest my case.
 * --Amlz (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

the onus of proof is on you as you claim the work is dubious i am sorry but none of what you have given is proof that the work is dubious just because it does not appear on google is no proof -any serious scholar would not rely on google by assuming it contains all the information in the world

the work is a translation of a Samarkand manuscript-so have you been to Samarkand and looked up the archive

it is translated by an Arab scholar are you familiar with Arab scholarship as to the isbn the work may be out of date thus the isnb does not show up in books inprint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzammel (talk • contribs) 04:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying that Google contains all of this world's knowledge. However, it is almost certain that the lack of mentions of something there is evidence of a lack of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

just because it is not google is not proof it is dubious-NO SERIOUS SCHOLAR WOULD USES GOOGLE FOR SERIOUS RESEARCH look you are saying it is dubious so GIVE AS PROOF NOT JUST SPECULATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzammel (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

2011 Translation again
Instead of re-reverting Jummaz' (talk) unexplained revert of my edit, I have decided to make a good-faith effort to follow WP:BRD. I moved the inline external links from the body of the article where they shouldn't be to an External links section, per WP:ELPOINTS. The 2011 translation section wasn't really a section, but merely a link to a document. There was not discussion/explanation/review of the document linked and based on the above discussion, probably should be taken out. However, I left it in with the dubious tag on and moved them to the EL sction. The unexplained revert just appears to be a desire to push this document as notable and elevate its status. It is not a reference to anything and, based on Jummaz' edit history, I find nothing else but the editor's desire to promote this, which for all I know the editor himself may have written. The only one who appears to insist on inclusion is Jummaz. Basically, if it is deemed appropriate to keep, it doesn't belong in the article itself, but in an External links section. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree with you on this point. I don't find that it satisfies the requirements of WP:N to be kept in the article in any form.  I will be removing it from the article outright. --Amlz (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only person to whom it seems that User:Zzammel is a sockpuppet of User:Jummaz? Their contributions indicate that. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly seems that way, but there's really not enough evidence to report at this point. Although, this new user appearing as soon as I started reverting the dubious material again is certainly suspicious.  --Amlz (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Arabic original?
I would have expected some detail on the range of original Arabic manuscripts and editions. None are provided. Surely there must be some answers to the questions that occurred to me as I read the article: Snori (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Arabic manuscript ... was one printed by Isadore Liseux in 1886" - OK, so can we have more detail on this?
 * "...new translation of the original manuscript, including the excised chapter." Not clear whether the Arabic manuscript, or the printed version had this excised, or how we can tell.
 * "Jim Colville published the first English Perfumed Garden translated directly from the Arabic original." Really? Which original? Is it in print?
 * Google also has other interesting snippets of JC's book:
 * "...first published English version to be based upon an established Arabic text..." OK, Which text?
 * "...the first to be translated directly from the original Arabic". Really? What then was Isadore Liseux's printed in?