Jump to content

Talk:Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah, the 15th-century Islamic sex manual by Egyptian writer Al-Suyuti, developed from a literary tradition that first emerged in 10th-century Baghdad? Source: Myrne, Pernilla (2018). "Women and Men in al-Suyūṭī's Guides to Sex and Marriage". Mamlūk Studies Review. XXI. The Middle East Documentation Center (MEDOC) at the University of Chicago: 47–67. doi:10.25846/26hn-gp87. ISSN 1947-2404.

Created by Iskandar323 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • On it. — LlywelynII 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iskandar323: what are you trying to say with "Arabic-Islamic"? Hyphenating it that way would mean 'the special kind of Islam practiced by speakers of Arabic' but that can't be what you really mean, can it?

    If you're just trying to say that it's written in Arabic and it's part of Islamic culture, you could say Arabic Islamic but you're still probably better off dropping the "Arabic" altogether or finding some way to use "...in Arabic..." — LlywelynII 20:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just followed the terminology of Myrne here, but I assume the intent is to contrast the genre with more general Arabic erotological works or perhaps other Islamic erotological forms that might include, say, Persian-Islamic and Turkic-Islamic literature. I personally saw the sense in it, but I understand if you think it needs reworking for the DYK. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I later saw that but the point stands: a it's not decent English and b it's lazy and hazy academese. It's offputtingly unclear to normal readers and unhelpfully ambiguous even to people who know what they're talking about. She should've avoided it, even though she's a trustworthy source for your use if it were a helpful term of art. — LlywelynII 21:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: FYI, I tweaked the article and DYK to eliminate the "Arabic-Islamic" phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iskandar323: New enough at time of submission; long enough (4352 elig. chars.); no need for QPQ (only 1 other DYK at this username); adequately sourced (currently overwhelmingly based on a single source but it seems to be a reliably scholarly one by a professor at U. Gothenburg specialized on the subject); per Earwig, (1) only the sentence fragment "...which rely partly on the same sources..." needs to be rephrased, since everything else is new or appropriately formatted as a quote; both hooks are sourced although (2) there's some WP:LEADCITE violations. The points being made in the lead should be repeated at the right place in the body of the page and the source should go there. Currently, the body of the page doesn't discuss the 10th-century Baghdadi heritage and only talks about Indian influences in relation to a different medieval book. Given the odd title, the article would benefit from a #Name section, although that would be a nice extra and isn't essential. All the scholarship online seems to know the work by the name given, except for something really out of left field in Burton. (3) Instead of a #Publication section, a medieval work like this should have a #Manuscripts, #Editions, &c. section. Ms Myrne's book discusses several MSS and the page should list the ones that she mentions, make clear if those are the only surviving versions or (more likely) just some of them, and then mention the published version (and its unknown source) at the end of the paragraph. — LlywelynII 21:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (4) Minor WP:POViness w/r/t some judgments. His treatment of women being "complex and ambiguous" is quoted but the judgment needs to be specifically tied to Ms Myrne or omitted, since it's not an objective statement and not Wikipedia's own view. (5) Minor grammar issues like a "with" clause following a colon (it should be a comma), but I can clean those up for the page once the actual issues are fixed. — LlywelynII 21:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: Ok, I think I may have covered all of the above - let me know if there's anything I've missed. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure whether it was worth developing an ALT2 option deploying that "apex of the genre" quote or if that might be considered be over-egging it. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: Sex sells and I think it's great to expose people to this view of sex, which is almost entirely alien to Anglosphere culture. On the other hand, I can help fix your grammar or paragraph structure but I can't write and approve an ALT hook for you. You'd need to write it yourself and then I could review it. I've already seen Myrne's quote on it and helped clean up any WP:POViness in the article so reviewing it should go quickly when you know what you'd like to say. Just ping me. — LlywelynII 22:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iskandar323: ALT0 is neutral, terse, and sourced. You can use it, but I personally find it kinda boring. ALT1 is neutral, terse, and sourced. It seems fine. I do think ALT2 may get more views for your page but, if you want to use it, (i) you need to use the verb form "has been" since it's only true of your source's opinion and is not an objective fact apparent to all people and (ii) you need to rephrase things. I suggest you replace "Arabic" with "Islamic" in all three hooks since the language of the sex manual isn't very important but the cultural context is. For ALT2, you need to reverse the two adjectives because, while Myrne's 2nd quote just says "sex and marriage manuals", she's obviously referring back to her earlier establishment of a category of "Arabic-Islamic sex manuals" at the beginning of her article. I think it's safe to assume that 100% of the major sex manuals being written in medieval Arabic are in some way Islamic; Myrne describes them as members of her category even when they bring in Indian elements, don't directly draw from hadith, &c. On the other hand, it isn't safe at all to assume that major sex manuals weren't being written in Turkish, Persian, or the Indian languages around the same time and Myrne is excluding those from her consideration. Personally, I always leave out any other links from my DYK hooks since they only draw readers away from your article, but that's a personal choice. — LlywelynII 17:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: Ok, points taken, though I must demur on the last point. There are several Arabic sex manuals that wouldn't be considered Islamic, not least the Encyclopedia of Pleasure, and it wasn't my reading of Myrne that she characterised it as such. It was to draw this distinction that I created an Islamic sexual education literature category separate from the Arabic erotic literature category. The same parallels hold true in Arabic poetry, where there is Islamic stuff, Sufi stuff that often treads a fine line between good behaviour and naughtiness, and then a bunch of stuff that is definitely not Islamic. However, for the sake of writing a 150-character hook, I don't mind fudging the details just a little bit ... anyone who wants to know more can just click through to the article eh? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really think she does although fair enough if you don't. In that case, I think ALT2 would need to be too awkwardly worded to get the point across accurately. — LlywelynII 00:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Obviously wrong to capitalize both al and wishah and nothing else. Per WP:NCBOOKS, WP:NCMANU, MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, WP:NCCAP, WP:MOSAR. the titles of all our other Arabic books, the inconsistency of caps in printed works about this book, &c., this should be in Title Case and not Sentence case. — LlywelynII 18:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I guess medieval Arabic is like Latin in that the proper names always include the word "Book" (Liber, Libri Tres, Kitāb, Kutub, &c.) to the point that the WP:COMMON name leaves it out as understood from context.

There's no reason to clutter the WP:LEADSENTENCE if that's always understood, but

(a) it would be helpful if you make more articles like this if you could do the redirects from [[Kitab al-'Arabic Name]], [[Kitāb al-ʾArābic Ṇame]], &c.
(b) A lot of these names are so poetic in meaning that they appear completely random in English translation. The Encyclopedia of Pleasure, On Old Age, and The Metamorphoses are pretty self-explanatory but "The Sash on the Merits of Sex/Wedlock", "The Mirror of Princes", or "The Ring of the Dove" might benefit from #Name or #Names sections that explain what the title is trying to say.
(c) If you have a #Name section to park it in, it might be worth adding the Kitāb al-ʾArābic Ṇame version of the title there for people unfamiliar with medieval Arabic manuscript naming traditions.

 — LlywelynII 20:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(d) This book has Kitáb al-Wisháh fí fawáid al-Nikáh. I think á for ā was pretty common in the 19th century since the printers all had accents for French lying around. I'm not sure how helpful it is to do those versions; it probably depends on how famous the book is and if it's likely readers might see that version and try to find it. The same source also translates the title as "Book of the Zone on the Coition-boon", which makes even less sense than the Sash one. xD

 — LlywelynII 20:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: Ah, ok, I see - until you provided that example, I was a bit confused. Kitab seems to get used arbitrarily in some Arabic book titles and not others, but I will keep a look out now for versions of the names prefaced by "Kitab..." The further irony of course being that these are not books at all, but manuscripts. Many titles are simply obscure though. An example is Tahafut al-Tahafut (Incoherence of the Incoherence), which only means anything to those that already know its obscurely titled subject: Tahafut al-Falasifah (Incoherence of the Philosophers). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It's a very metaphorical sash, so yes, I should probably install a #Name section ... no idea what Richard Burton was up to, or on at the time. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, kitāb is inclusive of meanings like work or book (of the Bible) so it includes scrolls and whatnot. Your example seems straightforward: The Incoherence of the Incoherence or The Incoherence of the Incoherence [of the Philosophers]. I know what you're saying, though: we can't just make up a meaning if people aren't sure what the reference really is. Might be worth having a #Name section just to say that when it's true and can be sourced. In related news,
(e) The dictionary seems to think لوشاح is inclusive of meanings that make more sense in context, like 'headscarf' and 'veil'. We can't actually use that to translate the name if no scholar has noticed that yet, although we could talk about those meanings if there were enough info to fill out a #Name section.
 — LlywelynII 20:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Myrne says sash, and an Arabic acquaintance has told me the meaning is more than likely metaphorical, but Myrne offers nothing on the interpretation. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: How on earth did you find the Arabian Nights reference by the way? It pops up in the preview, but it's not searchable, so I just have no idea... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems extremely likely that it's talking about the garment of feminine modesty (usually veil in English description but usually headscarf in modern practice) but yeah it's probably better to just leave that information here on the talk page until we can find someone knowledgeable who mentions agreeing with the idea.
As for your other question, I can't remember specifically at this point but (1) I was trying out various spellings on vanilla Google and Google Books to see how different people formatted the name, skipping the obviously untrustworthy stuff like random Islamic blogs. I think that's all there was to it, but I'll go into a little more detail since you seem like a force for good here: (2) Sometimes papers that vanilla Google blocks or only links to sales pages on behalf of Elsevier and similar rent-seeking asshats (scholarly publication previously cost money and served a purpose–it's now just a complete market failure because the academics can't trust each other to leave the "prestige" journals all at once) are made available as preprints or privately by the authors. It can be helpful to search with the additional term ".pdf" or (3) look at the Internet Archive. It still has some copies of works that were digitized and made available by Google before they settled with the publishing companies and blocked access to most things they'd already thrown open, including nonsensically treating books from 1804 as under copyright when random "publishers" claimed to have "brought editions back into print" solely in unmodified, unedited ebook versions created by Google in the first place. That's what's going on with the 1001 Nights edition. It's maddening.
(4) Publishers still want their works accessible for indexing by Google. Some services like Google's search cache and 12ft.io provide direct access to the versions crawled by Google. Neither usually works for scholarly articles or books, although (5) you can "crawl" along Google's digitizations to the ends of paragraphs or pages by moving around within the snippet they give you. For example, if I'm looking for Indonesia's old "Grand Mail Road" and get the snippet
... flows by this place , over which a substantial bridge of boats is thrown , to join the former avenue to the grand mail road to Kandy .
I probably can't get any more information by changing my search to "mail road to Kandy" because I hit the end of that indexed section and there's no way of knowing what the next sentence will be. On the other hand, if I open a new tab and search for "flows by this place, over" then I'll get the new snippet text
The broad , full river , called the Kalani Ganga , flows by this place , over which a substantial bridge of boats is thrown , to join the former avenue to ...
Same problem: I've now hit as far back as this paragraph will let me go. On the other hand, I have the full money quote around what I was looking for (The broad, full river, called the Kalani Ganga, flows by this place, over which a substantial bridge of boats is thrown, to join the former avenue to the grand mail road to Kandy.) and (6) I've found that the original 1847 work that I was looking at first is actually exactly copying another 1840 source through this section. Sometimes the first one you were looking at is blocked because of the rent seekers but the other editions aren't or one is available at HathiTrust even though the other isn't. — LlywelynII 21:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LlywelynII: Thanks for this. I'm editing more and more articles that wander into esoteric topics with obscure sources, so should be helpful. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing awareness of halal medieval Islamic sex manuals? You're doing G-d's work, m'child. — LlywelynII 20:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Wishah_fi_Fawa%27id_al-Nikah&oldid=1204654146"