Talk:Scheherazade

Untitled

Question for anyone: when was this all written, what kind of timeframes are involved here - 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years? The references to origins is also lacking any sort of time context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.55.180 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Under narration it says [give or take]: each day he marries new virgin, and kills yesterday's wife. Because his first wife cheated on him. => He had killed one thousand such women by the time he was introduced to...<= Could easily be read as: he killed 1000 women who were like his first wife. Maybe "such" should be left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.198.159 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"a thousand and one"

The article neglects to mention that "a thousand and one nights" does not refer to a specific time interval, but means "infinite" or "unending". WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Or even just "a very big number". "A hundred and one" - as in "a hundred and one uses for a boy scout's pocket knife" is a very similar idiom. It also remains a literal number too, of course, and in fact in this particular context it is usually taken this way. Do we need (or even want to) incorporate a mention of all this - either here or in the "1001 nights" article itself? The extreme "nothing without specific verification" mob would doubtless whine about getting a WP:RS. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciations and Phonetics

In the section under NAME, I find the pronunciations a little difficult as an english speaker. I don't read or understand arabic and so I see that the name is spelled with accents or pronunciation guide symbols - or am I misled? If I follow those guides, it seems as if I am pronouncing the names all wrong. I feel I need more clarity here in order to include this article as a reference.

1RockyPerez (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)--1RockyPerez (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not Arabic, Persian

Scheherezade isn't Arabic, she's Persian. This is very basic and it is really kind of embarrassing for the introductory part to be written as it is but I can't find the edit option for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Jayne Goldsmith (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

All you has to do is provide a verifiable WP:RS to support this assertion. If it is so basic then this should be an easy task to perform. MarnetteD|Talk 18:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost any version of the original text of 1001 nights would do - add one yourself if you think it's necessary. For a person with a plainly Persian name the first assumption is not normally that they are something else. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Although - actually, her "nationality" is a thoroughly "fairy-tale" one rather than being based on modern nationalist sensitivities. The whole thing is a bit like arguing about if Hansel and Gretel are Bavarian or Prussian. I would be perfectly happy just leaving out her "nationality" altogether - since the text of the story is so vague. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As to your first post per WP:BURDEN if is up to the editor adding or changing information to provide the sourcing. Your second post is very cogent and the H&G example is a good one and brings a smile as well. I agree with your suggestion about removing the nationality and would say that you should do the honors as you are the one who thought of it. MarnetteD|Talk 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah I missed that you had already done so a couple minutes before my post above. Good work and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

It appears Wario-Man and Ermenrich are engaged in edit warring against 5.78.106.82 over an unreferenced statement. Now, none of them seem to want to explain what's wrong with the article, but if as far as I can tell, they have dispute over the meaning of a non-English word.

Since the disputed statement is unreferenced, I've deleted it for now. Please cite a source defending your position. 148.251.64.115 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, your comment shows that you don't know what edit warring is. That IP-user just added their own personal opinion[1][2]; unsourced plus POV-pushing. Me and the other just reverted their edits. Where was the edit warring and 3RR?! One revert by each one of us (with clear edit summaries). Plus while you tried to do WP:GF here, your removal [3] is problematic, because you removed the entire paragraph. This section "The earliest forms of Scheherazade's name in Arabic sources include Shirazad (شيرازاد Šīrāzād) in Masudi, and Shahrazad (شهرازاد Šahrāzād) in Ibn al-Nadim" is based on the article from Iranica. I moved it to proper location. The other part "the latter meaning in New Persian "the person whose realm/dominion (شهر šahr) is free (آزاد āzād)". It is shortened to "Shahrzad" (شهرزاد Šahrzād/Šarzād) in modern Persian." is unsourced. I tagged it. We wait for a while, and if nobody adds a source for it, any editor can remove it. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We wait for a while, and if nobody adds a source for it, any editor can remove it. You wait if you wish; I don't. Per WP:V, it is at my discretion to delete any unreferenced statement on sight. It has been here since 2016. And please have no delusions of being the owner of this article. You are not. In fact, what you wrote is: "You just added your personal stuff to that article without providing a reliable source. That's all." [4] You add {{cn}} to my contribution, but not to the one you like. This sounds like double standard to me.

Well, your comment shows that you don't know what edit warring is. That's what every edit warrior says. It is the motto of the edit warrior's club: "We are not edit warring and you don't know what edit warring is". They repeat it every day when their club come to session. You edited and you picked a fight by being a jerk. That's edit-warring. 5.78.111.172 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man and @5.78.*.*: Let's dispense with Wikipedia's convoluted jargon for a minute. I would like to impress upon both of you that 8,000 years of human history shows that the way you two are going won't end well. Hostility never ends well. That said, the 5.78.0.0/16 IP address range belongs to a geographic locale whose residents are native Persian speakers. As such, the original disputing edit is most likely a good-faith bold edit to fix a typo. Designating it as "POV-pushing" is far too hostile for comfort. As for you, 5.78.*.*, I asked one of our company translators to give an opinion. She expressed surprise that an article about a human name has an "Etymology" section in it because Persian names are notorious for having been constructed out of morphemes without regards to what they mean. What do you care what the modern form of the name means?

And while we are at it, has any of you people ever noticed that this article has invented novel English exonyms that have never appeared anywhere outside Wikipedia? Sure, شيرازاد is probably how Ibn al-Nadim wrote it; Šīrāzād is how it is pronounced; but what the hell is "Shirazad"? 148.251.64.116 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect language code designation

Hello.

I see that the article has, on two occasions, used the ar code to designate text that has Unicode letters outside the Arabic range. Please remember that:

• The ی (PERSIAN LETTER YE) letter is strictly Persian. It must not be confused with ي (ARABIC LETTER YEH),
• The ک letter is Persian. It must not be confused with ك.

5.219.88.48 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi-- Since your concern seems to be about encoding, I'm guessing that you may not be aware of the nationalistic controversy underlying these language codes. A number of editors have wished to "reclaim" the names of characters from 1001 Nights as Persian and give the Perso-Arabic forms of these names the Persian language code. This is inappropriate, because the Persian substratum of the names is Middle Persian, and which wasn't written in the Perso-Arabic script and had different forms of the names, while the standard forms of the names come from Arabic sources. I'll revert your edits, but feel free to make changes that address any issues relating to Unicode. Eperoton (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: You performed a blanket revert. Not my entire contribution had to do with what this thread addressed. If you don't mind, I restore those.

As for your concern, I myself have no wish whatsoever to enter this childish Arab vs. Persian controversy. Quite frankly I had enough of that childish controversy over the Persian Gulf's title here in Wikipedia. So, I accept that certain portion of your reversion.

Here are the resulting diffs:

1. Diff that proves I conceded to your point of view
2. Diff of the reminder of my contribution that do not fall into this category

5.75.31.196 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It occurred to me that WP:BURDEN applies as much to those who say the phrase is Arabic. Until such time that they provide such proof, I added |label=none.5.75.31.196 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S. An alternative course of action is to add the label "Arabic and Persian spelling"; this way, we are explicitly avoiding the delicate subject of their linguistic origin and national attachment. 5.75.31.196 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The book it's from is in Arabic. What more proof do you need?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

First, any book or written text may have names and phrases in languages other than its predominant language. This article itself is an example. Second, you are not qualified to say whether a book is in Persian or Arabic, because you know neither, according to what you have declared. The IP address of the OP, on the other hand, suggests that he/she knows Persian. 89.196.125.168 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I want proof that the phrase "شهرزاد" has come from a book as you say, and that it isn't a mere contribution of an Arab or Persian. 89.196.125.168 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you like a citation for the the sky being blue as well? The 1001 nights is written in Arabic. The name is Arabic. It may derive from Persian but it is an Arabic name just as much as "George" is no longer a Greek name.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't. Look at the Arabic version and the Persian version of the article. Both spell the name "شهرزاد". It does not matter whether its origin is Arabic or Persian; what matter is that both languages spell it like that.

But you keep shouting "It's Arabic" and accept no compromise. I have no problem with the claim that the sky is blue; I have a problem with the claim that the name is Arabic and definitely not Persian.

This is the second time you are edit-warring this week. 148.251.64.113 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You're making a nonsense argument about a nonissue, Mr. IP. You yourself say its Arabic, but for some reason you want it to be Persian too. Why exactly? The 1001 Nights is written in Arabic. Explain to me what other proof you would like.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This has to do with what the language code is interpreted to mean. It doesn't make an assertion as to whether it's an "Arabic name" or a "Persian name", which is an ill-posed, ambiguous question. Rather it gives an etymological sketch for the English form. In terms of sourcing, here's a quote from the Arabic Nights entry in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam: Notably, the narrator's name is of Persian origin, the Arabicised form Shahrazād being the equivalent of the Persian Chehr-āzād, meaning “of noble descent and/or appearance.” The foreign forms given in the opening parentheses on WP also aren't a mini-dictionary where we list equivalents from various languages, as some editors in other articles have assumed. When there's apparent confusion on that point, I have found that inserting the word "from" clarifies the purpose of the parenthesis and prevents further churn. Eperoton (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar issue at List of One Thousand and One Nights characters.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I'll let someone else watch over that one. I think I've fulfilled my language code dispute quota for the year already. :) Eperoton (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Hi. So, yesterday, I accepted your objection/revert/whatever and left, yet you managed to entangle yourself in an edit war after that? You must have taken a special class or course for that! Yes, I am joking at your expense (because you brought it upon yourself) but I have a point too: A single "from" cannot solve a problem arising from the fact that one editor believes something does not the word of neither sources nor people who know better. 5.75.31.196 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: You wrote: "You yourself say its [sic] Arabic, but for some reason you want it to be Persian too. Why exactly?" You can find your answer in the Arabic script article. This script is used by many languages, including Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Sindhi, Pashto, Lurish, Urdu and Mandinka.

You wrote: "The 1001 Nights is written in Arabic". You mean originally? No, it is in French, by Antoine Galland, published 1704 A.D. It is a collection of many individual tales that, according to J. von Hammer, have come from Persia and perhaps from India. An Arabic version did not appear until 1835 A.D.

But most importantly, what we use in Wikipedia is modern Arabic script. It was not in use in 1704 A.D. 5.75.31.196 (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You're the only one edit warring here, IP who keeps accusing people of edit warring. The information is now sourced anyway. Your account of the history of the 1001 Nights is contradicted by Encyclopedia Iranica article on the subject, which states that the French version is a translation. Iranica dates the earliest Arabic versions to the 9th century. It also notes that "on the whole the language is close to colloquial Arabic." Let it go.--Ermenrich (talk)

@Ermenrich::

• "You're the only one edit warring here". You must be talking to 148.251.64.113. But "The information is now sourced anyway"? I wonder if you are delusional or in denial.
• "Your account of the history of the 1001 Nights is contradicted by ..." So, you finally decided to study a source! Good for you. Yes, if you pick unrelated sentences in the Iranica and put them together, you can fake a passage that says what you intended. Unlike you, however, I have read the whole article. Tales existed before Antoine Galland, but he collected and translated them.
• "Let it go." Gladly. Enjoy convincing the other two, though. I promised Eperoton not bother the touchy area and I have kept it so far. Just promise you personally attack the correct editor next time! (Or better yet, no personal attacks.)

@Eperoton: "شهرزاد‎" is not pronounced "Shahrazād". The second "a" sound does not appear in the Arabic script form. 5.75.124.229 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, riddle me this: Why does an article in English language must have modern Persian/Arabic/whatever words in it? They have no historic significance. They are not even historic. 148.251.64.113 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply to 5.75.*: Hi-- you seem to be engaging in what's called original research in WP terms. The WP:OR policy doesn't allow us to do that. We can only use assertions found in reliable sources. I changed the Arabic transliteration to the version found in the RS I consulted, and in fact quoted above and in the article. The source is the latest edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam, a standard academic reference, and per WP:NPOV we should give significant weight to it. I believe the variant sharhzad has also had some currency in Arabic usage. The usage of short vowels in Arabic shows a lot of regional variation. However, I don't want to engage in OR. If we find an RS that has that variant, we can give it as well. As for your version of the history of 1001 Nights -- sorry, you're way off the mark, as anyone can verify by consulting a RS. The Iranica article is mostly concerned with the Persian angle, so it outlines this history briefly: "Macdonald (“Earlier History of the Arabian Nights,” JRAS, 1924, pp. 355ff.) distinguishes five stages in the elaboration of the text: the Hazār afsān, the Arabic translation of the Persian tales made in Baghdad in the 4th/10th century, an Arabic form in which the frame and some original tales subsisted, the Thousand and One Nights edited under the Fatimids in Egypt, and finally the form found in Galland’s manuscripts." Other RSs go into a lot of detail about the various Arabic manuscript lineages.If you have some information about how the extant Persian versions came about, I'd be curious to know. I've come across two versions using completely different phrasing, which seem to be modern translations from Arabic. However, this last part isn't germane to our discussion of the article, because you can find in RSs information about the Arabic versions that the French, German, and English version were (or were claimed to be) translated from, and none mention a Persian source of translation.

Reply to 148.251.64.113: it's a standard practice on WP to give a brief etymology for words of foreign origin in the opening parenthesis, and that's what we're doing here. Eperoton (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Section break

Hello guys. The discussion title is "Incorrect language code designation" but you guys seem to be arguing about quite a lot of things. Can someone please summarize the dispute for me? Extremecia (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich insists that the printed form "شهرزاد" is exclusively in Arabic, i.e. it cannot be valid in any other language. In defense, argues that this form has come from an Arabic book, hence it must be Arabic. I quote his exact sentences.

• "The book it's from is in Arabic." 14:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• "The 1001 nights is written in Arabic. The name is Arabic. It may derive from Persian but it is an Arabic name just as much as "George" is no longer a Greek name." 18:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• "You yourself say its Arabic, but for some reason you want it to be Persian too. Why exactly? The 1001 Nights is written in Arabic." 20:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There are reasons to doubt his claim. To wit:

• Just because a word comes from a given Arabic text does not mean that it was Arabic when the text was written, let alone it has remained Arabic. He argues that "George" is no longer Greek; sure, the Greek form is "Geōrgós". But the printed form "شهرزاد" is in modern Arabic script, which is in use by Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Sindhi, Pashto, Lurish, Urdu and Mandinka. In fact, the Arabic version, Persian version, Urdu version, Egyptian version and Panjabi version are already using this printed form.
• How do you know the printed form "شهرزاد" has come from an Arabic book? Ermenrich assumes it has come from the book mentioned in the following passage from the Iranica source. He has not seen the book itself.

The most ancient testimony to the existence of a collection of tales bearing this title is given by Masʿūdī ... He refers to work full of untrue stories translated from Persian, Sanskrit, and Greek, including ... "One thousand and one nights;" ... Although he does not indicate the contents of the collection, he confirms the existence of an Arabic translation that must go back to the 3rd/9th century ...

Alright, 3rd or 9th century, right? Well, here is how Arabs wrote in 9th century: File:Birmingham Quran manuscript.jpg and File:Quran by Imam ali.JPG. For a history of the Arabic script, see History of the Arabic alphabet.

From what I said above, I contend that Ermenrich's assumption deserves reasonable doubt; we cannot take the claim of "the printed form 'شهرزاد' is exclusively in Arabic" in its face value. Proposed remedies so far include:

1. A source is provided for this claim
2. The "Arabic" label is removed
3. The "Arabic" label is replaced with "In Arabic script"
4. The entire contested scripts be removed, as they serve no purpose. Why would one go to an article about George and drop "جرج" and "乔治" all over the text?

So far, the opposition refuses to budge. The official article protection statement designates us as disruptive editors, not people who have a valid objection. They don't even try to reason; they have taken their own correctness for granted. See how Ermenrich and Eperoton resort to contradictory arguments. Ermenrich that the Persian root of the word does not matter at all while Eperoton says "it's a standard practice on WP to give a brief etymology for words of foreign origin in the opening parenthesis, and that's what we're doing here."

37.254.65.122 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello

If you don't mind, I would like to ask a couple of questions.

1. What made you suspect that the printed form "شهرزاد" is not exclusively in Arabic?

2. What is the significance of this mistake that warrants such a long an unrelenting discussion?

Extremecia (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

1. My native language is Persian. We study Arabic in school as a foreign language. Also, the article itself previously elaborated on the constituting morphemes, which are Persian.

2. It is utterly insignificant. I am the OP of this thread (although my dynamic IP address has changed), so if you look at the third message, you'll discover that I made a concession. So, don't look at me; I wanted it to stop. Instead, these registered users label the IP editors as disruptive editors and say things that are outright outrageous. For example, see Eperoton's latest response. He accuses me of original research, and speaks a load of nonsense about short vowel divergence in Arabic... all for what? He has accidentally committed a typo in the lead. The typo-less form is already visible in the Name subsection of the article. But he seems to have "Never apologize IP editors" policy. Simply put:

شهرزاد‎ ≠ Shahrazād ≠ /ʃəˌhɛrəˈzɑːd, -də/

شهرازاد = Shahrazād

شهرزاد‎ = /ʃəˌhɛrəˈzɑːd, -də/

Never before in Wikipedia has fixing typos been so difficult. But look who am I talking to: Another registered user. And not a PhD like the esteemed Ermenrich, but someone who likes to tie women and do unspeakable things to them. 37.254.65.122 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and thanks for your interest in my contribution log. But first, if by "unspeakable things", you mean coitus, it must never be paired with bondage in real life; the reckless idiot who does it will inflict severe irreversible damage, and will be punished by death at the hand of their fellow inmates shortly after being incarcerated. On films, these things are no more authentic than all those deaths, explosions and anime characters jumping several kilometers upward.

Your arguments seem sound, although there are one or two points that I did not validate. Still, I do believe anything you have done so far has been in good faith, and my fellow editors Eperoton and Ermenrich could have behaved much better. I urge you to either disengage completely or take this issue to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Loitering in the talk page only embitters you. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to tying up ... my shoelaces. 😜 Extremecia (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, didn't call anyone disruptive, and I don't agree with the decision to semi-protect this page. Everyone in this thread has been good about using the talk page and I don't treat IP users any differently from registered users.

I don't think there's doubt that the editor from Isfahan (I'll use that designation, since the IP addresses don't even have the same prefix) has been making arguments based on OR. Case in point: I used the spelling Shahrazād because it was found in the RS I consulted and I invited anyone to provide a RS if they think we should reflect an alternative variant. Instead, the editor from Isfahan is making arguments for why that spelling is wrong without citing a source. Sorry, per WP:NPOV, we aren't here to disprove RSs, and especially not based on OR, but rather to reflect what they say. I just checked the Alf layla entry in EI2 to see if it uses a different spelling. It doesn't. So, in brief, please bring RSs and we can reflect them here in accordance with WP:NPOV.

As for the argument that the spelling شهرزاد is also used in Persian, no one is disputing that. A similar spelling is also used in Urdu and Punjabi, with a slightly different grapheme for the "h". If that's the rationale, the opening parentheses would be a dictionary, and there's no reason to stop until we list the forms found in all the other languages of the world. However, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's the rationale for not reflecting the fact that the same spelling is used in Persian.

I'm open to continuing this discussion, but please try to base your arguments on WP policies and RSs. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Sources are written by humans and they commit typos. I have not seen the spelling شهرزاد or شهرازاد in any of your sources (of course, they are paywalled) but even if I did, I'd still defer to the opinion of the native speaker, who is kind enough to highlight the letters with color, and astute enoguh to see you have given the same English transliteration for two different Persian forms while citing the same sources. The WP:OR policy applies to facts, not spelling. Your misuse of WP:OR here is called gaming the system.

Have a nice one. Extremecia (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And yet no one has produced any reliable sources using the IP's preferred spelling. Eperoton obviously speaks both Arabic and Persian as well. Wikipedia does not rely on the claimed expertise of its users, but on what is said (and spelled) in reliable sources. Furthermore, as this supposed typo is just a backdoor way to claim the name is not Arabic or "an Arabized form", which reliable sources say it is, it seems to me to have an obvious POV beyond mere spelling.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think anyone has disputed the spelling شهرزاد. It's currently the standard variant used in both Arabic and Persian. It's also the first time I've heard anyone suggest that spellings of names are exempt from WP:V and WP:OR. Why would that be? There's any number of ways to verify that spelling, if anyone has some actual reason to dispute it.

I understand your impulse to prefer the opinion of a native speaker over a reliable source, which is natural and not unusual for a new editor. However, as someone who's been through my share of policy-related disputes, I can assure that it's not what the policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR tell us to do. Even if the editor from Isfahan was a native speaker of Arabic, their assertions would still have to comply with WP:V for us to use them in the article. To be sure, there's some information about modern languages on WP that was apparently contributed by editors based on their linguistic knowledge, and without consulting a RS. That's not a problem in cases where there's no reason to think that the information is wrong. In this case, however, the unsourced argument contradicted a cited and quoted RS. Eperoton (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Refusing to get the point, are we? I have nothing to add.

@Eperoton: Fine. Have it your way: The burden of the source is with a person who adds or reinstates a claim. That's you and Ermenrich. I have not seen the spelling شهرزاد or شهرازاد (or any phrase in Arabic script) in any of the three sources provided. Did you know that two of them cost $15.35 (tax included)?

Extremecia (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What? Did I do something wrong? I made your message better. If you make a strong case, I benefit from it too. It's not like I changed it significantly. Isn't it an encyclopedia that everyone supposed to be able to edit? 37.254.65.122 (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:TPO. Extremecia (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You're free to go to a library and check the sources if they're behind a paywall. Being behind a paywall does not prevent something from being used as a reliable source. The fact that you have not personally checked is not an argument, particularly as you can't provide any alternative sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the seventh time I see you don't read what people write. She/he already has checked the source and verification has failed. It appears your illiteracy is not restricted to Persian or Arabic. You can't even understand English properly.

Now, I like this WP:SYNTH angle. You guys have taken each peace of the information from one source without proving that they are connected. As soon as this article is unprotected, I am going to write only and only stuff I can see in sources and I am going to QUOTE directly from the sources. I'll remove the rest. 148.251.64.113 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact he says he has not seen the spelling because the sources are paywalled. So the opposite of what you said. If he does in fact mean that he has seen the sources (which he has not expressed clearly), then I trust Eperoton, who has edited in this area, more than him.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this still an argument about whether the Arabic spelling شهرزاد? You can verify the quote I cited from EI3 against its Romanization scheme. EI uses it instead of Arabic script. Since the Arabic spelling is unexpectedly controversial, I'll go ahead and collect the spelling variants from standard editions. Eperoton (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on this source review, standard editions do show more variation than indicated by EI2 and EI3, with the a's appearing in three different patterns: short-short-long, short-long-long, and long-short-long. None of them is a misspelling, as suggested by editor I from Isfahan, but I'm not sure how to best reflect that variation in the opening sentence. Eperoton (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I'm puzzled by the difficulty that some editors here seem to be having checking the spelling from the two paywalled sources. I quoted the relevant passage from EI3 and the EI2 ref has the spelling quoted in the title itself. Eperoton (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, no matter what you do, you've improved the name section immensely. Maybe it would be best to include the variant transliterations there as well?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm reluctant to put too much information into the opening parentheses, since it would interfere with the ease of getting a quick summary of the topic, which is what the opening sentence should do. There's actually an interesting wrinkle in the etymology of the name in English. According to Merriam-Webster, it was first borrowed in 1801 from German usage (as the spelling Sch would indicate). Also, M-W still relays the theory that the spelling Shirazad found in Mas'udi is the original Persian form. I think we would be justified to omit that last part as WP:UNDUE, since this theory does not appear in recent academic references, but the etymological sketch is getting increasingly tricky, and I'm beginning to lean toward omitting it from the opening sentence, or putting it into a footnote. Eperoton (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually meant putting it in the naming section - sorry, that was unclear. There was an editing conflict and when I remade the post I did it sort of quickly.

By the way, since the first translation into a European language was into French, any idea why French would (according to French Wikipedia anyway) traditionally use the German spelling as well?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting question! One does find that spelling in Galland's original edition. I suspect that M-W is wrong about the German source, but that's just my personal hunch-- not actionable. Eperoton (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

But to track back a little, I think I still don't understand what you were proposing to do with variant transliterations. Eperoton (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess you've already covered it by listing the transliterations in different editions.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... New sources. Let's see if they can resolve this dispute for good. Extremecia (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, given the recent development, I started to take a more active role in editing the article. I checked very source that Eperoton provided. The Arabic transliterations are easy to find in them. They are okay. Latin transliterations Šīrāzād, Šahrazād, Šāhrazād (pay attention to the second letter) and Šahrāzād are not found, but I do not dispute them. The only item remaining is the شهرزاد item in the lead section. It does not appear in either of the two sources given. I've marked it with {{verification failed}}. For the pronunciation, I think we can use the recently provided Merriam-Webster dictionary. Extremecia (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Arabic spelling reflects the Romanization Shahrazād from the EI3 passage, cited there with a quote, and also the title of the EI2 article cited in the Name section. The Encyclopedia of Islam doesn't use the Arabic script, but it provides a key to enable readers to determine the Arabic spelling based on the Romanization. This is common for English-language academic references that deal with Arabic and Persian. Iranica uses the a similar approach. In any case, as we were just discussing with Ermenrich, using any non-English forms in the opening sentence is problematic due to the variety in spelling. Eperoton (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Would it be easiest just to use the modern standard spelling in the lede then? Or is that what is being objected to with the current "verification failed" tag?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In the comment above, Extremecia is objecting to the form "شهرزاد", though the tag was placed on the word "Arabic". I've trimmed the opening sentence in view of the variant Arabic spellings, as discussed. Eperoton (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the text in the name section slightly to include that the name derives from an Arabic form of the Middle Persian name, as indicated by the reliable sources cited for the etymology. If the IPs/Extremecia really are only intressed in correcting the spelling in Arabic script, then this should not bother them.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Relatives

The relative of Qubad should be edited, I did it in Persian one but someone reverted back. As the series shows when Nusrat and Qubad kills Behbudi, Nusrat gets injured and passes away, it clearly shows that Qubad calls Nusrat as his father while Nusrat is not brother of Bozorg Agha. This is also show in final episode of the series when Sharzad asks him if he is from Divan Salar family where he reduce being from this family.

She was Persian

Not Arab but PERSIAN🇮🇷 89.8.102.206 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

She's a fictional character from a book preserved in Arabic.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

When was Scheherazade born

When was Scheherazade born 49.96.230.15 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

She wasn't, she's a fictional character.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)