Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah
<
Template:Did you know nominations
- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah
- ...
thatISSN 1947-2404.
Created by Iskandar323 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC).
On it. —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?20:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
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
- 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)
- 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)
- @Iskandar323 (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
- 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)
- 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.
- 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. — LlywelynII21:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @WP:POViness in the article so reviewing it should go quickly when you know what you'd like to say. Just ping me. — LlywelynII22:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @
- 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: 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. — LlywelynII17:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
ALT1 is good to go. Thanks for making this article and all your work, Iskandar. — LlywelynII 00:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
