Talk:The Perfumed Garden

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge stopperage 

message: 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 (). 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)
thread_title:  The Scented Garden 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Burton translation 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 2011 Translation again

message: 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:
* "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?
Snori (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic original?