Talk:Aurat

Requested move 11 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

---

• Aurat (disambiguation) → Aurat
• Aurat → Aurat (word)

– Revert the undiscussed move of a long-established (2007) disambiguation page. If the word has not had an article until now it seems unlikely to be the Primary Topic, more often sought than all other uses put together, for this term. PamD 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know how to argue my case , but may be you and others may want to consider following points

1) As much Woman is not just not a word but an human experience, Aurat too is human cultural experience to Aprox. a billion women around the world (2020 AD) estimated 1.9 billion Muslims in world comes to aprox 950 million women + 1 can safely assume 1/3 i.e. 50 million hindi language Non Muslim women using word Aurat alternatively = Day today experience of womanhood of around 1 billion women is associated with word 'Aurat'

2) There are more than enough cultural, popular culture & literary references accumulated over the centuries. Google search engine throws 18,100,000 searches in English only plus around 480 book refs

3) If opportunity is not given, experiences denied to write an encyclopedic article how people will feel free to write. As disambiguation page earlier itself I was denied opportunity to include encyclopedic sentence. If title is named as word later editors may ask to limit content to grammatical part of the word, and don't know how women who connect their experiences with Aurat find themselves free to express and write.

4) If some one ignored mostly Asian women's experience a decade ago are we supposed to continue with denial.

5) Disambiguation articles are technically non-encyclopedic article. When an encyclopedic article is possible then whether title is not supposed to be ascribed to encyclopedic article? (Updated additional point on 2020 May 12)

6) Here is an example: In the article Malik Ram there is sentence.".."Aurat aur Islami Taleem",..." here word Aurat needs to be internally linked to an encyclopedic article Aurat and neither to a disambiguation page nor a just a word page. IMHO encyclopedic article should get a fair chance to get developed in encyclopedic way. (Updated additional point on 2020 May 12)

7) Summarizing my replies below, A) 'Word is foreign' IMHO Wikipedia has more than enough encyclopedic articles on foreign word, I ignore it considering prejudiced view. B) Articles listed in disambig page are having more hits (page views) because Google may not be listing disambig page but lists listed articles in disambig page is more of technicality + entertainment value Do we evaluate on this count? C) All article names of disambig page can be well accommodated in popular culture section and expanded further in encyclopedic article better. D) If 'Aurat' would not have been a topic there would not have been any literature dramas and movies surrounding it even to make a disambig page so I don't find this point too valid and logical enough. IMHO (2020 May 14)

8) On hand WIkipedia claims it is not a Directory- Are not disambig pages kind of small directory?- but again users pushing logic that gives primacy to Directory function over, Encyclopedic function of Wikipedia. And is that an established approach ? Then can directory function get primacy vis a vis many other articles. Good part at least Some admit they understand this concern.

9) As far as overlapping with other articles, is concerned no 'body' can be separate of 'body parts' and surrounding environment and while describing all aspects a little overlapping bound to ocur here and there while encyclopedically describing a subject, isn't it? For example I want to add a section on 'Muslim and ex-muslim women view of 'Aurat' from their Autobigraphies. How that would be possible if Wikipedians decide to restrict possibilities of encyclopedic development and easy access to encyclopedic function.

Now there quite a few rather many Non-Muslim resources around Aurat like this one Where do we fit in encyclopedically if not in article Aurat (WIthout restrictions) ?

(Updated 2020 May 17)

May be my views are different, I can just wish best for the article I wish to complete further.

Bookku (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose All the items on this page derive their name from this word, so readers are probably not going to be WP:ASTONISHED. There are only a few items on this page whose full name is "Aurat". – Thjarkur (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - two of the other uses of the plain name, Aurat (1967 film) & the tv series, both get higher views than this. I didn't bother looking at others. Clearly not primary for disam. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I'm not sure that argument works, as the page about the word/concept didn't exist until day before yesterday. PamD 20:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, those were the disam views, but they still suggest people are more interested in media with this as a name than the word or concept. Still support. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@ PamD While Wikipedia is open for all, if one take humanity in account only limited number of people indulge in encyclopedic writing. This is not an ego issue for me. If it is an ego issue for some one else that, if an article didn't come up earlier how it can come now suddenly that too page being moved without discussion, then I have no arguments; rather than putting more arguments I will respect egos more. But I believe in good faith and certainly ego would not be the case, Wikipedia culture says we need to suppose so.

As far as the way I see at the issue is all the movie and TV drama or any other listing can be included in popular culture section, lierature section or movement section. An encyclopedic article allows me to write few lines more about them but not less. But that is not the case of disambig page. It entirely stalls any possibilities of writing more.

Interestingly enough If Wikipedia provides disambig page with listing of movies, then Google throws movie listing on search of word "Aurat" and respective Wikipedia movie pages get more views! And even average reader gets attracted to movie and drama with it's intrinsic value of entertainment for human beings. If we present article Woman as a disambig page with movie listing result will be same.

Any ways people do have different views than me and I have no option but to respect Wikipedian democracy, although I do sincerely feel logic would stand on my side. Thanks any ways. Bookku (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: The question is about helping readers to get to the information they seek. If we put the article on the word/concept at the title Aurat, as you just did, then anyone looking for a film or TV series of that title will go to that article first and need to follow a link to the disambiguation page before they can find the link they need to follow to the article they want. Only if we believe that more people will be looking for the article on the word/concept than on all other uses of the word combined would it be correct for the disambiguation page to be moved and the new article to be at the basic title. I suggest that you continue working on your new article at the title Aurat (word) (or would Aurat (concept) be more accurate?), and if the page views after some time show that more people are going to that article than to all the others combined it might be appropriate to use the Requested Move process to move the new article to the basic title and move the disambiguation page to the disambiguated title as you did. The monthly Pageviews chart shows that except in March 2020 the article on the Aurat March had fewer page views than the films etc, and does not indicate any particular Primary Topic. PamD 07:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@ PamD Thanks for healthy discussion. But what I find is here →"... anyone looking for a film or TV series of that title will go to that article first and need to follow a link to the disambiguation page.." missing a point that we can accommodate almost all so called disambig links in encyclopedic article itself under separate popular culture section and people can refer those links from there. Effectively eventually we won't need separate disambig page if way out suggested by me is adopted. Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: But that is not how Wikipedia treats ambiguous terms. If I want to read about the film Jaws I should not be taken to an article about anatomy of the mouth and left to find a link in the "Popular culture" section. The system of disambiguation pages and links is set up to enable as many readers as possible to find what they want as quickly as possible. PamD 08:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@ PamD If at all title of my article needs to be changed then, as of now I think, I will prefer title Aurat (Asian women)- ( I don't know if any African Muslim women too use prefer to use "Aurat")- than that of Aurat (word) or Aurat (concept) Bookku (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: On second thoughts it might be best to stick with Aurat (word) for the duration of this AfD discussion, and if the article gets moved it can always be moved again later. The proposal here is to use "..(word)", so that is what people are responding to.PamD 08:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

:)No arguments, still bit intrigued basically your main concern is to retain disambig page in article name space. As far as article is concerned it has already entered in beyond dictionary encyclopedic realms. What is the point in forcing a dictionary title with help of democracy when most of the opinion givers unlikely to do any copy editing on grammar side. What is achieved by lengthening cycle of hassles before an encyclopedic writer? I don't know. Anyways that is how mass human thinking goes and I find myself helpless. Thanks anyways. Bookku (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. I don't see why we need a Wiki page on "Aurat" at all. It is just a foreign word. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

After reading the article in more detail, I see that there is substance there. But it is an article on the word rather than the concept (which is no different from the concept of woman). So the proposed title is entirely appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. There's sometimes a fine line between actual encyclopedic concepts, and mere words. Maybe it's a good idea to have an article about the word aurat, but any article about the human experience will have to be about a topic (like Women's political participation in India or Women in Pakistan), and its extent will not necessarily overlap with the set of societies where the word aurat has been borrowed. – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Uanfala Thanks for your frank opinion. It seems I will be loosing this democratic vote to perception battle, and don't foresee many options but to accept it. But for record sake, let me explain my view. As I stated in one of latest comment above, all the disambig content can be easily accommodated in popular culture, literature and movement sections; an encyclopedic article allows me to write more and explain a concept. When any one begins a new stub article in initial stage it may look like limited to a word entry but given the opportunity and time to develop it can emerge as an encyclopedic article. And I have already worked enough on Wikipedia articles on south Asian women issues and per my studies and association with issues, while I am a modernist myself what I know is conservatives and earlier south Asian generations closely associate with word Aurat as their own conservative lifestyle concept, to be neutral on Wikipedia we need to attempt to give them their opportunity by including those perspective, that would be possible only if opportunity given.Last but not least, If, 'Aurat' would not have been a 'topic' there would not have been any literature, poems, dramas and movies and hence there would not have been a page to distinguish them either.IMHO Thanks anyways. Bookku (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I understand the concerns expressed but I think we should keep to established approaches.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm confused as to why this needs to be a separate article to Purdah at all, aside from the difference in emphasis. GPinkerton (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, before working on this I gave thought to this for quite a long; while seems a good point comes out to be inadequate; since Purdah is more of a socio-cultural system where as being Aurat means living experiences of human beings which has far more capacity in living those experiences and also far more capacity to live,interact,respond and even resist various pressures to evolve and transform and many of these living experiences have already been noted by Asian and south Asian literature, drama and Cinema. IMHO huge amount of reliable reference sources already do exist in English and also in Asian languages, hence the article Aurat has further huge potential to take encyclopedic note of all those resources. I am confident, if given the opportunity it will come out as an all encompassing good encyclopedic article. Thanks and rgds Bookku (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

en:Draft:Urdu feminist literature

Starting new article en:Draft:Urdu feminist literature. Please add relevant information with references.

Bookku (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps someone needs to (re-)create Aurat (word)?

There was once an article Aurat (word), which was moved to draft, moved to a plural title, and now exists as Draft:Aurats (word).

There have been recent attempts to expand this disambiguation page to include discussion of the word.

I suggest that someone should start a short article Aurat (word) about the word itself. Useful references would be the citation which has been incorrectly added to this dab page, and perhaps also this one. But a disambiguation page is not the place for this. My advice would be to keep such an article brief, clear, neutral, and very well-sourced. PamD 08:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That citation doesn't look like a reliable source.VR _talk 08:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also please note that the original word awrah is a redirect, and there is a brief discussion at Intimate parts in Islam#Etymology.VR _talk 09:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)