The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ahmed Djemal → Ahmed Cemal — {{{3}}} Ceberrut 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

1. Support - modern day writing will refer to it by this orthography in English - thus contemporary name should be used. Just like in Constantinople/Istanbul, today's writings will always use the contemporary name and orthography, even when referring to the period. Baristarim 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Strongly Oppose Almost invariably called Djemal, or something very like it, in English. The reform of Turkish orthography, after his death, is irrelevant here; we are dealing with period spelling of a period name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that, today, it is referred to as such in the English language when referring to the period? See my post above, the period spelling is completely irrelevant: what is important is still modern-day writing used in English; and English allows modern day renderings of older Turkish/Ottoman names (like Mehmed II - which is in effect "Muhammad" etc) Baristarim 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See David Fromkin, The Peace to End all Peace (1989), the modern standard English text on the Eastern Front. Fromkin consistently uses "Djemal" (and "Talaat"). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense - I cannot believe I am actually trying to argue why stupid Victorian orientalist spellings should (and is) no longer used in English - you say Fromkin from 1989, eh? Well, let's see Brittanica's 2007 article [1]: "Cemal Pasa, or Ahmed Cemal Pasa (Turkish political leader)". I only dug up one example since I thought this would be a no-brainer... Any more questions? (what is the deal with the "strong" oppose btw?) Baristarim 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an Edwardian spelling, almost certainly (Djemal was not known to foreigners in Jan. 1901, and his name was only spelt in the Ottoman alphabet); Djemal was himself an Edwardian statesman. Also, it is the one Djemal himself used. As such, (in accordance with the principles of WP:NCGN), it's the one normally used in serious modern historical literature in English. Change the spelling in the Turkish Wikipedia, by all means, if you have not already.

Btw, the charge of Orientalism is, besides the equivalent of Godwin's Law, a foolish attack on a book you have clearly not read. Fromkin spends chapters on the Orientalist fantasies of the Foreign Office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Edwardian then :) My point with "Victorian" was to point to a larger problem in the English language (which has been definitely left behind by major academic works - like Brittanica), it was not about a historical analysis. What is orientalist is to assume that someone would know how to spell something better than the natives of the language themselves. Fortunately these days it is not common, but, for example, it is a problem that continues in France.. Offical documents still use "Istamb(o)ul" most of the time. Go figure..

I am sure the book is good, as I said it was not a comment about the book or history itself but only about linguistics. If Brittanica article is at "Ahmed Cemal" (mark that it still is not the Turkish spelling - TR spelling is Ahmet Cemal), why would Wikipedia, as a corresponding encyclopedia, would have it at "Ahmed Djemal"? Doesn't Brittanica know how to speak English? It is them who practically spread the academic side of the English language to the world - as such it fulfills the "common name in English" req, that's all. I am sure they knew what they were doing when they chose that name. I am sorry if I am sort of making this a big deal, but I have come across this issue a few times in Wikipedia.. Cheers! Baristarim 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The French spell fr:Londres differently from the English (as do the Turks); the English (but not the Americans) spell Lyons differently than the French. Both English and French spell Nuremburg differently than the Germans, and Rome differently than the Italians. This is one of the discoveries to be made at the first step of polyglottism. A civilized person learns to rejoice in them.

This move proposal is precisely the assertion that the present Turks know how to spell Djemal's name better than he did himself; this spelling system did not exist in his lifetime.

Furthermore, if we did change, we would have to add back essentially the same spelling as a pronunciation guide; there is no reason to assume that our average reader will know how to pronounce the Turkish c, or suspect that all of the natural English values of c are wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• The correct rendering of the name of this Turkish person, in current Turkish orthography is "Ahmet Cemal". Word final consonants are devoiced in Turkish as a rule (Murat instead of Murad, ebat instead of ebad, dert instead of derd etc.). Please refer to the official spelling guide or dictionaries of the Turkish language. Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• He lived in Ottoman Empire era so maybe we should use Ottoman Turkish rules instead.--Ceberrut 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• In terms of the "Ahmed" / "Ahmet" distinction, Atılım is correct about the modern Turkish spelling (although, in terms of strict transliteration from the Ottoman script, the "d" ending is more accurate; also, such things—rather than being full plosives—are generally realized as unreleased stops, so that "ebat" is actually [ɛbɑd̚], a distinction that comes to the fore in a phrase like ebadında, where a suffix requires the stop to be released and realized as the [d] it's actually closer to). But, despite all that, the modern Turkish spelling of "Ahmet" can be preferred on the issue. As for the "Djemal" / "Cemal" bit, it should most likely be "Cemal" (with, of course, an indication on pronunciation for English speakers). "Djemal" is the Francophone transliteration of Ottoman script ("Djemal Pacha"), which is more likely than not the reason the man himself spelled it that way. Anyhow, them's just my two bits. —Saposcat 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.