Talk:Djemal Pasha

Comments

Name

Why "Djemal"? Cemal is Turkish name and he is Turkish. Ayasi 11:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Jamal Pasha.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.216.240.70 (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

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)

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.

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)

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 : "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)

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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is this sentence supposed to mean?

"Due to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, Djemal travelled to Tbilisi" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Its a fork, merge and redirect it. VartanM (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - I created the article myself without knowing it was a fork, basically due to an alternative spelling of the name. --m3taphysical (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahmet Cemal

One mistake I frequently encounter in Wikipedia is the proper noun translations. Almost all words including the titles can be translated. But proper nouns represent unique entity and are not translatable, provided of course, they use the same alphabet. Take an example of Joseph. This name has many variants in different languages: Josef, Joe, Yusuf etc. But body (almost nobody) tries to translate Joseph when it is used as a proper noun. Joseph Haydn (composer) or Joe Biden are never translated. (Wouldn’t it be funny to have an article named Joe Haydn or Yusuf Haydn ?) But unfortunatelly the topic of this very article is Ahmed Djemal instead of Ahmet Cemal. The contributer’s rationale is that the encyclopaedia is in English. Lets think twice. I think the article should be moved to Ahmet Cemal. Nedim Ardoğa (talk)

A few notes on what is written above:

• Firstly, a request to rename this page has already been made. The discussion can be found here.
• Secondly, Ahmed Djemal is the name by which he is best known in English. This is the English version of Wikipedia and when foreign people are best known by a certain name in English, those are the names that are used (i.e. Joseph Stalin instead of Iosif Stalin, Ferdinand Magellan instead of Fernão de Magalhães, John Hunyadi instead of Hunyadi János, ect.).
• Thirdly, Ahmet Cemal was not the "correct spelling in his langange". Djemal spoke Ottoman Turkish, which is different from the Turkish spoken today. Turkish orthography was not reformed until after his death and his name was never spelled Ahmet Cemal during his life.

--John of Lancaster (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are the facts?

The discussion on the names and spelling sooner or later breaches the limits of reason and common sense. One wonders what motivations are in play. Ahmet Cemal is mostly likely exactly how the man himself pronounced his name, but unfortunately there are no sound records. More significantly, volumes and volumes literature and references in modern Turkish will refer to his name exactly as Cemal. You will not find a Djemal in any modern Turkish source. That name has never been spelled in that manner by any Ottoman, Turk or Arab at any time in history by any alphabet. Do I need to remind that Turkish alphabet is Latin? These seem to be the same folks who insist that name of the Turkish island Bozcaada in Aegean is actually named Tenedos! Try it, it is most amazing! Same people who are still confused about Istanbul vs Constantinople probably.

Of course a lot more significant is the fact that this is an extremely poorly written article on a very important historical figure. One can not even follow his ranks his career or the offices he held. Many writers were too busy promoting their own nationalistic agendas it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.153.82 (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean like your nationalistic drivel that contains NO facts, NO article and NO sources.

In your case it is more productive to make childish remarks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Ahmed Djemal → Djemal Pasha – per WP:COMMONNAME: GoogleBooks Ngram Viewer comparison. Takabeg (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the "same case" with Enver Pasha. Takabeg (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Constantine ✍ 16:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

About his sentence by the military trial

After the first sentence [A military court in Turkey accused Djemal of persecuting Arab subjects of the Empire, and sentenced him to death in absentia.] I've added this: But these courts were considered travesty of justice by the Allied Powers [6] = Revisiting the Armenian Genocide by Guenter Lewy. Chonanh (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

responsibility for genocide

the article states that he was killed by armenians "in retribution for his role in the Armenian Genocide" but doesn't say what his contribution/role was - according to sources it was a leading one.--Severino (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the book "Lawrence in Arabia" the autor, Scott Anderson, mentions his role in executing people suspected of supporting the Arab Revolt but he also exonerates Djemal of colaboration or complicity with the Armenian Genocide. The article lists only 1 source that accuses him of having a role in this. Isn't that a bit spare?Scafloc (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Mass murderer category

Would the mass murderer category be appropriate here? 2600:100C:A20D:BB75:8163:18A:8713:C894 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe so. If he was, the biography would say so in the lead most likely. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 19:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2025

Change "Circassian origin Turkish family " to "Circassian-origin Turkish family" in order to make the links more meaningful.

PS I'll never get to 500, if you keep doing my edits for me :-( Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Tc 13 17 19 You get credit for making this edit. (t · c) buIdhe 00:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe :-) Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually "Circassian-origin Turkish family" might be even better. Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Day Creature

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd swap these 5 edits on a Talk page, for the edits to the actual article; but, that's not how it works.

Would it be too disruptive to change name of pages (move);-

Circassian to Circassian (disambiguation)

Circassians to Circassian

and possibly

Circassians_(historical_ethnonym) to Circassian_(historical_ethnonym)

one could type links like Circassians – which would be linked to Circassians

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:RM is what you're looking for, although it seems like there is a good reason for the disambiguation. In this case wouldn't Circassians (historical ethnonym) be more correct? Tc 13 17 19 (t · c) buIdhe 04:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Circassian is a disambiguation page, but doesn't shout about it. Circassian (disambiguation) isn't a disambiguation page, but redirects to Circassian so it looks as though it is.

I know about WP:RM, but wondered what people thought here. If you're happy, and don't think anyone would be offended, I'd be willing to take it to WP:RM

Surely an ethnonym can be applied to an individual person as much as a group? But I'm not aware of a convention WP:Style? for the last suggestion.

I've just found WP:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)#Singular_titles, so there is a convention, and it applies to my second suggestion as well. Which just leaves the first – swapping the two, which hardly seems worth it.

Maybe we should change my edit (again) to Circassian-origin? if we are saying that Djemal Pasha's family originated in the country or region rather than the ethnic group.

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue is that "Circassian" has meant different things over time, and I also am not sure if there is any evidence that Djamal had Adyghe ancestry rather than originated from a different Turkic group from the nearby region, who were historically known as Circassians.

It's correct for the base name "Circassian" to be a dab page if there are multiple possible meanings and there isn't one that clearly predominates. (t · c) buIdhe 05:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)