Talk:Al-Zubayr Rahma Mansur

Untitled

All source until 1977 refer to him as being black, then Beresford calls him an Arab. I'm going to remove the modifier for now, somebody please feel free to find new evidence. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Question (which may belong elsewhere but this gives me an opportunity to record additional information which 'needs' to appear in this article based on the answer)[[User_talk:HerbM]:

How do we deal with page numbers in references? Reference #1 (The Story Of Chinese Gordon, digitized at Google http://books.google.com/books?id=vlMDAAAAMAAJ) is 407 pages long and the reference I added is on page 354 -- documenting that Suleiman was executed by Gessi's forces but under the orders of Gordon.

All references to that (first) source are globbed together without page numbers as it now stands.

Duplicate

[Seems to be resolved] [[User_talk:HerbM] This article appears to be a duplicate of Al-Zubayr Rahma. They should be merged. Raoulduke47 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have they been merged in the opposite way? I mean, the other article is much older and has a longer edit history. Also, this name seems a pretty rare name variant for this individual, I don't remember ever hearing it. Al-Zubayr Rahma is also the name he is given in the Cambridge History of Africa.--Aldux 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, Sebehr is how it was listed in the majority of books I checked (Books > Google, especially 19th century books) - though he transliterated it himself as "Ziebeir" it seems for his memoirs? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is 19th and early 20th century transliterations of Arab names were especially uncorrect; but if you find a considerable use of this name in modern books, than there's no problem.--Aldux 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aldux. 19th century transliterations are questionable. We should use only recent ones.Raoulduke47 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious what the basis for that judgment is, other than the "ethnocentric" view that we're smarter now than ever before...which is a fallacy itself. Think about it, would you trust a 2007 book on Egypt's tombs more than a 1907 one? I wouldn't. I'd rather keep people listed by the historic names by which they were known, even if "Pocahontas" is more properly alliterated "Powkahantas" and is advanced as such in the past five years. shrugs It's not the end of the world to me either way, but he was known in his time as "Sebehr Ramha, the Black Pasha" - so it seems the logical title to my mind. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your accusations of "ethnocentrism", nor do I appreciate them much.

In fact it is your reasoning that is a fallacy, one that I have come across too often on wikipedia. There is no reason to think that somehow, the further back you go, the closer you get to the truth. History is a science in progress; this means that our knowledge of historical events increases over time, it doesn't decay as you seem to imply. This is why, if you're interested in the Ancient Roman period, you'll read the works of Ronald Syme rather than those of Livy. As Zubehr lived during the colonial period, one should be especially careful with contemporary sources, as many were written in justfication of colonialism, and are not only ethnocentric but openly racist as well.

Also I disagree that there is a consensus to call him "Sebehr Rahma, the Black Pasha", even in his own time. Like Aldux, I have never seen this form before. The sources I have read call him either "Zubehr"(Churchill, The river war, 1902), Zobeir(Strachey, Eminent victorians, 1918) or "Zebehr"(Archer, The war in Egypt and Soudan, 1887).Raoulduke47 10:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no answer, so I take it this article can be moved back to Al-Zubayr Rahma, in accordance with the Cambridge History of Africa. --Raoulduke47 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.--Aldux 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He transliterated it as Ziebeir in his own memoirs, so as I said, if we're to move the article, that would seem the most logical transliteration. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem that in his biography, his name is transliterated as Zubeir[1]. But I would not consider that definitive, as the real author seems to be a British writer, Henry Cecil Jackson. By using one of the various forms invented by late 19th century European authors, we would simply reflect the confusion that surrounded transliteration in those days, and sometimes, the author's lack of knowledge of the Arabic language. In that period, each author could write Arabic names more or less as he pleased, whereas nowadays, a consistent system is used in serious publications such as the Cambridge History of Africa. I believe that we should do the same on wikipedia, rather than grope ineffectually in search of an illusory historical accuracy. --Raoulduke47 18:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, are there still any objections to moving it to "Al-Zubayr Rahma"? --Raoulduke47 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for al-Zubayr. The "al" is used when his name is used with the title of Pasha, the name he was called was "X", not "al-X". ("al" being "the"), and he transliterated it "Zubeir" in his own writing...so Zubeir Rahma seems like the most obvious choice. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? There is no evidence of this. The authors of the Cambridge History of Africa chose to call him "Al-Zubayr Rahma", so I'll go with them, rather than with your largely speculatory comments, as they are after all renowned experts in their own field.

You seem to set a lot of stock by Zubayr's autobiography. But, as I have said already, the translation and transliteration was done by one Henry Cecil Jackson, not by Zubayr himself. So one can't really say that "he transliterated it himself" or that it is "in his own words". Note also that in modern editions, the editors have written his name "Zubayr".[2] --Raoulduke47 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK let's do a google search then:

• "Al-Zubayr Rahma": 859 hits [3]
• "Zubeir Rahma": 9 hits [4]

That speaks for itself. Raoulduke47 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Of which more than 700 are Wikipedia mirrors, and thus irrelevant. If we don't include sites that are simply Wiki mirrors, then we see 149 for Zubayr, 55 for Zubair, 43 for Sebehr, 9 for Zubeir, 8 for Zubeir and 6 for Zobeir. I also find 53 hits for "slave-trader rahman pasha gordon -wikipedia" and only 9 for "slave-trader rahma pasha gordon -wikipedia". Suddenly it's not so "obvious" that one choice is better and we should simply rely on google hits to determine the legitimacy of a transliteration, especially not when you consider that as mentioned - there is a wide gap between the name used in "books written during his time" and "books written afterwards". And the only literary sources that seem to use "al" were ones written since the 1980s, I see 1985 (your Cambridge history), 1997, 2003 and 2007 for books mentioning his name with an "al". It's clearly when people began confusing the fact Arabic would use "al-Zobeir Pasha" to say "the Pasha (a rank) Zobeir", but the actual name on its own would be "Zobeir", not "al-Zobeir".(Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)