Talk:Michel Suleiman

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.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Michel Sleiman → Michel Suleiman — the majority of reliable sources in English spell it this way. Sleiman may possibly be the correct transliteration but either way, regardless of what the LAF's website may say, he's generally referred to in English as Michel Suleiman and I'm quite sure that's closer to the Arabic pronunciation than Sleiman. —Yonatan ^talk 22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose move. I think primary sources are more likely to be correct in this instance. I was the one who moved it to this title, and that was after a request from a relative of Mr Sleiman. I realise that counts for nothing, though I would argue that for the spelling of a name, we should trust the employer of the subject rather than foreign language newspapers. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is what is the "correct" spelling - the one the person uses, or the one that is mostly used in writing when referring to him (especially when the latter isn't a blatant mistake). Anyway, the fact that a request was received through OTRS was not clear but I still don't think it should have bearing on the decision (although it can be used to reaffirm the position that this is the spelling he uses). Yonatan ^talk 23:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, no, not OTRS- it was made informally over IRC, though they said they would contact OTRS if the errors slipped back in to the article. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it isn't a blatant mistake. If he has a preferred transcription which he considers should apply to English and which may even be used in official English language used by him, then yes, anything else is a mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support pending more data. The NYTimes and Xinhua spell Suleiman; so does the BBC. There may be a difference between English and French transliterations of Lebanese Arabic; if so, we should use English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Several English language sources use Sleiman. [2] [3] [4] [5]. Even the BBC sometimes use Sleiman [6]. This combined with the fact that he/his family apparently consider the alternative spelling an error in English is enough to make this the better spelling. French doesn't come into it when the family are referring to English, not French. When a person's name can be transcribed in multiple ways, he is the ultimate decider of the most appropriate transcription, and it is almost definite that the vast majority of world authorities would recognise a person's right to choose his name, which includes how his name is transcribed (for example, if he chooses to take UK citizenship, I would expect the UK government would allow him to choose to transcribe his name as Sleiman and this would be how it would be written in his passport, citizenship certificate and other documents associated with him). Note that this is quite different from the case of a pseudonym which reflects a different name, not an erroneous spelling. Note that it's not even clear that the media, e.g. the NYT, the BBC have choosen to ignore his preference, far more likely it is simply ignorance which may change over time. (This is as opposed to things like Burma) Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nil's links are Al-Jazeera (who are likely to roll their own transliteration, without even checking other sources), the Sydney Morning Herald (twice), and the Agence France Press English service. Of these, one is an anglophone source. The complaint in our chat group claims to be from a relative' we cannot know, nor can we know if the real problem is that two branches spell it differently in an alphabet at least somewhat foreign to both of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - "Suleiman" is used by the major English-language press, including NYT, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, Telegraph, Times, LA Times, Guardian, WSJ, The Age, National Post, Globe and Mail, ABC, BBC, etc. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also the Independent. We should follow our sources, unless there is clear reason not to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And the Irish Times, and the New Zealand Herald... Biruitorul ^Talk 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support (with reservations) - Adding to the English media usage, in standard Arabic (e.g. on al-Jazeera) his name is pronounced Suleiman, the shortening of the first syllable being a feature of the Lebanese dialect. (In French he is spelled Sleimane, though.)--84.190.15.75 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)butions/84.190.15.75|84.190.15.75]] (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, the native usage would be with a silent u, so it should be Sleiman. —Nightstallion 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What about, well, English usage? Biruitorul ^Talk 22:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Never ever heard of anyone named Sleiman. Aren't this Wikipedians being excessively correct again, rather than being sensitive to common usage? I would think Suleiman is a pretty common name, and it has always been spelled this way. Though feel free to show me this person's surname is a variant, and you can persuade me to stay with Sleiman. In my opinion it's a bit of a shame this got on First Page without this being resolved. There's already too many instances of Wikipedia being peculiar instead of smooth when it comes to correctness. CapnZapp (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

• At the very least, the intro should mention in bold both the Sleiman and Suleiman spellings, as the two most common in English. When I first stumbled across this page, since the intro didn't mention the "Suleiman" spelling with which I was familiar, I wasn't actually sure that this was the same person until checking Talk. --Delirium (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• If his surname is the same name as the famous "Suleiman", then this spelling should be used. As it is now, searching on "suleiman" brings up a disambig page that doesn't even list this person.CapnZapp (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2008 (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.