Talk:Fouta Djallon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Both of these articles refer to the same place, but I'm not sure if they are two conflicting spellings or if it's just that one of them is a typo. If there are different spellings then use the accepted one for the main page and have the other one to redirect there. And if it's just a typo then we can delete the incorrect one. I'll try and find out what's right when I get a chance if nobody else has done. Iancaddy 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Photo? You must see at the Commons.... --Atamari 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cool. Guess I didn't find them because the spellings were all different. —Keenan Pepper 01:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some reworking[edit]

I rearranged some things and added some subtitles. Some editing as well. Lots more that can be done (the "Economy" section is obviously lacking for instance). --A12n 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some notes.--A12n 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits; possible renaming?[edit]

Did various relatively minor edits. The intro paragraph could be substantially rewritten, moving details about the origin of the name into another section. It might make sense to move this article to an English spelling - "Futa Jal(l)on" - which would harmonize with Imamate of Futa Jallon and the more or less English spellings used for Fuuta Tooro (i.e., Futa Tooro & Imamate of Futa Toro).--A12n (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. All the participants use good arguments, but there is no agreement here on the need for a move nor on what to move it to. My own limited probes with Google suggested that the French-looking spelling we have now is surprisingly popular in English writings. Dr. Blofeld's Google Books results seemed to follow this pattern. As Aymatth2 points out, even the Library of Congress Subject Headings can't seem to agree internally about this. It will be hard for us to enforce consistency here when the external world hasn't decided how to spell this term. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Fouta Djallon → ? –

  • The name should be either "Futa Jalon" or "Futa Jallon", let's discuss which is better. A12n (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC) // Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Futa Jalon - The current title, Fouta Djallon, is the French spelling. Although this is also ported to English, there are also two spellings used in English - Futa Jalon and Futa Jallon - either of which wold be more appropriate. A major reason is to harmonize with the current title on the history of the region (Imamate of Futa Jallon) and titles on the "other" Futa, Futa Tooro & Imamate of Futa Toro. Futa (French: Fouta) is a geographical term from the Fula: Fuuta. The spelling of the Guinean Futa in the current orthography of Pular (the Fula language spoken locally), is Fuuta Jaloo or sometimes Fuuta Jalon. The spelling in French, which is the official language of Guinea, does not appear to be an official administrative designation ("Middle Guinea" is used instead of Fouta Djallon).--A12n (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In light of In ictu oculi's & Aymatth2's info, I'm okay with the double "L" spelling, if that helps reach a consensus on the move.--A12n (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Oppose - Oxford University Press Encyclopedia of Africa has article title Fouta Djallon. Futa Jalon 3,400 hits since 1980, Futa Jallon 7,460 since 1980, 8,560 in English for the French spelling since 1980. However this is also picking up a lot of citations of French titled books cited in English works, so taking these out Futa Jallon marginally has it. But then again on the other hand some "Futa Jallon" references are to the Imamate of Futa Jallon 1727-1896, which would then need taking out as we aren't 19thC.wikipedia.org. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the analysis. Important, I think, to keep in the forefront that this is the same place - whether under the rule of the imamate (or kingdom) or as part of Guinea. The way we render the spelling is a matter of choice (as the distribution you cite shows). Overriding considerations IMO would be harmonization of the "nexus" of Futa articles, not only on this region but also Futa Toro, so as not to confuse readers or create false distinctions: Why "Fouta" here and "Futa" there? What is the distinction between "dj" here and "j" there? Etc.--A12n (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Futa Jallon - We should use the most common English form. To weed out web mirror effects, I searched JSTOR and got Futa Jallon 326, Futa Jalon 170 and Fouta Djallon 346 (mostly French). See also Library of Congress subject headings. Library of Congress. 1996. p. 2022-23. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), which recommends Futa Jallon for the region but Fouta Djallon for the mountain range. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but would lean towards oppose. Google books picks up 18,000 for Futa Jallon and 54,000 for Fouta Djallon. Also the Dj spelling like Djenné etc seems to look more authentic than the other, although I can see the argument that it is a French spelling, like Marrakech is for Marrakesh.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • French is the official language of Guinea, which used to be a French colony. Most sources that mention Futa Jallon will therefore be in French, using the French spelling. But the relevant guideline is WP:ENGLISH. Some English sources use the French spelling, but most do not. JSTOR gives a good sampling of reliable sources and shows Futa Jallon is the most common English form. (JSTOR also gives Fouta Toro 238 and Fouta Tooro 56, both sets mostly French, and Futa Toro 408, mostly English. "Futa" is clearly the common English way of writing this Fulani word) Aymatth2 (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so Fouta Djallon would be the spelling also within Guinea itself. I'd go with what they use locally myself.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ENGLISH guideline says the English form is the one to use. So it is Sweden rather than Sverige, Finland rather than Suomi, Norway rather than Norvège and so on. In this case, the language is not French or English but Fulani. It would have first been written in an Ajami script, but Latin script is standard now. When the French transliterate the name they stick a "D" in front of the "jallon" to make it hard, as opposed to the typical soft form as in "Je n'ai jamais joué à des jeux". The English naturally assume the "j" is hard, as in "James jokes about giraffes". I can't think of any example of the soft "j" in English, or any word in English that starts with "Dj" apart from Djibouti, which should really be spelled جيبوتي. Anyway, what the locals call it does not matter. What the English call it is what counts in the English Wikipedia. Rome not Roma, Lisbon not Lisboa, Glasgow not Glasgae. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that local spelling/orthography should not take precedence. In any event, even if one were looking for a more "authentic" spelling, local/regional usage cuts two ways (though the French is much more widely known than the current Fula spelling). Would also like to amplify the point about harmonization of spelling of the two Futas. (WRT the side point re Djenné/Jenne - also a subject of personal interest since I once lived there too - points similar to those brought up here could be made. That's another discussion, however, possibly with other dimensions.)--A12n (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is not really relevant: English is not very consistent or logical with "foreign" names. The name should just be whatever is used most often in English. This is one of many examples of using French spelling when there is a more common English spelling for a place in a former French colony. I recently came across Ouaddai Empire for Wadai Kingdom and Ouara for Wara, the capital. I don't like it, and it is counter to WP:ENGLISH, but suspect there are thousands of similar cases. Maybe some other editor will launch a campaign to correct them all. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't want to get too hung up on the consistency piece but in an easy case like this (two regions in the same larger region with cultural and historic connections, and pretty much identical Francophone/Anglophone academic publication issues) there would have to be a compelling reason to be inconsistent. I'm also thinking of people new to African studies who have to sort through a lot of unfamiliar names, and how to make that process easier. For Wikipedia to present one of the regions as "Futa" and the other as "Fouta" raises the question why. Elsewhere, such as the difference between Dioula and Diola (in English and local languages Jula and I believe Jola or Joola), a single vowel is something to pay keen attention to. But not here. So go for consistency: either both Futa or both Fouta, and if the former is chosen, then the second term in the title of this article should naturally be spelled Jalon or Jallon.--A12n (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we agree that English nomenclature may be inconsistent, that still doesn't seem like a reason to retain inconsistency in using "Futa" for one of the regions and "Fouta" for the other. In this case I'd strongly contend that consistency is a valid consideration, and that putting it forth as one of the reasons for the move is far from "trying to force consistency," especially since there is not an overwhelming usage one way in one case and the other way in the other. Can't imagine that this would be "counter to Wikipedia philosophy," or that the rule you cite should be as inflexible as you seem to imply. In any event that broader issue is not a discussion for here (I've brought up a different aspect of the broader issue elsewhere and will try to find time to expand on that). For sake of discussion, it might be informative to look at this specific sub-issue another way: how English sources render the Fula word Fuuta in general (taking all references to Futa Toro and Futa Jalon together).--A12n (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "philosophy" is too strong a term, but the general idea is that WP follows the sources, and does not lead. We report what has been said, giving most weight to majority views, and do not introduce our own opinions. Similarly, we use the names that are most often used by English-language sources, avoiding endless debates about the "right" name or "best" name. In this case, the most common English forms are "Futa Toro" and "Futa Jallon", so the question should be academic. But if we fail to get consensus to move this title to English spelling, that does not mean we should move the other articles to French spelling for the sake of consistency. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic spellings are a lot worse though aren't they, lots of possible transliterations, can be a nightmare knowing which is correct. I honestly don't mind either way, but my inkling is always to use what seems to pick up the most hits with and what is used within a country itself. Yes I see your point on Sverige and Lisboa, maybe you are right. But Djenné for instance looks more "authentic" than Jenne, not sure you'll agree.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years ago I wrote a software algorithm to transliterate names from Arabic to English. It can be done, although there were a lot of special cases. But some scholars would have disagreed with my algorithm. Abd Allah or Abdullah? ... To me, names that start with "Dj" or "Oua" just look like French attempts to handle alien sounds in "foreign" names. The English may follow the French spelling, as with Djibouti, or they may have another way of spelling it, as with Algeria. WP:ENGLISH is sensible and consistent with other guidelines: use the most common form in reliable English sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transliterations from Arabic are indeed a complexity but not one that comes into play here. Certainly the script was adapted to Fula and other languages of the region which have some different vowels and consonants. Don't have my books handy to check how Futa Jalon was generally written, and would have to dig for Djenné/Jenne. In any event, the names are not Arabic but local - the origin of Futa Jalon is clear; that of Jenne is a bit of a discussion as it goes way back. The current Latin-based orthographies of Fula and other languages of the region are pretty well standardized based on a system agreed to in 1966, which is generally WYSIWYG in intent. Personally I'm comfortable with Djenné, but also was introduced to the spelling Jenne indirectly via National Geographic, as I recall, which used the same spelling the archeologists Richard & Susan Keech McIntosh used. At the same time (all this just before I went there in the early 1980s) I learned spellings in Fula and Bambara (and Sonrai). If authenticity was the main object, one would seek to use the African language spellings or something close, but let's not get on that tangent - I mention it only as IMO it undercuts the argument for French spelling on the basis of authenticity. The main possible issue with Djenné that is different than Fouta Djallon (French spellings) is that the former is used administratively (in Mali), whereas (in Guinea), Fouta Djallon does not appear to have a formal administrative usage - not sure if that's a consideration for keeping Djenné but it is not a factor in the current discussion on moving the this article to Futa Jal(l)on.--A12n (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Statistics[edit]

The above move proposal was perhaps doomed to fail. It presented two targets (Futa Jallon or Futa Jalon), did not point out the relevant policy and did not give evidence for the prevalent English usage. The question of whether the name should be consistent with other articles also muddied the water. But the closing comment seemed more like a casual opinion than a summary of the discussion. I did some more checking. On Google Books, selecting language=English (meaning mostly English) and scrolling to the bottom of the list, gave:

So "Futa" is the most common form in English, but there is surprising lack of consensus between Djallon versus Jallon versus Jalon. The lists should technically be reviewed to eliminate duplicates, non-English entries, very old books and books such as novels or personal narratives. That will reduce all the counts, but might reduce "Fouta Djallon" count a bit more than others. A spot check of seven "Fouta Djallon" results pages (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35) gave 19 French entries, or 27% French. Eliminating books where the only use is in a quote or citation of a French-language work may also cut down the frequency of "Fouta Djallon". But the shift is not likely to present a dominant form.

A search on Google Scholar gives a different pattern. It does not seem possible to select by language. When I run the queries that follow, most of the earlier results are in English, reflecting Google's view of my preference, but at least half the "Djallon" results are in French, which dominates later results. Results are:

A search in JSTOR gives

With JSTOR, even more of the "Djallon" results were in French than was the case with Scholar. "Futa Jallon" dominates results in the English Scholar and JSTOR papers.

Is there some missing factor that explains this variance? Yes. User:In ictu oculi makes the excellent point that "some 'Futa Jallon' references are to the Imamate of Futa Jallon 1727-1896", which should be excluded. Yes indeed. For most of the life of the imamate no Europeans ventured in. A few rumors would have reached the coastal factories, but the primary sources would all be in Arabic, or perhaps Fulani in an Ajami script. English scholars writing about the imamate would naturally transcribe phonetically as Futa Jallon or Futa Jalon. But modern English books about today's Fouta Djallon region - travel books and books or papers by naturalists, geologists and anthropologists - may well use the spelling that their hosts use. A quick scan of the results sets seems to confirm that distinction. The Scholar and JSTOR results are biased towards history or historical ethnography, and the Books are biased towards modern Guinea.

So my guess is that "Futa Jallon" is and will long remain the standard English spelling for the historical imamate. But "Fouta Djallon" is on its way to becoming the standard English spelling for the region in modern Guinea. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fouta Djallon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fouta Djallon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to intro & re name[edit]

Fuuta Jaloo is actually a Fula-wide geographic name, even if its origin and primary use is in Futa Jalon itself, so I added that after the initial usage. Also pulled the brief discussion of the name into a new section. An alternative way of handling that discussion might be like in Futa Tooro to put it under history (the name reflects the history). --A12n (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fouta_Djallon&oldid=1204622448"