|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
Biography assessment rating comment
Re: His name
It's not a point I'm going to make too big a stink about—since transliteration styles differ—but the poet's name would probably be more accurately rendered as "Ahmed" (as opposed to "Ahmet") insofar as the name is a transliteration from احمد, which uses the letter د ("dal", most accurately rendered as "d"—see the table at the Ottoman Turkish article, for instance).
Common practice may have it as "Ahmet", but common practice isn't necessarily always right, is it? —Saposcat 20:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- On the basis of the standard transcription mentioned above, with د being written as "d"; of the Turkish and English editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Turkish edition of the Larousse encyclopedia; and—from a more popular field—of Ekşi Sözlük, which redirects "ahmet hasim" to "ahmed hasim", I am moving the page to "Ahmed Haşim" (with the appropriate redirect to be made, of course). —Saposcat 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
After 1928 Latin alphebet is used in Turkey, Haşim died in the year 1933; his name was written as Ahmet Haşim while he was alive, and officially "Ahmet Haşim" is used in the documents. Also you can visit the Turkish Ministery of Culture's web site: Ahmet Haşim So that arguing about arabic alphabet is meaningles. --Hattusili 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Another popular dictionary: İTÜ Sözlük(Istanbul Technical University Dictionary) redirects "ahmed hasim" to "ahmet hasim" . Also you can check out the Tukish Wikipedia.--Hattusili 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
If there are no oppositions I will redirect the page to "Ahmet Haşim".--Hattusili 11:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am not in favor of the move. —Saposcat 11:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reasons I am not in favor:
- The Istanbul Technical University dictionary you reference may be entitled "ahmet hasim", but it has more reference to "ahmed" than it does to "ahmet".
- The "documents" you refer to ("officially 'Ahmet Haşim' is used in the documents") are very vague; can you specify exactly which documents you mean?
- Though you make a fair point about him writing after the script change of 1928, I have not been able to ascertain that "Ahmet" rather than "Ahmed" was the name he actually used for those books that he published after that change; for that, one would need to see first edition copies. (Or a signature written in the Latin script, or some other such evidence.)
- The Turkish Ministry of Culture is not the be-all and end-all of debate on the question; academic sources by experts in the field of literature specifically would be preferable, and the problem here is that those sources, unfortunately, do not agree on the name.
- The Turkish Wikipedia is also, need I say it, not always the most reliable of sources (just as the English or any other language's Wikipedia is not—yet, at least).
—Saposcat 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Cover of Frankfurt Seyahatnamesi,second edition date:1933. However I'm not sure if it was published before his death or just after that.
--Hattusili 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Accepted. I was about to ask for a compromise in any case, and my compromise was to be this:
- article to be titled "Ahmet Haşim" (on the grounds that, let's be honest, he's so obscure for English speakers that probably only those who already know Turkish would search for him, and "Ahmet Haşim" is the most common spelling nowadays)
- note made in opening sentence of alternative spelling, thus:
- I still do think that "Ahmed Hâşim" is a fairer representation of the Arabic script with which Hâşim spent the vast majority of his life writing, and it is an accepted spelling of the name.
- If there are no objections to this compromise, I'll make the changes as soon as I get a chance. —Saposcat 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections.--Hattusili 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)