Talk:Edo Fimmen

Edo Fimmen

Generally referred to as "Edo" ... there should probably be a redirect? or should this page be moved to a "Edo Fimmen" page? --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of the value of either of these courses of action. It is hi full name which the International Institute of Social History uses, and I do not see why we should break away from this. However, the diminutive "Edo" as an abbrieviation of Eduard unfortunately may not be as familiar to the readership of the English language wickipedia as you and I might care for, so the comment does fulfill a useful role.Harrypotter (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your response is not very clear; are you against any redirect? Edo Fimmen is much more widely known and used than Eduard Fimmen, look at the results of a Google search for "Edo Fimmen" versus "Eduard Fimmen" (8170:313) ...a Google Books search is even more telling 670:2. It's the IISG/IISH Dutch page which states Edo is the nickname and most of the archive's English pages refer to him as Edo. My view would be a move to Edo Fimmen, with the Eduard Fimmen page having a redirect. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Books

The following appeared in the books section:

Translations into Dutch: From German

• De kunst van het arbeiden, Carl Hilty, (1903)
• Geluk, Carl Hilty, (1903)

From English:

• Nyria , Mrs. Campbell Pread, (1904);

From the French:

• Wat volwassen meisjes wel eens mogen weten, Ch. Burlureaux, (1905)

The style is a little confusing: it would be simpler to indicate the language the book was written and follow the book with its translated languages (in most cases Fimmen's work was translated into multiple languages). I also can't find easy references to these works and think they need to be better sourced. Also not clear what the reference to Carl Hilty is...as translator? --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can see how you succumbed to confusion.It was Fimmen who made the works available in Dutch. This has now been remedied.Harrypotter (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this style is still confusing and there are no references. It's not clear that listing these works is actually important in terms of the texts themselves (ie was the translation of these specific texts significant, or was Fimmen just doing a job? If it's the latter, it is the linguistic ability which is noteworthy in encyclopaedic terms, not the texts). It might be adequate just to note that during this period Fimmen earned income as a translator of works into Dutch during a period of unemployment, referencing the section from the IISG/IISH page (which seems to be almost all that this article is at present, unfortunately).--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)