Disputatio:Historia Arabiae Sauditae

Pagina huic coniuncta e conversione paginae “History of Saudi Arabia” sitūs en.wikipedia.org orta est.
Auctoribus illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.

Català

Aquesta pàgina es basa en una traducció de „History of Saudi Arabia“ a en.wikipedia.org. Podeu trobar la llista d'editors aquí.

Deutsch

Die angegliederte Seite basiert ursprünglich auf einer Übersetzung von „History of Saudi Arabia“ aus en.wikipedia.org. Eine Liste der Autoren ist hier verfügbar.

English language

English

The attached page originated as a translation from the page “History of Saudi Arabia” on the site en.wikipedia.org.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.

Esperanto

La apuda paĝo origine baziĝas sur traduko de “History of Saudi Arabia” el en.wikipedia.org. Listo de la ĝentilaj artikolverkintoj haveblas ĉi tie.

Dubsig[fontem recensere]

There is a source for the genitive "Aaronis Rascidae". I can't make any sense of the first declension if it isn't meant to be a dynasty name analogous to the Abbasidae or Omayadae. Then we could use it here (""Caliphatus Rascidarum" - and for the name Rasheed, I've found proper second-declension versions). On the other hand, Harun wasn't from that dynasty, which would seem to invalidate my interpretation (but perhaps the writer didn't have such a clear idea). Don't know what to think... Sigur (disputatio) 16:47, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word must be intended as declined like the dynasty names, but not actually a dynasty name (since it's well known that Rashid in this man's case is not a dynasty name). But maybe it doesn't matter very much, because you also have found a source for "Aaron Rascidus", which is easier to handle. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:03, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Iacobus' dubsig was about the real Rashidun dynasty (he wrote [[caliphatus Rashidun]]{{dubsig}}). Sigur (disputatio) 18:53, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! No help then. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:03, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia says we're talking about: "The Rashidun Caliphate (Arabic: اَلْخِلَافَةُ ٱلرَّاشِدَةُ‎, al-Khilāfah ar-Rāšidah) was the first of the four major caliphates established after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It was ruled by the first four successive caliphs (successors) of Muhammad after his death in 632 CE (AH 11). These caliphs are collectively known in Sunni Islam as the Rashidun, or "Rightly Guided" caliphs (اَلْخُلَفَاءُ ٱلرَّاشِدُونَ al-Khulafāʾ ar-Rāšidūn). This term is not widely used in Shia Islam as Shia Muslims do not consider the rule of the first three caliphs as legitimate." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:08, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The note "this term is not widely used in Shia Islam", which I have encountered once or twice before in verifying names on pages about Islamic subjects, should always make us pause. We should in principle try to find a form that is neutral as between Shia and Sunni (or any other sects in any other religion). But, having paused, we have to go with serious sources, and it seems to me that "Rashidun Caliphate" is the term that serious sources use. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too paused, and for the same reason, but then forged on. The clock was ticking, and adding one of the myriads a day isn't always easy! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:12, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop! And, as I say, I think you made the right call. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:56, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saudiana?[fontem recensere]

I found no sources for "Saudianus -a -um" when I looked, but good sources for "Arabia Saudita" (see footnotes there). So, shouldn't we move to Historia Arabiae Sauditae? Or are there sources I missed? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:16, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hic? (The Latin is bizarre: a machine translation? Hardly authoritative!) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:50, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective does pop up here and here as well; so it seems justifiable. That being said, the form with a "t" is more common in Romance languages, so I would tend towards that. Sigur (disputatio) 23:10, 14 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an attestation of Arabia Saudiana from no less than Reijo Pitkäranta. Surely that one is legitimate! ¶ The form with Arabia Saudita is pure Spanish. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:45, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not just Spanish. Portuguese as well, and French, Occitan, Catalan, Italian, Romanian... Sigur (disputatio) 07:42, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Latin, from the Vatican and from Ephemeris. However, thanks for the attestations from Pitkäranta (Finland again) and Latinitas (Vatican again), which make "Saudiana" an equally well-sourced alternative. I'll add that to the Arabia Saudita page.

I tend to slight suspicion of -anus -a -um adjectives in new pagenames, owing to a suspicion that in some cases Iacobus has made them up. Forgive me this unworthy thought! Quite wrong in this case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's rarely made up (at least not by a Wikipedian) as far as I have seen until now, but my suspicion is that it's sometimes biased towards English-sounding forms. But as you said, in this case, both forms are equally well-sourced. Sigur (disputatio) 10:43, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]