Disputatio:Husainus filius Alis

message: I'm against a pagename that begins with a religious title. We don't currently do that for people of any religion, and I would say it's best to give a clear form of the real name as would have been recognised by contemporaries. (See discussion long ago at Gregorius Turonensis.) In this particular case that's what all other Wikipedias do, and reliable historians that I've read call him Husayn ibn Ali (ibn Abi Talib).
For historical figures we normally adopt the Latin name as it appears in Latin sources. That would give "Alhusainus". Can we find a longer form in Latin? If not, what we would do with a Christian saint or pope, when the Latin name is not distinctive, is to add a discretiva word, non-controversial, in parentheses. Would "Alhusainus" be non-distinctive? Would "(imamus)" be controversial? I'm not sure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, it surely won't do to link to a Google search, as in footnote 2, because we don't know what a Google search will find or not find tomorrow. We have to link to a text, Google Books or elsewhere, that names this man. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vehementer consentio: cut the religious title; it's not part of his name (if it's a fact, save it, but explain it elsewhere). By all means use a Latin form of the name if it's well attested. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:19, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Shiites certainly consider him an imam, but I'm not sure whether Sunnites accept that title for him.

text: ::OK, after some struggle -- there are Latin histories of these events, but I don't find it easy to locate them -- I have found "Alhusainus" as undoubtedly this man's name , and after more struggle, his name with patronymic "Husainus filius Alis chalifae" here, page 60 footnote 51. So, if we want, we can call him "Husainus filius Alis", close to the usual name among European historians, or "Alhusainus filius Alis", close to the pagename on the Arabic Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:44, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Since the Al- is an article, like French (and Samoan!) le, it should be cut, since Latin doesn't use articles! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:06, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
The following wasn't coordinated with the last posts, it overlaps somehow, without really contradicting:

text: ::Concerning the title, if you're suggesting "Alhusainus (imamus)" (because I guess over time we will have others with that name) instead of "Imamus Alhusainus", all fine with me - especially if it's more in line with practice - or even policy - elsewhere (although I must say that I fail to see the importance of that point - and I'm generally pretty allergic to religious stuff - because, after all, the guy was a religious figure, and nobody would even remember him if he hadn't been).

text: ::But okay, the main issue here is translation of forenames. It's generally done in Latin as was already said, and I would say for an obvious grammatical reason (by the way, Latin isn't the only language where that occurs; if you ever take a Latvian class, the first thing that will happen to you is to get your first and last name Latvianised). And here I would have a BIG, BIG issue to say that we only do that with "Christian" or "Jewish" names (as I said, I can be pretty allergic ☺). For a lot of names, even to qualify them as "Christian" and/or "Jewish" will be POV.  And what "objective" reason could we possibly have to single out two religions?  It's one thing to end up with a de facto statistical correlation, because there are simply more names one could call "Christian" or "Jewish" for which Latin forms can be found. But making a general rule out of that would clearly be a step too far.  So, yes, for me it is clear that any modern-day Mohammed, Muhammed or Mehmet or the like should be "Mahometus" (I see that "Mahmoud" is different, and we even have a page).  If we don't do that, then we should stop doing it for any name. (And we don't bother to check whether anyone outside Vicipaedia has already used an existing Latin form for the particular person we are talking about.)

text: ::So, for "حسين" "Alhusainus" is attested, and I don't see a reason not to use it. Truth be told, "Husainus" is attested as well, and both are thus defendable, but if there is more than one form and no clearly established prevailing practice, then we just pick one, don't we?  I don't know much about Arabic, but I suppose the name is used with or without the article according to grammatical context.  And sometimes it is kept in Latin, sometimes it isn't (see "Alcoranus" and "Coranus").  If anyone wants to argue that by default (i.e. where no other prevailing practice exists) we should leave it out, fine with me as well. I only picked "Alhusainus" over "Husainus" on instinct.  Sigur (disputatio) 22:48, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::And to pick up Andrew's suggestion now: If everybody can stomach the genitive "Alis" (I'm a bit surprised...), I will readily settle for "Husainus filius Alis" (also taking into account Iacobus's position on the article). Sigur (disputatio) 22:54, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I'm surprised by the "Alis" too. Elsewhere I have seen an accusative "Alium". However, "Alis" works in Latin (as in sinapi -is) and I think it must be what the author really intended.

text: ::::I do agree with Iacobus and also I think it's preferable to have a name that begins like his usual (secular) name in other languages. This way, anyone typing "Husain ..." into the search box will find him.

text: ::::I originally wrote some general comments about our translating/transferring of forenames. Then I withdrew them as irrelevant (but I think you saw them meanwhile and replied). Sorry. What you say makes good sense to me, but maybe that's for discussion at another time, since we can now choose a fully attested Latin name for this person. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 9 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I think the author had the third declension in mind, but instinctively kept the vowel which is part of the stem, without adding another. That's how he got the accusative "Alim" a bit further on. Which indeed sounds nice. If that's the reflex at the basis of the paradigm, then you can expect the other cases to be identical to the nominative.  Or, more technically, we can accept the attested genitive and accusative and consider the rest indeclinable.

text: :::::On a side note, I see your point concerning the Google links. However, my problem was that it seems obvious that someone would in any case somewhere associate the title "imam" and the name "Hussain" - pointing to such a place doesn't prove anything concerning a usual appellation.  So, I was trying to make a more statistical argument. Anyhow, we don't need it anymore here. Sigur (disputatio) 10:34, 9 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::OK, I should have noted that people do this in a discussion on the talk page and it can be useful there: statistical arguments are sometimes made there, and others can verify them immediately (or get a different result and say so).

text: ::::::However, in footnotes and links on an encyclopedia page, pointing to a search engine search page is no use. It's not a reliable source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 9 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De motu proposito