Jump to content

Talk:Umar

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ch.AhmedRaza23 (talk | contribs) at 07:26, 20 September 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Death: 3 November or 7 November 644?

Which date is correct time of death - 3 November or 7 November 644? Sources? Peltimikko (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date was 26 Dhu al Hijja 23 AH, which was 3 November 644 by the Julian calendar and 6 November 644 by the Gregorian.
Argument for citing a Julian date: this was the calendar in use in Europe in Umar's lifetime. Gregorian did not exist.
Argument for citing a Gregorian date: this is the calendar in use today because it is more accurate in terms of the earth's movement around the sun.Petra MacDonald (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The correct date is 3 November. Abdulsamadbhutto (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

I previously wrote the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah section as follows (italics added):

In 628, Umar was among the approximately 1,400 companions that accompanied Muhammad when he went to Mecca to perform Umrah, an Islamic pilgrimage. However, when the Muslims reached Mecca, the Quraysh of Mecca refused to let the Muslims in the city to perform the pilgrimage. Muhammad explained the purpose of the Muslims' visit to Mecca to the Quraysh, and sent others to talk to the Quraysh as well, but the Muslims were still not allowed to enter Mecca. Muhammad then ordered Umar to enter Mecca to speak to the polytheists, but Umar refused Muhammad's command. Umar instead suggested that Uthman bin Affan enter the city to talk to the polytheists.[1][2][3]

Eventually, the Muslims made a treaty with the Quraysh, known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Before the treaty was made, Muhammad asked his companions to renew their pledge of allegiance to him. Umar was among the approximately 1,400 who did so. Muhammad and Ali then made the treaty with the Quraysh, who were represented by Suhayl bin Amr.[4] However, after the treaty was signed, Umar raised significant protests about it, despite having just renewed his pledge of allegiance to Muhammad. Shia and Sunni sources both state that, after the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Umar stated that he doubted whether Muhammad was the messenger of God and that he doubted the truthfulness of Muhammad.[5][6][7] Umar himself later said that if a hundred men had supported him, then he would have left Islam then.[8][9][10]

This section was edited to contain the following (italics added):

In 628, Umar was among the approximately 1,400 companions that accompanied Muhammad when he went to Mecca to perform Umrah, an Islamic pilgrimage. The Quraysh of Mecca refused to let the Muslims in the city to perform the pilgrimage. The first messenger was handled roughly and threatened with death. Muhammad then asked Umar to enter Mecca to speak to the polytheists, but Umar refused, saying that he had no influential relatives in Mecca who could protect him and Umar suggested that Uthman bin Affan be sent instead.[11][12][13] Eventually, the Muslims made a treaty with the Quraysh, known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. After the treaty was signed, most of the pilgrims objected to Muhammad giving in to the Quraysh on most points, refusing to use the name of Allah, and refusing to call himself the Messenger of God. This led to Omar having doubts about Muhammad's truthfulness and asking Muhammad if he really was the Messenger of God. [14][15][16] Umar later said that if a hundred men had supported him, then he would have left Islam then.[17][18][19]

The new revision is historically inaccurate. It falsely claims that Muhammad refused to use the name of Allah on the treaty and that Muhammad refused to call himself the Messenger of God. Historians state that Muhammad wanted to write that on the treaty, but complied with the Quraishi demands to not have it on the treaty. He did not refuse to put it on the treaty; rather, he agreed with the demands. Further, Umar did not question Muhammad's truthfulness. Muhammad's truthfulness was not in question. This page, however, falsely claims that Umar "doubting Muhammad's truthfulness." Sources and historical facts do not support this. Therefore, this revision of the page is inaccurate and should be reverted to the former version.

Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the revised version is accurate and referenced. I am not the author of this version. I just don’t want to see an edit war occur. I’d like to see what other editors think. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, after reviewing both versions, it appears that it is true that Umar questioned the truthfulness of Muhammad. Sorry about that. However, I still think that it is somewhat misleading to write that Muhammad refused to write those two points on the treaty, when he was actually complying with the Quraishi demands to have those two points not written on the treaty. I would also be interested to know what other editors might think about that. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources which you first introduced, most of the pilgrims objected to Muhammad giving in to the Quraysh on most points, refusing to use the name of Allah, and refusing to call himself the Messenger of God. Singling out just Omar for these criticisms of Muhammed is not presenting a balanced account. Likewise, pointing out Omar's refusal to enter Mecca without mentioning his reasons for the refusal is not giving a balanced account. One of the sources, Rawzy, says "Umar declared later that ever since he had accepted Islam, he had never had such doubts about the truthfulness of Muhammad as he had on the day the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was signed", so summing that up as "This led to Omar having doubts about Muhammad's truthfulness" seems accurate to me. Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said in my second comment, I now realize that the statement "This led to Omar having doubts about Muhammad's truthfulness" is historically accurate. I apologize for my earlier statement about that part. My concern is whether saying "Muhammad giving in to the Quraysh on most points, refusing to use the name of Allah, and refusing to call himself the Messenger of God" is somewhat misleading or not. This makes it sound as though Muhammad was surrendering to the Quraysh, which is not the case. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Razwy, Sayed Ali Asgher. A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims. pp. 179–181.
  2. ^ Muir, Sir William (1877). The Life of Mohammed.
  3. ^ Margoliouth, S. (1931). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam.
  4. ^ Razwy, Sayed Ali Asgher. A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims. pp. 181–183.
  5. ^ Razwy, Sayed Ali Asgher. A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims. pp. 183–186.
  6. ^ Glubb, Sir John. The Great Arab Conquests.
  7. ^ Bodley, R.V.C. The Messenger - the Life of Mohammed.
  8. ^ Razwy, Sayed Ali Asgher. A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims. p. 185.
  9. ^ Andre, Tor. Mohammed - the Man and his Faith.
  10. ^ Rodinson, Maxime. Muhammad.
  11. ^ Razwy, Sayed Ali Asgher. A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims. pp. 179–181.
  12. ^ Muir, Sir William (1877). The Life of Mohammed.
  13. ^ Margoliouth, S. (1931). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam.
  14. ^ Razwy, Sayed Ali Asgher. A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims. pp. 183–186.
  15. ^ Glubb, Sir John. The Great Arab Conquests.
  16. ^ Bodley, R.V.C. The Messenger - the Life of Mohammed.
  17. ^ Razwy, Sayed Ali Asgher. A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims. p. 185.
  18. ^ Andre, Tor. Mohammed - the Man and his Faith.
  19. ^ Rodinson, Maxime. Muhammad.

Attempts to delete sections

As you can likely see from the edit history, User:Wiqi55 has made multiple attempts to delete all information from the page that has a negative view of Umar. This is clearly against Wikipedia's guidelines, as Wiqi55 is deleting relevant and accurate information supported by 38 reference citations. Wiqi55 claims that the sources are not reliable, but it is a stretch to claim that all 38 reference citations are not reliable. (Noteworthy is the fact that the 38 citations include Sahih Muslim and the works of Tabari.) Wiqi55 has also cited WP:BURDEN to justify his mass deletions; however, WP:BURDEN suggests inserting a reference tag if the references are not reliable. Again, however, the idea that all 38 reference citations are not reliable is a stretch. It appears that Wiqi55 is simply trying to remove the page of all content that does not portray Umar in a negative light, which goes against the mission of Wikipedia. I would also like to note that the "Treaty of Hudaybiyya" sub-section was among the material that Wiqi55 deleted; that sub-section has been discussed on this talk page. I am putting this message here to attempt to avoid an edit war and invite other Wikipedia editors to join the discussion. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:BURDEN more carefully. It requires providing a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You cite a Youtube video and a self-published work by Sayed Ali Asgher Razwy, which you have refused to take to WP:RSN. The other sources are copied verbatim from Razwy, who uncritically cites 19th- and early 20th-century orientalist works without assessment. Early orientalist works are considered outdated and often fail to handle the primary sources properly (for example, search wp:rsn's archive for William Muir and read his article). Furthermore, citing a primary source like Sahih Muslim for other than straightforward, descriptive statements of facts is not allowed per WP:PRIMARY. Wiqi(55) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can take Razwy's work to WP:RSN. However, you have also deleted many, many other sources. For example, you deleted information that was supported by Sir William Muir's biography of Muhammad, and that biography is listed on the List of biographies of Muhammad page on Wikipedia. You have also deleted information supported by works of ibn Hisham, who lived two centuries after Muhammad (so not a primary source); ibn Hisham also has his own Wikipedia page. Other information that you deleted was supported by Al-Tabarani, who lived over two centuries after Muhammad and has his own Wikipedia page. Information you deleted was also supported by source(s) from Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, and Wilferd Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad (both the author and the book have their own Wikipedia pages). You also deleted information supported by Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, and Al-Masudi. This information is supported by a variety of sources that span over a thousand years. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources are cited here based on Razwy. Unless you can prove that Razwy is a reliable source, his choice of facts and sources should be removed as well. It is clear that Razwy is a self-published source by al-islam.org. The same goes for Youtube and other websites you're citing. The burden is on you to prove that Razwy is a reliable source for objective facts about Umar. By the way, I created List of biographies of Muhammad. It's a chronological list of all notable biographies regardless of them being unreliable or outdated. Wiqi(55) 23:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is untrue that the sources cited here are based on Razwy. They may describe the same information as Razwy, just as two different history textbooks may describe the same event; however, that does not that they are based on Razwy's work. Many sources, such as ibn Hisham, Al-Tabarani, Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, Wilferd Madelung, William Muir, Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, and Al-Masudi list the events included in this article that you tried to delete. Not all of those sources come from Razwy's work; in fact, only one of those sources that I just listed (William Muir) comes from Razwy's work. To say that they are all inaccurate just because you don't like Razwy's work is a stretch. Again, those sources are not based on Razwy; many of them predate Razwy's work by centuries; they just happen to describe the same event. Multiple sources are cited to avoid situations such as these, where someone tries to question the validity of the content and sources. (And, for the record, al-islam.org lists the World Federation as the publisher of Razwy's work; it's not self-published.) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Razwi's work is online and anyone can see the similarity to your contributions. One example is your reliance on obscure sources such as Tor Andre and R. V. C. Bodley, both found in Razwi. The book was published by "World Federation of Khoja Shi'a Ithnaasheri" a Twelver Shia organization. We should not encourage readers to rely on books published by religious organizations. The same goes for works long considered biased such as William Muir's. Also, why would anyone trust your summary and interpretation of primary sources? You're even calling al-Masudi "A Sunni historian", which shows a lack of basic knowledge and sloppy handling of primary sources. Wiqi(55) 01:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by "only one" is that out of the sources that I listed in my above comment (ibn Hisham, Al-Tabarani, Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, Wilferd Madelung, William Muir, Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, and Al-Masudi), only one of those sources was included in Razwy's work. There are other sources that I did not list due to the sheer amount of supporting sources. (Some of the omitted sources are in Razwy's work, while others are from elsewhere.) We can debate how to describe Al-Masudi's work; however, the fact is that you are clearly generalizing sources. Some of the sources that are referenced that are not from Razwy's work include: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, ibn Hisham, Al-Tabarani, Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, Wilferd Madelung, Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, Al-Masudi, and Al-Ṣafadī. You also claim that anything that's in Razwy's book should not be published in the article. That is an absurd claim as Razwy's book includes many events, such as Umar's conversion to Islam, and removing an event from Wikipedia just because it's in Razwy's book is ridiculous. If content can be supported by other, independent sources, then it can stay. And, as I have listed, there is a significant number of sources supporting the content. There is now a total of almost 50 reference citations supporting content that you tried to delete. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

As Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H) said: •I saw in a dream that I was given a bowl of milk which I drunk and remaining I gave it to Umar. (Source ~ Tirmizi-Shareef) as another place Muhammad declared •If some else Prophet should have been proposed by ALLAH after me, would have been Umar bin Khattab. (Source ~ Tirmizi-Shareef) Syed Ali Shan Jilani (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV and undue detail added by User:Snowsky Mountain

During last one year the above user had been adding either bogus stuff with questionable sources to the article or adding decently sourced stuff which was unnecessary in the article. The article already gave due weight to all important view-points (including eg. shia view of Umar & forcing Ali for allegiance etc). But this user was on transforming this article into a shia blog, with focus only on issues they liked (expanding them by several thousands of bytes), and removing stuff that they didn't like. And there wasn't any consensus on talk page that Snowsky Mountain is referring to in their revert summary. They just exhausted the other users into silence. Also see the report filed at ANI about his editing in general and to this article in particular: Tendentious editing at Umar. As such I am restoring the page to earlier balanced revision. Latter Bot changes and other constructive edits by this and other users are retained. Thanks--AhmadLX (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have concerns about some of the sources used by Snowsky Mountain. In particular, A Shi'ite Encyclopedia and A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims seem to represent religious perspectives and I see no indication that they meet the requirements of WP:RS for being cited for statements of fact. However, Snowsky Mountain is also citing RSs like Madelung's book (whose conclusions are known to be closer to the traditional Shia interpretation than those of some other historians, but who is a leading academic authority on the subject), so I think you'll need to be more specific in contesting their additions. Eperoton (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: If you re-read the post, I have mentioned that some of their sources were unreliable, while some were indeed reliable sources. Point of contention is not of using reliable sources here, point is of POV pushing and undue weight. For example: Look at entire section of Umar#Life_in_Medina. It presents every major incident in one sentence. Snowsky Mountain added three paragraphs to stress that Umar disobeyed Muhammad. Now, the sources in this particular case were mostly unreliable, but even if all of them were reliable, what is point of adding three paragraphs to describe ONE incident in a section which summarily describes 10 YEARS of his stay in Medina in one paragraph? Similarly in section on death of Muhammad, article described major events, Saqifa gathering, Umar denying Muhammad's death etc in one paragraph. Snowsky Mountain added four paragraphs their. Umar#Foundation_of_the_caliphate mentions views of Shia and views of Madelung. It is not that it was missing, and they added for sake of broadness/completeness. They added some five paragraphs explaining from Wikipedia's point of view what Shia think of him. Hope I have made myself clear enough. Ping me if something is still unclear or if you want to discuss further. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: This is the right kind of reasoning to contest material from the standpoint of WP:NPOV. What's missing in your comments at the moment is grounding in RSs. Per NPOV, we need to determine how prominent different viewpoints and subtopics should be in the article based on their treatment in the body of RSs on the topic, and not based on our own views. In this case, we should consult RSs to see how historians present this material to determine whether there are in fact problems from the standpoint of WP:WEIGHT or WP:PROPORTION. Personally, I suspect that your concerns in this case may be justified, but I don't have time to do a review of RSs at the moment, and so I can't support your objection offhand. Eperoton (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, looking more closely at the history of this dispute, it looks like the content has been contested by multiple editors and the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion remains to be fulfilled. Eperoton (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

The death stated is incorrect, hazrat umar ra died on the 1st muharram, he was injured/attempted to be murdered on 26th dhul hijh after few days he died because of the wounds suffered, so correct date is 1st muharram.

This needs to be amended. Saeedrehman786 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

According to many other sources, People confirms that , the martyrdom date of Hazrat Umar Bin Katab. R.z was 1 Muhram. But still more versification needed for the perfect date. 121.52.158.248 (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It's up to you to provide those sources. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

I request to add this in the conversion part:

However, in the narrations of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Hisham there is another incident of Omar's conversion to Islam that[1], one night, Umar was following Muhammad while he was praying in front of the Kaaba. Then hearing the words of the Qur'an reciting by Muhammad, he thought, they are never man-made word, but rather words written by God. He then told Muhammad that Islam had entered his heart.[1][1]

According to Bukhari, before converting to Islam, Umar ibn Khattab used to beat his sister Fatima and brother-in-law Saeed with ropes for converting to Islam. However, after his conversion to Islam, he was in a state of fear and made himself hidden from the public in the begining. When the locals found out that he had converted, they came to beat him and then Al-As ibn Wa'il saved him.[1] 43.245.122.62 (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@AaqibAnjum, Toddy1, Owais Al Qarni, GorgeCustersSabre, M Imtiaz, and Hammad: Please give your comment about adding this in the conversion section:

However, in the narrations of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Hisham there is another account of Omar's conversion to Islam that[1], one night, Umar was following Muhammad while he was praying in front of the Kaaba. Then hearing the words of the Qur'an reciting by Muhammad, he thought, they are never man-made words, but rather thay are words written by God. He then told Muhammad that Islam had entered his heart.[1]

According to Bukhari, before converting to Islam, Umar ibn Khattab used to beat his sister Fatima and brother-in-law Saeed with ropes for converting to Islam. However, after his conversion to Islam, he was in a state of fear and made himself hidden from the public in the begining. When the locals found out that he had converted, they came to beat him and then Al-As ibn Wa'il saved him.[1]" 103.67.159.174 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Death of Hazrat Umar.

The correct date is 26 Zil Hajjah. According to Hijri Calender. The 1 Muharram date is fabricated by some Nasbis. References. 1. Lisan al Mizan by Ibn Hajr Askalani. 2. Haykani. 3. Tareekh al Khulafa by Imam Sayyuti. Page 215 4. Muktasar Seerat ar Rasool by Abdullah bin Muhammad. Page 773 5. Tareekh Tabari. By ibn Jareer Tabari. Volume 3. Page 234 5. Al Farooq by Maulana Shibli Naumani. Page 170. Please edit this article as soon as possible. Abdulsamadbhutto (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original date of feath is 26 zill Hajj please change it Arslmirza (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The orignal Date of death of Hazrat Umer 26 Zill hajjah please correct,its a humble request Syed Tilmeez Hassan Naqvi (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference is Athir, Ibn. Usdul Ghabah Fi Marifat -us- Sahabah (2 ed.). p. 667. He was attacked on 23rd Dhul Hujja, martyred on 26th Dhul Hijja. The Caliph Uthman was selected on 29th Dhul Hajja. talk

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

103.209.52.227 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its is not the Ist muharram of death of hazrat umaer second caliph of islam,actual death date is 26 of zoalhaj

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference is here Athir, Ibn. Usdul Ghabah Fi Marifat -us- Sahabah (2 ed.). p. 667. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umer RA death date.

He was attacked on 26 zilhaj and he embarrassed shahadat on 1st Muhrram. Chamkani (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No this is wrong. He was attacked on 23rd...Martyred after 3 days on 26th Dhul Hijja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umar

Please change the date of death from 1st Muharram 24 AH to 26th Dhul Hijja 23 AH.

The reasons are porivded below with authentic and verified references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The date of death should be changed to 26th Dhul Hijja 23AH. Both at the right section and in the content It was 26th Dhul Hijja earlier but updated on 21st and 23rd of this month by few editors (the editor changed it to 1st Muharram 24 AH), which happened to be incorrect. If we check the history of edits, till 21st of August 2020, it was 26th Dhul Hajja and changed since then. The reference provided is incorrect and the actual correct reference is [2] I hereby, request the change is made incorrectly and should be restored to the information available prior to the 21st August.

In addition to that, the resource[3] says that the Caliph Uthman was assassinated on 18th Dhul Hajja 35 AH and his government stayed for 12 days less than 12 years. 35 - 12 = 23 AH and -12 days means he was selected on 29th Dhul Hajja 23 AH. This clearly means Caliph Umar died on 26th Dhul Hajja 23 AH as Uthman was selected after 3 days of Umar's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I think should be changed:
  • Why it should be changed:
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Najam Nazar (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g al-Bukhari, Imam (2013). Sahih al-Bukhari: The Early Years of Islam. The Other Press. pp. 168–172. ISBN 978-967-5062-98-8.
  2. ^ Athir, Ibn. Usdul Ghabah Fi Marifat -us- Sahabah (2 ed.). p. 667. Retrieved 23 August 2020.
  3. ^ {{cite book |last1=Athir |first1=Ibn |title=Usdul Ghabah Fi Marifat -us- Sahabah |page=667 |edition=2 |url=https://archive.org/details/UsdulGhabahFiMarifat-us-Sahabahr.aByShaykhIbnAthirUrduTranslation |accessdate=23 August 2020},[R. Stephen Humphreys (transl.), The History of al-Tabari: Volume XV. The Crisis of the Early Caliphate, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), pp. 250-251.], https://www.ziaislamic.com/english/BOOK-CMS-ENG/book.php?name=Hadhrat%20Uthman%20-%20Excellence%20and%20eminence&ids=492}
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2020

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Omar has always been the usual English name for this early Islamic leader, per this Ngram analysis. Using Umar in English is the equivalent of saying "Paulos the Apostle" – it may be more literal, but it is not common usage. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Omar page has content, so it must also be proposed to be renamed. This request has been modified to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Don't think the Ngram use here is applicable. Umar/Omar are pretty common names and when I searched them up manually on Google Books, only one or two of the results on the first page referred to this specific individual.
Adding the patronymic "ibn Al-Khattab" or "bin Al-Khattab" alongside the names on Ngram (thus being specific to this individual) seems to show that "Umar" is the more common spelling.
Alivardi (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Changing from my previous stance since Onceinawhile's arguments below seem valid and I don't see any further appropriate reason to oppose the move.
Alivardi (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi: I also ran those two ngrams but excluded them because the numbers were so small. The top of the axis of your first chart is 0.000000130%, whereas my ngram shows 0.00130%. That means the number of books in your charts is just 1/10,000th of the available books. Of course, many of the books under Omar/Umar will be for other uses of the name. So to be sure we would need a bigger sample. I will try some others and revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one [1], comparing Omar+caliph plus Umar+caliph? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alivardi and Khestwol: what do you think of the ngram above? It seems to cover the relevant sources better than the previous attempts, with the top of the axis at 0.000550%. I also put these terms "Omar + caliph" and "Umar + caliph" directly into google books, which brought up books on the right topic - that has given me confidence that the search terms are appropriate and that Omar > Umar. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khestwol, on this one, most references to the caliph in the "Umar" google books search you mentioned actually spell it 'Umar, with the first letter of the name "ع" being translated as ⟨ʿ⟩. That is not the case for the "Omar" search (i.e. there is no 'Omar). The u is technically just the diacritic. That means that there are three spellings out there: Omar, 'Umar, and Umar. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the relevant Wikipedia policy at WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Article titles. ...2. When there are several forms that occur often in English-language reliable sources, and for those that are used most often it is unclear which one outdoes the others in usage, choose among these the one that is closest to the basic transcription. Example: Jinn (not Djinn nor Genies). 3. In all other cases use the basic transcription. Example: Jabir ibn Aflah. In our case, the "basic transcription" is Umar. Khestwol (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khestwol, I don't think that is correct - per Omar (name) "In Arabic, its pronunciation differs based on the spoken varieties of Arabic and consequently in its transcription." In other words, it is pronounced both ways in Arabic. And per my comment just above, Umar is an incorrect transcription – the perfectly correct one in Fusha would probably be 'Umar per Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"O" is only a dialectal pronunciation, it is not the standard Arabic one. In WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Vowels, the vowel ◌ُ is transliterated to "u" (not "o") in both the strict and basic transcriptions. Khestwol (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So in our case, as per the Wikipedia Manual of Style Arabic, the strict transcription is ‘Umar while the basic transcription is Umar. WP:MOSAR states: Arabic words on Wikipedia should be represented by either a common English translation, a common transcription, or a basic transcription in that order of decreasing preference. The strict transliteration should be used only sparingly for etymology. Khestwol (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Khestwol, WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Consonants is explicit that the "ع" should be translated ⟨ʿ⟩. No where does it say that "basic translation" should omit the "ع", or else translate it with only its diacritic. Basic translation per WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Consonants and WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Vowels would be 'Umar. So we either go with technically correct 'Umar, or common name Omar. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:MOSAR#Examples, they used "al-Abbasiyun" (not "al-'Abbasiyun") as the "basic transcription". Also the Consonants table notes regarding ع ('ayn): The apostrophe should only be used if it appears in a common transcription; it is omitted in the initial position. Khestwol (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Khestwol, on your second point, you seem to be reading the wrong table (perhaps the Urdu one) - the Arabic table explicitly does not state that "it is omitted in the initial position" next to "ع", even though it does next to Hamza. On your first point, in the same table they use "Karbala' " as Basic; it seems to me that the rules for Basic are inconsistent and unclear. And finally, and perhaps most importantly in WP:MOSAR#Examples, only one out of the seven examples has the article name following the "Basic" technical transcription, presumably because WP:COMMONNAME trumps the technical. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more examples of Wikipedia articles where the underlying Arabic starts with عُ (ayn with dammah):
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The titles of most related articles (about medieval persons) where the Arabic names start with عُ use simply "U" in the English title. See for example Umar II and Uthman (two of the important caliphs after Umar). Khestwol (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @The Anome: who created all of these caliph articles with these “U” names back in 2002. This has never been discussed, so worth getting views now. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

I request to add this in the conversion part:

However, in the narrations of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Hisham there is another incident of Omar's conversion to Islam that[1], one night, Umar was following Muhammad while he was praying in front of the Kaaba. Then hearing the words of the Qur'an reciting by Muhammad, he thought, they are never man-made word, but rather words written by God. He then told Muhammad that Islam had entered his heart.[1]

According to Bukhari, before converting to Islam, Umar ibn Khattab used to beat his sister Fatima and brother-in-law Saeed with ropes for converting to Islam. However, after his conversion to Islam, he was in a state of fear and made himself hidden from the public in the begining. When the locals found out that he had converted, they came to beat him and then Al-As ibn Wa'il saved him.[1] 116.58.202.24 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as being neither uncontroversial maintenance, nor supported by existing talk page consensus. See WP:EDITXY for information on planning an edit request. To add this information to the article yourself, please create an account - you will be able to edit semi-protected articles (like this one) once your account is autoconfirmed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c al-Bukhari, Imam (2013). Sahih al-Bukhari: The Early Years of Islam. The Other Press. pp. 168–172. ISBN 978-967-5062-98-8.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

The name is spelt UMAR not Omar. This should be changed it is not accurate!! 86.8.202.191 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted in the article it is also spelled Umar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021 (2)

Name is Umar not Omar Fayeahmad (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC) It is noted in the article it is also spelled Umar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021 (2)

"change death date fro muharram to 26th zilhajj" 39.50.38.225 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burial

Isn't it an anachronism to say that Omar was buried at the Green Dome which wasn't built until 600 years later. Tigerboy1966  07:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

I have found some mistakes in the page "Omar" and I wanna correct these mistakes so that the world gets authentic information. Please help me edit those mistakes. Thanks. Hassan Tariq JMS (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (pinging Hassan Tariq JMS) — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hagarism

What would be the due weight to mention that Hagarism says that:

The Qur'an was a product of 8th-century edits of various materials drawn from a variety of Judeo-Christian and Middle-Eastern sources while Muhammad was the herald of Umar "the redeemer", a Judaic messiah

I haven't read the book and it is a minority position, but it may be worthy of mention. --Error (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct spelling of the name

In view of my recent dispute with User:Ishan87 over the correct spelling of the subject’s name, I think the most civilized thing to do would be to bring the issue to the main article’s talk page. I have no strong feelings about whether the page’s title should be Omar or Umar, but I strongly believe that per WP:TITLECON, any associated pages should have a spelling similar to this one; that is why I moved Asim ibn Umar to Asim ibn Omar, for example. It seems that Ishan87 thinks Umar is the correct form of transliteration and argues that "Umar is the name more accepted for Muslims and recognized by Western historians as well." This was discussed back in Sep 2020, but if his view garners enough support in this section, another RM can be opened and the appropriate titles will be determined based on the new consensus. Keivan.fTalk 06:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I thought maybe you would like to chime in since you opened the RM in Sep 2020? Keivan.fTalk 06:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's reslove this issue once in for all. Ishan87 (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishan87, thanks for participating. Yes; let’s solve the issue in a civilized manner. :) Keivan.fTalk 06:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care. Whether this website accepts as the og title, but since Umar is the arabic name and the correct pronunciation, I as well as most Muslims would agree that "Umar" should be the lead title of this page and "Omar" should be the alternative spelling. Ishan87 (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the part where you say most Muslims would agree that "Umar" should be the lead title needs sources. To be fair, and it may come as a surprise, but I think Ishan87 might be right. The majority of sources listed on this page call him Umar or 'Umar, not Omar, so I don’t know why the page was moved in the first place. But I wouldn’t rush into opening a new RM until I here Onceinawhile‘s arguments (if he participates though). Keivan.fTalk 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. My thoughts:

  • Omar is, and has always been, the WP:COMMONNAME for this caliph; any ngrams analysis you look at will confirm this, for example: [2]which compares the usage of Omar (as caliph) to Umar (as caliph)
  • Umar is a botched middle ground. The Arabic name is just three letters, of which the o/u is none of them. The actual first letter is ayn, which is transliterated as an apostrophe. The o/u is the dammah diacritic on the ayn. In short, the “correct” transliteration is ‘Umar.

The relevant policy is WP:TRANSLITERATE, which says: The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, Delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively).

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked this discussion at Talk:Omar (name), and Talk:Omar Khayyam; he is probably the second most well known historical Omar/Umar. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Keivan.f 1st of all, thanx 4 admitting it. The problem isn't just Omar as a synonym of ‘Umar. You cannot just rename his 'issues' from ibn/bint Umar to ibn/bint Omar, it's just wrong bcz ibn/bint is Arabic and "Omar" is English. If you want to change it, you have to call that person- "son/daughter of Omar" everywhere. This is the very reason I was insistent on reverting your edits back on those pages. Ishan87 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, I just noticed this discussion after I opened the RM. I pointed out there why using the + operator in Google Ngrams is a mistake, and that Ngrams actually shows that Umar is more prevalent than Omar when combined with words like al-Khattab or caliph. However, I will point out here that when you combine Omar/Umar with Khayyam, you do get (much) more results for Omar Khayyam than for Umar Khayyam, both in Google Ngrams and in Google Scholar. The reason for this is that while the dominant convention among Arabists is to transliterate ḍamma with "u", the dominant convention among Iranologists is to transliterate with "o" (see, e.g., the transliteration scheme used in Encyclopædia Iranica). Now even though Omar Khayyam had an Arabic name, he wrote in Persian, gets studied by Iranologists, and because of that is mainly known as Omar rather than Umar. On the other hand, because Umar ibn al-Khattab is exclusively studied by Arabists, scholarly convention is to call him Umar. Now it's also right to say that the actual transliteration should be ʿUmar rather than Umar. But the convention at Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic) is to differentiate between 'basic transcription' and 'strict transliteration'. The basic transcription, which is preferred for article titles and for most other uses, leaves out the dots differentiating between s and ṣ (or t and ṭ, h and ḥ, etc.), leaves out the dashes above long vowels (a rather than ā, etc.), and replaces both hamza and ʿayn with ', except at the beginning of a word (where both are left out). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 August 2021

Omar → Umar – On 26 September this page was moved from Umar to Omar (see the discussion). This was based on the Ngram Omar,Umar, which shows higher counts for 'Omar' than for 'Umar'. This was rightly countered in the discussion by the fact that Omar ibn al-Khattab,Umar ibn al-Khattab shows a higher count for the latter (that Omar by itself gets more hits than Umar is undoubtedly related to the popularity of people like Omar Sharif, who alone is probably more often mentioned in the popular press than all historical Umars together). The response to that was that Omar+caliph,Umar+caliph also favors Omar over Umar, but this is a mistake: the + operator here merely makes the sum of how often Omar occurred and how often caliph occurred, not how often they occurred together. This is also why the percentage is so much higher for Omar+caliph,Umar+caliph than for Omar ibn al-Khattab,Umar ibn al-Khattab: the former sums up two already fairly common n-grams, while the latter restricts it to the very specific name of our caliph. The correct comparison would be to look for caliph Omar,caliph Umar, which also favors Umar over Omar.

But what I think much more reliable in any case is Google Scholar, which shows 1470 results for "Omar ibn al-Khattab" and 5560 results for "Umar ibn al-Khattab". Omar caliph gives 17100 results, and Umar caliph 32000. Google Books shows similar results: 11700 for "Omar ibn al-Khattab" and 22800 for "Umar ibn al-Khattab". This is just because in all but one established Arabic transliteration schemes, ḍamma is represented by "u" rather than by "o". This can also be noted in the titles of other articles on early Arabic-Islamic figures with a ḍamma in their name: we have Muhammad not Mohammed, Uthman not Othman, and of course Umar II not Omar II. But WP:TITLECON is just a supplemental argument here: the fact of the matter is that international scholarly convention is to transliterate ḍamma with "u", and that academic English usage largely follows this convention. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Convincing argument by the proposer. It should be added that sources in the field of Islamic Studies rarely use Omar. The use of Omar in sources on other topics, and its influence on Google's statistics, is irrelevant. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I looked at books in my library and they all spell the name Umar. The New Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1 by Chase F. Robinson, The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate by Wilferd Madelung, The History of Al-Tabari Volume 18 translated by by Michael G. Morony, Mu'awiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith by Aisha Bewley, Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan: From Arabia to Empire by Stephen Humphreys.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand the desire, but I don't see Umar overwhelming Omar per WP:COMMONNAME. Scholarly sources are fun, but remember the standard is English works of general reference, not specialized works. Omar still dominates Umar in general usage, ngrams, etc. If you don't like the "+" operator, try the phrases "Caliph Omar" vs "Caliph Umar" (more common than his full name) ngram where Omar still dominates. Remember, the title of this article isn't "Umar ibn al-Khattab", it is merely "Omar". Like the TV show. It should aim for recognizability. Walrasiad (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it funny that in Caliph Omar,Caliph Umar, which is wrong ("caliph" isn't normally capitalized), Omar gets slightly more n-grams than Umar, while in the correct caliph Omar,caliph Umar, Umar gets slightly more n-grams? Of course that's probably just coincidence, but what really counts is that this is an article about Umar ibn al-Khattab, which strongly dominates in n-grams. Moreover, the gist of your argument is mistaken: as an encyclopedia, we don't follow general references and TV shows, but scholarly references and academic publications. The most commonly used name is not determined by general references, but as WP:COMMONNAME says, by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Independent & reliable is what you find in Google Scholar, the results of which speak for themselves. Now if scholarly preference would somehow be thoroughly unrecognizable by the general public, you might have a point, but that's not at all the case here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Apaugasma, you made a good point about the "+" symbol earlier which I had not realized. I used that to address the differences above: Caliph Omar+caliph Omar,Caliph Umar+caliph Umar, which gives Omar about 50% more hits.
      I did the same to compare a few different forms that you mentioned above [3] but I realized that the "-" is actually working as a minus, so the Omar ibn al-Khattab,Umar ibn al-Khattab ngram in your original post is likely showing unintended data. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked at The Economist's website and it showed more articles with the Omar spelling,1 Feb 2020, 26 May 2017, 21 Nov 2016, 18 December 2014, 26 Jan 2002 than the Umar spelling.17 Jan 2011, 29 Dec 2004 I think the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the staff of the magazine do not know how to spell the name (or even whether he was the second or third caliph). Perhaps asking sources that do not know the answer is not as reliable as asking those who do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Onceinawhile: no, to make the hyphen work as a minus, it needs to be surrounded by spaces. Quoting from Google's instructions: Because users often want to search for hyphenated phrases, put spaces on either side of the - sign. According to the same instructions, square brackets will force these composition operators not to work, so just look at this Ngram. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not lower case in English when it is followed by a name (e.g. "King George", not "king George"). It becomes lower case when prefixed by an adjective (e.g. "the British king George"). Anyway, we're not really arguing about a name. We're arguing about an article title. Unless you're proposing to change the article title to "Umar ibn al-Khattab", it is the relative use of the singular term "Omar/Umar" which matters. At least that is what is being proposed in this RM. If you want to change the RM proposal, let us know. Walrasiad (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course what you can do with Ngrams is to add choices together and switch off smoothing:
This suggests that Umar became predominant in British English in 1985, and in American English in 1989, and the "English" category is a compromise. But I am not really sure that Ngrams prove as much as you think.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting angle is looking at how mosques are named in this way - see Mosque of Omar. Both our individual mosque articles, and ngrams suggest that "Mosque of Omar" is the most prevalent by some margin. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad: You're right about titles being upper case when qualifying a subject: I was indeed rather thinking about something like "the Umayyad caliph Umar II" or "the Hanover king George I". I didn't think of "Caliph Umar" as equivalent to "King George", because the caliphal title is not actually used in this way in scholarly sources (I see now that it is in some non-scholarly sources, but that's really due to the ignorance of their authors).
But apart from that, what you're arguing really applies to Omar (name): as a name, Omar is generally more prevalent than Umar in English (as also shown by Ngram). But that's exactly like Jaber, which is also more prevalent in English than Jabir (see the Jaber,Jabir Ngram): does that mean that we should move Jabir ibn Hayyan to Jaber ibn Hayyan? Of course not: Jaber ibn Hayyan is so extremely uncommon that there's not even an Ngram for it! We follow the convention for our actual article subject, which means that we have to look at the occurrences of Umar/Omar which actually refer to Umar ibn al-Khattab. This can be easily done by restricting our searches to "Umar ibn al-Khattab". That has nothing to do with moving the article to "Umar ibn al-Khattab". We have Umar rather than Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Ali rather than Ali ibn Abi Talib for reasons of conciseness. Actually, I personally think that Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ali ibn Abi Talib would make better article titles, but that is a different discussion entirely, and not one that I want to engage in now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia audience is general, not scholarly. Many people will recognize "Caliph Omar", but will have no idea who "Umar ibn al-Khattab" is. Sources that write out the name in its entirety tend to be academic and tend to be more particular about following ALA-LC norms of transliteration, at the expense of popular recognition. I am just asking you to keep that in mind.
Please don't assume writers are ignorant. The objective is to communicate clearly and effectively to an audience. The choices writers make are deliberate. The great plethora of scholars behind the highly popular "Omar (TV series)" were very aware of what they were doing, and the audience they were addressing, when they opted for that spelling. Wikipedia's audience is not different. Walrasiad (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly right that we write for a general audience rather than a scholarly one. But that doesn't mean we should also follow general sources rather than scholarly sources. Writing for a general audience doesn't mean ignoring scholarly sources, it means conveying scholarly sources in such a way that a general audience can understand it. Now this could be an argument against naming the article Umar ibn al-Khattab, although I think that a general audience should be able to grasp the concept that this person had more than just a given name. But to argue that naming the article Umar would make it intolerably hard to follow for a general audience, that's just really a bit much.
One of the things we do here to make things easier on a general audience is to use a 'basic transcription' rather than a 'strict transliteration' (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic). Now note that the 'basic transcription' also prescribes representing the ḍammah with "u". We are doing this all through Wikipedia for Arabic words, except where a specific person's name is commonly transcribed differently (e.g., Mohamed Morsi vs Muhammad). Just because a TV series (probably for very sound commercial reasons) chose Omar over Umar for the caliph doesn't mean that we should too. We follow scholarly sources, that's community consensus. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We follow WP:COMMONNAME in article titles, not scholarly usage. It means a greater weight should be given to usage in general media outlets, like The Economist or TV series, or the name of mosques for that matter, so that it is recognizable to a general audience. "Umar" is not outperforming "Omar" there. It may eventually some day, but not yet.
You're confusing knowing and understanding. As a long time teacher, I can attest you should never assume people know something, but you should also never assume they can't follow an argument. They know "Omar", they don't know "Umar". But the content inside the article can be as scholarly as you want. The argument does not depend on the spelling. But recognizability does. And recognizability is the first of the WP:CRITERIA. Walrasiad (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma, my sense is that if you ask 1,000 people (Muslim and non-Muslim) what is the full name of Ali, you would be lucky if one said exactly "Ali ibn Abi Talib". Of course part of that is because of the odd "son-of-the-father-of" (=brother of) construct. Of course this is different for Omar/Umar given the other meanings of Khattab, in addition to being the name of his father.
To my mind this debate comes down to whether we think this title should follow common usage or scholarly usage, which are clearly different things for an article topic of such high profile.
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: convincing arguments above. "Umar" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the caliph in English in reliable secondary sources. Khestwol (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, it seems to me that Omar remains the most common name for this caliph in general usage. I agree scholarly usage favors Umar, and that Omar may be a historical legacy and driven by the fact that the generic name Omar is multiple times more common than Umar. But my conclusion is that general usage is what our encyclopedia is supposed to follow for article titles. As an aside, our Romanization of Arabic article would benefit from an explanation of the 'o'->'u' historical shift; if anyone has any good sources on this, I would be pleased to add it. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. But now that you mention it, the Romanization shift in the spelling of Omar was from O to ʿU (not U). In scholarly sources, the name is given as ʿUmar not Umar, that is always with that diacritic before the U. This RM proposal is not even reflecting the scholarly spelling correctly. Walrasiad (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Slate's 2001 article: How Do You Spell “Osama”? Doesn't answer this question directly, but does explain why inconsistencies persist even though most official Arabic Romanization systems have converged. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad: please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic. We do not write initial hamzah (ʾ) and ayn (ʿ) and we do transcribe ḍammah by "u" throughout the project. We call it 'basic transcription'. It's rather the title of this article which is inconsistent with established transcription norms at Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a failing of the MOS, but it does not say that we do not write the initial ayn. It only says we omit the initial hamza. I don't know why, but it does. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit hidden away, in the note (no. 1) to the comment on the hamzah: "In initial position [...] ء is not represented in romanization. When medial or final, ء is romanized." In basic transcriptions, the same applies to ‘ayn and consonantal alif. Not transliterating hamzah in initial position is actually a part of all major transliteration schemes. Also applying this to ayn, however, is peculiar to (Wikipedia's) 'basic transcription' (note that while the first part is a quote from ALA-LC, the bit about the ayn is in wikivoice). It's not an official part of the MOS, by the way, but still just a 'proposal'. Nevertheless, while not all of its prescriptions are always followed, most in fact are, including the ones I mentioned. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: there is no such thing as a historical 'o'->'u' shift. Transcription of ḍammah by "u" has always been predominant in English usage generally, and it's only in some specific cases (like the name Omar/Umar) that the 'o' transcription has gotten more popular because some high-profile figures' names (Omar Sharif, Omar Khayyam) happened to be transcribed that way. For the name 'Osama', an important role is obviously played by Osama bin Laden (the Ngram is interesting here), but that of course doesn't mean that we are going to move Usama ibn Zayd to Osama ibn Zayd or Usama ibn Munqidh to Osama ibn Monqidh. Taking the most common form of a name as a reference for all figures with that name, without any regard for how sources actually transcribe these specific figures' names, would lead to countless other such nonsensical moves. I'm sorry, but moving Umar (ibn al-Khattab) to Omar (ibn al-Khattab) just was a mistake. Everyone makes a mistake from time to time, but it's always a good thing when one can also recognize that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma, isn't your position here equivalent with renaming our articles for the four evangelists to: Maththaios, Markos, Loukas and Ionannes? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you would think that, with all this focus on transcription schemes. But note that I'm not saying to always follow basic WP transcription over and above established usage in sources (e.g., I'm not saying Omar Sharif should be Umar Sharif). The rule about using the most common name for article titles is merely to use the name most commonly used in the sources to designate the specific subject of the article. For the authors of the canonical gospels, that would be the anglicized forms Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For the Greek Renaissance scholar, it would be Matthaios Kamariotis; for the hero in the Greek War of Independence, Markos Botsaris; for the Byzantine statesman, Loukas Notaras; for the 19th-century Greek statesman, Ioannis Kapodistrias. Likewise, for the Persian poet and mathematician, it would be Omar Khayyam; for the second Rashidun caliph, it would be Umar.
Nevertheless, there often is a certain consistency, in that Byzantine Greek figures are often referred to in the sources by a certain transcription (the one prevalent in Byzantine studies), while modern Greek figures have their own conventional transcription. Likewise, it's not a coincidence that the early Arab figure is transcribed as 'Umar' and the high medieval Persian polymath as 'Omar': these reflect the conventions of Arabists and Iranologists, respectively. Among early Arabs like Muhammad, Uthman, Umm Kulthum, Abu Hurayra, Mu'awiya, Umar II, etc., etc., 'Omar' is especially capricious, and not at all in line with common usage in the sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, which is a good summary. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma It's not wrong, it's not a mistake. Please stop saying that. It's simply a mode of Romanization, which is a little older than what modern scholars typically use. There are many scholars a thousand times better than you that use Omar. And Omar is certainly more common and recognizable for this Caliph. This has nothing to do with movie actors. This was simply the extant system of Romanization prevailing at the time when this Caliph became better known to English-speaking Western audiences. And that spelling has stuck, and has become the WP:COMMONNAME for this very prominent caliph.
Modern scholars have adopted a different form of Romanization, which renders more precise transliteration ʿUmar, in their scholarly works - works which the general public does not read and is not familiar with. Perhaps in time it may eventually prevail, but it has not done so at present. Caliph Omar continues to be the more common and recognizable name to general audiences. Which is why we have modern TV series about this caliph called simply "Omar" and not "ʿUmar".
Using Umar instead of ʿUmar, however, is technically wrong, as that doesn't really fit anybody's Romanization system. I understand the reason for Wikipedia's policy. But it does make it less correct. If you insist that "scholars use it" as an argument to override common name, then you shouldn't mistranscribe how scholars use it. That defeats the purpose. Walrasiad (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was simply the extant system of Romanization prevailing at the time when this Caliph became better known to English-speaking Western audiences. And that spelling has stuck: There's no evidence at all for any of this. The mere fact that the name Omar is (and has always been) more popular than the name Umar [4] does not warrant such complete and utter speculation. Please either provide new data or stick to the data we already have (GNgrams, GScholar, GBooks).
and has become the WP:COMMONNAME for this very prominent caliph: nope, the WP:COMMONNAME for this caliph (as opposed to other figures named Omar/Umar) is Umar, and has been so since c. 1950 [5]. Please stick to your argument, which has been based on the currency of the name Omar/Umar in general.
All that I've called wrong or mistaken is the argument that we should be looking at the currency of the general name rather than the sources' usage for this specific caliph. It's, in my view, a mistaken interpretation of policy. Feel free to disagree, but please don't misrepresent me as pushing some general transcription system or as 'mistranscribing' just because I follow the established WP transcription practice WP:MOSAR.
So you've seen the TV Series and/or other popular usage of 'Omar', and therefore find 'Omar' to be more recognizable. I understand that. It's not how we normally decide article titles here, but it's a valid point in and by itself. Please just don't go around twisting your original argument and making leaps and bounds to deny valid points made by others. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Romanization of Arabic#Spelling changes over time for discussion of the 'o'->'u' shift. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nominator is spot on, both in his proposal and in his counter arguments. And just my own two cents, having used dozens of scholarly sources over the past few years editing in this general topic area, “Umar” is practically the sole spelling that I have seen for this caliph (except for old sources like the translated works of 19th-century Wellahausen and the like). Same with Umar II. Not sure ngrams give the full picture.
On a related note, regardless of the outcome here, the articles on his sons have been moved to be “consistent” with this article, but each should be treated differently. Same with all other articles with Omar and Umar in the title. Case by case basis. As for the diacritic omission, this is simply per the Manual of Style. Al Ameer (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this article is simply "Omar/Umar", not "Omar/Umar ibn al-Khattab". Unless you're proposing to change your RM to "Umar ibn al-Khattab" (which you are welcome to do), numbers or sources which refer to the entire name are not very relevant. You have to show "Umar" alone is more common than "Omar" alone - which is what your RM is proposing. And ngrams show it clearly isn't. Remember WP:CRITERIA #1 = Recognizability. To general audiences, not specialized historians. That's not necessarily equivalent to what you'll find in specialized texts (particularly not after ALA-LC romanization norms were adopted in modern academia). Specialized texts can be particular, e.g. many of the sources al-Ameer cites above also spell Mecca as "Makka" and Medina as "Madinah", which is clearly not their common name either. If you wish to revise your RM, please do so. At this stage I am commenting only on the RM you proposed. So that's what you have to show. Walrasiad (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When people use the word "Omar", the caliph is only one of many people they may be referring to. There is no clear primary topic for the word "Omar" - it should either redirect to Omar (name) or Omar (disambiguation).-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that only if an article on Umar ibn al-Khattab is also named "Umar ibn al-Khattab", it should look to references that are actually about Umar ibn al-Khattab, is pure poppycock. The article refers 5 times to "Omar ibn al-Khattab": should these then all be changed to "Umar ibn al-Khattab" (given its strong prevalence in the sources) while the title stays "Omar" (because Omar happens to be a popular name)? That's absurd. The argument about Mecca and Medina is also utterly mistaken: the vast majority of the scholarly literature uses Mecca rather than Makka(h) and Medina rather than Madina(h): just look at Google Scholar [15] vs. [16] and [17]. Scholars are not aliens, and the usage of Umar over Omar for this caliph is almost universally adopted by adopted by the great majority of non-specialized scholars, as well as by broad swaths of the general audience: the Ngrams above show its prevalence in everything except fiction, not just in the scholarly literature, let alone the most specialized literature. It would be nothing short of a travesty if out of all reference works, Wikipedia would be the only one to refer to this caliph as Omar rather than Umar, because of ... bad reasoning and a TV series! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "almost universally adopted" by non-specialists, then ngrams must be broken. Should we notify google? As far Mecca/Medina, I was referring to sources cited by al-Ameer above. He's not the only one who has books in his library. ;)
As to the rest, your RM proposed changing title "Omar" to "Umar" simply. As if "Caliph Umar" alone was more recognizable than "Caliph Omar". You did not propose "Umar ibn al-Khattab". If that is really what you really want to propose, then say so and adjust the RM accordingly. Otherwise, we're talking at cross-purposes, and you're not bringing evidence for your RM proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"almost universally adopted" is contradicted by evidence. Ngrams suggest that in the context of the 2nd caliph a prevalence of 57-58% Umar to 42-43% Omar in English over the last 40 years, except in English fiction where it is 32.5% Umar to 67.5% Omar. Ngrams do not provide a split between specialist and non-specialist authors.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost universally adopted" was meant to apply to the non-specialized scholars in Scholar [18] [19] rather than to the Ngrams, but I confess it was a hyperbole; let's make it "adopted by the great majority of non-specialized scholars". For the Ngrams/general audience, it's just "broad swaths". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Here's a simple ngram for you comparing all three straight (Caliph Omar, Caliph Umar, Umar ibn al-Khattab). While the latter has certainly grown recently, I don't see its dominance. Draw whatever conclusions you wish. For my part, I will continue to go with the hoi polloi (the readers of Wiki) and opt for the more recognizable common name. Communication, not pedantry, is paramount. Walrasiad (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what else is paramount? Competency. Multiple correct Ngrams which disprove your point have been posted above, yet you insist on coming up with a gamed Ngram which supports your point but fails to compare relevant terms (no "caliph Umar"/"caliph Omar", no "Omar ibn al-Khattab"). I just checked 13 of the sources named above (from Blankinship 1994 to Madelung 1997) which you claim use Makka(h) and Madina(h), and 11 out of 13 of them in fact use the common transcriptions "Mecca" and "Medina" (the exceptions are Blankinship 1994 and Kennedy 2001). You have !voted, you had a decent argument there, and no one is asking you to change your opinion, but please stop bludgeoning this RM with bad data and bad reasoning. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 1) I do not see how the evidence is in favor of "Omar". The article had been named Umar since it was created two decades ago and was changed with little input by the community. The WP:Commonname guideline advises that "it [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). The RS invariably use "Umar", with or without diacritics (which users rarely use in their search inputs anyway), so that alone should decide in favor of "Umar".
2) As demonstrated by Toddy, the Ngrams appear to prefer Umar over Omar when discussing this caliph (when omitting fictional works) or Umar ibn al-Khattab over Omar ibn al-Khattab.
3) "Omar" is the most common spelling of the name in general, but not for this caliph. There is arguably an equal or greater chance that a reader searching for "Omar" is looking for others with the name (Sharif, Khayyam, etc) than a reader searching for "Umar", who is most likely intending to read about this caliph. There is no "Umar Sharif" or "Umar Khayyam" after all.
4) For consistency's sake, although this is not a huge point, this article will be the outlier in our articles about the prophet, caliphs and other early Islamic or Arab figures; it should be Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu'awiya, Abd al-Malik... not Mohamed, Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman/Othman, Muawiyah, Abdul Malik and so on. Why Uqba ibn Nafi, and not Okba ben Nafi? The latter are the spellings in amateur sources, i.e. works of fiction, tour guides, news articles perhaps, and the like. Going this route, I feel, will become a slippery slope and we will not be doing readers, especially those interested in history and religion, any favors here by going the amateurish route. Al Ameer (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Except for Shaban, all of the sources I happened to list above (and there are many, many more) use "Mecca" and "Medina", not "Makka[h]" or "Madina[h]", but all use Umar, not Omar (oddly enough E. of Islam uses al-Madina and Makka only for the main entries, but Mecca and Medina everywhere else, and Umar for the main entry and all other entries where he is mentioned). Al Ameer (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are excellent points! Just note that Blankinship 1994 and Kennedy 2001 do use Makka(h)/Madina(h). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missed Blankinship for some reason, and Kennedy 1986 and Kennedy 2007 use Medina, odd that he or the editor went the other way for Armies (2001). Al Ameer (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not odd in the least. Over the last couple of decades, it has become fashionable for academics to abandon common English spellings and resort to native spellings, no matter how esoteric - so scholarly books end up with Ferrante, Fillipos, Heinrich, Pyotr, Joao, Zygmunt, Chinggis, etc. for well-known rulers which common readers can no longer recognize. They write for each other, not for general audiences. It is a regrettable tendency. Walrasiad (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... just after we pointed out to you that 11 out of 13 heavily specialized sources use the common English variant ... From Donner 2010, p. xviii: whenever possible I have given most place-names in familiar English forms: thus, Mecca (not Makka), Damascus (not Dimashq), and so on. Apart from wp:cheesy, this is becoming wp:pointy too. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a general comment. I'd be thankful if you'd tone down the rudeness. It's not really necessary here. Walrasiad (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the fence here, as a number of the arguments made against my starting position have been compelling. I still feel a little uncertain about the whole Mosque of Omar thing – it is meaningful that for some reason the number of references to “Mosque of Umar” in the literature is minuscule. You can see the impact of adding this to the NGrams above. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Oncenawhile: The "Mosque of Omar" and the various "Omari" mosques are indeed the most common spelling for these mosques as far as I could tell, and no one could convincingly argue that those articles ought to be renamed "of Umar" or "Umari". But that is a separate matter from the article about this caliph (even though the mosques are mostly named after him), where the preponderance of the RS use the "U" with or without diacritics. Al Ameer (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the most general search "Mosque of Omar" has vastly more n-grams than "Mosque of Umar" [20], so adding that to the mix would tend to equalize things. But note that when the search is restricted to fiction, "Mosque of Umar" doesn't even have one n-gram! [21] I'd say it's likely that the boost in "Mosque of Omar" hits is partly due to its use in some popular works of fiction. This would tend to confirm the earlier analysis that "Omar" only prevails over "Umar" in fiction. But the most important reason why there's more "Mosque of Omar" than "Mosque of Umar" is probably because "Mosque of Omar" was a common name for the Dome of the Rock in the 19th century (see, e.g., the many 19th-century results here), before transcription with 'u' became dominant. The phrase "Mosque of Omar" is in itself antiquated and imprecise (referring to a bunch of mosques today), and should probably not be used to evaluate how common Umar/Omar is for this caliph in a contemporary context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
: @Apausgama, Not trying to game anything. I gave you the simplest ngram possible, so you can decide what RM you're actually proposing, rather than piling on terms beyond the actual RM proposal. If you want to propose "Umar ibn al-Khattab", then go ahead and propose it. If you're not proposing that, then don't add it in. Make up your mind what you're proposing. Walrasiad (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I will suggest to move it to Umer ibn. Khattab Ch.AhmedRaza23 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Umar&oldid=1045373502"