Talk:Omar Khayyam/Archive 2

Language
What language did Kayyam write his mathematical works in? What languages are the manuscripts in? 128.114.133.143 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Death date discrepancy
The text and infobox gives 1131 as his death year; the death category is 1123; LC has is dates as 1048-1123; what is the source for the 1131 death date?--FeanorStar7 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wondered that too. The most common year is 1122, so I made it consistent.  --  JackofOz (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Heliocentric Theory

 * It is said that...

says the text! Annoying! I believe it is natural and normal than an ephemerid and calendar constructor reacts against the awkward geocentric system and proposes a heliocentric one. But tale allegations are not encyclopedic, and if such a clause is to be in the article, it should be in a folklore section, or some citation is needed to attest the allegation. Copernicus did not just propose a heliocentric system: he elaborated it and created a method which he carefully documented in a book that was published. Said: Rursus (☻) 12:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric theory over 1000 years before Khayyam. Article modified to reflect this fact. - 99.249.183.39 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

my recent edit
I removed a big part: I will add some of them back to the article. But before that, I would like to know how to sort them in a better way. What should be kept and what should not be kept. Any help?

Historical Fiction

 * Omar Khayyam appears as major character in the novel Samarkand by Amin Maalouf.
 * Omar's life is dramatized in the 1957 film Omar Khayyam starring Cornel Wilde, Debra Paget, Raymond Massey, Michael Rennie, and John Derek.
 * Most recently, his life was dramatized by the Iranian-American director Kayvan Mashayekh in The Keeper: The Legend of Omar Khayyam released in independent theaters June 2005.
 * Khayyam's soul has a pivotal role in a well-versed 1997 novel in Persian, titled "خيام و آن دروغ دلاويز" (English "Khayyam and That Delightful Fabrication") and authored by Hooshang Mo'eenzadeh (هوشنگ معين‌زاده). The story's protagonist, "Haj Rajab (حاج رجب)", meets -among many other personalities- Khayyam's soul in the afterworld who recites his materialistic poems in public and mocks divine power even though he is presumably residing in God's paradise, leading Haj Rajab to strongly question fundamentals of his pious past earthly life.

Cultural references

 * In Kurt Vonnegut's novel Breakfast of Champions, Dwayne Hoover remembers the "moving finger writes" quatrain, which he was forced to memorize in high school.
 * Che Guevara's son, the Cuban writer and poet Omar Pérez López, was named in honor of Khayyam and his work.
 * Salman Rushdie's novel Shame makes reference to Omar Khayyam with a character by the same name.
 * Khayyám is quoted in Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech, Why I oppose the war in Vietnam. "It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home America. Omar Khayyám is right 'The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on.'"
 * Khayyám is quoted at the end of Clarence Darrow's A Plea for Mercy at the trial of Leopold and Loeb. "So I be written in the Book of Love/ I do not care about that Book above/ Erase my name or write it as you will/ So I be written in the Book of Love."
 * Omar Khayyám appears as a comedic sidekick in the film Son of Sinbad. He is portrayed by Vincent Price and parts of his poems are distributed throughout his dialogue.
 * He is also a topic of discussion between two characters in Jack London's novel The Sea-Wolf.
 * In a series of "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoons, the story line revolves around the "Ruby Yacht of Omar Khayyam" - a jewelled toy boat.
 * One of the two founders of Discordianism, Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, named himself after Omar Khayyam.
 * There are several references to Khayyam and his Rubaiyat in works of famous Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges
 * The 1953 musical Kismet (musical) features a character based on Omar Khayyám.
 * In the 1958 movie 'I Want to Live', two inmates Barbara and Rita use the poetic line, 'I came like water and like wind I go', from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Barbara (Susan Hayward), is shown reading the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and she uses the poetic line as a password to meet a secret alibi who is an undercover police officer unbeknownst to her.
 * A sparkling wine made in India, sometimes referred to as Indian Champagne is called Omar Khayyam.
 * According to "Bird Lives" by Ross Russell, Charlie Parker would often answer questions in interviews with a verse from the Rubaiyat in order to confuse the interviewer.
 * In Merideth Wilson's musical play, "The Music Man", the wife of the mayor, Eulalie Mackecknie Shinn, vocally objects to the lurid nature of Omar Khayyam's poetry to the town librarian, Marian Paroo. She shows her displeasure by saying, "this Rubaiyat of Omar Khayya-ya-ya-ya-I am appalled!"
 * The song "The Road to Morocco" by Johnny Burke (lyricist) and Jimmy Van Heusen, performed in the 1942 film Road to Morocco by Bing Crosby and Bob Hope, includes the line, "Like a volume of Omar Khayyam that you buy in the department store at Christmastime for your cousin Julia, we're Morocco bound".
 * In the Robert A. Heinlein book, "Double Star", Omar the Tentmaker is a low quality tailor selling ground outfits to spaceman. "I could see that this big boned fellow had been dressed by Omar the tentmaker-..."
 * In his dissent to Hill v. Colo., 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) Antonin Scalia criticizes the majority for finding the law in question is 'narrowly tailored.' Scalia states the "narrow tailoring must refer not to the standards of Versace, but to those of Omar the tentmaker."
 * "Omar the tentmaker" has become urban slang for clothing for overweight people. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Omar-the-tent-maker)
 * In Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray, Lord Henry refers to Omar Khayyam as the king of hedonism.
 * The character of Marcia calls Horace Tarbox, her husband, "Omar Khayyam" when she first meets him, in F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story Head and Shoulders (story).
 * In the speech given by President Bill Clinton to reporters in the White House rose garden on Friday, December 11, 1998, at 4:11 p.m., just minutes before the House Judiciary Committee voted to pass its first article of impeachment, he said: "An old and dear friend of mine recently sent me the wisdom of a poet who wrote, 'The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on. Nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.'" The uncredited poet is Omar Khayyam. (http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/clinton-rose-garden.htm)

Views on Islam
This is largely just taken from a single source, and while it might illuminate the position of that one source, there is a large amount of dispute over what his religious positions were —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he was critical of religion in general (Islam was the dominant religion of the region, but I highly doubt he had good views of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.), although he certainly did believe in God. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This really needs to be better balanced, its all his anti-reliigousness, when clearly he shows deep respect for both Islam and its various religious laws in many of his works. Two sources largely comprise this overinflated section, Hitchens (an aggressive atheist) and a work written in 1914, which probably suffers from heavy orientalism, someone with deeper and more nuanced knowledge of Khayyam should really take it up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.230.33 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * as a matter of fact, the only thing that he did not respect was islam.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree. He makes his disregard for religion clear and makes fun of the mosques many times in his poems. And the guys are arguing if he's a "Sunni or Shia" down there. --Dimitrakopulos (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence, don't just make claims.--72.74.114.109 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence is one thing. In this case, though, specifics is more important. I'm not saying that what being said isn't true. Maybe; maybe not. But specifics, exactly what was said, would be good to see here. Gingermint (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

suggestion to remove islamic templates at the bottom
can someone explain to me why the article has been given the template "islamic mathematics"? if there is going to be a template there should be a "mathematicians from persia". whatever comes to persia is given islamic adjective. as far as i can see, the term islamic mathematics, gives mathematics an adjective. this is very much open to serious objection. i would like to remove those template and create two other ones named "mathematicians from persia", "astronomers from persia", "philosophers from persia" and so on. what others think?--Xashaiar (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you notice, lots of secular writing in the West includes terms like Islamic Empire, Islamic culture, and lots of things that imply Islam exceeds the traditional separation of religious and political institutions (even in early Christian history), which is true. We even have an article on Wikipedia, Mathematics in medieval Islam. But this is an issue I want brought up as well. I notice lots of times Persian scholar being used, is that correct to emphasize their ethnicity, since their contribution had very little to do with it? Wouldn't scholar just suffice? Look at Avicenna for example. -- Enzuru 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * first of all let me clarify that i will not go for "Persian mathematics". secondly, the same implicit consequences driven from a term like "Persian scholar" that is worrying you, exists in a term like "islamic mathematics" and is unpleasant to me and even more worrying.
 * Islamic mathematics is a phrase that we have many sources for in English literature. If we had sources for Persian mathematics, we could have built an article on it. -- Enzuru 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

science has never been a religious matter. however, for obvious reasons and for the sake of completeness the ethnicity has to be mentioned as otherwise it can be misused. your suggestion that avvecina's contribution had little to do with being persian: well it might be, but it had certainly much to do with being iranian as the love for science, literature, ... is still alive among them.
 * Every ethnic group loves science, literature, and so forth, some groups have even contributed less to these fields than Persians, some have contributed more than Persians. What you are saying is nationalist, it isn't encyclopediac, it's not something we can prove using sources. We have to simply do what the sources tell us to do, and I don't mean biased sources, I mean secular academia. -- Enzuru 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * as i said, for the sake of completeness. what i say has nothing to do with nationalism. the appearance of Gauss, Riemann, .. had much to do with being German, but had, most likely as i pretend to believe, nothing to do with having german blood. we misunderstand each other. another example, is the rise of russian mathematics. which, according to many, had lot to do with being in soviet union. what i am trying to say is that the school and system is the most important ingrediant of any scientific community. yes, i do believe that the system and school of science in persia has been the most important force for the rise of scientists in persia.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

since iranian people have been in persia, i would say a term like "mathematicians from persia" has at least some informative significance (indicates for example a guide to possible ethnicity, language, religion, etc). the term "islamic" refers only to islam. for example khayam: the only acceptable religious background of khayam seems to be "he was born to a muslim parents". and here is my ultimate reason to object any islamic adjective: if islam had any significant role in developement of science among iranians, can you tell me why there is no single historically important scientist from saudi arabia (which i used to call "Jesm-e islam")?--Xashaiar (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to argue that Islam was significant in the development of Iranians, it is you who is arguing this. However, I agree that Khayyam shouldn't be placed under Islam technically, we have to see what sources say. "Mathematics from Persia" is not something we can source very well, but "Mathematics in Medieval Islam" is talked about in the West quite often. As far as Islam having a strong development role (which isn't the point, I am not here to argue against nationalist or religious propaganda), most of Persia's most important literary and philosophical output has been after Islam, similiarly, most of India's development in architecture and culture was during and after the Mughal Empire. Persia was a great power and had much literature and philosophy before Islam, but in general, it's output increased after Islam. You are correct, Arabs have made very few advances, in fact, I believe over 70% of the Arabic language was developed by Persians, not Arabs, but this doesn't mean Islam didn't contribute to anything. But once again, I don't care to argue against religious (Muslim) or nationalist (Iranian) propaganda, I just want to make sure everything is sourced according to Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Enzuru 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no i am not arguing this either. my main argument is that "islamic mathematics" does not make any sense. however "mathematics in the islamic world" yes makes sense. in this case, my argument goes further and says, since persian existed as a brand in culture, schools, ... it would be,a fortiori, better justified to use the term "mathematics in persia". this will give immediate term persian mathematicians. just as off-topic: there is great deal of terms used by people, e.g. philosophy of science, for which the main group concerened, e.g. scientists, are not comfortable with. i was hoping encyclopaedia iranica will change some of these, but that did not happen due to trivial reasons.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We should try to make sure "Mathematics of Medieval Islam" is used more often then, if you have time we should discuss how we should go about this. -- Enzuru 03:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * yes i do have time. the categories that one can put at the end are very good. maybe we should check certain names from these categories Category:Persian mathematicians, Category:Persian astronomers, and etcetera. and make sure that "Mathematics of Medieval Islam" is used as a template.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's with the caption under his picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.117.250 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A: Relevant categories.
Currently there is a large list of categories:


 * 1) Category:Omar Khayyám
 * 2) Category:Persian poets
 * 3) Category:Persian astronomers
 * 4) Category:Persian mathematicians
 * 5) Category:Persian philosophers
 * 6) Category:Persian spiritual writers
 * 7) Category:Iranian scientists
 * 8) Category:Islamic astronomy
 * 9) Category:Islamic mathematics
 * 10) Category:People from Neyshabur
 * 11) Category:11th-century mathematicians
 * 12) Category:12th-century mathematicians
 * 13) Category:Medieval writers
 * 14) Category:1048 births
 * 15) Category:1122 deaths

I think some of these are not that interesting. 11-15 are certainly uninteresting and can be used in the talk page. --Xashaiar (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What would make you think 11-15 are appropriate for the talk page? I don't think I've ever seen that before, and certainly it's not a standard WP practice... --Gwern (contribs) 19:32 20 April 2009 (GMT)
 * I never said they are appropriate for the talk page! But I also want to find solution for those who like to see categories. Categories have always been problem for me.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please advise where I can find a museum of Omar Khayyam? The rumor says that there is one in the US. I have original manuscript of rubayees of Omar Khayyam and need to have it tested for authenticity. Can anyone advise me where to I should direct the efforts please? Yopur help will be appreciated very much. Dr. Ravshanbek Dalimov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdalimov (talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Heliocentric theory
This material is unreferenced and it has nothing to do with heliocentrism itself. Saying that the Erath rotates doesn´t mean it revolves around the Sun. I´ll delete that.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Something messed up the relationship between Fitgerald and other translation
The order of materials in Persian, English (Fitgerald), and "more literal" appears to be messed up.


 * خيام اگر ز باده مستى خوش باش

با ماه رخى اگر نشستى خوش باش: چون عاقبت كار جهان نيستى است: انگار كه نيستى، چو هستى خوش باش:


 * which translates in FitzGerald's work as:


 * And if the Wine you drink, the Lip you press,
 * End in the Nothing all Things end in — Yes —
 * Then fancy while Thou art, Thou art but what
 * Thou shalt be — Nothing — Thou shalt not be less.

The literal translation (http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page1.htm) shows that the correct Persian text is matched to Fitgerald's translation. But the "more literal translation" has nothing to do with the Persian. In the Persian, Khayam speaks to himself about enjoying an intoxicated state, enjoying being seated with a lover, but that in the end everybody dies, so it would be well to anticipate one's inevitable future state while in this world and in so doing, rejoice. (See: http://members.iinet.net.au/~ploke/Omar/compare.html number 102)

It would appear that the above quoted text should be matched to something that appears pretty far down the page:


 * If with wine you are drunk be happy,
 * If seated with a moon-faced (beautiful), be happy,
 * Since the end purpose of the universe is nothing-ness;
 * Hence picture your nothing-ness, then while you are, be happy! # 140

The intervening material is from Fitzgerald's "Overture," an earlier part. What is it doing here?

The first Persian text appears to be from 25. The second Persian text is from 140. A Saki, cup-bearer is addressed. The poets says that people can lose awareness, sleep, in their self-esteem. Have a drink, because their words are only wind.

The part about:
 * Now the New Year reviving old Desires,
 * The thoughtful Soul to Solitude retires,
 * Where the White Hand Of Moses on the Bough
 * Puts out, and Jesus from the Ground suspires

is not something more literal. It is Fitzgerald, 4.

It seems that at some point this page has been rather drastically affected by copy-and-paste edits.


 * I've made changes according to the above critique. P0M (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One other thing, which I can't resolve:

آنانكه ز پيش رفته‌اند اى ساقى

درخاك غرور خفته‌اند اى ساقى رو باده خور و حقيقت از من بشنو باد است هرآنچه گفته‌اند اى ساقى

which FitzGerald has boldly interpreted as:

Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss’d Of the Two Worlds so learnedly — are thrust Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn Are scatter’d, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.

A literal translation, in an ironic echo of "all is vanity", could read:

Those who have gone forth[= died], thou cup-bearer, Have fallen upon the dust of pride [= self-content or self esteem], thou cup-bearer, Drink wine and hear from me the truth: (Hot) air [= wind] is all that they have said, thou cup-bearer.


 * I can't read the Persian, so I don't know what it says. The "literal translation," however, is for a stanza identified as #140 at (http://members.iinet.net.au/~ploke/Omar/compare.html). With three different paraphrases that obviously refer to the same Persian text to look at, it is clear that 140 makes no mention of saints, sages, or other worthies. It makes no mention of two worlds. It seems to indicate that some people, now dead, were too full of themselves and the only result was that they produced wind.


 * It would be useful for someone knowing Persian to give an independent translation of the text quoted in the Wikipedia article. There really is not any plausible equivalent in FitzGerald for the three paraphrases of 140.P0M (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried Google translate and got something which included an incomprehensible word. I went line by line to avoid it possibly drawing on the Wikipedia article somehow.

Those who have gone before us, O Saki, soiled by dirt/soil of Khfthand! I feed you with wine that you might hear the truth from me. Everything they have told us is wind.

So it looks like the Persian and the "literal translation" correspond. What they have to do with FitzGerald should be immaterial. The question should be what relevance, if any, they have to Khyyam's own philosophy. Why not scrub the FitzGerald translation and use one of the others at iinet?P0M (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Year length
The line citing his measurement of the year length as "365.24219858156 days" cannot be right--it has too many significant figures. I searched for the number in google books advanced search of all books in the twentieth century before 1990 and saw that not a single book contained this number. It is evidently an "internet legend" because one can find plenty of web sites that quote it. In fact no book has a number like this till 365.242198; nothing approaching the precision of the cited number.DonSiano (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's sometimes said that Khayyam proposed a leap-year rule of eight leap-years in every 33 years, and (((8*366)+(25*365))/33)=365.2424... with infinite decimal digits. AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, the frap.c program reveals that 365.24219858156 must have been calculated as 1,029,983 days in 2,820 years. You can find these numbers 1,029,983 and 2,820 in the 2001 book Calendrical calculations by Edward M. Reingold and Nachum Dershowitz, and in the source code of a lot of Persian calendar date converter programs, according to Google... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of stronger Sufi references
Have elevated the Views on Religion to be a full section, previously a sub-section in Poetry, because while poetry was the method he chose to express many of his thoughts on the subject, the content is greater than the medium. Consequently added a paragraph on Omar Khayyam's contribution to Sufi thought and teaching, the authority being a modern Naqshbandi Sufi. Referenced Sufism in the general list of his interests at the top of the article as well as the Philosopher Infobox. Rmg08057 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted change by 76.103.37.32 at 17:29, 9 March 2011. This appears to be a deletion of the Sufi reference in two locations with no rationale given. This also affected the wording of the "physician" entry, where the person removed the word "Islam". Interesting that the only two edits are to remove Islamic references (many people seeing Sufi reference as Islamic). Rmg08057 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted changes by Xashaiar on 6 April 2011. The problem for Xashaiar is the statement that Omar Khayyam is a Sufi. This is the 2nd time Xashaiar has done this. The basis of Xashaiar's claim is twofold... that it is "false" (no referencess provided to support this contention) and then that it is "not generally accepted in academic circles" (again with no references). Within the article itself we have numerous references supporting the inclusion of the term Sufi. Firstly there are two academic references; from SH Nasr, Professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University; second from a noted early 20th century specialist in mysticism CHA Bjerregaard. In addition in what is for some probably a more useful and real confirmation over and above pure academic support, there is a statement from Omar himself in which he clearly aligns himself with the Sufis and statements from a modern Sufi acknowledging Omar's importance, contribution and standing as a Sufi. All these occur within the article itself, only one inserted by this editor. Rmg08057 (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please have a look at Sufism and Mysticism. This is OR from your side that these are related so much that without clarification the tern sufi could be used in lead. This is a violation of wp:lead (that the first sentence should be neutral and neutral means things appear in proportion to the prominence), Now Nasr says "On the other end of the spectrum, he is seen as a mystical Sufi poet influenced by platonic traditions". This is enough for deleting the tern sufi, because "khayyam is a sufi in eyes of people in one side of spectrum of views" and without clarification this is not "neutral enough" for the lead (see wp:npov and undue and wp:weight). If you really want him sufi in the lead we should say something "neutral" like "he is claimed as non-believer and also as a sufi muslim too". Xashaiar (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I agree that the inclusion of "Sufi" is not neutral at this time as there is one person that objects, you, and we should have a go at clearing that up. So on that basis it would need to be left out in the very short term. Further, I don't think the very low level "dispute" as to Omar's religious/mystical bent is worthy of inclusion on the lead... its what he is that is important/relevant, not the fact that other's can't agree. Prior to this most recent entry, your previous removal of the word with accompanying comments did not warrant removal of Sufi as they reflected a patently personal opinion. In this instance you have upped the ante which seems reasonable so, no Sufi from me, solely based on a need to clarify your position. I note also that citations/references weren't provided in my original edit because the four I would have provided were all in the same article and I didn't want to clutter up the lead. Now, turning to your other points:
 * 1. That this is OR from me: this is a new interpretation of OR when there are four pieces of evidence in the very entry being edited. I understand OR can come from a synthesis of materials where new conclusions are drawn, but since the proposition put forward was the exact proposition the source material put forward, I fail to see OR.
 * 2. I see you have selectively used SH Nasr material to support your point that claim of Sufi is "extreme"... even though the material (at that point) is merely describing people's opinion about Omar. Proper treatment requires you to deal with the continuation of the same material where a reference is made to SHN giving an example where Omar identified himself as a Sufi. Unless you are saying that SHN's interpretation of the material is wrong, then if the subject of the article, Omar, identified himself as a Sufi, it might be seen as reasonable to describe him as a Sufi. Really, unless you deal with this, your position is untenable and the inclusion of Sufi needs to be restored. Rmg08057 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * your point 2: A. No matter what omar says (what sentence of Khayyam do you refer to?), he is a primary source and can not be used. B: Sufi is a term as described in Sufism. C: Sanai, which is apparently a sufi, describes khayyam-type people of neyshabur in a (disgusting) manner that one wonders if in the eyes of a "much sufi-er" person like Sanai, khayyam was even a deserving-respect-person let alone muslim. D: any kind of Khayyam affiliation with religion is highly disputed and for the sake of neutrality we can not mention only one side of dispute in the lead. E: Khayyam was probably like some other poets/thinkers and had a tendency toward AAin-e Mehr and therefore a potential (though very "rend") "Iranian Aref" (like Sohrewardi, and may be Hafiz). F: then there is the old question of "aghl wa eshgh" that Khayyam has shown more of "aghl" than other... Overall I think without proper discussion of these things, calling him a sufi wont be accurate, necessary, nor helpful. Xashaiar (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points (sorry, you caught me at home from work today):
 * A. Primary source - is a fair point, though not fatal, if its being used alone, but for this overall discussion its really being referenced to show he was actively Sufi and not simply receiving the name through the analysis of others.
 * B. A reasonable interpretation would see Omar as fitting all of the descriptions of a Sufi contained in the lead in that article.
 * C. There is so much which is subjective and opinionated in this that it has no relevance other than I would agree Sana'i is one of the greats.
 * D. I see the common academic problem which struggles with really understanding the difference between the exoteric and esoteric. Its the difference between knowledge and understanding might help you.
 * E: More difficult to make sense here, I think you are getting at a point that possibly Omar was an extreme type like Hallaj or Surahwardi. If this is your point, then there is no doubt he pushed the boundaries and had to pay a price - the present-day problems of some people with his material are no doubt part of that price.
 * F: Ahh, the old question of "aghl wa eshgh"... sorry my Persian is a bit rough, does this mean "mad for love" with an unkind comment regarding Omar? Shame on you...
 * Overall, we are not going to get agreement are we, I see a deep-seated, entrenched position here clothed in academe. So no Sufi in the lead from me for the mo. Rmg08057 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Calendar reform
Regarding citation needed: In the Introduction to "The Ruba'iyat of Omar Khayyam" (Peter Avery and John Heath-Stubs, Penguin Books, 1981, p.31) Peter Avery refers to 'Khayyam...among the astronomers summoned by the Saljuq Sultan Jalalu'd-Din Malikshah...to revise the calendar and construct an observatory'. 94.144.63.5 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

Robertson (1914)
Dear Wikipedia,

Robertson (1914) accounts on Omar Khayyam hare highly controversial and contradictory to other sources during that time including the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Robertson (1914) is known to have assumed that "Astrology was a part of Islam".

Robertson (1914)'s sources are therefore very inaccurate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.74.146 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

no way he was a sufi
"The verse: "Enjoy wine and women and don't be afraid, Allah has compassion," suggests that he was not an atheist." except it doesnt. He was cleary being sarcastic. he is pointing the paradox of a compassionate God. If god is "All-compassionate" as muslims claim ,then he has to fogive all sins. so he is mocking his preachers and showing the inconsistency of their view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.177.121.81 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No paradox was ever even pointed out. Also, Muslim theologians already do believe that he forgives all sins (one of Allah's 99 names is Al-Ghafir (" the all forgiving")), so there is no inconsistency at all. Omar wasn't even referring to the issue sin and forgiveness in that poem to begin with. Don't project your own misunderstandings into the words of others. The notion of Omar Khayyam as a secular free thinker has been long since shown to be a fabrication of orientalist scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.85.156 (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He is Sunni
He is a sunni. Think about it, his name is Omar. Shias never name their kids Omar. Omar is a Caliph in Sunni Islam. Shias do not accept this. So please remove this Shia propaganda. He is a Sunni!

Not to mention that the sources that say he is Shia are NOT AT ALL reliable. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.110.176 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, he's Sunni because he's named Omar. That's an excellent rock-solid proof of what he was. I congratulate you. --Gwern (contribs) 19:03 31 July 2008 (GMT)
 * It is interesting to me that he was Shī‘a simply because Iran was essentially Sunnī with a Nizārī minority until the Safavids imported half of Lebanon's scholars... was he Ismā‘īlī? Twelver? I'm curious and it might be useful to note in the article if you have the cites available to you.  Naahid بنت الغلان  Click to talk 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -I second that, its a well-known fact that shiite have much criticism for caliph omar, I know that its highly unlikely that any shia will name his son omar. another good point is that Iran used to be predominantly sunni before the Safavids. as for sources, is it not typical of some sources to associate regions with religious trends, hence resulting in a very flawed conception of these trends - especially orientalist sources that study the subject through books and have no familiarity with first-hand sources ?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavids#Shia_Islam_as_the_state_religion


 * -also it is pretty clear that the region he came from was a 'sunni region' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neyshābūr#Culture as vindicated by the list of famous persons coming from there.


 * -Also the Seljug empire was sunni, as he was born there, i dont think anyone can seriously suggest he was a shiite.


 * -that said, Khayyam clearly had a dislike of theology, and it is evident in his poetry that he tended to side with everything mystical, so it is safe to assume that he was a Sufi, furthermore, his contemporary Al-Ghazali, who was born into the same Seljug empire, was perhaps the greatest Sunni/Sufi theologian of all times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.320.166 (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, find a good source, because at the moment we have two sources that say otherwise, and even if they're wrong, we can't use original research and synthesis of information from known facts to overturn a flat statement in an independent paper source. --Slashme (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Khayyam was clearly Sunni just like most Muslim Persians before the Safavid dynasty. He was born hundreds of years before the Safavids took over and established Shiaism. Muslims in Iran after the Islamic conquest, were all Sunnis and they remained Sunnis for many years, especially the region where Khayyam comes from (a lot of them still belong to Ahl-Sunnah) Like mentioned earlier, even his name is an indicator, Shiites consider Omar ibn al-Khattab to be a traitor, murder and evil and they never use the name Omar or Osman etc (name of caliphs) for their children. I also can’t judge from two supposed sources, as you did not provide a link. Besides we don’t know if those literatures are credible. Were they published by IRI? I think it’s best if we just say he was a “Muslim”. --119.224.59.155 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Before the Safavids, a large proportion of Persians were Ismaili Shi'is, so claiming that the Shi'ah didn't arrive until the Safavids isn't really helpful.  Ogress  smash!  02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * who is the User:Grinevitski who made the edit 1? (ip? or somebody else?). 1. I do not care, but for those who care the source says "Rahım R. Malik in his work mentions that Khayyam’s father may have been a convert, presumably from the Zoroastrian religion to Sunni Islam, and so Khayyam was a first generation Muslim. Malik also claims that because Khayyam was referred to by so many as “Abu’l-Fath” (father of Fath) he must have had a son by that name. Neither of these two claims have been substantiated by other biographers of Khayyam." 2. So WP:UNDUE?--Xashaiar (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, The majority of Persians of that time followed the mainstream Islam. You are right that there was an increasing population of Isma'ili Shias in pre-Safavid Iran. Again those Shias were mainly Isma’ili not Twelvers. There is evidence that Khayyam often disagreed and mocked the Ismaili philosophy. He couldn’t have been an Ismaili. I believe Khayyam’s parents were nominally Muslim Sunnis, he himself was somehow agnostic, but that’s not to say he totally didn’t believe in Islam, he actually made pilgrimage to Mecca in his later years. --Grinevitski (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The views on his supposed shi'ism are biased I read the original sources of the books quoted here and it only insinuates that Omar Khayyam was hidding his supposed shi'ism from his sunni sponsor Nizam Al Mulk. Such claim has no basis. When you try to edit this wikipedia either they block you or delete your hard work.Hima78 (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should remove the claim that he was a Shi'i from the infobox. The article text already contains two other sources with one claiming that he was an agnostic, and another a Sufi. It is also possible to find equally non-specialist sources that claim he was a Sunni based on his first name (Umar). In other words, we should avoid presenting disputed information as truth. Wiqi( 55 ) 14:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The discussion hinged on WP:COMMONNAME, but neither side presented anything more than a few cherrypicked examples, which are not evidence of common usage. If anyone wants to consider repeating this proposal in the future, please take the time to collect and present evidence in support of the proposal. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Omar Khayyám → Omar Khayyam – WP:COMMONNAME. In English, his name is, by far, spelled without the accent mark. Ե րևանցի  talk  22:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC) See Google Ngram:
 * Oppose - because this isn't a spelling issue and because WP:COMMONNAME is not relevant to MOS considerations related to fonts, which are decided by project editors aiming for consistency and encyclopedic quality in articles. In this case the á is there for a reason, to indicate stress and long vowel on [xæjˈjɒːm] (which is why you will also see Khayaam with two aa). Omar Khayyam with no indication of pronunciation already redirects here, so the only point of this RM would be to hide the long vowel from readers. To what end, to assist in mispronunciation?
 * Also oppose since quality sources do use the long vowel cover of Oxford Worlds Classics on Amazon.com. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "this isn't a spelling issue" Is it just your arbitrary decision? What is it based on? "Quality sources" is a subjective opinion. I can list hundreds of reliable published sources without the accent mark: Encyclopædia Britannica, Cornell University, Encyclopædia Iranica In fact, your entire argument is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, because ngram clearly shows that in English published source his name is, by far, not spelled with the accent mark. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The nomination is soundly based on policy. The objection above, on opinion. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 October 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested -- "A hair divides what is false and true"-Omar Khayyám Mike Cline (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Omar Khayyám → Omar Khayyam – WP:COMMONNAME, as per Google Ngram. In Google Books, "Omar Khayyám" gets only about 25,200 results, while "Omar Khayyam" gets about 998,000 results. The proposed title "Omar Khayyam" is about 400 times more common in reliable sources. Khestwol (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. The relevant manuals of style WP:MOSAR and WP:MOS-PE do not accept using the letter "á" when transliterating titles. Instead, the standard transliteration given for the long vowel alif is "a", which supports the move to "Omar Khayyam". Besides, most English-language books use the spelling "Omar Khayyam". Khestwol (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A correct transcription would be "Khayyām". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed title is not incorrect; "Omar Khayyam" is the standard and most common transcription. Khestwol (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the methodology in the move proposal is flawed. We don't do searches like that for fonts. Omar Khayyām would probably be more suitable to a serious encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Other articles on medieval scientists don't use diacritics in their titles either. For example, Jabir ibn Hayyan (not Jābir ibn Hayyān), Al-Biruni (not Al-Bīrūnī), Al-Idrisi, Ibn al-Nafis, etc. So a more suitable title in our case is "Omar Khayyam" without diacritics just as his name is commonly found in English books. Khestwol (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The Wikipedia policy on article titles actually address this exact issue - see WP:UE. The article title should follow English-language usage. When the anglicized title is the one predominately used by reliable English language sources, then that is the one that should be used. The move is also supported by WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, specifically Reconinzability and Naturalness. Naolae (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per "Naturalness" in WP:COMMONNAME, besides that Khayyám with an accent aigu is simply incorrect - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What's next? A request to move Emily Brontë to Emily Bronte? This is anti-intellectualism without any discernible reason. —Ruud 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because Emily Brontë is not a transliteration, but natively written that way. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And neither is Omar Khayyám considered a transliteration anymore. It is now a name that one can find in common English dictionaries, like René Descartes or Gerhard Schröder (see below). The transliteration in ALA-LC would be ʿUmar Khayyām. —Ruud 16:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet being written as Koran in the major dictionaries, did not prevent the article "Quran" from staying that way. It appeared that people preferred the most commonly used name over what is written in dictionaries. PS, searching for "Omar Khayyam" -"Omar Khayyám" and "Omar Khayyám" -"Omar Khayyam" on Google News (hardly OCR) results in 2230 hits for Khayyam and 185 hits for Khayyám. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, all dictionaries list "Koran", "Quran" and "Qur'an" as valid spellings. None lists "Omar Khayyám" without an acute accent. —Ruud 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose All major English dictionaries, including
 * Meriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omar%20khayyám),
 * the Collins English Dictionary (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/omar-khayyám),
 * Oxford Dictionaries Online (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Omar-Khayyám),
 * the American Heritage Dictionary (https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Omar+Khayyám), and
 * the Chambers Biographical Dictionary (http://www.chambers.co.uk/search.php?xref=PN17155&title=biog)
 * list this entry with an acute accent, so this very likely is the common name. I'm not sure of the origin of this transliteration, but it could have been Edward FitzGerald's Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. At least Morris' 1870s illuminated manuscript (thumbnail on the right) already used this transliteration, as does the 2010 Oxford World's Classics edition of FitzGerald . —Ruud 21:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How convenient to not mention Britannica this time. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It lists both "Khayyám" and "Khayyam" twice in the main text. If one included the bibliography then the balance shifts more clearly towards the version with the acute accent (6 &times; Khayyám, 4 &times; Khayyam and 1 &times; Khayyām.)
 * Subject-specific encyclopedia's like the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Science, and Technology in Islam list this entry under "Khayyām, ʿUmar" (probably for consistency with the other entries), but Omar Khayyám is more common. —Ruud 16:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to note that every time "Khayyám" is mentioned there, it is done so as part of the invariable book title Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. "Khayyam" is the preferred version in running text. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: What matters here is what is more common in English-language reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME). As per Google Books "Omar Khayyam" is more common than "Omar Khayyám" by a very big margin (400:1). I do not think Wikipedia can use such a rarely found spelling in an article title, when a move to the common spelling "Omar Khayyam" can be easily made. Khestwol (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See Google searches and numbers for why this 400:1 claim is bullshit. When you enter a search query you don't want to make a distinction between "a" and "á", so Google makes no effort to tell them apart (rather, it will try to treat them a being the same.) There is no substitute for actually looking at the reliable sources, no matter how lazy, incompetent or clueless you are. —Ruud 17:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet the Google Books search results are different by a ratio of 400:1? If Google Books search did not tell "a" and "á" apart, then surely both would have given the same number of results, hence the difference in the number of results implies it is telling them apart. Khestwol (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Google ngrams is based on OCR'ed scans of books. During the OCR process diacritics are nearly always lost (see Google Ngram Viewer). The Google Books search will only give five, respectively seven pages of results and not all of the results listed would pass as reliable sources. How Google manages to come up with these "about x results" is anyone's guess, but in either case these numbers are completely meaningless. Google searches are bullshit. —Ruud 17:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The spelling with acute is an antiquated attempt to indicate the long vowel. We do not transliterate Perso-Arabic names in this fashion anywhere on Wikipedia. Its survival is probably a remnant of the brief "cult of Khayyam" in Orientalism 1880-1910. It turns out that a large chunk of Khayyam's notability, even in Iran, is the direct result of FitzGerald, so this definitely has some notability, but we should still distinguish the biography of the medieval scholar from the modern fad. --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Astrology/Astronomy
User:Telementor: What is known about his contribution as an astronomer is that he reformed the calendar in 1079. His work involved empirical astronomy and mathematics concerning the motion of heavenly bodies. It was not connected with astrology or anything that gave it a fictitious value. He is referred to as an astronomer in almost all credible reference sources (Cambridge History of Iran, Encyclopaedia Iranica etc).


 * dab: The lead already says he was an astronomer, and he was. He is today known for his contributions to astronomy. At the time, there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology, but his fame at the time was due to his horoscopic astrology: This is what astronomical knowledge was used for at the time. Source: Ali Dasht, In Search of Omar Khayyam (2012), 45ff. goes into this in great detail. It is not known if the historical Omar was a poet. It is very well known that his great and primary fame during his lifetime was as an astrologer.


 * I agree that astronomy and astrology were at first treated together. But based on that we must call all pre-modern astronomers "astronomer-astrologers" and I fully expect the same level of scrutiny for all astronomer-astrologers of the Islamic era who are currently just called "astronomers". I think we need to establish if the individual believed in the validity of astrology. Except for that brief passage, we don't know to what extent Khayyam was involved with astrology and divination, if at all. What is definitely known of his activities when he entered the service of Malik-Shah I are the observatory and the calendar which are in the purely intellectual sphere. Interestingly, his calendar was more accurate than the Gregorian even though it predated it by ~500 years. I emphasize that all major sources label him as an astronomer. Also, you have omitted "poet" from the opening line. Telementor  (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can remove the "astronomer-astrologer" from the lead. I accept it is an awkward phrasing, and I was just looking for a way to link both Astronomy in the medieval Islamic world and Astrology in medieval Islam as early on as possible. But we can easily do this more explicitly. Both are eminently respectable topics, and I am generally unhappy that "astrology" and "astronomy" tend to be treated as separate topics in our medieval-era articles.
 * However, it apperas that Omar was exceptionally famous for his horoscopy. By contrast, he does not appear to have contributed anything of note to the progress of astronomy proper. (of course the observatory was built with the intended application of achieving more accurate horoscopes). So I would argue that in this case, the subject is rather more notable as an astrologer than as an astronomer. Again, I do not object to just calling him "astronomer" in the lead as this, in the medieval context, already implies astrology.
 * The "poet" was removed on purpose. As the article body explains in detail, we know Omar was a mathematician and astronomer/-loger. There are serious doubts as to the authenticity of the tradition of his writing poetry. It would be very misleading to call him "poet" on the same footing as "mathematician/astronomer". --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a general consensus that Khayyam (the scholar) is the author of the Rubaiyat (e.g. Iranica). It is a small minority of scholars that propagate the view that the poet and the scientist were different personalities. According to Wine of Wisodom: “there is an overwhelming number of [medeival] biographers who have identified Khayyam the astronomer-mathematician as the one who was the author of at least some of the Rubaiyat”. Indeed, Qifti which has already been quoted in the article is one of those biographers. For this reason, I disagree with the following line being in the lede: There is a tradition of attributing poetry to Omar Khayyam. While it is true that many quatrains have been falsely attributed, I think the sentence gives the impression that there is a huge controversy over Khayyam having been a poet.


 * I haven't seen an original source that describes his activities as an astrologer in any considerable detail (and correct me if I am wrong). Khayyam’s importance in astronomy is not as a theorist. In fact, no progress was made in that area until Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. But he did make a calendar that outperformed Pope Gregory's despite being 500 years earlier. So I am inclined to think that his outlook was scientific. Telementor  (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think that this is correct. The relevant experts, i.e. specialists on Persian poetry, do not have such a "consensus". The "consensus" you speak of is merely part of popular culture, created by the success of Edward FitzGerald's poetry. I am not going to start a big fuss over this, but I find it a little bit disappoinging if you are going to push this in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. The "tradition of attributing poetry" was intended to refer precisely to the early tradition of Qifti et al. This was indeed a big deal, or "controversy", in the early to mid 20th century, with people going to the trouble of creating elaborate forgeries just to establish that the tradition was genuine. Now, it appears, most experts are just resigned to agnosticism. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. My point was that there is a consensus that Khayyam (the scholar) also wrote some poetry. There are sources older than Qifti, for example Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani who was born while Khayyam was still alive. In Kharidat al-qasr (1181) he explicitly identifies Khayyam as both a poet and an astronomer/mathematician and cites one of his Arabic poems. Hamdallah Mustawfi (Tarikh-i guzida, 1339) gives a similar account. Fakhr al-Din Razi (born ~18 years after Khayyam's death) does the same and quotes one of his Persian quatrains (the one that corresponds to FitzGerald's quatrain LXII). Other contemporary figures (Shahrazuri, Shams, Daya, and Attar) were already mentioned in the article so we need not pontificate further on this issue.
 * Nizami Aruzi (author of Chahār Maqāla and Khayyam's pupil) explicitly says he did not have a belief in astrology. There is also the story that Khayyam was reluctantly forced to predict the whether for Sultan Sanjar who wished to go hunting. He was criticized for not doing the job well. Finally, George Saliba (which has been cited) mentions that even before Khayyam's lifetime, ‘ilm al nujūm was already subdivided into astronomy and astrology. In the context of Khayyam's biographies, translating this to mean 'astrology' is "biasing the text if not constituting a wholly misleading translation." Telementor  (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Name
User:Telementor: His full name would simply have been Abu’l Fath Omar ibn Ibrahim Khayyām (ابوالفتح عمر بن ابراهیم خیام). This is as it appears in Arabic sources. In Persian, it is usually just Omar Khayyam (Omar the Tent-maker), which is also the most widely used name in English according to the GBooks ngraph.


 * Ghiyāth al-Dīn 'The Patron of Faith' was not a part of his name; it's just an honorary title (like Hakim 'wise man' which he is often called).
 * In his native Persian his last name is simply Khayyam, not al-Khayyami. Also, Persian language does not use the Arabic definite article Al-.
 * Abu’l Fath and ibn Ibrahim are simply patronymic adjectives.

So, I suggest we use the conventional name Omar Khayyam (عمر خیام) in the lede and perhaps restore the section that explained the meaning of the full chain of names.


 * The page is already called "Omar Khayyam", so I don't know what you want. Yes, this is clearly the most common form of the name. The extended Arabic name is cited after Selin (2013), p. 479. I realize Ghiyāth al-Dīn is "just a title". Well, yes. And "Al-Naysābūrī" is just a geographic nisba. It's still part of the full name as it appears in the source cited. I completely agreed that the parts of the name can be explained, this is best done in a footnote. The most interesting one is "Abu’l Fath". Please cite evidence that this is "just a patronymic" (or an 'uyonymic', i.e. naming him after his "son") -- in Arabic tradition, the "Abu" names can refer to literal sons, but in many cases they refer to hypothetical sons, and in the case of "Abu l'Fath", meaning "father of victory", it may very well be a given name or epithet. I think the problem with the Persian form of the name is that there are no contemporary sources in Persian. All texts attributed to Omar, and all texts discussing his biography, are written in Arabic. Obviously he was Persian, and obviously there are modern Persian texts about him, but if you want to cite the Persian form of his name, you would have to qualify its source. At least give us the century in which the Persian form of his name is attested. Otherwise we will have to say that the "Contemporary Persian" form of his name is عمر خیام which is true, but which is also pretty weak, I am sure there are at least late medieval or early modern Persian texts about him. --dab (𒁳) 07:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently his essay A treatise on the demonstrations of the problems of algebra was also published under the name Abu’l Fath Omar ibn Ibrahim Khayyām. This is the actual name chain. His honorary/nisba titles such as Hujjat al-Haqq 'The Evidence of Truth', Ghiyāth al-Dīn 'The Patron of Faith', Hakim 'wise man', and Nishapuri should not be in the opening. Wine of Wisdom is a much more accurate reference on this matter than the current one (and this is corroborated by many other references). Telementor  (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The edition you link to has Al-Khayyami, not Khayyam. This is neither here nor there as this is just the form of the name chosen for the modern Arabic edition, I was asking about the forms of his name in manuscript tradition. I do not have access to "Wine of Wisdom", if you can cite a specific passage with page number I will be happy to let it stand. As far as I am concerned, Ghiyāth al-Dīn doesn't need to be in the "full name", you are right. Still not sure about "Abu l-Fath", please cite evidence on this. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In Chapter 1 (page 18) in Wine of Wisdom it says: "His full name was Abu’l Fath Omar ibn Ibrāhīm Khayyām, born in the district of Shadyakh of the old city of Nishapur in the province of Khurasan". It appears to me that Ghiyāth al-Dīn and Nishapuri were not an essential part of the name. Telementor (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I increasingly get the impression that "Wine of Wisdom" is not a good source. I am sure it is ok as a "popular" account for a general audience, but this article is developed far beyond relying on such sources -- "popular" accounts are trumped by scholarly literature every time. Yes, I agree that Ghiyāth al-Dīn and Nishapuri are "not essential parts of the name". But then, anything other than "Omar Khayyam" is "not essential", the entire point of giving a "full name" is going beyond the essential. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think the patronymic/uyonymic part is necessary to the Arabic full name. The term Al-Naysaburi does not appear in any of the primary sources, I think it is a recent addition. The honorary title Ghiyath al-Din is not any more necessary than Hujjat al-Haqq and Imam (which he was called just as frequently in primary sources).


 * If you have to use the Arabic name, it should be as it appears on primary sources or on his mathematical treatise (since these documents are decisively his own). Here is the form given by al-Bayhaqi in perhaps the earliest account of Khayyam: 'Omar ibn Ibrahim Al-Khayyam. These confirm the form given in Wine of Wisdom. Also, Al-Qifti uses al-Khayyam (without the suffix -i).


 * He is simply called Omar Khayyam (عمر خیّام) in one of the oldest Persian sources (Munis al-ahrār, 1340), here is the opening of the original text from Edward Denison Ross's work which includes a translation. Browne likewise translates the work of Rashid-al-Din from Persian. Once again, the Persian text simply uses Omar Khayyam. So I will instead add his native name to the opening, and discuss the "full name" in the article itself, as it is done with Avicenna. Telementor  (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Religious views

 * dab: I agree that the Sufi interpretation is a minority position. Yes. But you cannot just state "he was disliked by the Sufis" -- this is the very question under dispute. The minority opinion would be that the tradition to this effect is spurious. You need to state on whose authority we are told that he was disliked by this or that Sufi. I think it is Al-Qifti. If it is, please state explicitly it is based on Al-Qifti, if possible with a reference to a specific secondary reference discussing the relevant passage in Al-Qifti. Citing "Wine of Wisdom" without page number is completely useless.


 * This is not from Al-Qifti. These are from Shams Tabrizi and Attar's own works. For Shams, it is from The Conversations (Maqalat) of Shams of Tabriz (the relevant passage is in Wine of Wisdom, page 58). And for Attar this is from the Book of the Divine (Ilahi-nama). These are all found in The Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 4, page 663). Telementor  (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent, please cite this, and I will be very happy to endorse "was disliked by a number of famous Sufi mystics". As I said, I realize and accept that the position that Omar was himself a Sufi is a minority opinion. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In my previous comment, I gave you the references. These are all celebrated mystics so it is best to mention them by name in the article. Telementor  (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Mehdi Aminrazavi, Edward Henry Whinfield, and others should not be considered a "minority" opinion as their stances are grounded in an academic and holistic understanding of Khayyam's works. Also, I have re-included Aminrazavi's arguement, which is crucial in getting all sides. Gozelapricot (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted as well that more modern scholarship indicates that Khayyam was not irreligious. Sadegh and Fitzgerald are extremely outdated. More modern scholarship, such as Aminrazavi, Hossein-Nasr, Whinfield, etc. conclude that Khayyam was a Sufi. Gozelapricot (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You are misconstruing Aminrazavi's stance. Mehdi Aminrazavi himself explicitly states that the Sufi interpretation is the position of a small minority of scholars (here). Yes, he mentions the fact that his philosophical treatise was explicitly theistic, and that all his publications more or less had the same format as the work of other scholars of the Islamic era (i.e. when it comes to praising God and prophets). But he does not think that Khayyam belonged to either the orthodox or the Sufi party. In fact, he does not commit himself to either extreme interpretation (devout Moslem or atheist). Aminrazavi's conclusion seems to be that Khayyam was 'an independent thinker resisting the rise of dogmatism' (page 159), and that his poetry was 'an intellectual response to the rise of religious dogmatism'. He states the same view in various talks. If indeed Khayyam was despised by prominent contemporary Sufis (a fact which you blanked without explanation), to me the Sufi hypothesis is destitute of any solid foundation. Telementor  (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Telementor, A major problem with your version is that you specifically use Aminrazavi's work to support Christopher Hitchen's stance of Khayyam being a believer in "New Atheism", which is clearly what Aminrazavi speaks against. Aminrazavi makes it clear that Omar Khayyam was a Muslim by stating "The above is sufficient to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Omar Khayyam lived and breathed within the Islamic religious universe and that his faith and commitment to religious thought was unquestionable. So how Khayyam, who began and ended his works by paying homage to God and the Prophet Muhammad, could have become a prophet of agnostics and hedonists is a seemingly insoluble oxymoron. And yet, against the overwhelming evidence of Khayyam's faith, like so many other great figures in the history of Islam, he is accused of having been a heretic. A Khayyamian quatrain remarks: "These two or three fools who think they know; ignorant are they and oh, how it shows; striving to be a donkey, for they are less than an ass; every cow that is not a donkey, is deemd a heretic foe."" (page 57). Aminrazavi makes it clear that Khayyam was not a heritic, agnostic, or hedonist, which have been the main claims of proponents of the the irreligious theory, which is debunked by most modern scholars. Aminrazavi also states that the claims of him being irreligious, namely an agnostic hedonist (page 55), are modern "Reconstructions" and therefore not accurate. Therefore to use Aminrazavi's position to promote Hitchen's ideas is a misrepresentation of Aminrazavi's positions. Second, your claim ("Sufi interpretation is the position of a small minority of scholars") is also a misrepresentation of Aminrazavi's work. I have checked the source and he is refer to the expressions of "wine, intoxication and love making" to be mystical allegories is a minority position. No where does he talk about religious identity there. As I have said above, the majority of modern scholars accept that Khayyam was a Muslim, most being of the persuasion he was a Sufi. Aminrazavi argues that Khayyam opposed the various practices of various religious people during his time, but as stated above, Aminrazavi makes the case that Khayyam was not a heretic, even though his critics claimed he was. Aminrazavi utilized a variety of sources to prove that Khayyam was a Muslim, which you have deleted. Gozelapricot (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, your reference to Al-Qitfi's statement, seems to constitute WP:OR as I do not see it accompanied by any reputable secondary source. If it is, it is in clearly not allowed here. Gozelapricot (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Gozelapricot: Thanks for the message. Aminrazavi's work is not used to support Hitchen's stance in any way. It is used solely as a counter to the Sufi interpretation of the quatrains (and according to the link: mystical interpretation of the Rubaiyat is a minority position). The choice of Aminrazavi here is somewhat arbitrary, there are many other reputable Iranologists who rejected the proposition that the quatrains are Sufi (for instance, Arthur Christensen, Richard Nelson Frye, Henry Beveridge, and George Sarton).


 * As for religious identity, throughout the book, Aminrazavi makes it clear that none of the Khayyam biographers report that he ever belonged to a Sufi creed. Even if he endorsed certain concepts of Sufism, he never self-identified as a "Sufi" in his entire lifetime.


 * I reverted your changes because you removed some crucial and well-referenced material. Also, the article had already mentioned that Khayyam’s treatises started and concluded by paying homage to God and the Prophet. Reproducing all those specific expressions adds nothing new. Likewise, we are not quoting all the individual quatrains that express anti-religious sentiments. The aim is to provide a concise overview of the evidence in favour of each interpretation. If we were to bloat the article with redundant quotations to push different viewpoints, then there would be no bandwidth left for his actual biography or mathematical contributions.


 * Discussion of Khayyam's religious views does not simply boil down to Islam vs. Skepticism. It also includes Orthodox Islam vs. Sufism. In addition, it might (not very reasonably) be argued that Khayyam believed in reincarnation. In some anecdotic narratives about him, most notably in Tatavī's Universal History (Tārikh-i alfī, 1378), it is apparent that Omar believed in the transmigration of the soul (though scholars have argued that, if the account is accurate, Khayyam's comments can be dismissed as merely sarcastic). Furthermore, there are also other minority positions such as Persian nationalist/crypto-Zoroastrian, Ismailism, etc. Scholars like E. D. Ross, E.H. Whinfield, and to some extent Aminrazavi try to reconcile contradicting evidence by portraying him more as an 'independent thinker'.


 * For secondary opinions on Qifti, consult the source already cited in the section. Namely, Cambridge History of Iran by Richard Frye (page 663) where he quotes Qifti on the question of Omar's feelings about mysticism. Even in Wine of Wisdom, Aminrazavi discusses Qifti’s account several times - for instance when he reports that Khayyam was indicted for impiety but went to pilgrimage to avoid punishment, or the fact that he stayed aloof from the Sufis. Telementor  (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Omar Khayyam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117090347/http://khayyam.tarikhema.ir/ to http://khayyam.tarikhema.ir/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of excessive images
I am removing the images of manuscripts that were recently added to the article for the following reasons:


 * I believe they are excessive. Such a large number of images added to an article without adequate encyclopedic context overshadow the text. As per WP:NOTGALLERY, a gallery can be introduced when there is not enough space for images to be presented adjacent to the text. However, this is not appropriate when omitting the collection of images is not detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article.


 * There is no contextual reason to justify their use. The article is about the ideas in the treatise, not a stand-alone article about any given physical manuscript of the treatise. In addition, some of the manuscripts whose images were added are not the same manuscripts that are discussed in the cited material. For instance, Dirk Jan Struik refers to a Leiden manuscript, whereas the uploaded image is supposedly from the British Library.


 * I am unable to verify the copyright status of all the images. For some of the images, there is no copyright information available on the source website. For one of them, the website itself is not accessible. Even if the images are ineligible for copyright protection, the uploader still has incorrectly licensed them under a Creative Commons license, which assumes that they were themselves responsible for producing the work.


 * The article needs to be consistent with other biographical articles on Wikipedia which generally use no more than one picture of a manuscript (often the chef d'œuvre of the scholar). Telementor  (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
I want to know why User:Telementor removed the info I added Omar Khayyam was first to give a general method for solving cubic equations. Although he didn't consider negative roots, his methods are sufficient to find geometrically all real (positive or negative) roots of cubic equations. This information is supported by a reliable source and appears nowhere in the page. Please give me a proper reason for removing this. Just because I am not registered I cannot edit Wikipedia articles? 2405:204:10A5:E83B:AD0E:7FDB:8C37:5F55 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I removed that text not because of its veracity, but because it contained details already covered in the article body (in the section dealing with Khayyam's mathematical oeuvre). Furthermore, the very sentence preceding your addition already gave a very brief overview of Khayyam's work on cubic equations. The guideline is that the lead section has to be as concise as possible. As a side note, your addition appeared to have a pointless POV, which needs to be considered per WP:UNDUE. If you've read Reviel Netz's book on the subject, the history of the solution of cubic equations is a complicated one and to some extent open to personal interpretation (and bias, of course). If you still believe some of the information you've added is not covered in the article body, it is best to be WP:CAUTIOUS and establish a consensus here on the article's talk page first. Telementor  (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Google honouring his 971 birthday
Whilst this is true, is this really knowledge fit for an encyclopedia? I believe not.


 * I agree. It doesn't seem to add much encyclopedic value to the article as a whole. Some notable people do have this fact added to their article (e.g. C.F. Gauss, T. Edison, etc.), but most don't. -- Telementor (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Google also honored his 964th birthday in 2012.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Omar Khayyam Bust Tandis.jpg

Name
See Talk:Omar%23Correct_spelling_of_the_name. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)