Talk:Umar/Archive 7

Requested move 31 August 2021

 * 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: (non-admin closure) MOVED User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of text; but the votes are in favor of a move. Consensus is that the most common name in scholarly sources is Umar, even an oppose voter notes this. It is also consensus that, as a given name in the United States, Omar is a substantially more common transliteration of عمر. However, there is no requirement to have consistent transliterations of names.

There is consensus against 'Umar as an alternate proposed title. Manual of Style/Islam-related articles appears to reject this alternative. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Additionally: There is not consensus here to move the disambiguation page from Omar (disambiguation) to Umar (disambiguation). No prejudice against an immediate RM proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hi, 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 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * Of course what you can do with Ngrams is to add choices together and switch off smoothing:
 * English
 * American English
 * British English
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @Walrasiad: please see 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for this, which is a good summary. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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 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 . 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)
 * See Talk:Romanization of Arabic for discussion of the 'o'->'u' shift. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Oppose. Omar is the clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, on what data do you base this conclusion? Did you take into account that the name of this article is short for Umar ibn al-Khattab (cf. vs. ), like Uthman is short for Uthman ibn Affan (cf.  vs. ), even though by itself 'Othman' is more common than 'Uthman'? Should we move Jabir ibn Hayyan to 'Jaber ibn Hayyan' per 'Jaber' being more common than 'Jabir', despite the clear data of  vs. ? ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not the clear common name for this particular figure in the *reliable* sources, even if it is for certain other figures with the same name from later centuries (the poet Omar Khayyam or the actor Omar Sharif, etc). The spelling of his name in the reliable sources should carry the weight. Per COMMONNAME: 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). In this case those sources happen to be books, journals and website articles written by qualified historians. In the RS, Umar is almost invariably used. Here is only a sampling of the notable works that use the "Umar/ʿUmar/'Umar" spellings-none use Omar (excuse any redundancy with the works mentioned above by Toddy):
 * Blankinship, Khalid Yahya, The End of the Jihad State (1994)
 * Crone, Patricia, Slaves on Horses (1980), God's Caliph (1986)
 * Donner, Fred, The Early Islamic Conquests (1981) and Muhammad and the Believers (2010)
 * Hawting, Gerald, The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750 (1986)
 * Hoyland, Robert, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of the Islamic Empire (2015)
 * Kaegi, Walter, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests (1994)
 * Kennedy, Hugh, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates (1986), The Great Arab Conquests (2007), The Armies of the Caliphs (2001)
 * Lewis, Bernard, Arabs in History (2002)
 * Madelung, Wilferd, Succession of Muhammad (1997)
 * Shaban, M. A., Islamic History (1971)
 * The History of Al-Tabari volumes
 * Brittanica encyclopedia (main entry)
 * The Encyclopedia of Islam (1st, 2nd and 3rd/New editions)
 * Practically every article that discusses the subject in the journals Arabica, Studia Islamica, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, International Journal of Middle East Studies, and tens more.
 * --Al Ameer (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Al Ameer could go on to list hundreds if not thousands of sources like that –as they say, Omar is hardly ever used for this caliph in the scholarly literature. However, the claim I just made is not verifiable, and to verify that all of the sources mentioned do indeed use Umar would be a lot of work. The data of Ngrams and Scholar , on the other hand, is both easy to verify and incontrovertible. In the light of all this, the ongoing oppose votes are really becoming a matter of WP:CHEESE/WP:RANDY. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apaugasma, though I agree with you - other users have made claims for "caliph Omar"/"caliph Umar" or "Caliph Omar"/"Caliph Umar" as the thing to search for on Ngrams - so there is merit in a search that adds all three preferred search terms:
 * American English since 1979 - combined results for 3 search terms average for period: Omar 10,062; Umar 13,560
 * British English since 1979 - combined results for 3 search terms average for period: Omar 20,113; Umar 28,045
 * English fiction since 1979 - combined results for 3 search terms average for period: Omar 9,973; Umar 4,804
 * English since 1979 - combined results for 3 search terms average for period: Omar 13,831; Umar 19,162
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So only in fiction, 'Omar' gets the better of 'Umar' for our caliph, while in fiction and non-fiction combined, Umar clearly dominates? That's quite interesting, though perhaps unnecessarily complex for our purposes., would these Ngrams brought on by Toddy1 by any chance be able to convince you to change your !vote? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 vs.  and . 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * "Almost universally adopted" was meant to apply to the non-specialized scholars in Scholar  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * ... 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * More Ngrams:
 * American English since 1979 - combined results for 4 search terms
 * British English since 1979 - combined results for 4 search terms
 * English fiction since 1979 - combined results for 4 search terms
 * English since 1979 - combined results for 4 search terms
 * 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)
 * In the most general search "Mosque of Omar" has vastly more n-grams than "Mosque of Umar", 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! 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)
 * : @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)

— Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I will suggest to move it to Umer ibn. Khattab Ch.AhmedRaza23 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose: There are a number of potential problems with the proposer's position. Omar Sharif has the same Arabic name as the article subject, i.e. عمر.  It would desirable to adopt a WP:CONSISTENT transliteration of عمر, so the Ngram Ngram Omar,Umar might be the right one.
 * The desire for consistency would have to give way to the subjects' WP:COMMONNAMEs, if it was shown that RSs consistently used different transliterations for different subjects, but I'm not sure that has been shown. The search engine results fail to distinguish between Umar, 'Umar and ʿUmar, as you can easily see by looking at the first page of results.  I think whenever we find ourselves arguing about exactly how search engines should be interrogated, the search engine results are indecisive.  Search engines count all sources, reliable or not, so search engine results are only useful when they show a clear cut preference.  Otherwise, we need to get into the specific sources.  What spelling is used in up-to-date standard reference works?
 * Al Ameer addresses this, but the problem is he conflates the spellings Umar, 'Umar and ʿUmar, and we can only move this article to one of those. Similarly, the references by  Toddy1 would be convincing, except that checking the first one, The New Cambridge History of Islam volume 1, I can see on Google books that it uses the spelling ʿUmar.  Indeed, it has a transliteration note to say that that ʿayn is transliterated ʿ.  I think that Walrasiad may well be correct that the traditional transliteration (still common in popular works) is Omar and the modern transliteration is ʿUmar, and a reasonable argument could be made for either of those, but Umar is falling between two stools.  WP:MOSAR says that ʿayn should be omitted from transliteration is the initial position, but it is a dormant proposal, and doesn't seem to correspond to modern usage.
 * Therefore from what I can see, moving to Umar looks like a mistake. I might support a proposal to move to ʿUmar, although we would need to explore the question of whether we should follow an academic consensus where it requires readers to enter a letter which isn't on standard keyboards.  We could alternatively move to 'Umar (consistent with the recent move of 'Alawi dynasty).
 * My personal opinion is also that there is some value to both readers and editors in stability and I would prefer not to move an article so soon after its previous move. Certainly moving articles backwards and forwards between two names does not help anyone, particularly in a case where it probably is right that various other articles should use a spelling consistent with this one. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is a minor point whether a source uses or omits the diacritic ʿ or the simpler apostrophe. The modern RS rarely (past 50 years or so), if ever, use the Omar spelling. They use Umar, with or without the diacritic/apostrophe. The diacritic does not factor into searches much either. From a practical standpoint, if a reader wants to search for "Umar" on google books or jstor (or most engines I would imagine) they will still get all the same books and articles where Umar is spelled with the diacritic. That is not always the case with diacritics, but in this case because the actual body of the word does not have them, it does not affect the search whether the diacritic is included or not.
 * And by RS, of course I am excluding fictional literature—is this what you mean by "popular works"?.
 * With regard to stability, the article was called Umar from its creation until being moved to Omar last year and has been contested since then on this talk page (see sections preceding this RM) and the edit history. Of course that is not the way to change a name back, but it at least does not reflect stability. Not for nothing, the last RM unfortunately had even fewer participants (3) and discussion than this thread, and two of the three have also voiced their opinions here. Al Ameer (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Some of the things you write above are just not correct. First of all, although WP:MOSAR is officially dormant, most of its recommendations are universally followed on this project, including the one about omitting ʿayn at the beginning of words. Just look at Umar's successor Uthman (strict transliteration ʿUthmān), or Uthman's successor Ali (strict transliteration ʿAlī), or how we write names starting with Abd (strict transliteration ʿAbd) like Abd al-Aziz (strict transliteration ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz - yes, there're two omitted ʿayns there as a bonus! for three of them, see Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz ). Indeed, the ʿayn actually being transcribed at the beginning of a word is rather rare on this project, and should be considered a mistake (unfortunately, Alaouite dynasty should have been moved to Alawi dynasty rather than to 'Alawi dynasty).


 * But omitting the ʿayn at the beginning of words is a local WP convention (one that I personally actually oppose, but do not even hope to get changed), and in the sources we should very much treat ʿUmar, ‘Umar, 'Umar and Umar as equivalents: these are merely different transliterations of the ʿayn, but in this matter we have our own established practice. Note that we currently also have Omar, not ʿOmar or ‘Omar or 'Omar (as would be proper if we would be writing ʿayns at the beginning of words).


 * Second of all, ʿUmar (or its equivalents) indeed very much is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources, as shown by Al Ameer's list above (which actually contains the most important reference works on early Islamic history), or more broadly by Gscholar . I've read literally tens of books and papers on early Islamic history, and of those perhaps two or three used Omar (or its equivalents) for this caliph. That Wikipedia uses this for the moment is actually a really egregious deviation from usage in reliable sources.


 * Third, in the great majority of cases where it occurs, "Omar" is not a transliteration in the sense of an established scholarly system for representing Arabic in Latin letters. Rather, it's a spelling of that name, partly established before consistent scientific transliteration schemes even existed (i.e. before the late 19th century) and partly adopted by people who carry that name, following an established spelling. But spellings like these would vary from word to word, and even scientific transliterations schemes are many and not in universal use, so it's impossible to be entirely consistent with these things. For example, Omar Khayyam is actually written with an "o" because this is the transliteration adopted by most Iranologists (cf. vs., which also shows that RSs indeed do consistently use different transliterations for different subjects), likely because in Persian the pronunciation sounds more like English "o" than like English "u": hence you'll often find Persians like Omar Khayyam written with "o" in reliable sources. Among Arabists, however, "u" is near-universal, and names of Arabs are almost universally written with "u" in top-quality scholarly sources. But then modern Arabs like Omar Sharif and Mohamed Morsi have chosen to write their own names with "o", and so we follow that. Putting WP:CONSISTENT first would mean either moving Mohamed Morsi to Muhammad Mursi or moving Muhammad to Mohamed, both of which would be very undesirable. Rather, we have to look at specific usage in reliable sources for every individual.


 * Finally, fortunately not all related articles have yet shifted from Umar ibn al-Khattab to Omar ibn al-Khattab (and for very good reason: the sources used in these articles of course also speak about Umar rather than Omar), but the longer we wait with correcting this egregious mistake, the more "Omar" will be adopted in related articles, and the more work it will be afterwards to move it all back to the proper usage in reliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to support Per Apaugasma 's comment above. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Per existing arguments and overwhelming use of Umar in actual studies relating to the subject. We're not a pop culture primary encyclopedia. Using google books, Umar isn't on the first page under "Omar", but he is multiple times under "Umar" . Easy choice, we go by the subject experts. GuzzyG (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the excellent analysis done by Havelock Jones (before they mysteriously changed their mind, despite the evidence). The ngrams are clear that the WP:COMMONNAME is Omar in English, and that's the version we should stick with. Common name means that used in all reliable sources, not just "scholarly" ones, so the point about "pop culture" is wide of the mark. We should be using the variant which is most recognizable, and that is certainly Omar. 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind. Withdrawn and I don't have an opinion on this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022
Please change the name from umar to umar the great because he is known for farooq e azam means great he is a greatest ruler in the world. Shkmtm (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ On Wikipedia, we cite reliable sources for everything we add, so our readers are able to verify the information. You have not provided a reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022
On the information page for Umar(RA) an Islamic leader there is an error made multiple times in writing. In the 'Family' subsection, Umar's wives and children are all wrong. They are the wives and children of the Prophet Muhammad of Islam. Please kindly fix this mistake. 2A02:CE0:1801:2C2C:C87F:A429:6329:107D (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and please also provide reliable sources to support the change you want to make. Baggaet (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022
Umar set aside the Christian ban on Jews and allowed them into Jerusalem and to worship - this is incorrect. At the time Jerusalem was ruled by the Byzantine empire. I’m charge of Jerusalem was patriarch Sophronius, a Christian leader. A treaty was signed between Umar and Soprhonius. This treaty secured the religious and property rights of the Christians living in Jerusalem. In this biding treaty it states “ no Jew will live with them in Jerusalem”. This treaty continues the banning of Jews from Jerusalem. For reference - the great Arab conquests - Tariq Tabari. 2001:56A:F440:B800:89C3:CC0B:E6FC:F796 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both would seem to be correct without contradiction. Umar's Assurance was signed forbidding Jewish entry (under Christian rule), but after Umar conquered Aelia, it would seem that he gave special dispensation for at least 70 Jewish families to settle in the city, as already explained and sourced in the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022 (2)
inspired MD ASAD JUNAID A LOT 103.76.82.120 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in the upper section
Umer Bin Khittab was not the father in law of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Kindly confirm and remove this line. Thanks 103.255.6.72 (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Paired with?..
I just found this reference say that Umar was paired with Itban ibn Malik, not Ibn Maslamah. Other reference said that Ibn Maslama was paired with Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah. Can you remove or change information here? ▪︎ Fazoffic  ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ ) 09:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a problem. The source used in the article (Mohammad Allias Aadil, Serat-i-Hazrat Umar-i-Farooq, pp. 40–41) does not look like a reliable source, but the source you mention is not reliable either. What we need is a source that is written by a modern historian whose work is cited by their peers and that went trough an editorial process before being published, as is done in academic publishing.
 * In the absence of such a source it is probably better to remove the information in respect to which two unreliable sources contradict each other. I did so here. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 16:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Apaugasma:That would be very helpful, while I'll try to find other sources. ▪︎ Fazoffic  ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ ) 06:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

HIS ACTUAL DATE OF DEATH IS 26 ZUL HIJJAH
Check your self do some research. 39.63.192.17 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023
I request you to add his death date "26 ZulHijah,23 Hijri As mentioned in Sunan al qubra Hadith no.16578( Authentic Hadith) and also in Sahih Muslim hadith no.1258(Authentic Hadith) BeRsErKeR9112 (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sirdog (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)