Talk:Umar

Biased views

There is a slight Sunni bias that I’m picking up across the article, the view on Umar’s policy, his caliphate, his actions, his participation in battle, his conversion story, and the general article itself draws from Sunni understandings of his character. This seems like poor representation of the Shia counterpart of the muslim community, there are already existing references pointing to shia perspectives, but shias have a differing perspective in regards to most things on the article and I think the article has to incorporate the fact that there is 2 different views on Umar altogether. Muneebfr (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

the differences in views are vast, and whenever I attempt to introduce these references even while maintaining NPOV, my edit is reverted. Some of the differences including(but not limited to) military expeditions and contributions, assassination and the assassin, conversion story, general policy, as well as change and additions in the religion have completely different views in Sunni tradition comparative to the Shia tradition. I find it important that on every facet, these views are mentioned for nuance and neutrality. Muneebfr (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please read the comments left by editors on your talk page. The reasons are already explained there. Selenne (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Unclear source

@NGC 628: Please can you make it more clear what the following source is:

• Borrut A., "From Arabia to the Empire - conquest and caliphal construction in early Islam", in The Historians' Quran , vol. 1 , 2019, pp. 249-289

Is it to a French language book called Le Coran des historiens? If it is, then "From Arabia to the Empire - conquest and caliphal construction in early Islam" would be a translation of a chapter title. It is nice to have English-language translations, but anyone trying to get hold of the source needs to know what it was actually published as, and what the real chapter title was.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Found it. Archive org.

• Borrut, Antoine (2019). "Chapter 4, De l'Arabie à l'Empire". Le Coran des Historiens. By Moezzi, Mohammad Ali Amir; Dye, Guillaume. Vol. 1, Etudes sur le Contexte et la Genese du Texte Coranique. Les Éditions du Cerf. pp. 249–289 – via archive.org.

We need the actual page numbers you are citing, not the page numbers of Chapter 4 (pages 249-289)-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Your footnote said that Antoine Borrut cited Humphrey. A check of the bibliography of Chapter 4 shows that it meant Stephen Humphreys. The bibliography lists two works by Stephen Humphreys, and it is unclear which work is being cited. We could do with a page reference to whichever work it is.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Historical reliability

I believe that providing a scientific-critical perspective on historical topics is far more important than the content itself. Telling people long stories as if they were entirely true, and then leaving the weak points for last, would be misleading. Many people probably won't read the article to the end. NGC 628 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC) copied from User talk:Toddy1

My understanding is that nobody doubts the existence of Umar, but like Donald Trump some of the stories about him might not be true.

• Ali ibn Abi Talib has such a section immediately before notes.
• Abu Bakr, Uthman ibn Affan, and Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan do not.
• Though the article on Aisha bint Abi Bakr does not have such a section, the issue of historical reliability of some stories is discussed in the parts of the article that deal with those stories.

I disagree with having "historical reliability" as a subsection of another section, unless the issues of historical reliability were confined to that section. Given that there is a section on historical reliability in the article, it might be appropriate to summarise that section as the last line of the lead section. (When someone tried to add historical reliability to the lead section before, it was reverted at least partially on the grounds that "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section), so if an issue is not in the body of the article it should not be in the lead (this can be summarised as: lead follows body).

If it is appropriate to write "According to Tom Holland...", then why is it not appropriate to write "According to various Twelver Shia sources and Madelung..."?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The introduction and subsequent sections on articles of Muhammad and history of Islam can be helpful. In my opinion, for a careful reader, it is extremely adequate, relevant, and equipped with scholarly perspectives. I would say that other articles need to be developed within this framework. NGC 628 (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hazrat UMAR

Correct The Name.. Add a Hazrat.. ~2026-26181-79 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

We cannot do that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics says that Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations or images. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Missing word "was"

@NGC 628: did you mean: *The ayyām was circulated earlier as scattered oral materials, the formation of the genre as a distinct textual corpus is attributed to the Basran grammarian and lexicographer Abū ʿUbayda Maʿmar b. al-Muthannā (110–209/728–824).? -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

https://almuslih.org/wp-content/uploads/Library/Toral-Niehoff,%20I%20-%20Talking%20about%20Arab%20origins.pdf NGC 628 (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2026

Died : 1 Muharram ~2026-35432-12 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)