Talk:Osama

Untitled

Osama means "lion" in arabic and may be considered equivalent to "Leo" (e.g., "Leonardo"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.50.101.47 (talk) 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Osama / Usama

Osama is the far more common spelling.

Osama should still redirect to Osama bin Laden.

This is better titled as a dab page since it has entries other than name ones. John Cengiz talk 12:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Osama (disambiguation) → Osama – Osama currently redirects to Osama bin Laden. Osama is a very common name, and in the parts of the world where it is common, it is not reflexively associated with bin Laden. See Lincoln for example. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support the infamous one is mononymously known as "bin Laden", and per nom. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: "Adolf" is about the given name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  That seems to be quite exceptional among articles on common names. John, Kim, Marie, Alfred, Albert, Anna, Tiffany, Henry, Jack are a bunch of names that I randomly thought of, and their articles are all disambiguations. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think the point isn't which form of ambiguity resolution we use, but it's that we don't pretend the ambiguity doesn't exist by using a primary redirect for a particularly notorious holder.

  The list of people named Osama includes someone from the 12th century, so I'm not sure how the terrorist would compete in a long-term significance argument. Long-term trend of views for "Osama" indicates interest is generally waning, despite no such trend for the bin Laden's actual article, so it seems reasonable to give normal disambiguation a shot, as opposed to short-circuiting this. (Support) --Joy (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Currently, someone coming to Wikipedia to research historic Osamas (and there are a bunch) is compelled to go first to the article about the terrorist, read the hat note, and only then be able to get to this disambiguation page. It is unencyclopedic, unnecessary, and makes an unwarranted and potentially insulting assumption about the intent of our readers. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.