Talk:Companions of the Prophet

Requested move 9 March 2019

 * 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 section. 

Moved. See well-supported rename suggestion from 2015, so this request is granted. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sahabah → Companions of the Prophet – The page should be under the common English name: Companions of the Prophet, a term that has been in use to translate Sahabah in to English for centuries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC) – Note: this request made formal by Ammarpad (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If so, start a WP:RM for that. Khestwol (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what this is. — Llywelyn II   14:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC).


 * Strong Support. . — Llywelyn II   14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support based on RS including oxfordislamicstudies and britannica.Saff V. (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Companions of the Muhammad Prophet . Saff V. (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support VR talk  16:02, 9 March 2019 (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.

Neutrality: "Companions of the Prophet" versus "Companions of Muhammad"
Aside from the fact that Muslims regard Muhammad as the last of the Prophets, I must ask, how is "Companions of the Prophet" WP:neutral, considering that the majority of people, that is non-Muslims with the exception of Bahais, do not consider Muhammad to be a prophet? Leo1pard (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its just a commonly used term for what is an Islamic concept. Why wouldn't we refer to Islamic concepts by their Islamic names?VR talk  17:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Shahnameh3-1.jpg

Requested move 27 October 2022

 * 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: no consensus. There is an unending deadlock between the applicabilities of WP:PRECISE vs. WP:COMMONNAME in this case. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Companions of the Prophet → Companions of Muhammad – I understand the rationale that "companions of the Prophet" is a widely-used term in literature, but I think we should be wary of describing any religious leader as "the Prophet" in Wikivoice. Similar concerns seem to have been raised on the talk page a while ago, so I think this warrants wider discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRECISE. Using "the prophet" in the title is simply too vague. There are also potential WP:NPOV issues here. The current title seems to imply that Muhammad is the only prophet or the most important one. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The common name case for the current title is overwhelming, see Ngrams, and I disagree with the comment above that it is too vague. This is a set phrase and the majority of the sources this page is referenced to use the term as is. In Scholar, the current title has a more than 12:1 ratio of prevalence, with 13,800 hits for the current title to 1,100 hits for the proposed title. The latter results are also notably led by some lower quality sources. In 2022 results, the ratio is 16:1, so showing no signs of changing, with 644 hits for the current title versus 39 hits for the proposed title. And again, the latter results again led by poorer sources. I see this less as a religious term (religious sources can use the latter ) than as the term as used prevalently in prevailing scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that the page was move to the current title in the RM further up the page on the basis of it being the common translation for the relevant Arabic term Sabaha over the course of centuries of scholarship, as well as based on clear support for this specific term in tertiary sources. The proposed title is not used in any of the current sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what about moving the article to Companions of the Prophet Muhammad? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This would also move away from the standard term, and it is not clear to me that the current title is even causing any confusion. Readers will only arrive here through links or by searching for this highly specific term. Is there another prophet with lots of companions that the current title could readily be confused with, such that it requires clarifying? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I would not support this compromise and would rather it stay at its current title than move to Companions of the Prophet Muhammad. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I think the need for a neutral title outweighs the fact that the current title is the more common name. The literal meaning of the Arabic can be brought up in the article, perhaps with the lit. 'Companions of the Prophet' template. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ficaia: Nowhere has it been demonstrated that the current title is not neutral with respect to reliable sourcing, but even were that the case, Wikipedia policy specifically endorses non-neutral titles provided that they are the clear common name in WP:POVNAME, so the very premise of your vote (NPOV considerations aside) goes against our naming policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while I do sympthatize with the proposal, it seems a matter of RIGHTGREATWRONGS to rename this. It is weird that such a POVish sounding term became generally used, but that is the reality. I wonder if "Prophet" needs to be capitalized though, this is more a matter of style. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case Prophet is being used as a proper noun, so it should be capitalized Criticalus (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Using the common term is not an endorsement of any religious belief. I agree largely with Iskandar323's reasoning. Criticalus (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISE, as well as WP:CONSISTENT with other article about Muhammad.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is not the Islam Wikipedia. Shwcz (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This seems like one of those discussions where there seems to have arisen some confusion over the meaning of WP:NPOV, which is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Now the reliable sources for this subject favour the term that is the current title by a ratio of more than 10:1 versus sources that do not use it. The current title is already NPOV with respect to reliable sources. Those citing NPOV need to explain their take on the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. There also seems to be misunderstanding in the meaning of the current title, and also in the reactions to it. Calling Mohammad "the Prophet" in this context is 'NOT' an endorsement of Islam by any means, rather it is just using the commonly used academic term here. If the Disciples of Jesus were termed 'Disciples of the Son of God' in common literary parlance, would there be a similarly toned discussion? I think not. Comments like "This is not the Islam Wikipedia" impart religious overtones to what's otherwise a cut-and-dry academic issue. I worry that biases and phobias may be creeping into the discussion, which if so, is definitely not WP:NPOV and seems more like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Before any consensus can be gleaned, perhaps this needs a relisting. Criticalus (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2022 (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.
 * Oppose. Current title is by far the common name in English.  Complaints that the title is "too vague" or that WP:PRECISE matters here are way off; this is the term used in the literature, and if you don't understand it at first glance, that just means you haven't read or studied much literature on the topic.  We're not going to make up new, beginner-friendly terminology in other fields like renaming "shortstop" to "baseball fielder who stands between second and third base."  If anything, it'd be imprecise to not use the title that would-be readers would find everywhere else.  On the "too deferential to religion" aspect, of course Wikipedia can't endorse that Muhammad was a prophet in Wikivoice, but it can certainly assert that he's called the Prophet in Islam, and that this group is titled as such as well.  It'd be like opposing calling Popes popes because some people don't think he's "really" the Pope - true, but irrelevant, he's indisputably called the Pope.  SnowFire (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)