The prophet Muhammad and the bludgeoner Apaugasma

[rnu]

Apaugasma (T-C-L) wants to change the rule that Muhammad (T-H-L) should not be referred to as "the prophet Muhammad" or simply "the prophet". He argues that this is necessary for disambiguation purposes because "Muhammad" is such a common name. Further, he claims, using "the prophet" is totally NPOV because reliable sources do it, suggesting in a remarkable display of relativism that there is no such thing as NPOV other than repeating what RS write. According to him referring to Muhammad as "the prophet" is like using a run-of-the-mill name and in no way or form endorses the idea that Muhammad was the or even a prophet.
But what is truly remarkable in this discussion is the sheer amount of unabashed bludgeoning. Therefore I propose that henceforth Apaugasma be referred to as "the bludgeoner Apaugasma".
Full story at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... prophet%22

[The Blue Newt]

Perhaps we could just call the fellow “Big Mo,” and bring MilHist into the Jihad.

[Midsize Jake]

"The Bludgeoner Apaugasma" might be a good name for a 7th-century themed death-metal band, actually. Still, bludgeoning aside, he's not entirely wrong, as long as one doesn't assume that having "the prophet" in front of the name implies (by necessity or otherwise) that Wikipedia endorses Islam as the One True Religion. Reasonable people should be able to accept that someone can be referred to as a "prophet" without actually being in direct contact with one or more supernatural entities that a decent-sized percentage of the population either don't believe in theologically, or are firmly convinced don't exist at all.

Admittedly though, most people are far from reasonable.

[ArmasRebane]

"The Bludgeoner Apaugasma" might be a good name for a 7th-century themed death-metal band, actually. Still, bludgeoning aside, he's not entirely wrong, as long as one doesn't assume that having "the prophet" in front of the name implies (by necessity or otherwise) that Wikipedia endorses Islam as the One True Religion. Reasonable people should be able to accept that someone can be referred to as a "prophet" without actually being in direct contact with one or more supernatural entities that a decent-sized percentage of the population either don't believe in theologically, or are firmly convinced don't exist at all.

Admittedly though, most people are far from reasonable.

I wouldn't find it hard to buy that SMcCandlish is operating from an anti-Muslim angle on this, but I also think it's reasonable to point out that Muhammad is absolutely the most obvious and agreed way of describing him and there's very little concrete examples brought up in that from what I skimmed that show why it's important and necessary to have "the prophet" as a disambiguation in text versus the many other options available to non-prophet and prophets alike.

[Ming]

You can be absolutely sure that Jesus (T-H-L) doesn't get called "Christ" unless someone is being quoted or there is a direct statement about the title.

[SMcCandlish]

I wouldn't find it hard to buy that SMcCandlish is operating from an anti-Muslim angle on this,

Why are you bringing my name into this, especially with such an accusation? For the record, I'm an across-the-board secularist (agnostic, leaning atheist), and I spend far, far more time criticizing Christianity than Islam. And I don't do either on WP, I just help ensure NPOV and other policies are abided by, e.g. by not sticking honorifics onto names in ways that strongly imply that WP accepts a religious doctrinal position. I argued firmly to move "Swami Nithyananda" to just "Nithyananda" for the same reason, and it was so moved. (Tried to move "Swami Vivekananda" as well, but got shouted down for WP:COMMONNAME reasons, an example of why I think WP:AT should be downgraded to a guideline, or at least some clarification made that it is a secondary policy that cannot overrule core content policy.) I'm the principal author of MOS:DOCTCAPS., which is NPOV policy filtered through an MOS lens and shined on religions and other doctrine-generating spheres that love to capitalize everything they come up with to make them sound magically important.

... Muhammad is absolutely the most obvious and agreed way of describing him and there's very little ... [to] show why it's important and necessary to have "the prophet" as a disambiguation in text ...

... which is exactly the point I was making in the thread in question; you're basically just summarizing my own input there. So what's up with this Islamophobia implication? What are you basing that on, or do you just like making up snide character-assassination nonsense about people for no reason?