Talk:Mecca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Saudi Arabia Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
To-do list for Mecca: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: cite sources
  • Cleanup: less about the religous beliefs, more about the city functions
  • Expand: explain importance of city in regards to culture, economy, tourism, etc. Basically, how the city functions. This is an article about a city, not what muslims believe.
  • Disambiguation: Name is pronounced as "Makka" in Arabic not "Mecca"
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Mecca as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian language Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mecca article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives

Please add new talk threads at the bottom of this page.

Contents

[edit] Makkah or Mecca

I know there was a consensus at Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Spelling in title and within article and Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah but that (other than a couple of comments) two years ago. I'm not bothered what spelling is used but it should be consistant. Either the article is moved to Makkah and all non-quote instances of Mecca changed or it stays here and all non-quote instances of Makkah be changed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I say we stay with consensus, which is Mecca.--SefringleTalk 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I prefer Mecca too. When I'm doing research in libraries and flipping through indexes, the spelling of "Mecca" is by far the predominant spelling. I also did a search of "World newspapers, 2000-2007" to see what they're using, and the 98%+ favorite is "Mecca" followed by "Makkah" (1%) and then "Makka" (.1%). --Elonka 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd vote 'Makkah'. I'm an Arabist and study the area professionally, and I'd say it now dominates by far, certainly in the last year or two. I can't reproduce the results given above for "World Newspapers". Seems quite the contrary to me. Also it's a bit of a nonsense having 'Mecca' as the capital of 'Makkah Province' - and the province has always been 'Makkah Province' - no other spelling exists. Diplomatic and government use is invariably 'Makkah'. Some papers go the other way (particularly in the US), but most have changed over. Also it's not quite the same as Mumbai/Bombay as Mecca is actually considered grossly offensive by some. But I'm not pushing my view and happy to go with the majority of eds as always. I think the article will end up getting renamed, but not sure if the time is quite yet. Anjouli 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no trouble with Makkah Province, but for the city, I'd like to see proof that the majority of English-language papers are using "Makkah" before we should change the article title. When I did a quick spotcheck at http://news.google.com, "Mecca" was more common than "Makkah", about 3500:200. If/when world newspapers switch over to a spelling of "Makkah", we can swap the Wikipedia article over, but the guidelines at Wikipedia are to follow mainstream usage, not lead it. --Elonka 04:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I see a very strong swing towards Makkah, but it's perhaps not gone far enough yet to justify a change. I think it will happen at some point, but perhaps not yet. Just as a matter of interest, googling on +mecca -bingo (regular Google, not Google News) gives 2,380,000. Googling on "mecca for" (uses like a mecca for tourists) gives 1,140,000. Subtract that from the non-bingo mecca usage and you get 1,240,000. Google on makkah gives 1,910,000; which puts it way in the lead. I'm not saying that is justification to change the title, but it's interesting.Anjouli 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Search results are not reliable (for instance, Makkah -bingo gives more hits than Makkah alone, which makes no sense.) More importantly, though, for chosing between possible article titles what we really care about is widespread English usage, not simply internet usage (which is all a Wikipedia search can show.) If you consult Dictonary.com, say, which compiles definitions from all the major English dictionaries, you will find many detailed definions for Mecca as the city from numerous authoritative sources on the English language, only one of which lists Makka or Makkah as alternatives; every major English dictionary has an entry for Mecca. By comparison, Makkah has only one entry, and it simply lists it as another name for Mecca. Based on this, I think that changing the article's name would only cause confusion... when it is time to change, this will probably be reflected in the dictionaries. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not really understanding what the fuss is about except for the fact that IF you change the english version of the word "mecca" to the,i'm assuming,arabic preference of "mekkah" then I would have never found what I came here to read about.I have never heard of "mekkah".I am not the greatest speller but if I had typed "mecca" and instead "mekkah" came up (no offence ment)I would have assumed it was referring to a bird.Please help me to understand how a english version would change its wording to appease a people who rarley can read english.Changing the word to "mekkah" would only confuse the majority of people who might use this site which are the people who are trying to learn in the first place.Maybe a simple solution would be to use BOTH spellings of it.If I offended anyone it was not ment,im only trying to use some common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.196 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslims in Makkah

The part of this article that says: "people of other faiths are forbidden from entering the city" is false. In fact, a true Muslim belief, as stated in the Holy Koran, specifically talks about encouraging other faiths to visit their lands and see their customs. A true Muslim will always oppen their home to anyone, as well as a city. The Koran states that if you are a Muslim, you must never descount or look down on other religions. Therefore, this sentence should be removed and someone who knows what they are talking about should write the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.78.92 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to distinguish here between Saudi practice and Islamic law. In a sense, both eds are right. The Saudis do make it very hard for non-Muslims to go to Makkah. There is even a big sign on the Makkah Expressway to stop non-Muslims. However it is in theory possible to get permission to visit, and the Saudis have certainly permitted non-Muslims (usually technical specialists) to enter when it suited them. The classi case was during the Makkah seige when French military contractors went in and broke the seige. Anjouli 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Wright mentioned in 'The Looming Tower' that the French special forces who entered Makkah to break the siege accepted Islam during a special 'shahdah' ceremony... Supertouch (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The injunction prohibiting nonbelievers from entering the Makkan 'Haram' or 'Sanctuary' (الحرم المكي) [which is about 20km2 marked by markers as per the Prophet's instructions as per divine command as in Hadith](not to be confused with 'meqaat' markers for Hajj which are different than 'Haram' markers) was established since Hajj of 9AH by the first Islamic State established by the God's Messenger in the Arabian Peninsula & announced at the tongue of his representative Ali bin Abi Talib at the Hajj of 8AH to the people who were present there, in complaince with God's command as revealed then in Ayat [Q;9:28]which states (... indeed the associators {of God with idols} are 'najis' { or defiled & unpure } in their belief } so they may not get near the Sanctified Mosque {'Almasjid Al Haram'} after this year {ie. 9AH} ) & extends to other non-believers per Ayat[Q:2:126] in which God states on the tongue of the Prophet Abraham (... make this town {of Makkah} secure {from conflict}...) so every type of conflict is prohibited there: even conflict of religion to avoid any conflict at the place of worship: so one can dedicate fully to one's worship at the God's most beloved place on Earth & the first place to appear as a foam on the molten Earth as per the Hadith. Any noncompliance will be a sin. This is the general ruling implemented throughout all the Islamic era, confirmed by all the Islamic scholars by consensus. As to the exception in emergent situations, it is allowed for Muslims to hire non-Muslim expertise where lacking as per the Hadith where the Prophet Hired a non-Muslim guide to show the way to Madina upon his migration with Abu Bakr & is covered in Ayat:[Q:2:172] where it states: (... so whosoever is compelled without rebelling or exceeding there is no sin on him; verily God is the Most-Forgiving & the Most Merciful). Outside Haram area, non-Muslims can be invited to mosques to explain Islam & there is no prohibitionILAKNA (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhummad Section

Not sure why the below entry was striked out - I didn't do it. An argument could be made for keeping the Muhummad section in there, because it seems this is an integral part of Makkah's history, but it definitely needs to be made NPOV. Additionally, any content in this section should be restricted to Muhummad's contribution to Makkah's culture. I've made some edits towards that end. I'll keep an eye on the page to work with other contributors on this. --NZUlysses (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common sense correction.

Prior to Mohammed, there were no moslems.... and prior to Mohammed, the majority of arabs were polytheists and would have had no reason to face Jerusalem. Only the Jews have continually faced toward Jerusalem when they pray.

"Another major change was that prior to Muhammad, Muslims had faced towards Jerusalem in their daily prayers, but Muhammad changed this practice and required everyone to face towards the Kaaba of Mecca instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.208.79 (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Prophet Ishmael, the eldest son of the Prophet Abraham, was a Muslim & was the first to inhabit Makkah with his mother Hagar & he was a messenger of God to the tribe of Jorham from Yemen that settled there after the miraculous springing - by Angel Gibrael at God's command - of the spring of zamzam at Ishmael's feet when he was an infant to quench his thirst, as before Makkah was a waterless valley. Then he married into the Jorham tribe, the predecessors of the Qoreish tribe who only digressed from the monotheism of Islam or 'Hanafiah of Abraham' into idolatry when about 140yrs before the Prophet Mohammad's birth in 430AD circa a Qoreishite brought an idol from Shaam & placed it in Kaaba, as per the Hadith. Because the final message is the continuation & the completion of the previous revelation, as it confirmed the previous interim local revelations it confirmed the previous interim local Qibla & completed it by reverting back Qibla to the 'Ancient House' the first house built on Earth by Adam for God's worship as the prevailing revelation was superseding all & permanent till the end of time & covers the whole progeny of Adam so the Qibla of Adam is reverted back as per AlQoraan & Hadith. ILAKNA (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my correction: The initial direction of prayers prior to Makkah direction is unknown, but for sure it was not towards Palestine at all. Masjid al-Kiblatain indicated the initial Kiblah that was towards the East of Madina, not Palestine. This is one of the mysteries of Islamic history that appears to be unbelievable but true. There are also some ancient pre-islamic mosques in Gassim that were directed towards Riyadh as a matter of fact. And to tell you the untold truth, Islam did not start with Muhammad. The Prophet only brought it back to life after it was distorted with idolatry and with the dust of time and neglect. Muhammad resurrected Islam and corrected its path and practice with the written Word of God. Islam was the initial religion of Ibrahim who gave the name of Muslims to the people of Arabia (The Holy Kuran). Noureddine (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free map?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/saudi_arabia.html

Is the Mecca map there free? Can anyone verify the copyright of British government maps like that? gren グレン 08:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems very old , but i don't think its free because it's not a public domain.  A M M A R  19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-class? Are you kidding me?

Demoting the A-class rating to B-class across all wikiprojects. The article wouldn't even pass the GA criteria, much less the FA criteria, and A-class articles should be very close to being FA. There's simply too many short sections, insufficient reference citations, inconsistent formatting, the lead section does not summarize the article, and the overall organization is poor. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full Article Re-write incomplete

The last sentence of the History/Events section (added in this edit) seems incomplete:

(...) On July 31, 1987, during an anti-US demonstration by pilgrims, 402 Iranian pilgrims were killed and 649 wounded after the Saudi police opened fire against the demonstrators. During 1987 Hajj

CiaPan (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The main article, 1987 massacre of Iranian pilgrims, Explains more details. Why do you think we should add more ? and what exactly the details you want to add sir ?  A M M A R  21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to add anything. Just thought that words: 'During 1987 Hajj' do not make a proper English sentence (there is no grammar subject, and also no predicate in it). And of course it lacks the terminating period (dot) at the end. So either it is a beginning of a sentence that has never been written, or it is adverbial of the preceding sentence. Accordingly it should be completed or moved in front of the present dot (and de-capitalized). Or just removed. --CiaPan (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
PS. Or may be I should learn more English.... CiaPan (talk)
How about During the 1987 pilgrimage season ? , Or maybe i'm the one who should learn english hehe. Anyways, remove it or correct it by youself my friend  A M M A R  20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I gave myself an en-1 level, so I dare to describe my doubts, but not to correct doubtful expressions (possibly: doubtful for me only). Regards. --CiaPan (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok leave it for now  A M M A R  16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it cleaned up. --CiaPan (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 'This movement is commonly known as the Wahhabi movement. It has been also influenced by the Shafi`i school.'

This information is incorrect. The Mouwahhadeen movement ended when the first Saudi State was formed in the 18th century CE. The Hambali school of fiqha jurisprudence is the official 'madhab' or the 'way of method' to deduce the Prophet's Sunnah in the detailed matters relegated to the mental intellectual striving by the Prophetic Hadith.


[edit] 'In 1924, the Sharif of Mecca were overthrown by the Saudis, and Mecca was incorporated into Saudi Arabia. Following the Battle of Mecca (1924), The city joint Saudi Arabia until the present days.'

This passage needs correction. Historically, there was no battle & the city was surrendered peacefully after the siege without any fight by an agreement between the both parties that they would be provided safe passage out & the means of transport & whatever belongings & the retinue they wanted to take with them & wherever they wanted to go. Fighting is not allowed in Makkah by Qoraanic injunction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILAKNA (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a siege actully, So we should rename the Battle of Mecca article. But It wasn't peaceful.  A M M A R  20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation Section

In the transportation section of article I don't see any mention of public transportation options (as would be expected of a city of 1+ million). I believe that mention should be made of existing public transit options (rail, bus, trolley, and/or shuttle systems). If these aren't in existence, then this should be mentioned as it is noteworthy for a city of 1+ million that doubles or triples in size every year for hajj. What I know of Makkah, there currently is ZERO public transit options. This of course excludes taxis from the definition of public transit. Anyone have info to add? Furtfurt (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The city doesnt have a rail or subway services. This is a common disadvantage in Saudi cities  A M M A R  20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable

This source is unreliable. I don't see any credentials for the author. Also the NY Sun reports it as an opinion, not news story. Hence it should be removed.Bless sins (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Youssef Ibrahim, the writer of that article, is a former Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor for The Wall Street Journal, is a freelance writer and political-risk consultant based in the United Arab Emirates and New York. [1] I think he is reliable. Yahel Guhan 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I posted a similar question on WP:RSN (Wikipedia:RSN#Opinion.2Feditorial) and the response was that the topic of Mecca is so widely written upon, that we should not have to go to a source with marginal reliability (such as the NYSUN). One respondent wrote "In such cases, it's an easy bet that if only one source makes a claim that it is a extreme minority view not suitable for Wikipedia."Bless sins (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there are multiple sources, not just one, so that arguement is irrelevant. Second, there is nothing "marginally reliable" about NYSUN. Yahel Guhan 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not the NY Sun, that's the issue. Its the editorial'. If the Sun reports there was an earthquake somewhere, it is probably a good source. But if the Sun calls Saudi Arabia a "jihadist Muslim fundamentalist government", we raise WP:REDFLAGs.
You claim that there are "multiple sources" for "This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims." Actually I see only one. The CNN only reports, doesn't criticize.Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with this editorial. IT is not a fringe theory, as the many sources I added prove, it is quite a notable viewpoint. In fact, nobody seems to disagree with it, except you and your fellow muslim wikipedia editors, so I'd say it is anything but a fringe viewpoint. Yahel Guhan 04:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that this is an editorial, and thus an opinion, not fact. How many times will I have to repeat this. There is consensus that we shouldn't have to rely on editorials as there are many scholarly sources that cover the topic.\
"as the many sources I added prove" Many? Not one except for the NY Sun article.
Also please refrain from attacking "muslim wikipedia editors".Bless sins (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you didn't respond I'm removing it.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You forgot the CNN and freedomhouse one. And I'm not "attacking" muslim wikipedia editors. I'm only pointing out that you happen to be muslim, and only muslims so far have opposed its inclusion, suggesting a possible WP:COI, since this is an issue which probably is very important to muslims, not to mention your comments at Portal talk:Discrimination/Selected picture, which would seem to further that hypothesis. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"I'm only pointing out that you happen to be muslim" Can you please not judge me by my religion? Infact don't judge any user by his/her religion. I hope this is the end of the religion discussion.
A five word source is not reliable per Wikipedia:RSN#Five_word_source. CNN is already included, and I'm not disputing it, so no need to bring it up. Any other (hopefully reliable) sources?Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You are, however disputing the NYSUn source, which is reliable. Or are you conceeding on that? Yahel Guhan 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sources are generally good sources on some topics but not on others. A physicist is an expert on physics but not necessarily on human psychology. Similarly the NY Sun is a good source on news reports, not on making claims about the religious nature of Islam's holiest city.Bless sins (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"Claims" as you call it, on a modern city are news. Thus if there is discrimination in Mecca, it is news. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"News" is exactly that, something "new". The consideration of a 1,400 year old is not "news" much less "new". Finally, there was consensus that better sources (if they exist) should be found for making the same claims.Bless sins (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia did not exist as a country 1400 years ago, the highway did not exist 1400 years ago, and the highway sign did not exist 1400 years ago. Stop this nonsense. Thus anything Saudi Arabia does (including laws about Mecca) is news. The news is the criticism of the law as religious discrimination, and for that, news sources are reliable. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia has existed before World War II, which was decades ago. Besides the ban on non-Muslims is older than that - 1,400 years old as I said before. Why is it so hard for you to find a reliable source on the issue? Is it that none exists?Bless sins (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There are enough reliable sources already. They are in your opinion unreliable because you have an agenda here and they counter your agenda. I do not feel a need to waste more time finding more reliable sources when you just repeat the same arguements, and the current sources are reliable enough. Enough nonsense already, come up with a legitimite arguement if you wish to dispute. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd offer an opinion here, but I'm finding it hard to follow what the disagreement is. In terms of the actual article, what is the issue? What's Wording A, and Wording B? --Elonka 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Basicly, BS has a problem with the following paragraph:

This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims.[34]Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.[35] Those who use fake certificates of Muslim identity (to enter) may be arrested and prosecuted by Saudi authorities[36]

YahelGuhan (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Those who use fake certificates of Muslim identity (to enter) may be arrested and prosecuted by Saudi authorities".Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Five-word source

Also this article is about Mecca, not random Freedom House pages. [2] What does one page with five words on it have to do with reliable sources that usually explain themselves and give references?Bless sins (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Mecca, and discrimination, where an entire religion is forbidden to enter the city, is relevant Yahel Guhan 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the word "Mecca" or "Makkah" anywhere. "discrimination, where an entire religion is forbidden to enter the city," Your source also doesn't even say that. Your source doesn't even give one complete sentence!Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. The source, as anyone with common sense can tell, is clearly refering to the Mecca sign as being a "apartheid", a form of discrimination. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:RSN#Five_word_source the five-word source is not reliable.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
again, you base this on one opinion. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no one supporting you on this. So far I see the consensus against you. Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a vote. Yahel Guhan 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on consensus.Bless sins (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Airport1

"The main airport has a similar security policy." But Mecca doesn't have an airport. This can be verified by anyone who has fair bit of knowledge about the city.Bless sins (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow you must be desperate. See here And where is this airport? In Mecca. Though probability is they are refering to King Abdulaziz International Airport, in Jeddah, the main airport serving Mecca. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Since when are Jeddah and Mecca the same? They are tow entirely different cities.Bless sins (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Attribution to CNN

We attribute CNN because it makes an ambiguous statement. "Some religious scholars" without specifying who is very ambiguous. We need to state our sources clearly.Bless sins (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. We attribute when there are conflicts in POV, which there are not. After all, while there are sources that say it is discrimination, CNN being one of many, not one reliable source says it is not discrimination. Yahel Guhan 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, can you not see where CNN puts the word discrimination in quotes? We should not misquote the source.
Also, if you can name the "religious scholars" then we don't attribute. But if use vague words, then we do attribute. Such an example is given in Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.Bless sins (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no misquote. I think you made your obvious agenda quite clear in your comment here. You want quotes to imply a "denial" which doesn't exist. We attribute when we quote bias statements. However, as this is the mainstream view, there is no bias here being presented by CNN. Yahel Guhan 04:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you see the word discrimination in quotes? Yes or no. Answer this question.
Does CNN specify which scholars (i.e. their names) justify the the "discrimination"? Yes or no. Answer this question also.Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not playing this game. Yahel Guhan 05:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can't respond to a simple question, this means you are unwilling to enter discussion.Bless sins (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No. It means I am unwilling to play games, hopping around, avoiding the actual issue. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
So, "discrimination" doesn't have to do with the "actual issue"? Again, I call on you to answer my questions. If you don't it'll make clear to me that you even you know I'm correct in this.Bless sins (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Discrimination is the issue. And if you look at the current version, it is in quotations. Yahel Guhan 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Airport2
Mecca has a military airfield only , not a commercial airport , can we consider it as an airport ?  A M M A R  05:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Airport implies the civilian place.Bless sins (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting CNN

I don't care much this way or that way about the inclusion of CNN, though by the mentioning of the "religious scholars" it is already attributed (unless anyone has reason to dispute the accuracy of the CNN report). However, what I do care about is that the allegations and implications contained in their opinion not be presented as fact but quoted. The problem is that these scholars are basically saying that Mecca would be unsafe for Muslims if non-Muslims were allowed to enter, which IMHO is quote preposterous. Str1977 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, wouldn't you agree that all religious scholars wouldn't necessarily agree with them? Thus, isn't CNN quoting a specific batch of scholars that (though entitled to their own view) can't be considered representative of the general view. This is why I attributed it to CNN.Bless sins (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, which is why it says "some/many religious scholars". Anyway, though the new version is unwieldy, I have no real problem with it. Str1977 (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Its good that we agree, but do you realize how ambiguous "some/many" is?Bless sins (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture - religious significance

Under this section heading (near the end of the section) the article states: 'Some have disguised themselves as Muslims and entered the city of Mecca and then the Kaaba to experience the Hajj for themselves.'. I seriously doubt that impostors entered the Ka'aba, given that only a very select few muslims in the world are allowed to actually enter the Ka'aba itself. Entering the mosque surrounding the Ka'aba is a different story altogether. 163.1.143.161 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Somebody, probably by mistake (I do not suspect malicious acting) made his/her footnote editon beyond my capacity to fixed it (I know still too little), and as in effect all footnotes starting with #18 and on are completely mixed up and beyond possibility to read this mess properly. Can anyone fix that?

Vega2 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ick, you're right, that was a real mess. Looks like it was added by an anon on May 23.[3] I undid the edit, so things should be set right now. Thanks for bringing it up! --Elonka 22:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the image-warring on the restricted highway image

Is there some reason I missed why this wouldn't be included? Peter Deer (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Space and notability issues. If given the space, we should include images of Al-Safa and Al-Marwah, Zamzam well, the footsteps of Abraham (according to Muslim tradition anyways), the reputed house of the prophet Muhammad etc. Most reasonable people would agree that all the above mentioned images are far more notable than the highway image.
Regarding non-entrance of non-Muslims. We already have such an image (the archway), and its notability is sourced to a reliable source (CNN). Why do we need two images of non-Muslims non-entrance in Mecca, yet zero images of the important Meccan landmarks mentioned above? This is surely undue weight.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with including both images, though if we had to choose only one, I like the highway sign better as it gets the point across in a very clear manner. --Elonka 05:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The archway was mentioned in the CNN source as the marking point, thus I find it to be a more notable image. There is no source as of yet demonstrating the notability of the highway sign.
But seriously Elonka, don't you think that images of major Meccan landmarks (as described above) are more of a priority than highway signs?Bless sins (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to exclude the image. But that's my personal assessment. I think that the image is quite illustrative of the restricted nature of Mecca. Peter Deer (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you find a reliable source demonstrating its notability (just as I have found a source for the archway image)?Bless sins (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Secondly I've raised a similar point at Talk:Israel, about whether restrictive Israeli policies such as the West Bank barrier (which is accused of being apartheid) should be included in the main article?
Ultimately my issue here is the devotion of more space to highway signs than to Meccan landmarks and Muslim holy sites appears to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Image guidelines are a bit different from text guidelines, especially because we are so dependent here at Wikipedia, on users who upload freely-licensed images. As such, I don't believe we have to prove that an image was used by a news source (indeed, that often makes the image harder to use, because of copyright issues). As for undue weight, we have one image of one sign, in the context of a much longer article that has many other images. How is this violating WP:UNDUE? Bless sins, I understand that you don't like the image, but could you articulate more about why it bothers so much? I'm still not understanding. We seem to have plenty of room for plenty of images. We don't need to include images of every aspect of Mecca, because we have lots of other related articles. But in terms of the highway sign, it's an interesting image, and the Mecca article seems the most appropriate place for it to be used. --Elonka 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is why its undue: we currently have two images illustrating non-Muslims absence in Mecca. But we have zero images of the zamzam well, one of the most important sources of water for the city (atleast until the pre-modern times), as well as a sort of relic. Is my argument clearer now?
If you take a look at article Israel, how many images of the West Bank barrier do you see? None. This is because articles on cities and countries usually don't include images of controversial aspects.
Nevertheless I'm not proposing that we remove all images of non-Muslims' absence in Mecca - I'm saying that the one image (of archway) is enough.
"I understand that you don't like the image" Because I'm seeing a disturbing pattern. At the portal:discrimination users were more interested in portraying Mecca as an example of discrimination than the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. Here a user is more interested in pushing Mecca as an example of "apartheid" than improving the section on history, economy, culture, or geography.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed format

I propose the following format for the article:

  • Etymology
  • History
    • Pre-Islam
    • Muhammad and early Islam
    • Medieval period
    • Saudi Arabia
  • Geography
    • Climate
  • Demographics
  • Governance
  • Culture
    • Religious significance (including Pilgrimage)
    • Language
    • Cuisine
  • Economy
  • Communication (including section on Media)
  • Transportation
  • Education
  • See also
  • Notes
  • References
    • Further reading
  • External links

This is based on the aritcle Jerusalem (FA class) with some modifications.Bless sins (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the format, as I felt it was too long. A user has already tagged the article for its great length.Bless sins (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend splitting out some categories to other articles, such as History of Mecca and Culture of Mecca, per WP:SUMMARY. --Elonka 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but that wouldn't change the way things are divided up. It would only reduce the amount of content in each of the sections we fork out. Do you agree with the proposed division?Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)