Talk:Mecca/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sept. 2003 & Dec. 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Mecca/Archive02. Thank you. –Hajor 19:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Mecca vs. Makkah

Why don't we show each other love and respect and spell Makkah the way Muslims want? (User:66.198.34.2)

To paraphrase an issue that has already been long argued, because Makkah has not gained general acceptance in the English speaking world. It's fine mentioning Makkah in the article, but Mecca is the way it is generally referred to as. →Raul654 18:11, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
The fact is, there is no standard transliteration of Arabic words in English, and all the browbeating in the world doesn't change the facts. If an American, well-schooled in Arabic, were to interfere at the Arabic Wikipedia with the correct transliteration of Ouasheentoon they's recognize the fool for a horse's ass and they'd be right. Wetman 09:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The 'Mecca' spelling is offensive to Muslims."""""""""

Which Muslims, how many, and since when? I've never seen any other spelling, by Muslims or anybody else. --Uncle Ed 14:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Google has over 100,000 hits for Makkah. Try also "makkah spelling" and "makkah offensive". Anjouli 16:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why is Mecca offensive to Muslims? Adam Bishop 17:06, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC).

That is explained in the article. Do you think it needs more detail?

Click here for more info: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=mecca+makkah+spelling

Anjouli 15:48, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I must have missed that when I read it originally :) Adam Bishop 04:03, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I do often feel grateful for the cultural maturity of Italians, that they don't insist that English speakers call Florence 'Firenze.' In an English sentence, these 'correct' spellings of Koran or Mecca look preposterously pretentious to any educated native speaker of English. This is not an opinion, merely a cultural artifact that can't be helped. User:Wetman.

What ever happened to the "use common names" rule? RickK 03:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nothing happened to it; nor is there any caveat for some point of view regarding "offensiveness." I'm moving the page back where it belongs, based in no small part on the "what links here" section. - Hephaestos 03:23, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree with RickK, there's a simple issue of practicality here. With the search feature as it is, how is any normal user ever going to find Mecca, if they must spell it, 'Makkah'?
But there's a cultural point, frankly. Imagine an educated American, quite literate in Arabic, dictating to native Arabic speakers the 'correct' way to transliterate 'Washington' in Arabic? They would recognize the American for a buffoon. And if he got 'offended' when they laughed at him, they would know him for a jackass. And they would be quite right. Is that not true? How could anyone disagree with that?User:Wetman


Uh, there is a caveat regarding "offensiveness" in our common name naming convention. That is why the article about the native Canadian people is at Inuit and not Eskimo. The only real question before us is; 'Is "Mecca" so unreasonably offensive to Muslims to warrant the lower Google rank of this page and thus fewer eyes reading it, by having it at a less common name?' --mav

If so, I suspect this faction would go into an absolute tizzy if someone opened a distillery which sold "Makkah Whiskey" (and possibly try to change the English transliteration of the city's name yet again?) - Hephaestos 04:43, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Your remarks about Whiskey are VERY OFFENSIVE. We are not a faction. We are a major world religion. We honor other religions (The Qu'ran says we must). Please keep your racist hatred to yourself. Abdurahman 12:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Dear Abdurahman, i'm sorry to intrude, but i dont think Hephaestos intention was offensive. He was just trying, perhaps with a clumsy irony, to ask if Muslims are going to change the Holy City name, every time a ignorant occidental uses it for a non-worthy commercial intention, like whiskey. Until now, i was not aware that Mecca is an insult to your religion and i'm sure that many people ignore this fact. Thats not being racist: we are just not aware... All the best, Muriel 12:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Bless you for being a peacemaker Muriel, but the effect was certainly offensive if not the intention. Would calling the Jews a 'faction' or referring to a product called Synagogue Pork be inoffensive to a Jew? I think not. I'm sure Hephaestos can speak for himself if he wants to apologise. 195.238.50.252 14:01, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Calling Judaism a faction is as offensive as calling Islam a faction -- no one did either. The concatenation of words "Synagogue Pork" is not offensive to rational people. I can't imagine you would have typed it if you didn't realize this. A product so marketed probably would be, of course. You seem to have problems with the use-mention distinction (at least when it suits your rhetorical purposes). It is near impossible to discuss offensive phrasings and hypothetical offensive phrasings without the series of alphabetic characters representing them being produced, so if you think this discussion is worthwhile to have, you're probably going to have to resign yourself. --Charles A. L. 19:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Actually I think Hephaestos's remark/question is quite pertinent, even though I agree it wasn't stated very politely. Rather than going "Offensive!", "Offensive!", why not objectively discuss the question? What, indeed, would you do if someone started a "Makkah Whiskey" or something like that? You could try to get them to change the name of course, but since it wouldn't be illegal they wouldn't be obliged to, and if they don't change it the ball would be back in your court. What would you do then?
This isn't a rhetorical question. The whole reason that there are so many shops with Mecca in their name is that Mecca is an English word. And why did it become an English word? Because it is a holy city. The ultimate goal or whatever. So if everyone starts saying Makkah, then pretty soon the word Makkah is going to become an English word with the meaning that Mecca currently has, and you're going to see a "Makkah Whiskey". Hence the question. -- Arvindn 08:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You said it again! You said "Jehovah"! --Charles A. L. 19:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I would imagine that the two words would have come to have separate meanings. We have Persian cats and nobody insists on calling them Iranian cats. Language evolves. Nobody is saying that Mecca has no place in the English language in the non-geographical sense. How about 'Makkah is a Mecca for Pilgrims'? :)
If this is going to be at Mecca, should Kyiv be moved (or moved back) to Kiev? Kyiv is more true to the original, I guess, but no one spells it like that in English. Adam Bishop 02:01, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I would say so, yes. In my view the main thing should be "most common term used in English" which "Mecca" is, and as far as I know so is "Kiev". Terms like "Eskimo" aren't in the same circumstance, as updated terms have already been adopted into the English language off-Wikipedia. (Encarta's entry for "Eskimo," for example, simply says "see Inuit.") Same thing with Calcutta/Kolkata. I think as much as possible we should be keeping in line with other modern (i.e., not 1911 or even 1991) English-language references on the matter of names. - Hephaestos 02:21, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I think most of you are missing the point entirely. This is not at all the same as 'Firenze' and 'Florence'. Italians do not find 'Florence' grossly offensive.

With the greatest of respect, I think it is very harmful to the credibility of Wikipedia if people use terms like buffoon in talk pages. Can we discuss this politely please?

Regarding links and search pages, 'Mecca' still forwarded to 'Makkah' the last time I looked. And since when was Wikipedia just for 'Americans' (many of whom are Muslim)? Insisting on 'Mecca' leaves Wikipedia open to claims of cultural imperialism and alienates millions of people.

Are any of the people expressing opinions here actually Muslim? Bearing in mind the current tensions in the world, it might be better if people spent more time trying to understand other religions and cultures, rather than offending them. Anjouli 06:04, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just letting you know - there is a heated debate in Japanese wikipedia as well regarding the title of this article. The choice is between something like mekka and makka (spelled, of course, with Japanese alphabet). We have quite different naming conventions at ja. We also have different language-environment (some part of scholarly publications moving towards Mekkah from Mecca) while mass media seem remain Mecca. But we would be paying attention to, and hopefully benefiting from, the discussion here. Tomos 02:41, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm a Muslim and I find Mecca VERY offensive. I was please to see it was corrected recently to Makkah - but now I see somebody (presumably a White American Christian Conservative Male) has put it back. Why on earth would anybody want to do that except to cause deliberate offence? -- User:81.208.0.214


The 'Mecca' links worked fine. Is putting 'Mecca' before rather than after 'Makkah' such a bit deal? If this gets posted on an Islamic bulletin board (not by me!) you are going to have 'Muslim' idiots attacking and vandalising Wikipedia. A miniscule minority of 'Muslim' terrorists has done quite enough damage to my religion as it is, without you trying to stir up more hatred thank you. Is Wikipedia going to go back to calling Black people 'colored' (or worse) just because somebody wants to retain older terminology? -- User:81.208.0.214
This seems to have gotten WAY out of hand...If it is a problem to the Muslim community to have it called Makkah rather than Mecca than why not have TWO separate pages or the Makkah page have a link on it to the Mecca (or vice versa)...I mean, we are taking this from a POV to philosophical and religious (even though it somewhat is religious) realms...I mean come on...in most English encyclopedias it would be referenced under Mecca. But there must be SOME way to have BOTH parties be happy in this situation without making it a HUGE debate or even to lead to RACIST or RELIGIOUS name calling!


To Anjouli, this isn't a question about Americans but about English speaking people. As Mav has noted, there is currently nothing in the Naming conventions that says an exception should be made to the "most commonly used name" rule based on degree of offensiveness. (Err... sorry, but there is. Please see my post below. Anjouli 13:41, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)) I don't think you'll deny that Mecca is the most commonly used name among English speaking people. I, for one, see no reason why an exception should be made.

To the anon IP above, you could probably help your cause by being err.. less passionate, shall we say? In particular, if Muslim "idiots" were to start vandalizing wikipedia, we would simply revert those edits, don't you think?

OK, consider this: if I came here by googling for "Mecca", then I'd read the article and know that the word is offensive to some people. But if it had been moved to "Makkah", then I would never have come here, and would still remain ignorant of the fact. Which do you think is better? (I'm just illustrating the most common name rule and trying to argue that it should take precedence over offensiveness.)

And your analogy isn't quite correct. As you have yourself said, we don't use older terms just because some people want to use them. In this case, however, most people want to use the older term, and have never even heard of the newer term. That's precisely why we use the older term. Note that "most people" means "most English speakers", because this is the English wikipedia. Other language wikipedias, of course, are free to have their own rules.

And BTW, when you start a new paragraph which is meant to be indented, you should start it with a ':' as well. -- Arvindn 12:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see it's been moved back. To quote from the guidelines:
"Move wars" are highly unproductive, and leave vast numbers of pointless redirects littering the place, which some poor soul will have to fix. keep your cool: don't engage in move wars.
and...
Also, some terms are in common usage but are unreasonably offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo, Black American and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit, African-American, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example).
A little research on Google (not to mention this Talk page) shows that many Muslims clearly find Mecca 'unreasonably offensive' and that with 147,000 Google hits, Makkah is clearly a 'widely known alternative'.


I think the present page meets the guidelines and certainly that there should not be any further moves without discussing the matter. Hope you agree.
By the way, Inuit has 383,000 Google hits and Eskimo 579,000 - so there is an example here to follow. (Mecca has 744,000 but many of those are not related to the City.)
I'm neither Muslim nor Christian and have no vested interest here - so I hope I have managed to maintain a NPOV on this. Anjouli 13:35, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I actually find myself agreeing with this person. "Move wars" are unproductive and to a point immature. If you search for Mecca and it takes you to a page called Makkah...just have a little note at the top that explains that Muslims refer to what non-Muslims call Mecca. How hard is this and why would anyone have any problems with this...it would be the same as Jesus of Nazareth redirecting to what Christians call Jesus Christ...Come on people!

If the only reason this article was moved back to "Makkah" is that it struck some people as offensive being named "Mecca", then I submit I find it offensive that it is located at "Makkah" and will continue to remain offended until it is moved back to "Mecca". - Hephaestos 23:54, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC) (One more thing, I don't think I'm alone in finding it offensive when some Internet troll yells at me in all caps, but I'll let that one slide.)

Hephaestos, I agree on polite discussion rather than yelling in caps. But I do also think we should discuss this rationally, instead of people indulging in a 'move war' to impose their individual point of view. It would also be nice if whoever moved the page back announced it here. Otherwise it all looks a bit sneaky. Personally, I think "Makkah' meets the usage guidelines best - but since people are ignoring the 'move war' guideline, I guess they will ignore the 'offensiveness' one too. Anjouli 06:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just a small remark: at my former university, department of Islamic studies, everyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, said and wrote Mecca (except when transcribing arabic texts). All literature spells it Mecca, too. So, no offense meant, it's a question of being overly politically correct when using Makkah (btw, the "h" - at least in the German-Arabic transcription system - is not written). --elian

Hi Elian. Thanks for weighing-in with a reasoned argument. Yes, that's probably quite true of a few years ago. Same thing with Eskimo, Peking etc. But it's changed now. If I might declare my credentials (I don't usually) but I am an American Professor of Religious Studies living in the Middle East. I am neither a Moslem nor a Christian and have no vested interest in this matter. I can assure you that 'Mecca' absolutely is offensive the the majority of Muslims and that the new spelling is used in almost all new publications. I do wish people would learn to understand and respect each other's religions, particularly what each finds offensive (even if it seems trivial to an outsider). I think I'll duck-out of this argument now as everybody seems to be ignoring the guidelines. I find that distressing. I wish we could just take a vote on it, but there seems to be no mechanism for that. Do the right thing guys. Anjouli 06:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The right thing has been done. Mecca is the name in English. It is not Wikipedia's job to try to change people's minds on things, but to describe things as they are. Case closed. RickK 06:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mecca is not the acceptable name in English anymore than Eskimo is for Inuit. Do you want to reintroduce Nigger for African American because it's a common term in parts of the USA? I have moved the page back, because that is in accordance with the guidelines. Abdurahman 07:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Personally I'm offended when some idiot distorts the English language, and finds imaginary offences everywhere.

I don't think the case of "Inuit" is comparable. "Inuit" is now definitely English usage, at least as an alternative to "Eskimo," at most as its complete replacement (e.g. in scholarly work, in Canada, and so forth.) "Makkah" certainly does not have such a status in English. It is not even as widespread as "Mumbai," let alone "Côte d'Ivoire" or "Inuit."

Dam right. What right do these sand-n****rs have to dictate our langauge.-- User:81.208.0.214, User talk:81.208.0.214, Contributions
I hope nobody removes the above comment. Let it stand so people can see the attitute a minority of Wikians have to tolerance and racial/religious harmony. Abdurahman 08:43, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This constant renaming of pages is making my head spin. Why can't people follow the guidelines? Sorry, but I must put a few stars in the above racist term. Has anybody noticed that the above racist remark is from the same IP as the 'offended Muslim'? Could be two different people with the same ISP, but it looks a bit suspicious. Somebody trying to stir up trouble perhaps? Anjouli 10:20, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Either the person was trying to be sarcastic, or is trolling. I can't decide which. But what I'm sure of is that people are taking this way too seriously :) -- Arvindn 12:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia prevent the same page being renamed more than once a week from the same IP number/user? What do people think? It would at least restrict this kind of madness. Anjouli 10:20, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You can't move pages if you're not logged in. Dysprosia 10:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that. But blocking a user would not do the job as somebody could just create a user identity for the job, as I suspect some have already done. Of course IP's can change, but many people have static IP broadband, so IP blocking could at least reduce the problem. Anjouli 11:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A page moving war helps nobody. Is the problem here with the content or just the title? Mecca can easily redirect to Makkah, or vice versa. If Mecca is offensive then I don't understand why people are defending it. I will watch this debate - maybe the page needs temporarily protecting if this continues.Secretlondon 10:24, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. But what state will it be in when it is protected? Anjouli 11:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just reverted the page with the editing history, as someone decided to move it by copying it. So to move it now the other article needs to be deleted. Just moving the contents is very bad as it disconnects the text from its history. BTW: I have no objections with the article moved to Makkah. andy 13:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've moved the Mecca page over to Makkah, so that the edit history is moved over as well. I've also protected the redirect page, but not the Makkah entry itself. Maybe this will help things to settle down. --Modemac 14:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Thank you Mr. Anonymous IP. Your ineffective attempts to keep the offensive version and prevent a page move have unlinked the page from its history. Anything else in Wikipedia you plan to destroy? Can an Admin fix it please, and lock this page to prevent these racist attacks? 81.208.0.214 13:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, it was not unlinked, it was just copied, thus I deleted the duplicate above, and reverted the old version of Talk:Mecca. Now the redirects have a history it is no longer possible to continue the move-war without admin interaction. Please continue the discussion in Talk:Mecca, as this talk needs to be deleted anyway in case the article is decided to be moved here. And please moved, not copied. andy 13:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was annoying enough when I found I couldn't leave town for a day without someone moving this article to the wrong name, but now apparently it will happen while I'm trying to get a decent night's sleep.

I will be moving it back, and locking both versions to prevent any more of this nonsense. The reasons should be quite clear from the naming conventions. Unfortunately it make take a while for me to figure out ahead of time how to repair the damage done by the copy-paste move made by the race-baiting troll; it will be necessary to undelete some history and merge the talk pages.

Nor am I doing this, as are some others, without consulting sources. This is no different from when soeone puts refutable inaccuracy in the body of an article, as an item in a wiki it eventually gets changed to be accurate. "Eskimo" and "Inuit" are not in the same circumstance as "Makkah"; they are already in their correct spots. This change has already made it into the English language. [1]. You may find www.onelook.com as useful as I have; by consulting several sources current usage becomes clear.

As for the only three English-language references online that I could find which mentioned "Makkah" at all: "See Mecca" "See Mecca" "See Mecca"

We do not change the English language here. Nor do we attempt to facilitate change. Rather, report on what is current, and you can rest assured that if and when "Makkah" enters mainstream English usage you will find me every bit as strident at keeping it under that name as I am about keeping it at "Mecca" now. - Hephaestos 15:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are falling into a trap here. You are consulting only Western references. It is an easy mistake to make since almost all on-line English references are indeed Western. Consult (for example) an Indian reference and you will find Makkah predominates. Unfortunately few of these are online. English does not mean British or American. There are a lot of other English-speakers in the world, although Western English certainly dominates on the 'net. Do we embracde that, or try to be more inclusive? Anjouli 06:54, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You are of course correct that there are more Western references online than references from other areas of the world, although fortunately this has been improving in recent years, and the material from other parts of the world is growing pretty much daily. Using your example of India, I find about 600 references to Islam's holy city on servers based in India (.in top level domain). In this relatively small but I think representative sample, even here the "Mecca" spelling is preferred over "Makkah" by a factor of more than twenty to one. [2] [3]
Given the speed with which the Internet facilitates the propagation of information, I believe that an agreed-upon spelling change will appear first there, rather than in print publications. I suspect this was the case with the changes to "Kolkata" and "Mumbai", which occurred in the presence of the Internet, and which were accomplished with almost lightning-like speed compared to the change to "Beijing", which occurred before the Internet was in place. This makes intuitive sense: once a decision is made to change a spelling, a publisher of a dictionary, encyclopedia or other reference work can make the change in seconds, rather than have to wait through the publication and distribution process of print, which can take months or years.
As do you, I believe inclusiveness is a good thing. But I think Wikipedia's guideline to use the most common spelling for whatever language an article is written (English, Arabic, French, etc.) was put in place precisely with inclusiveness in mind. It is counterproductive to throw in a word that has a high probability of making our reader go "huh?" and be forced to click on the link to find out what is being written about. Thus we use spellings which our readers will know at a glance, in the language appropriate to that Wikipedia. - Hephaestos 16:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Although we differ in viewpoint, thank you for a reasoned and unemotional response. Others here please take note.
I must admit that I was consulting printed references, including Indian school books. Please also note that the vast majority of Indian sites (as in many developing countries) are still dot-coms. 600 is hardly a representative sample, since Googling just Makkah gives 103,000. Repeat your Google search with .sa (Saudi) and you will find the opposite -- and Makkah is a Saudi city, after all.
Anyway, I think we are getting distracted here by usage volume. The question is whether or not Mecca is offensive -- and a little research shows it clearly is -- and whether or not Makkah is a commonly accepted alternative, which I submit that it is. If we just go by Google count, we are going to have to move Inuit back to Eskimo. I think the page should be at Makkah -- but I'm not going to be the one to move it! Anjouli 05:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


And I've moved it back to where it belongs. RickK 16:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can someone please add a Unicode rendering of the real name in Arabic of this city? That way, we can mention the real Arabic name near the top of the article, together with both English variants. -- The Anome 16:58, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't mean to be facetious, but isn't anyone offended by the similarity between Makkah and "Macca," a nickname of Paul McCartney? I mean, if people are offended enough by a Bingo company to change the name of the city (rather than the other way around), are there any objections to things that sound like "Makkah" as well? Adam Bishop 16:59, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A bit off the topic, but this is a known phenomenon. The old name for a rabbit was coney (c.f. Coney Island). Rabbit originally meant the young of the coney. Coney sounded like Cunny which was the old (vulgar)word for female genitalia. Hence coney fell out of use. Note also the American Rooster vs British Cock. Anjouli 06:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sheesh. Is there any evidence that the campaign to change the spelling has caught on anywhere? In particular, is there a reference for the following claim?

It is now the preferred spelling of the English-speaking Islamic world...

Let's not get sidetracked into who calls it what, unless this is an important issue in itself. --Uncle Ed 17:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • An advocate at a faith and values website published an editorial about the issue here.
  • A timezone website notes that "Makkah is also known as Mecca" and "The native name of Saudi Arabia is Al Arabiyah as Suudiyah" [4]

I would say that "Mecca" is the most commonly used way English speakers spell the name of Islam's holiest city. I put the variant "Makkah" right next to it.

As for whatever the current short name for people of African descent living abroad ought to be, please note that the word "nigger" has been replaced by "Negro" and "black", supplemented by a healthy dose of "African-American" where appropriate.

The thing is to balance a respect for people and places, with a sensible appreciation of common usage. --Uncle Ed 17:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It seems that the name "Makkah" is indeed widely used, enough so that I'm in favor of using that name out of respect for the people and the place. I'm in favor of it for the same reason why we call Taiwan "Taiwan" and not "Formosa," despite the refusal of China to admit to Taiwan; or why the capital of China is Beijing and not Peking; or why the capital of Vietnam is Ho Chi Minh City and not Saigon. --Modemac 17:54, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Why not be quantitative about this? Lets count the number of google hits.
taiwan: 16,900,000; formosa: 598,000
beijing: 5,670,000; peking: 831,000
ho chi minh city: 451,000; saigon: 797,000
makkah: 119,000; mecca: 1,110,000
See the difference? -- Arvindn 18:14, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My Middle East history textbook (published in 2000) still uses only Mecca, so even among scholars it doesn't yet dominate. - SimonP 18:18, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Later books use Makkah. Happy to send you one. Anjouli 06:54, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it likely that within a decade or two, the educated English spelling may eventually be "Makkah": conside "Beijing", and "Mumbai" for similar examples already in transition. For the moment, though, it's "Mecca", and we should adopt the usual compromise of:

Mecca (Arabic [Unicode of arabic name], Makkah Al-Mukkaramah) is the holy city of Islam...

and add a small section about usage in the body of the article.

-- The Anome 18:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I made somewhat the same change as the Anome suggested - but perhaps not quite. Also, isn't there any less jarring way of introducing the new name? Especially in the well-known context of "pilgrimage to Mecca". --Uncle Ed 20:15, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some Googling has found the word "Mecca/Makkah" in Arabic (now inserted into the page): I think I've also got "Al-Mukarramah", but I am having major char encoding / BiDi problems, so I'm not posting it here. -- The Anome 22:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


See http://www.raddadi.com/madinah/makkamap.htm for an occurence of "Makkah Al-Mukkaramah" encoded in Windows-1256 encoding - so it still needs to be translated into the appropriate Unicode entities. -- The Anome 23:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Ok, here goes:

مكة 
meem kaf teh-marbuta = Mecca / Makkah

الكرمة
alef lam meem kaf reh meem teh-marbuta = Al-Mukkaramah

Put it together, and you have

مكة الكرمة

Please can any Arabic speakers let me know if I have made a mess of this?

-- The Anome 23:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No idea if you've made a mess of it, but I've been watching your progress and rooting for you all afternoon. Hajor 23:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Afterthought: don't we have to invert the order of the characters, so it reads from R to L? Thus:
ةمركلا ةكم     – Hajor 04:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No, that's wrong. I see where you are coming from, but the Windows operating system automatically reverses the characters. If you do it manually, it gets inverted twice.
مكة الكرمة is perfect, although the second Meem is a bit hard to see in a small font as it is just a very small loop on the bottom of the Lam. I'm an Arabic speaker (not native, I'm a Westerner) and however you spell it, the proper pronunciation is Ma-Kah. The pronunciation Meka is due to early Western explorers beign unable to pronounce the name (c.f. Peking) Anjouli 06:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Actually, on closer inspection the second meem is missing altogether. It should be مكة المكرمة.
It all depends on the font. Windows Transparent Arabic separates the meem (like a small o, pronounced m) clearly, whereas Windows Traditional Arabic just puts a very small lump on the bottom of the Lamm, which is almost impossible for a Westerner to see unless expecting it.
I have added the missing meem to the article. Anjouli 07:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification about the OS automatically sorting out the direction. I've clearly got settings issues here in my browser: my Opera displays User:The Anome's version from L to R, but if I open this page up in IE, then his version reads R to L and mine is the wrong way round. Mildly intriguing, but it's already way past my bedtime. Hajor 08:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I have heard that Opera has trouble with right-to-left languages like Farsi, Hebrew, Urdu and Arabic. Hope they get it sorted out. I'm all for competition in browsers. Anjouli 10:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just a couple of observations:

  • Nobody has removed the para saying that Muslims find Mecca offensive, so presumably the majority accept that.
  • Nobody has changed the guideline that says Also, some terms are in common usage but are unreasonably offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo, Black American and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit, African-American, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example).

Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?

I agree that Mecca/Makkah is in transition (as was Peking Beijing a few years ago.) The question is do we wait until everybody else has changed before we do?

I am amazed that there seem to be virtually zero Muslim users of Wikipedia. (I'm not convinced that the above 'Muslims' are genuine.) Is that because Muslims see it as a lost cause? Certainly it has been mentioned in some Arabic language chat-rooms as being anti-Islamic. A quick look at some related articles (e.g. Wahhabism) certainly gives that impression. Perhaps we could widen our audience by being more neutral? Anjouli 06:30, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe it's because Muslims aren't as interested in things like 'neutrality' or 'freedom of religion'? (Please don't throw things at my head, I'm just thinking out loud here, not making a "claim".)
I'm sure you are a nice guy and did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings - but did you THINK before making that comment? Do you realize what that does for the credibility of Wiki editors? Replace Muslims in the above comment with Jews, Blacks or whatever religious or ethnic group you belong to. Would you then feel this was an impartial encyclopedia? Abdurahman 11:13, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's stereotyping. Undoubtedly there are Muslims who would prefer to have propaganda in an encyclopedia rather than impartial fact -- but so would a lot of other people. It's a bit unfair to single-out Muslims. One of the declared aims of Osama Bin Laden is to stir up hatred between non-Muslims and Muslims, particularly Saudis. I'm always sad when people on both 'sides' bite on the cheese in his trap. Anjouli 05:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
After we straighten out the issue of the name of Mecca, can we move on to articles like Islam, Islamism, etc.? --Uncle Ed 15:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the folks who feel the name of the article should be Makkah, but I seem to be in the minority so I'll hold my tongue. However, the last three changes from Mecca to Makkah have come from three different IP addresses. Is this all the work of one person, or are there multiple users trying to change the article name? --Modemac 15:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Should be easy to look-up which ISP in which country owns the IP numbers. If it is the same ISP for all three, then could be the same person with a dynamic IP number, but small chance it is not. If remotely different IPs (and we test to be sure they are not open proxy-servers) then most likely different people. Would somebody with more time than me do this please? Anjouli 05:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we just let this 'move war' play out and see what the most active users do? We might then count the different IPs to determine the majority opinion. Would that work? (I'm assuming Admins can check the IPs of signed-on users.) Anjouli 05:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am so sad to see the name of the most holy place of my beloved religion listed with what at least I and a small majority of Muslims consider an offensive name. I can accept the reasons for this. This is a Western encyclopedia and we must wait things out as did the Inuit until Western English evolves. What I find unacceptable is the degree of hostility and racism: "Muslims aren't as interested in things like 'neutrality' ", "sand-niggers". Talk about a NPOV! Are these really the kind of editors Wiki wants to attract? I am a moderate Muslim and totally against violence and Islamic Fundamentalism. But I can see now why it is so easy for extremist organisations to recruit uneducated young idiots from the slums of the Islamic world. Can't you people show a bit of empathy and responsibility? Thank you the good-guys. You know who you are. I shall never log-on to Wikipedia again. Abdurahman 11:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm.... Check the history. User Abdurahman seems to be the 81.208.0.214 troll. Looks like he forgot to log-on and had to change the sig. Anjouli 14:56, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh man. The way I see it, some of the people here refuse to change the page name until the English language changes - meaning, until the majority spells it Makkah instead of Mecca. The thing is, you can't wait until languages change. English is constantly changing. Your choice to spell a word one way "changes" it in that now you are one more reason for the word to be "commonly" spelled that way. When you decide to call Makkah "Mecca" you affect the majority. But ... it's not about the majority. Most people don't care. But there are some who do, some who find Mecca offensive. And because it's takes very little effort to allow a re-direct from Mecca to Makkah, surely it's not too much to ask. C'mon. Let's not be petty.

Indeed, let's not be petty. (I wonder where it will end up next. I wonder if people will ever be able to find it.) - Hephaestos 06:48, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If both spellings point to the article, why would it be hard to find? Anjouli 06:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Our "decision" to spell the name of the city as Mecca has no effect on the majority. It's actually the other way around: we spell it that way, because that's the way the majority of English speakers spell it.

Also, we don't change anything around here, simply because someone says they're offended by it. If there is a campaign to change the way most people spell the city, we will report on that campaign. And if the majority changes, we will (probably) change along with it -- provided it doesn't produce a significant bewildered minority who can no longer find the city.

We won't be able to achieve our goal of being an authoritative resource if we change things based on factors such as:

  • a bunch of contributors take a vote, or
  • a determined campaign claims we are "causing offense"

---Anjouli starts here. (Above editor, please sign your contributions!)

Usage arguments are completely valid, but I don't buy this "people can't find it" idea. Currently it's Mecca, but searching Wiki on Makkah works perfectly, as does googling mecca wikipedia and makkah wikipedia. (Neither Makkah nor Mecca give a Wiki link in the first few pages.) Why would it be different the other way round? One observation: Makkah hits always refer to the city, Mecca hits do not. Make what you will of that.
In the last hour I spoke to a British diplomat in Saudi Arabia (name drop!) and asked their policy. He said they use Makkah for public documents and Mecca for internal Foreign Office memos, but they are thinking of changing as "as we did with Beijing" because "many people find Mecca offensive".
I think common usage is certainly going to change to Makkah in the near future, even if it has not changed yet. Anjouli 19:13, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

Some terms are in common usage but are unreasonably offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo, Black American and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit, African-American, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example).

I believe, judging from this discussion and the external links therein, that the term Mecca is unreasonably offensive to large groups of people, and Makkah is a widely known alternative. I further note that taking account of the offence of Eskimos to that article title, without taking account of the offence of Muslims to this article title, is a significant deviation from the neutral point of view on which this encyclopedia is based.

I also note that Makkah is more precise than Mecca, excluding as it does meanings such as "mecca for gambling". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for the importance of this. Another factor in my decision is that Saudi Arabia has apparently declared it the official name of the place. I note the parallel with Baghdad International Airport, as the United States was a significant factor in our decision as to the eventual location of that article.

For all these reasons, my determination is that this article should, once we have at least a rough consensus on this talk page, be moved to Makkah or Makkah Al-Mukkaramah. However, I would also like to express my strong distaste for "move wars" as a means for attempting to settle these issues - in my experience they tend to promote division and conflict, rather than helping us reach an understanding. Martin 19:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

<devils advocate>: What if they found the use of Latin letters offensive? Should we then use the Arabic script? How far should this go?</devils advocate> I'm simply not convinced yet that the offensiveness/ambiguity issue is compelling enough to trump common usage (and I am the person who wrote the naming convention text you quote above). --mav 20:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There we go again with this they thing. Who are they? Another usage I hate is we, as in "At Wiki we do this and we do that", as if the writer presumes to speak for all editors and admins. If we think Muslim Wiki editors are they and non-Muslim editors are we, then we have lost our way people.
What if they demanded Arabic script? What if they ate babies? Well they have not and they do not. In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where a large proportion of the population speaks English as a first language (I bet that surprises you) street and shop signs are bilingual. Speculating on some unreasonable action they might take next is unproductive. Anjouli 06:36, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just as an aside, many Muslims do not even speak Arabic (although they probably know some prayers and scriptures by rote). This is similar in some ways to Latin and the Catholic church in times past. Services were in Latin, whihc most Catholics could not speak.Anjouli 06:55, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Attempts to enforce language in dramatic or unreasonable ways such as demanding Arabic script (another example would be sie and hir, to pick a topic close to my heart) tend to be unsuccessful. In such cases, the common usage is only considered unacceptable by a vanishingly small minority of people, and the proposed alternative is neither widely known, nor widely accepted. I don't think this will become a serious issue, though I am aware of the slippery slope problem.
Obviously this is very much a judgement issue, and I respect your judgement on this (though I disagree with it). This may be one of those issues where the best thing is to take a vote, but maybe we can find a compromise in some way? One option would be to take a leaf from football (soccer) and have this article at Mecca (Makkah). Martin 21:02, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

While the royal we can cause offence, it is legitimate. But I agree that an us-and-them attitude can be unhelpful. I see that nobody's objected to Mecca (Makkah) yet. Anjouli, would this be acceptable? Or still potentially offensive to you and others? Martin 19:12, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Martin, just to clarify, Mecca is no more offensive to me than it is to you. I am not a Muslim. I am just trying to be a good WP editor. I happen to live in Saudi Arabia and work with Muslims of all nationalities on a daily basis - so I'm fairly in touch with their thoughts on this. It is when the "label" is stuck on the city itself that there is considerable concern, although most attribute it to unintentional ignorance rather than malice. There is actually a campaign in the Muslim world to stop "uneducated" Muslims using the old spelling, as some still do. I don't think any reasonable Muslim objects to "Mecca for tourists". Personally I think Mecca (Makkah) is a good compromise for now, particularly since Makkah is used in the body of the article - although most Muslims would probably prefer Makkah (Mecca). Nobody seems to dispute that the word is in transition - not even the Mecca enthusiasts. The question is does WP change over now, or wait?Anjouli 05:59, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Martin, you are the undisputed heavyweight champion of refactoring -- so even though I disagree with you, I'm going to go along with whatever you suggest: I often find that I don't appreciate what you're proposing until after you do it -- then it kind of "grows on me" :-) --Uncle Ed 19:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Mecca (Makkah) as the article title strikes me as a sensitive compromise, at least for the next generation or so while the new transliteration gains general acceptance. Meanwhile, isn't it a bit incongruous that the text of the article consistently uses "Makkah" but "Medina" instead of "Madinah"? Doesn't Medina>Madinah come from the same historical moment and obey the same reasons as Mecca>Makkah? –Hajor 21:25, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Something to be discussed on Medina, perhaps? Martin 22:17, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Not so sure. The issue's so closely related to this one that taking it over to Medina would just require us all to jump through the exact same hoops as above again. Seems to me that what works for Makkah should also work for for Madinah. –Hajor 00:01, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are missing the point completely guys! Medina is not offensive as there is no gambling organization of that name. Arguably, Madinah is starting to replace Medina, as Jeddah has already replaced Jedda. However the change to Makkah relates to the offensiveness guideline, not the usage guideline. So I'll perhaps surprise everybody and vote for Medina for now. Madinah is not yet the most common usage - although it probably will be in the near future. Anjouli 06:12, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
OK, I was paying too much attention to the cause of consistency (which is a big thing to ask for, I know) and lost sight of the 'offensiveness' element. Still, Medina would be improved by adding the preferred local version of the name (transcribed and Unicoded), and I think there's a case for including "(alternatively transliterated as Madinah or al-Madinah)" on first reference in this article. –Hajor 15:06, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's fair enough.Anjouli 16:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Mecca (Makkah) is worse than either Mecca or Makkah. Parenthesis are for disambiguation and since the secondary dictionary definition of "Mecca" is just that, a definition, I see no need to disambiguate. This isn't the same as football/football issue; there two terms that we want (and have) articles on needed to be disambiguated from each other. --mav 04:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My vote is for Makkah as the article title and for Mecca as a redirect page. Mecca (Makkah) and Makkah (Mecca) are non-starters as there could be the same type of argument as above over which was the best variant, plus they don't form obvious links for editors guessing at article titles. -- Derek Ross 07:36, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We are on thin ice if we say Bakka is the old name of Makkah. There is little clear evidence for this. I'm not going to repeat it all here, but [5] and [6] state the basic arguments. I think the statement should be qualified. Anjouli 06:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes! Nice work The Anome. I think that's perfect. Anjouli 06:40, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Count me as another voter for making "Mecca" a redirect and "Makkah" the favored spelling. It is a proper name, the offensiveness is plenty well documented, and it is a sacred city to boot. I am neither a theist nor a native english speaker but I see no reasonable argument for doing otherwise. We should _not_ wait for Makkah to become the most used spelling in written media any more than we should wait for, say, Britannica to include an article about all your base are belong to us before following suit. The simple truth of the matter is that WP can and will recognize language changes before most other media will - that is one of the benefits of having hundreds of voluntary editors worldwide. The idea that Mecca is the "correct English spelling" holds no water at all. Proper names have changed before due to desire from the natives (the most obvious example probably being Beijing, previously known as Peking) and we are talking here about a city that is off-grounds for non-Muslims for crying out loud. Most Muslims find the "Mecca" spelling offensive, and it is less accurate to boot. It boggles the mind that someone can seriously offer that "Mecca" is a better name for this article. It should be kept as a redirect, yes, but it is very clear that in a few years at most it will be phased out in favor of "Makkah". WP can adapt faster than most other media, and IMO has a moral duty to do just that. Luis Dantas 02:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:For a comparable dispute over an English transliteration for 'Koran,' as vetted and approved by Arabs, see Qur'an. This must refer to an earlier version of Qur'an, because I can see no "comparable dispute" in that article. Any explanation, or should I just delete that line? –Hajor 15:40, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What does "Al-Mukkaramah" mean? RickK 19:51, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe it's an honorific: "the venerated", "the esteemed", something like that. But you might want to wait for confirmation from someone whose Arabic comprises more than eight or nine words. –Hajor 20:13, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It is usually translated as "the honored". "Mukarramah" is a more common spelling by English-speaking Saudis. Anjouli 06:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I still don't see the big issue on whether or not it should be labeled as Mecca or Makkah since they both go to the same article. I too used to write it as Mecca, but after reading the Arabic, I think Makkah is a more accurate spelling, and I also see it more common among Muslims. I do think it is a bit ludicrous to claim that Muslims are offended by Mecca though.

DigiBullet 07:37, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why do you think "it is a bit ludicrous to claim that Muslims are offended by Mecca". It is very easily researched on the 'net that this is absolutely true - not to mention the re-naming war of recent months. Anjouli 03:13, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

STOP PRESS!! The US State Departement, British government and some other European countries now officially use the 'Makkah' spelling. Somebody please verify, then move the page please. 195.238.50.251 21:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Life in Makkah

I would like to see some content added to this article that discusses Makkah as a city. What is life there like? How many people live there? What is the local economy like? At any given time, how many people in the city are permanent residents versus pilgrims? How is Makkah affected each month by events in the Islamic calendar?

As it is, the article briefly mentions the religious significance of Makkah, summarizing points that are adequately addressed elsewhere. But what is Makkah like? Jdavidb 20:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Naming policy poll

→Raul654 has started a poll, asking if the most common english name or the proper local name should be used for locations. This city is listed as an example. The poll is at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll -- chris_73 07:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Black Stone

The Black stone is not 'prayed to' folks. It is there because Muhammad put it there, and managed to ensure all four tribal leaders saved face in its installation. Some Muslims Kiss it because the Prophet kissed it, thus making kissing it Sunna (an example/Tradition), Likewise some Muslims in the west wear a Turban because it is Sunna. But the Black stone is not worshipped, it is not prayed to and it is not sacred. - 195.7.55.146


Err, also, I removed this sentence:

Muhammad died in 632, and almost immediately afterward the Arab armies embarked on their wars of conquest which would eventually embrace most of the Middle East and North Africa, bringing Islam with them. ..because it has nothing to do with Mecca.

"Bakka" discusion in two places--trimmed

Removing the change made at [7]. Isn't it covered in the heading before that?—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:40, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

GEUSS WHAT?

MAKKAH ISLAM GIVES MORE GOOGLE HITS THEN MECCA ISLAM. THE EXTRA HITS THAT MECCA GOT WERE DUE TO THE OTHER USES OF MECCA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!