Talk:Mecca/Archive 3
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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Spelling
I've tried to clean up the very messy and POV section about the spelling. This section has had a good pounding by two sides who displayed an almost fanatical zeal to stamp out one spelling in favour of the other. That was a year or so ago and I hope it's now calmed down enough to tidy this up and try to make it more NPOV. Still needs work (News orgs, notably BBC and others in coverage of the Haj) are now tending towards 'Makkah'. THat needs to be reflected and referenced. If you have strong feelings on spelling, please discuss here and let's not have a repetition of the historical edit war :) Anjouli 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As for renaming the article, I think that's going to come eventually, but probably not yet. There is a noticeable swing towards 'Makkah' but it's just starting. Please don't use Google searches as justification unless you can filter out lower-case 'mecca' (impossible I think) and any pages more than a year old. Anjouli 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Time to rename the article as Makkah
It's time to rename the article, the same way that the Bombay article became Mumbai. (And Bombay was not even all that offensive, unlike linking the holiest site in Islam with a gambling organization).
The main argument raised against this has been common use: major organizations and Google counts. Most organizations now use Makkah. (See Anjuli post above and other references in the article.
Makkah is now most common on Google:
1) Google mecca -bingo = 2,320,000 2) Google makkah = 2,160,000
but most sites using Makkah also reference mecca: e.g. Makkah(Mecca)
So how many of these are there?
3) Google makkah mecca = 175,000
subtract these from 1) 2,320,000 - 175,000 = 2,145,000
so Makkah beats Mecca by 2,160,000 - 2,145,000 = 15,000
Not much, but Mecca beat Makkah 10 to 1 a year ago. It's definitely shifting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.244.6 (talk • contribs)
- oppose this has been discussed heavily. Mecca is better. Google results do not determine what is more notable for wikipedia standards.--SefringleTalk 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's interesting how a Google count has been used by the pro 'Mecca' lobby to defend their position for so long, but now that the Google count is tending towards 'Makkah', it seems "Google results do not determine what is more notable". Fine. In that case we have to go with usage by major organizations, news organizations, governments etc. which all as per Anjouli post above clearly favour 'Makkah' as per refs in article and in archive. It's time to change, despite87.101.244.10 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC) the Islamophobia.
- You aren't going to get consensus by accusing the opposition of being islamophobes. Please provide evidence, but this has been discussed heavily, and I doubt there will be any consensus to change the title.--SefringleTalk 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well I don't see any opinion to the contrary. I have referenced evidence that Makkah is now more common on Google and is used by governments and major organizations and that 'Mecca' is offensive to Muslims. Do you have any verifiable references NOT to change it? NB I'm discussing this and am not trying to force a change. If anyone objects, let's talk about it.87.101.240.6 11:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose I'm supposed to just take your word for it? We do not determine the more proper name based on google results. Consensus is to keep it as Mecca. See Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah.--SefringleTalk 02:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"Makkah" is used as the transliteration of "Mecca" in Saudi Arabia, and, given that Makkah is in Saudi Arabia, it seems proper to use that as the article title (no matter what your political feelings regarding the Saudis is — I just thought I'd pre-empt arguments about that). And "Makkah" is a better approximation of the sound of مَكَّة, anyway. Murraytheb (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As evident in the topic page references 28, 29 and 30 from UN, US & UK sources, the spelling used is "Makkah" not "Mecca". I think it is time to rename to "Makkah" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrotefa (talk • contribs) 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Early archiving
Why has entire June talk been archived before end of June? The last of those discussions was not closed and was still ongoing. I suspect a hidden agenda and have accordingly reopened the discussion on the current talk page as per guidelines on archive page. 87.101.244.10 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1880 or 2001
The picture said that it is from 1880 until I saw it is shooted in 2001.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.82.63.101 (talk • contribs).
- Looks like a photograph taken in 2001 of a poster showing the Kaaba in 1880. → AA (talk) — 09:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although the Arabic text on the photo (which looks like an overstamp) says 1880, the buildings around the Kaba more closely resemble the site around the turn of the century. It's probably later than 1880. 212.71.37.89 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"Bakkah" and "buka'"
The word Bakkah can be derived in Arabic from the root ba-ka-ka, is written in Arabic بكّة, and is transliterated bakkah. On the other hand; the word that means "he who cries much" derives from the root ba-ka-ya, is written in Arabic as بكّاء, and is transliterated bakkā'.
Based on the above, suggesting any relation between the two words is misleading since there is none (at least within the Arabic language). I've removed the discussion of Arabic examples in the section related to the word "Bakkah" without removing any other arguments for the "weeping" interpretation. -- AMSA83 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
refimprove tag
The tag is here because half the article is still unreferenced, specificly the history section, the tourism section, and the non-muslims section is mostly, if not completely unsourced. Yahel Guhan 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please be more specific? The History section looks well-sourced to me, but if you have concerns about specific statements, please add {{fact}} tags and I'll see what I can dig up. :) --Elonka 05:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"Meccan influence was the primary binding force in Arabia in the late sixth century." - that sounds dubious. I realize that it's sourced to Lapidus, but does he really say that with certainty? Considering how much violent warfare the Meccans and Medinans engaged in in order to subjugate the Peninsula after Muhammad, that seems doubtful. There were also numerous tribal confederations that held no regard whatsoever for Mecca. Maybe this statement should be modified so that it doesn't sound so unequivocal. -- Slacker 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, that's what he said. Though if you can find a source that contradicts, I have no trouble with toning it down. My understanding of the context, is that it was a "relatively" strong binding force. In other words, there wasn't much binding the tribes of Arabia together, but if there was one binding force among them, it was Mecca. That doesn't mean that they'd kowtow to Meccans, but it did mean that anywhere you went on the peninsula, Mecca was probably the most famous spot, and was the place that was most likely to have been visited by any particular member of any tribe. Then again, the influence that Mecca had, was that it was the central repository of the totems of each of the tribes. So when Muhammad decided to shuffle things around, yes, it doesn't surprise me that there was resistance. Or in other words, both Lapidus's statement, and your own concerns, are both correct. --Elonka 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
==Deletion of entire Muhammad section?==
I know you're supposed to be bold when editing, but I can see that this would be hugely controversial. However, the section is entirely based on belief and not verifiable fact. Its relevance is questionable given that the article is about a place, not a belief system. At least it could be altered to say 'Muslims believe...' rather than stating opinion as fact.
Lock the article
People are vandalising this article too much lock it 78.144.25.152 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Who was sacrified?
The questions about the name Abraham are innumerable, who was Abraham or who were the Abraham figures, is it advisable to consider the figure singular? How about the transmission of a story (legend) through the ages? Has the story been altered, modified, stylized, during the telling from one generation to another? How can we be sure that the Abraham who was born (Commonly thought) in the 19th century BC is the same as the one who lived in the Mecca Area? How can we be sure that Abramu is the same as Abraham or Ephrem or Ephraim or even Ibrahim of the Arabs? So how many faces are there behind the mask? The name itself "Ibrahim" suggests a God name because of the "I" prefix, which means the "God of...". This rimes with Itzhac, Itzrael, Ismael, etc... a current verbal tradition in Arabia. The name Itzhac itself generated the verb "Tzaha-Dhaha" which means "sacrify" in Arabic. Tradition when "told" from one generation to another, creates a new "term" in a living language, where an event generates a verb. The most important holiday in Arabia is the pilgrimage to Makkah, centuries before Islam. In this pilgrimage, the sacrifice "story" is repeated on the "mount of mercy", which in Arabic is literally "Har-Ra'fat" or simply Arafat. In the Hebrew tradition this mount is called Moriah, which recalls the name of "Marwah" in the Mecca area. The big Sacrifice holiday is then the Ad-ha holiday. This is the holiday that repeats the Sacrifice by Abraham to his son Itzhac. Therefore, Arabs who may think (without proof) that it was Ismael who was offered as scrifice, the name of that big holiday "Atz-ha" proves that it was Itzhac who was sacrificed. The name Tzah-ha (Dah-ha) in Arabic also means "Sacrify at Dawn". The term Dawn is also derived from the "Sacrifice Tradition". The sheep sacrifice in the Hajj Islamic tradition also must happen before sunrise which means at Dawn. The history of Arabia must be re-written on the basis that the theater of all the Biblical events was Arabia. The Arabian tradition seems to be more coherent and clear than the biblical stories. The Bible stories are interpreted as deciphered from the old Hebrew, which is unclear while the Arabian oral stories are linked together in a way that makes sense. Let us analyse the pilgrimage holiday in Mecca. This pilgrimage has a unique name: Hajj. Arabs have never questioned the etymology of this term: Is it a noun, a verb or a gerund? The name derived from this event in Arabic is simply "hajjeej" which means the dense crowd. It is also pronounced "Ajeej" with "'Ayn". Some tribes in the Hijaz region in Arabia still pronounce the "'ayn" consonant as "Ha" (as in Hayat) and also the "J" as "Ye". Therefore the term Hajj can lead us to the term "'Aii". People who never lived with the local tribes in Hijaz may never belive it but Moslems who recall the hadith about the Calif who corrected a Koran reader committing the same permutation, these Moslems easily admit the above pronunciation glitch. Furthermore, in the Mecca area, the Misfilah quarter is an area that reminds us the Macvilah caverns of the Torah. in addition, Abraham, after he buried his wife Sarah, headed south towards the road of Shor: Jabal Thawr is a few miles south of Makkah. If the prophet Muhammad honored a place called the Namra Shrine, it is because the name recalls an ancient honorable figure mentioned in the Torah: Mambra. If all these facts and names are gathered in one single area, they are worth being considered for investigation. I personally do not believe the Moslem tradition saying that Abraham was buried in Palestine, unless we consider the eternal Arabian migrations of his descendants from Makkah to Palestine. The Kaabah in the Arabian tradition is the Old House of God, which in Arabic is literally Bethel or Beit El. According to the Koran, it was the "first house ever built for people worship", a version that coincides with the overall story of Abraham in Arabia. Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The Origin of the Name Meccah
Thanks to Wikipedia, my thoughts are being confirmed about the real origin of the name of Mecca. The following story tells about Micah as living near the House of the Lord (the Kaabah). If we read the book of Judges as mentioned in the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah%27s_Idol
we realize that it is not a coincidence that the Port of Laith on the Red Sea south of Juddah, with Juddah the famous port city and Micah the silver idol maker, are gathered in one region.
The Saudi historians pronounce the name of Jeddah as Juddah which, in the Semitic languages, cannot be written other than JDDH. Of course, the Modern Hebrew would consider it as being Judah, or Judea. As for Micah, the old hebrew presented it as MKH and therefore, transfigurated into Micah. In addition, the name of Mecca has never been fairly explained as of its origin. Every time historians talk about the origin of the name they refer to the mention, in the Roman and Greek records, of a township in Arabia called Macoraba. That’s all. No other reference is made for the name of Mecca.
Briefly, the entire Juddah area is linked to Laith harbor and Mecca where in the deep past, before the Arabs were a pronounced nation, it was a prosperous country of trade and agriculture. At that time Arabia was an Israelite country and up to a large extent, the Israelites were Arabs among Arabs speaking old Arabic. By the time of Moses, there was no Arabic as spoken in the Koran. The old Arabic was what was frozen in time in the scrolls until after the Deportation, to be read and written by the Rabbis of Babylon. In the mean time, Arabic was evolving through the centuries to crystallize and clean-up from hiatuses and odd pronunciations with poetry and oral tradition. That is how Arabic had become a separate language from “Hebrew”. “Hebrew” is the old Arabic unfolded in Babylon after centuries of deep sleep inside the scrolls.
In other words, Arabism emerged after the Israelites had disappeared from the scope of Mecca (Perhaps after Tiglath-pileser III in 733/732 BC deported them to Babylon). This is my theory which involves the search for Babylonian traces in Saudi Arabia. Otherwise we can consider that Arabism has never been inexistent even during the Israelite era in Arabia, but only was eclipsed by the more intense and active tradition of the Israelite life there.
Dan has never been a city or a town. It was a tribe living in Laith, a harbor city south of Juddah on the Red Sea. The "Peoples of the Sea" as mentioned in the funeral stella of Merneptah in Egypt mentioned the Denen among the eight peoples listed in his victory story. The Denen are hard to be considered as being the Dan of the Bible. The other names mentioned in that stella are hard to explain but the name PLST is closer than any of them to be the Falashat of Ethiopia. The entire story of the Bible people converges towards the Red Sea not the Mediterranean sea.Noureddine 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The explanation is that Micah (Should be Makkah) was an Israelite living in the Bethel area (The ancient House of God, as founded by Abraham). He was a famous figure in that area as a Grand Rabbi. People gave a name to the area from his name, just like his grand father Juddah gave his name to the harbor city of Juddah on the Red Sea. I do not agree with the local Arabian explanation to the name of Juddah as being the "Grand Mother of all Arabs", as they say.Noureddine 12:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Remember that King Josiah (of Judah) was the son of Amon and Jedidah. Please log on Josiah and see.
- I must just jump in and say that as an Arabist who has lived in Jeddah for decades, the local Saudi pronunciation in nothing like "Juddah". Not getting into phonetic symbols, it's between "jedda" and "jidda", perhaps a little closer to "jedda". (Mecca on the other hand is certainly "makka".) Anjouli 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Anjouli: The fact that you are right does not change anything. It is the reading of the old Hebrew that should be corrected to whatever the real pronunciation of Jeddah is. In Hebrew the writing is JDDH without any vowels. Besides, I found the "Juddah" term in a book dedicated to Juddah in Arabic and written by a Saudi historian. It is an important volume that I invite you to look for it in the local Saudi libraries. Please forgive my memory about the author's name but also you can find the variations of the name's pronunciation on Wikipedia itself. Just search for Jeddah and see. Remember that any name in history is subject to change across the centuries, from one generation to another and from one era to another. By the way: Mecca is the "English" lettering and in hebrew Micah is MKH (without vowels) and it should be pronounced Makkah exactly like Arabs pronounce it. This is my stand and opinion. Respecfully, [[User:[Noureddine]] 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Noureddine. My only beef was with "The Saudi historians pronounce the name of Jeddah as Juddah". Seems you meant spell, not pronounce. I'd also question that, since Saudi historians obviously tend to write in Arabic and spell it جدة (Hebrew ג'דה). The only academics I know who regularly spell it Juddah are Malaysians, and I agree their pronunciation does sound a bit like that. عيد مبارك Anjouli 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Anjouli again. I have changed my username introduction to reflect what I am after in my writings. I would be honored if you read the new text. Comparative philology can reveal a great deal of hidden meanings behind the convetional history taken for givens. Perhaps some day the warrying nations would give it a second thought as to what are they doing, if it makes sense following their current convictions. Noureddine 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Anjouli, the Arabic spelling of Jeddah allows three pronounciations - with an 'a', 'i' or 'u' vowell sound. The question then becomes which of these three pronounciations is actually used, in particular, by the locals. A Saudi language professor at a local university in the Hijaz region said that all three pronounciations are acceptable. There are more than a few words in the Arabic Language which allow more than one pronounciation while the spelling remains the same. Sometimes one will be commonly used while the others slip into obscurity and other times different regions or tribes will use one pronounciation and another region or tribe will use another. Supertouch (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Qur'an 9:28
I just wrote: "People of the Book would usually not be regarded as pagans." Now, since I've only been studying Islam seriously for about a month, could someone confirm that I'm right about that? It seems from other translations (e.g. Arberry and Abdel-Haleem) that this verse is talking about polytheists or idolators... Evercat (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to be impartial when presenting information
Dear Sir
I have Two Points to make.
You have said in the section Early History Of Mecca and I Quote {The Kaaba is a large cubical building now surrounded by the Masjid al-Haram. According to the Qur'an, the Kaaba was built by Ibrahim (ابراهيم, Abraham) and his son Ismā'īl (سماعيل, Ishmael), around 2000 BC. There is no secular evidence to support this claim}
"Where did you Get that from??"
One testable irrefutable Clear scientific evidence ( which even better than Secular evidence) that Support the Quran is the Existence and the continuity of “Well of Zamzam “beside Al Kasbah “ for thousands of years. without The Existence and the continuity "Zamzam Water-Well" and bearing in mind the dry desert nature of the place, "Mecca" would not be Founded and built let alone be populated inhabited by Arab Semitic tribes and others for thousands of years even before the advent the “Prophet Muhammad” till present. This is Just one testable irrefutable evidence that prove the Miraculous Existence and the continuity of “Well of Zamzam” with it the existence of Mecca for thousands of years in this hostile water scarce place.
The other point I want to Raise is that you said and I quote {and much contradictory evidence from the Jewish torah.}
Exuse Me ! What make you believe in Torah which state the whole cosmos was created in less than 6000 years( six thousand AFTER City Jericho had been established) TO BE RIGHT? and Quran Is False?
I don’t take the Hindu Veda Books which was written(thousands of year before the Creation of the biblical Cosmos) to MEASURE Torah and the Jewish writings.! What make you use the Torah to measur Quran For?
But if you make the Torah and the Jewish writings as "The Standard" For Measuer, then Please prove to us that the mythical Solomon temple is TRUE FACT did exist NOT a MYTH . Because despite of archeological traces been founded of the total devastated lost city Pompeii in Italy, There is NO ONE single proof or trace about this temple and or the so called Ark of Covenant been FOUND yet !!
Cheers and Regards
81.153.64.15 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I Agree with you.first of all I Have never heard of Kabah traditions In torah.And Secondly we cannot measure Quran by torah nor the Torah By Quran and Torah can certainly not be called 'evidence'.--Actionfury199 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Full Article Re-write
The article extremly need a full re-write . Such as the previous re-write projects for Jeddah and Riyadh. A M M A R 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Points of improving
- Removing unnesseceray text.
- Displaying Mecca article as a City not as a religious topic.
- Adding new photos.
- Fixing laguage and grammer.
- Protecting the article from the dialy vandalism.
- Using Chapers and Sections standard that used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities.
- -- Work will be done here.
- -- A M M A R 01:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Arabic grammar
Under the heading "Etymology and Usage," it reads: "Its formal name, Makkat il-Mukarrama results from the conversion of the last letter of Mecca, the ta marbuta (ة), into a ta (ت) in the idoffa format." Taking issue with a couple of points in the above:
1. When to transliterate tā marbūţah as -h or -t (or nothing) is a complex question. The various transliteration systems take divergent approaches on this question. But I don't see how the romanization quoted above can be derived from any of the known systems.
Generally, the default transliteration for ة is -h (or nothing). The -t form is triggered by the iḍāfah construct, as noted by the editor who wrote the above-quoted sentence. But the phrase مكة المكرمة is not an iḍāfah (or even an "idoffa"). The editor evidently mistook it for one. The phrase is actually a noun followed by the adjective that modifies it. The adjective al-mukarramah is marked definite with al- because it agrees with the definite headword Makkah. Because proper nouns in Arabic are always definite, even when not marked with al-.
Most of the widely-used Arabic romanization systems, such as the Library of Congress romanization, do not transliterate ة as -t unless it occurs in the muḍāf, the first word in an iḍāfah structure. So no iḍāfah, no -t.
2. The inclusion of -i as the iʿrāb vowel in "Makkati" is inexplicable. The definite article ال is transliterated al- by convention. None of the romanization systems would use il- here. As seen above, the editor mistook the phrase for an iḍāfah. The iʿrāb -i is always used in the muḍāf ilayhi, the end word in an iḍāfah. However, the editor applied it to the first word, which would be wrong even if this were an iḍāfah. The default case for Arabic nouns cited outside of an Arabic syntactical context is the nominative. But since iʿrāb is normally not transliterated (apart from grammatical studies), the case of the noun is irrelevant to its transliteration anyway. If one decides to apply iʿrāb, that will demand a thorough understanding of the complex subject.
Accordingly, I propose transliterating the name as Makkah al-Mukarramah, which is how it is in Library of Congress romanization, a system widely accepted in Wikipedia. Thank you for considering my suggestions. P.S. a parenthetical clause needs to be set off by two commas, not one. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- No reply, cool, I've gone and made the edit. Thanks! Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
2
The 2nd paragraph is a little messed. 84.13.26.117 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Mecca: Islam's holiest city
The article has long had the above statement. As far as I know, this is not contrary to Islamic belief to say this. It is certainly widely known as that. For some reason User:Abdullajh wants to change it to a one-off used "Islam's cultural capital" with this revert. The edit sumary says something about calling it what Muslims call it. But (a) I don't believe it's true that Muslims call it Islam's cultural capital rather than holiest city and (b) even if they did, Wikipedia policy determines that it be called the most common name not what any particular group call it. DeCausa (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Undue
There is currently an image of a bypass in Mecca, that seems to allow only Muslims to enter. that image is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The reason being that it places undue emphasis on some road signs, whereas Mecca is known for so much more. As the holiest city of Islam, there are tens (if not hundreds) of sites that merit images, and this sign board is certainly not one of them.VR talk 01:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted per WP:BRD. Firstly, WP:UNDUE is about conflicting opinions (fringe theories etc) and is not strictly applicable anyway. But, secondly, and more importantly this image illustates the ban on non-Muslims enterring Mecca. (It's the bypass around Mecca that non-Muslims have to take so they don't go through the city. It's not just any bypass.) It is therefore notable and relevant. As an aside, there are not "tens (if not hundreds) of sites that merit images". As noted in the article, much of the historic heritage of Mecca has been destroyed in recent years and little outside of the Grand Mosque of historic interest survives. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Historic sites have indeed been destroyed, and yet not a mumur from UNESCO. When a fire broke out at Al Aqsa, the UN was quick to issue a resolution. Beats me. Anyhow, while the issue of non-Muslims being unable to enter is notable, the image is unnecessary. We don't need to rub it in. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. The fact that it is notable warrants the image. There could, however, be a better explanation in the caption - it's a little cryptic. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Destruction of heritage of Mecca is notable. However, it should come under the history section, for the sake of avoiding poor organization.
- You have provided nothing to substantiate the notability of the bypass. Arguments have already been raised that "tens (if not hundreds) of sites that merit images". I agree with this. Zam zam well, house of Muhammad, cave of Hira, footprints of Abraham, hateem, inside of Kaaba, hilltop Safa, hilltop Marwa, Mina, Muzdalifah, Arafah, Jabal-rahman (mountain of Mercy), the three devils (forget the Arabic term), meeqat, the Qur'an archway, are just some of the few more important sites that come to mind. This is not even doing a Google search.
- I highly doubt that pictures of demolished Palestinian houses would be included in the article Jerusalem. Even though, as Chesdovi might agree, media sources devote more attention to Israeli activities in Jerusalem, than Saudi activities in Mecca.VR talk 04:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. The fact that it is notable warrants the image. There could, however, be a better explanation in the caption - it's a little cryptic. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Historic sites have indeed been destroyed, and yet not a mumur from UNESCO. When a fire broke out at Al Aqsa, the UN was quick to issue a resolution. Beats me. Anyhow, while the issue of non-Muslims being unable to enter is notable, the image is unnecessary. We don't need to rub it in. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, as a matter of process if you want to change an image it is for those who wish to make a change to establish a consensus to so per WP:BRD. I will revert (in accordance with WP:BRD) please leave it as is and continue the discussion until consensus is reached. As far as notability is concerned, there are two points: (1) it is an illustration of how non-Muslims are prohibited from going to Mecca (2) it'sa road system based on religion. Your comment on Jerusalem is not only irrelevant it's somewhat bizarre since i can't even guess at what you are trying to say in relation to Mecca. The image you have replaced it with is quite dull. Those sort of archways over highways (Crossed swords, crossed anything etc) are not unusual in the Arab world. DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any consensus on the image. For example, is an editor comes along and places something unsourced in the article, and that unsourced thing remains for a long time, it doesn't mean "there is consensus". I am, however, open to a temporary compromise, as suggested at BRD.
- "it is an illustration of how non-Muslims are prohibited from going to Mecca" And why exactly is that illustration notable? The issue of non-Muslims in Mecca has already been covered in the article.
- I brought up Jerusalem, to show that trivialities, especially negative ones that aim to paint the city in a negative light, are usually not imaged in the articles of those cities.
- "Crossed anything" Do you know of any other Qur'an archway either in Mecca or Saudi Arabia for that matter? This is not a "common" sight, rather a unique structure.VR talk 21:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's really not important enough to argue about, so although you are in breach of Wikipedia process (yes, a long-standing image has consensus approval and WP:BRD requires you to leave as is if you are reverted) I can't be bothered to do anything about it. It's sad that you are so insecure in your religion that you have to cover-up such images. What you say about Jerusalem reveals your real motives: "negative ones that aim to paint the city in a negative light, are usually not imaged in the articles of those cities". It's a childish attitude that belongs in a high school magazine rather than an encyclopedia. If you are so ashamed of this aspect of Mecca, I would have thought you should put your energies into publicising it rather than covering it up. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with your understanding on consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus#Silence_is_the_weakest_form_of_consensus. Also, per WP:CCC, even if there was consensus, that's not valid for dismissing my points.
- "please leave it as is and continue the discussion until consensus is reached" Discuss with who? Those who insert it, are drive-by reverters. You yourself have said that you "can't be bothered to do anything about it".
- Regarding your personal attacks against me ('real motives', 'childish attitude' etc.): if you were truly interested in the welfare of this article, you'd focus on things other than this ideologically divisive image (see my edits in the past 24 hours).VR talk 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a "drive-by reverter". I've been editing this article longer than you. So you could have discussed with me. But you just reverted my revert, which is a breach of WP:BRD. Clearly, your disrepect for this policy indicates you will edit-war to get your way - and that's what I can't be bothered getting involved in. There's nothing "ideologically divisive" about the image. You just don't like it. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason for an ugly old sign to be on Wikipedia. The point of "non-submitters to GOD aren't allowed to enter" is already presented in the text, hoping personal matters will stay out of here. Non-believers of the full message of GOD has no business in Mecca. It's not a museum, nor a personal matter.AdvertAdam (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- This sisn't a travel brochure or a publication of the Saudi Ministry of Information.
- It isn't a place for personal attacks, also. Muslims are proud, not ashamed as you assume, that Mecca is the only city that is clear of idols and adultery. Anyways, the purpose of the sign is to keep the city clean, and it is clearly explained by the text too. Pictures like the towers and traditional "Sagga" gives expression, while that sign has no purpose nor meaning in a demographic section. Peace! AdvertAdam (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- This sisn't a travel brochure or a publication of the Saudi Ministry of Information.
- I don't see a reason for an ugly old sign to be on Wikipedia. The point of "non-submitters to GOD aren't allowed to enter" is already presented in the text, hoping personal matters will stay out of here. Non-believers of the full message of GOD has no business in Mecca. It's not a museum, nor a personal matter.AdvertAdam (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a "drive-by reverter". I've been editing this article longer than you. So you could have discussed with me. But you just reverted my revert, which is a breach of WP:BRD. Clearly, your disrepect for this policy indicates you will edit-war to get your way - and that's what I can't be bothered getting involved in. There's nothing "ideologically divisive" about the image. You just don't like it. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's really not important enough to argue about, so although you are in breach of Wikipedia process (yes, a long-standing image has consensus approval and WP:BRD requires you to leave as is if you are reverted) I can't be bothered to do anything about it. It's sad that you are so insecure in your religion that you have to cover-up such images. What you say about Jerusalem reveals your real motives: "negative ones that aim to paint the city in a negative light, are usually not imaged in the articles of those cities". It's a childish attitude that belongs in a high school magazine rather than an encyclopedia. If you are so ashamed of this aspect of Mecca, I would have thought you should put your energies into publicising it rather than covering it up. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, as a matter of process if you want to change an image it is for those who wish to make a change to establish a consensus to so per WP:BRD. I will revert (in accordance with WP:BRD) please leave it as is and continue the discussion until consensus is reached. As far as notability is concerned, there are two points: (1) it is an illustration of how non-Muslims are prohibited from going to Mecca (2) it'sa road system based on religion. Your comment on Jerusalem is not only irrelevant it's somewhat bizarre since i can't even guess at what you are trying to say in relation to Mecca. The image you have replaced it with is quite dull. Those sort of archways over highways (Crossed swords, crossed anything etc) are not unusual in the Arab world. DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- :: Agreed that this violates WP:UNDUE. Anyone can claim to be a Muslim and there are no tests of faith; best to omit sensationalism. Mecca is a beautiful place with much worthy of note despite anti-Saudi points-of-view held by some editors. Abdullajh (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Editors should focus on other aspects of Mecca. This article is not a battleground. A sign that shows whether an editor is sincere or is a "POV pusher" is if he/she contributes to other parts of this article, or simply cares about pushing the anti-Saudi POVs.VR talk 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I also agree on denying the sign. It's not a historical sign to be related to the demographic of Mecca, and non-believers of the full message of GOD has no business in there anyways. Its a strictly religious area, not a historical museum.AdvertAdam (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- To Ankimai: see [File:Hebrew domeEntrance sign.jpg] for another example of religion being used to keep people out of a sacred area. Mecca is not unique in this regard at all. This article is, however, unique in that it has such an image.VR talk 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK there are two: still makes it highly notable and unusul. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- And there are quite a couple of Hindu temples forbidden to non-Hindus, too (the Jagannath Temple in Puri for instance). Why not. But Mecca is a whole city barred to non-believers. The image gives an idea of what that means. It's not at all anti-Muslim. Ankimai (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, the whole city is not forbidden. There are very specific physical limits that are considered part of the haram. Similar to this concept is the concept of Miqat. These are very clear physical delineations.
- The issue here as always been the notability of the image, as it doesn't seem to be more notable than other images that I discussed above. And yes, it does seem to be a bit anti-Muslim. If you want you can take this image to criticism of Islam or something.VR talk 04:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Diverse
During Hajj time city of Mecca possibly becomes more diverse than New York City. Could this line be added at the bottom of the intro?--Triplespy (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the following statement:
- "During Hajj the city of Mecca possibly becomes more diverse than New York City."
- It had been reinserted with the comment "Please don't remove content even if its unreferenced. Find thew reference and add."(sic)
- The problem is, it's not only unsourced, but it reads also as a subjective opinion, not a fact, which is inappropriate for a lead section especially, and the article in general. If a statement about this diversity is desired, it will need to be well sourced and neutrally worded - not phrased as a conversational opinion. You cannot insist that other editors look for sources for a vague, speculative statement like this - see WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to add material to provide a source. Whilst others, such as myself, are usually happy to help find sources, it is not reasonable to expect other editors to source such a vague statement as this.
The source that states 'Mecca is a cosmopolitan city' is feeble. It needs more sources, or the word cosmopolitanism should be removed. The wikipedia article on cosmopolitanism clearly states cosmopolitanism sees all humans as equals. Universal moral equality is key in cosmopolitanism. Hence a city that discriminates a group of people (non-muslims) from entering the city is clearly not very cosmopolitan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.151.181 (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
proposal for new photo - mecca panoramic shot
Hi, I made a new shot in Mecca and think it is not too bad. Perhaps you would like to include it somewhere in the article. It shows a panoramic view from the top of Abraj al-Bait. File:Makkah-Panorama-2011.jpg -- Wurzelgnohm (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite interesting full size, but when it's reduced to thumb (which it would have to be for the article) the composition becomes too small to make out anything much except the Tower's sides in the foreground. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Mayor is Called Ameen (Amin), Not Amir
As the title says. So, can someone correct this mistake since this page've been protected? Ameen or Amin - أمين (Secretary in Arabic) is the official title for a city mayor in Saudi Arabia. --A sanny (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Their title is actually closer to "prince" than "secretary" sir. Please look at the linked article: Amir. ~ AdvertAdam talk 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)- No, that's incorrect. Amir (=Prince) is the Governor of the Province. The mayor of a town is Amin. See this, for instance. Different word. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, they just have tons of princes everywhere :p. The sentence was actually unsourced. Thank you both ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever.--A sanny (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, they just have tons of princes everywhere :p. The sentence was actually unsourced. Thank you both ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's incorrect. Amir (=Prince) is the Governor of the Province. The mayor of a town is Amin. See this, for instance. Different word. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Area
The land area given for the city in the infobox includes area for the urbanized settlement and then the "metro". Is the metro area given really the area of the municipality, because if it is, this needs to be made more clear by listing "Municipality" instead of "Metro". --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Mecca 5.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Mecca 5.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
mecca is a place were people worship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.0.168 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Prohibition on entering Mecca
I'm curious, as I thought the prohibition only applied to the Grand Mosque.
- ""Oh you who believe! Truly the idolaters are unclean; so let them not, after this year, approach the Sacred Mosque"[1]
- Is this the only basis for prohibition on non-Muslims? Or are there hadith which state this as well?
- Do any Muslim sects/schools interpret this as applying only to the Grand Mosque, and not as the city as a whole?
- Are there any Muslim schools which interpret this as applying only to idolaters?
OK, I admit, I want to know if I'll ever be able to visit Mecca without claiming to be a Muslim. That said, it would be useful to know if this is actually a fairly universal belief among Muslims, or a Salafi or Sunni thing, like historically with depictions of Muhammad. —Quintucket (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Allat, the female Goddess of Mecca
Allat's image has been added. This represents the Arabian culture prior to Islam.
File:Abraj al Bait.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Abraj al Bait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)| Hypocritical"Mecca has become one of the most cosmopolitan and diverse cities in the Muslim world,[8] although non-Muslims remain prohibited from entering the city.[9][10]" Definition of cosmopolitan: composed of people or elements from all parts of the world or from many different spheres So let me get this straight; although non-Muslims remain prohibited from entering the city, the city is regarded as 'cosmopolitan'. Riiigghht... 58.175.28.71 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
. Honestly, I don't have the patience nor austerity to argue my reasoning with such condescending, antagonistic individuals as yourselves. I merely wanted it to be known that the statement is hypocritical. 'Many different spheres' includes different religious spheres as elements from all parts of the world, would you not agree? So how can a city that excludes all other religion from it's walls be said to be composed of people or elements from all parts of the world or from many different spheres? That's all. 58.175.28.71 (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Municipality vs. Metro?This is really more a question about local government in Saudi Arabia, in general, but when populations are listed for municipalities and the "metros" in the infoboxes on city pages of Saudi Arabian cities, what exactly are we defining, for each? Is the "metro" simply the population of the governate, and "municipality/city" the population of some division below governate? --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC) etymologydoesn't mecca mean ruined? like, the ruined city... ghost town... not any more of course, but I always imagined the revelation of the Qur'an to be almost analog to that scene in the lord of the rings movie when they find the book in the mines of moria... anyway..Lawstubes (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) "Disasters"I think the editor who made this edit needs to explain this deletion of sourced material. DeCausa (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Religious intolerance and the closing of Mecca to non-MuslimsMrmatiko removed a "see also" link that was added by Tavernsenses. I absolutely agree with the removal of that particular link; at the same time, I also understand the reason for the addition. I've noticed that many articles on Islamic topics tend to gloss over their nastier aspects, and in this case the Saudi rules on Mecca and Medina do present a unique manifestation of religious intolerance. (To be fair, a lot of what the Saudis do is uniquely appalling.) While many religions have particular holy sites closed off to non-congregants, the closing off of whole cities is a singular phenomenon. Mecca and Medina are the only cases where entire cities are off-limits to everybody except members of a certain religion, as the result of the very strict Wahhabi reading of a clause which forbids entrance by non-Muslims into the two holy mosques. However the actual closing of the cities to non-Muslims dates back at least to Ottoman times (though I'm not sure the basis is the same as the reading the Saudis used; the Ottomans tended to restrict non-Muslims in a lot of ways). Further, many Muslims assume it dates back to Mohammad himself, and become very touchy if you bring the matter up. (Google "Mecca non-Muslims" and you'll get a taste of the popular justifications, seasoned with a good deal of anonymous internet nastiness.) Do we have an article or section of an article on the history of access and restrictions to Mecca and Medinah for non-Muslims? It definitely is a noteworthy manifestation of religious intolerance, and though I think that Mrmatiko is absolutely right that a link to religious intolerance isn't appropriate here, if we do have an article or even section of an article on this phenomenon it absolutely deserves a mention. —Quintucket (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, I remember that once I could get to a page telling non-muslims who visited Mecca, like Richard Francis Burton. Since it's a holy city and one of it's peculiarity is that it is closed to non-muslims, it should be noted that it has been visited by someone anyway. Peace, anyway. 79.6.68.145 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC) The Secrets of MosesHello friends, I seek consensus on a possible change to the following paragraph:
The paragraph gives equal WP:WEIGHT to the dating estimate made by the work's original translator, writing in the early twentieth century, as it does to the views of modern Samaritan scholars, who to my knowledge universally view the work as medieval in origin, citing the work's "heavy Arabic influence", it's form of Aramaic, and its "traces of Islamic influence" (see 'Ref 3' below). The question then becomes whether the work need be mentioned at all at this point in the encyclopedia, or whether (as I view it) using it as a source for the early history of Mecca is anachronistic, as it is the later history of the city (and particularly it's rise to prominence under Islam), that is itself the source of the city's mention in the Asatir. Were the paragraph to stay, I would suggest a modification similar to the following:
Any comments on this? Thanks in advance. 67.161.254.8 (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyright problem removedPrior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Requested move 26 April 2015
The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Consensus is clearly against this move taking place. (non-admin closure) Egsan Bacon (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Decluttering the introA good place to start is
I understand some editors would prefer that we use that and not use "Mecca" at all; that's completely against policy and has been dealt with (repeatedly) above. I understand some well-meaning editors feel that they want to draw attention to the fact that in addition to Makkah being a transliteration of the Arabic, it is (very infrequently) used in English. In fact, it is used in English... as a hypercorrection employing the modern transliteration of the Arabic name. It's much simpler to just bold the Arabic's transliteration, which (per policy) we need to include anyway. An alternate way to do that, if people prefer, would be to run the first line
instead of what I put in. Either is better to what we had before.
You don't need to go into any detail at all. /ˈmɛkə/ simply is the pronunciation of the English placename Mecca. It's obvious that it's an Anglicization from the fact that it differs from the local Arabic name immediately provided. If it's necessary to link to Anglicization of names at all, that discussion and link should occur in the #Etymology section, not the lead sentence. Those are both pretty solid points that simply improve the page. Kindly revert the inevitable edit warring that occurs on major pages like this or let me know what policy demands we repeat ourselves in the lead sentence. Then, I'll point you to how WP:IAR suggests we shouldn't follow any policy so strictly that it produces such unsightly and unhelpful results. Personally, I'd also like to see
We already have a full section of the page for discussion of Mecca's name and its variants, so there's really no call to include something so uncommon as "Bakkah" in the first line of the article at all. I understand people might disagree with that, though, so am mentioning it here to see what y'all think. — LlywelynII 10:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC) As long as we're keeping the English IPA, I suppose it's appropriate to list the Arabic one. I think it's an improvement to have the Arabic link to the Wiktionary entry for those who want to know more about the nomenclature and linguistics, though, and I think it's better to leave all obvious (or foreign-to-English) pronunciation over there. Do people really think that anyone able to read this page would pronounce Mecca in any other way? Does anyone think it's relevant to include Arabic pronunciation here, given that the English pronunciation of Makkah itself is inevitably going to turn the second a into a schwa? — LlywelynII 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mecca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Area measurementCan someone clarify the area measurements in the infobox? What I'm interested in is which jurisdiction exactly is being measured for city, urban, and metro? Which of the three measurements corresponds to the Makkah Al Mukarramah governorate? And, then, what are the other two measurements of? The Makkah Al Mukarramah governorate should be the "city" in the municipal jurisdictional/local government sense of the word if it's already not. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Question about infobox imageWhy is there none? I assume it's because there isn't a decent image of Mecca available, or maybe there's some sort of reason why there can't be an image in the infobox or something? Philip Terry Graham 11:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015
The caption reading "Mecca in 1850" should be changed to "Mecca ca. 1778." The image is, I believe, plate 45 from Ignatius Mouradgea d’Ohsson, "Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman," vol. 2 (Paris: Imprimerie de Monsieur, 1790), a copy of which may be found in the Rare Book Collection, Wilson Special Collections Library, UNC–Chapel Hill. Consider the following sentence, from a book I am currently copyediting: "After seeing paintings made by a 'Muslim painter' who accompanied a court official on a pilgrimage in 1778, Ohsson obtained permission for copies to be made by 'one of the best painters from Istanbul,' to which figures were added to show the pilgrims' movement around the Ka‘ba for the first day of Bayram." On this episode, see Günsel Renda, "Illustrating the Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman," in Theolin et al., "Torch of the Empire" (Istanbul: YKY, 2002), 69-70. 65.96.192.177 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC) External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Mecca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2016
I have just returned from Makkah having visited the city as part of Ummrah. I have useful demographic information I would like to add to the page including and about the large Bangladeshi and Pakistani diaspora that live there. Also recent commercialisation and saudization trends that I have noticed. Sjames87 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Mecca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Cosmopolitan and diverseThere was a sentence in the lead section that states the city is cosmopolitan and diverse. Cosmopolitan it may be but diverse it is NOT. It is illegal for non-Muslims to enter it. That is restrictive and homogenistic, not diverse. Cls14 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Makkah or Mecca
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)
As of September 2009 the British FCO has 38 pages with use of Mecca and 8 with use of Makkah. For example the The Two Kingdom's Dialogue (2009-04-08) includes the phrase "many Brits coming here on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina". The pages using Makkah are nearly all those giving travel advice to Muslims visiting Mecca and include the Mecca spelling, eg "Every year the British Hajj Delegation accompanies around 25,000 British Muslims to Makkah (Mecca) in Saudi Arabia for Hajj.". The evidence shows that when addressing a mainly English audience the FCO uses "Mecca" and so I'll change the article accordingly. Pbhj (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
And I request the Administrator of this Makkah Section to do this change as fast as possible. Thankyou. Regards Suhebriazsaifi 08:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The holiest city in Islaam is MAKKAH. That's the way it is spelled in all of Saudi Arabia in English; and it's official, according to the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So, let's spell it correctly, please. I am aware that many media outlets in the U.S.A., including the "New York Times" and "Newsweek" misspell the name. They do it knowingly and purposefully. I don't know why. They are just displaying their arrogance, not their stupidity; because they know better. SOURCE -- How do I know the name of the city is spelled, Makkah? Because I've been there; simple. Arrow Straight (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
-Officially everywhere in the Saudi Arabia spell Makkah is used for the Holly city. No where Mecca is used. [4] [5] [6] [7] -Mecca refers to house of wine/gambling etc which is not correct use here for Holy city. Whether it is lower case 'm' or capital 'M' it means same, nothing difference just blowing dust in dyes of Muslims. Where you write your name with small caps or large caps meaning will be same, make sense. I don't know why wikipedia consensus was on Mecca because below comments are also referring and proving for Makkah. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] -Another thing in Arabic Makkah (مَکہ) has vowel above 'M' not below 'M'. If pronounced correctly 'a' after 'M' mean vowel is above 'M', however 'e' after 'M' means vowel is below 'M' which is not correct. -The reason below that Google uses Mecca more times than Makkah, answer is validity of things can't be simply depends on numbers. There are many things controversial (which I will not discuss in detail here) which doesn't rely on number power. Suppose any resolution is passed by NATO however America can VETO power that. Whats that? Because America is right and all others are wrong? Why not majority decision is accepted? So saying numbers for Mecca are more over internet doesn't make sense for using that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaidiqbal6022 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A Comment: In the above discussion, arguments relating to common name, change by the Saudi gov., and number of google search results have surfaced. I find quite a similarity between title change cases of Makkah (I prefer to use "Makkah") and Orissa or as of now, Odisha Discussion, a state of 42 million in India.
Fauzantalk ✆ email ✉ 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Stats on destruction of historic sites
The above quote from the article is referenced to two Independent articles (one of which is no longer available). This source makes it clear from the quotes that a lot of the historic environment has been destroyed, but 95% seems rather specific. I tried to track down the initial figure, attributed to the Gulf Institute based in Washington, but haven't had any success yet. It's a punchy number to include, but is it worth removing this stat until it can be backed up? Richard Nevell (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC) PopulationCould someone update population: estimate is 1,920,000 (as of 2014). Reference: Stating about 2 million in the lead is not sourced and should be removed; If there is some statistics newer than 2014, it would be good to have it in article. --5.43.75.78 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC) The third mention of Hira requires clarificationThe "Landmarks" section says "It is notable for being the location where Muhammad received his first revelations from God through the angel Jibreel". As the first two mentions do, this should instead say something like "It is notable for being the location where Muslims believe Muhammad received his first revelations", as it is not an established fact that the Islamic belief is correct. 110.33.162.61 (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC) External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Mecca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC) External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Mecca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017
Change the "Mecca" name to the official name "Makkah" Zyzto (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2017The pronunciation is given as [maka], but clicking on the spelling leads to the Wiktionary page, where the pronunciation is [makːa]. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC) External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Mecca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018
Mecca is now home to the SECOND largest floor area, instead of third. "the world's fourth tallest building and the building with the third largest amount of floor area." change "third" to "second" 2602:306:3556:3170:A512:7F0B:ACD6:D5AE (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
|