Talk:Mecca

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. In case of need for further archiving, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive01 (Sept. 2003 to Dec. 2004):

|| Mecca vs. Makkah || Life in Makkah || Naming policy poll || Black Stone || "Bakka" discusion in two places--trimmed || GEUSS WHAT?

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

---

Inconsistancy

We have both Mecca and Makkah scattered through this article. We really need to be consistant. RickK 09:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another inconsistency: Sharif of Mecca page differs from spelling on Sherif Hussein ibn Ali bio page (Sharif of Mecca vs Sherif of Mecca) Nobs 17:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

How is Mecca protected by unauthorized visitors?

How is Mecca protected by non-muslimic visitors? Is the town surrounded by a fence or a wall similiar like West-Berlin between 1961 and 1989?

Answer

No, but there are checkpoints along the way from Jeddah to Mecca, but they really do nothing, they don't check the passports or anything, I have been there, anybody can go in unnoticed.

Keeper/Servant of the Holy Places

Has anyone attempted to write on article on Keeper of the Holy Places? Nobs 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the title Khadim-e-Harmain Shareefain? It would be interesting to have such an article. It is a title last used by the Ottoman Caliph--till relatively recently revived by the House of Saud. (Their preferred translation is "Custodian of..." See: http://www.saudinf.com/main/b7.htm)—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Some of this article needs to be merged with Hajj: I am thinking of the section 'millions of people' or suchlike under 'Hajj', and its overlap with disasterous incidents on this page. 81.153.177.193 22:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit with an ideological load was deleted

Someone inserted a change in the text to indicate his/her belief that the God of the Muslims is not the God of the Christians, etc. As far as I know they all agree that there is only one God, and they are either all right or all wrong. If they are all right then there is only one God and they can only be speaking about the same thing even though they each may have their belief that their way is the only right way. There might be some way of NPOVing things a little, but the change that was in fact made was way out of line. It was a new contributor who did it, and some of his edits have been helpful, so I hope if he tries again he will involve himself in discussion on this talk page rather than starting an edit war. (Maybe he is too "raw" to have even conceived of an edit war. That would be fortunate.) P0M 00:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spelling in title and within article

I realize that this question has been discussed, but that was back in 2003, and has not really been brought up since. Why do we have a contradiction within the article? Why is the article name "Mecca", while every reference to the city within the article is "Makkah"? This is absurd: Either we say that one or the other spelling is our "official" Wikipedian spelling, and we stick with it both in the title and in the article. It makes absolutely no sense to try to sit on the fence by using both within the same article.

Personally I am strongly in favor of the spelling "Makkah", since this is the American Government's official spelling of the name. That makes the Naming policy poll inapplicable, since the question posed there was whether the common spelling should out-weigh the foreign country's spelling. Nobody there proposed that we not use the official US spelling of the name. I'm not sure when the State Department changed their official policy: their page on Saudi Arabia was last updated Sept 2004, so maybe it was after the poll.

My opinion is irrelevant, however. What matters is that the article needs to be standardized one way or the other. It's ridiculous to spell the city one way in the article title and another way throughout the article. — Asbestos | Talk 1 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

Since apparently no-one watches this talk page, I'm perfectly happy to be bold and move the page myself, if only to generate some response. However, I'll start by being good and will create a straw poll:

Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah

• Please sign with ~~~~ and explain your vote. This is a straw poll, so there is no official deadline, but a decision should be reached a week from now (July 12).

1. Move the article to "Makkah"

1. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC). It's the official US spelling of the name [1]; it's the official UK spelling of the name [2], and the spelling used by the British government's Standards of Education curriculum [3]; it's the official UN spelling of the name [4]; it's the English spelling preferred by Saudi Arabia. Obviously Mecca would redirect, so anyone could still find it.

   The Whitehouse calls it Mecca [5] .. a google search of "mecca" on all .gov sites found 19,000 hits, while a search of Makkah found 425. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

   None of the sources you gave claim Makkah as the 'official' name, they are merely one-off uses. The CIA World Factbook map shows Mecca. It is also listed as Mecca in the appendix with no mention of Makkah. As for the UK site you provided, see [6] (34 results) compared to [7] (1 result, intended for Muslims). The same goes for the UN site: [8] (222 results) vs [9] (38 results). Even if there was consistency within the US and UK governments and the UN, they have no power to dictate an 'official' spelling anyway. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)

2. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 15:42 (UTC) I generally support the position that spellings of proper names should follow the English spelling/transliteration preferred by the people or place being named, while of course maintaining redirects/explainations as appropriate.
3. BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 18:35 (UTC) The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! The article title should be the most accurate and official name. Just as the Ivory Coast article is located at Côte d'Ivoire, in this case the article should be at the spelling prefered by the Saudi Arabian government.
4. –Hajor 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC). Local preferred use. Encyclopedic register. Fondness for lost causes.

69.180.6.146 22:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC) We can always use redirects, and 'Makkah' is more proper as it is used by the governing country.

2. Change each occurence in the body of the text (except the mention on the first line) to "Mecca"

1. I think it's better to use the common English spelling in this case. I don't believe that there is such a thing as an "official" spelling for a place name. - Nat Krause 5 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
2. An article title is according to how the subject is most commonly known in the English language. This poll is imformal and doesnt over-ride the Naming policy (see links below). The name used in the article should reflect the article title, obviously. Explain the distinctions in a section of the article. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
3. Use the English name, not the goverment-speak name. Twenty years of official sanction by political bodies has still not made the name into Makkah in English. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

   Do you have any evidence that it is only "government-speak"? My vote above is based on a presumption that this is the English spelling preferred by the Saudi Arabian people themselves. If you can disprove that, I would change my vote. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 17:57 (UTC)

   yeah but, this is the English wikipedia. Most people know it by Mecca, not the native language. This is true with many articles. Confucius, for example, is a fairly unknown name in China. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

   It's their holy city, not mine. If they routinely refer to it in English as Makkah then out of respect that is how we should refer to it as well. I would be just as likely to support changing Confucius to "Master Kong" if most Chinese actually referred to him that way when speaking in English. Redirects are cheap, and most people may still find it by searching on Mecca, but I believe their preferred transliteration should be honored. As above though, I am willing to consider evidence that this might be more a political stunt than a popular preference, if anyone has such evidence. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 23:48 (UTC)

   Is there really any evidence about the actual preference of Arabian people in general on how to spell Mecca/Makkah in English? Most people in Saudi Arabia probably have no preference at all—they don't speak English. They know how to spell it in Arabic. Incidentally, I've talked to a lot of Chinese people in English and, indeed, most of them have never heard of "Confucius"—usually, they say "Kongzi" even when speaking English. - Nat Krause 7 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

4. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to try and change popular usage. Use the English name, which is most common amongst the users of this encyclopedia and the governments of English speaking countries. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
5. Agree with users above. PedanticallySpeaking July 6, 2005 17:29 (UTC)
6. use english -- Chris 73 Talk July 6, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
7. I agree with the comments already made. BrianSmithson 12:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. In English it's spelled "Mecca". Maybe it should be spelled "Makkah", but we write articles based on the way things are, not the way they should be. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
9. "Mecca" is the common English name. Maurreen 13:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Spellings other than Mecca are pratically NEVER seen in English. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
11. It is the traditional spelling of the city's name. Makkah is only a very recent spelling, unheard of before a short while ago. For the record, I am a Muslim, and I do spell it as Mecca rather than Makkah, it is in the English language as so, I see no reason to change it. --Agari 19:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
12. "Mecca" is the correct and common english name, this is enwiki. Klonimus 03:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
13. Wikipedia policy is to use common, not official names. This prompted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country names) to clarify the same issue for countries, which is however now inactive. Attempts to change the convention are occasionally made, but so far always fail. Rd232 13:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
14. Googlefight results. While official naming conventions and preferred local terms do count for something, an almost ten-to-one difference in actual usage counts for a lot more. Aquillion 06:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. In English, it is spelt Mecca. "Makkah" is not English and is an invention of the Saudi government. This is the English wikipedia. 80.255 22:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. If there were a spelling that could fix English speakers so that they came nearer to pronouncing the name the way it ought to be pronounced, then maybe I would support that choice. If there is no romanization that improves the pronunciation by English speakers of Arabic words, then there is no advantage I can see to adopting one that almost nobody knows how to use who is not already an Arabic speaker. P0M 01:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Wikipedia follows common English usage. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Leave the title as "Mecca" and each occurence as "Makkah" within the text, as it is now

1. The correct roman spelling of the city is Makkah, and as such it should be referred to as that with the article, however, the most popular name for any article should be kept, and that extends to Mecca. --Irishpunktom\^talk July 5, 2005 15:53 (UTC)

4. Allow anybody to spell the city any way they want within the article

Discussion

• Personally, I don't really care which of the first two is voted on, but know that either moving the article or changing the spelling will cause complaints. The current state, however, is just silly. Note that I believe that the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll does not apply, as most did not know that it was the official US and UK spelling of the name (and many voters appeared to believe that the suggestion was to change names such as "Rome" to "Roma") — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

• Youll need to provide evidence of an "official" spelling, if such a thing exists. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

• I was using the spelling on the US State Department's Saudi Arabia profile as the "official" US spelling, though I agree that generally "official" is defined by dictionaries, if at all, not governments (except in France). In the UK, I was using the spelling in the government's Foreign Office, as well as all the British curriculum material (such as the page cited). I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is no such thing as an "official" spelling, and even that government websites on both sides of the atlantic still use both spellings in their documents (though it's quite possible that there's a cut-off date on "mecca" usage). — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

• Makkah is rarely used, google searches prove it. Wikipedia reports on what the (english) world does, it doesnt attempt to change what the world does. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
• Neither of these sources define "official" spellings, see my comments above. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

• The consensus at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll was formed around the position I agree with current wikipedia policy. Geographic articles should be named after what most English speakers would call them, even if that is different than the official English spelling. The official English spelling should still be mentioned in the article. The article therefore seems to reflect that position, and I can't see why you are arguing that the consensus reached at that poll should be set aside. It clearly references using the common usage name rather than the official English name. I don't happen to find the current situation absurdly silly either, since it seems based upon a compromise between the two positions. Steve block 5 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

  That would be fine, but I felt that there were confusions during the polling process. 1) Under "Affected articles", it reads "(More common English spelling/officially declared by governments of countries where cities are located as official English spelling)", which does not seem to relate to "official US/UK government spelling". 2) Nearly 50 votes were cast before it was noted at the top that the poll did not apply to spellings such as Rome/Roma, London/Londres [10] and one can see clearly from the comments that many people were voting against the idea that we should start changing article titles to, e.g. Londres and Roma. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I would think that they had an opportunity to change their vote, though. Steve block 5 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

• Also, is it your position that all names are changed to reflect the official name then, and so disregard the common usage policy? For example Germany to Federal Republic of Germany? Steve block 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Question: the three changes I've seen since the 1950's regarding Peiping, Peking, and the current Beijing, all were accepted and adopted very rapidly as the standard in English. Can anyone explain how this came about? Nobs01 5 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

[11] "There are also a lot of vaguely phonetic spellings - such as "Koran" and "Mecca" - that bear little relation to the Arabic spelling but entered popular usage many years ago and are now difficult to eradicate.

"An internet search with Google shows that "Mecca" is used almost six times more often than "Makkah" (the more accurate spelling that Muslims generally prefer). In a similar search "Quran" scores 44%, "Koran" 37%, and "Qur'an" 19%." Lost in translation - Transcribing Arabic into the Roman alphabet is fraught with difficulty. And in an age of electronic text, search engines and databases, the problem is only going to get worse, writes Brian Whitaker. Guardian Unlimited Monday June 10, 2002

Another problem with Google that Brian Whitaker didn't mention is that when searching on "Mecca", you will also find plenty of lower-case meccas ("Las Vegas is a mecca for gamblers"), other cities around the world named Mecca, MECCA as an acronym, and there is even a last name Mecca (see Mecca (disambiguation) for a partial list). My personal preference is that the city should be at Makkah al-Mukarramah to distinguish between the city and the province Makkah. BlankVerse ∅ 6 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

Results

A straw poll is informal, so never official "closes", but a pretty clear consensus seems to be that we ought to standardize the spelling within the article body to "Mecca". I'll change the article to reflect this now. — Asbestos | Talk 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Number of Hajj pilgrims.

Clearly, 'every year about two (three) million gather for the Hajj' is wrong. Only in recent years has this number been reached. As for the current figure, the best source I could find is [12] which quotes the number of Hajj pilgrims as 2.56 million for 2005. In the section, 'millions of pilgrims' on the Hajj page, a claim is made that the number of Hajj pilgrims has reached 4 million ! (Any sources for this ?). --Mpatel 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Link to pronunciation aids?

Anent the recent discussion on romanization of Arabic names, wouldn't it be useful to have a link on this and similar articles to an article that gives IPA and other aids to the proper pronunciation of commonly appearing Arabic terms? P0M 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Question regarding Islamic law/Mecca

Greetings. I have a question: what happens if a Muslim does not have access to Mecca, and thus cannot make the traditional pilgrimage? Are there any precedents or interpretations in Islamic law regarding such a situation? If so, what is to be done? Thank you very much for your time. Brasswatchman July 31, 2005. 11:07 AM EST.

Actually, let me rephrase the question, since I asked it in another talk section. Please understand that I do not intend any offense. I have been wondering, however - has there been any discussion of how Islam might adapt if Mekkah was destroyed? - --Brasswatchman 05:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Utterly destroying a city is harder than you might think. The scorched radioactive Godzilla-torn ruins of Mecca would have just as much religious significance as the intact city does now, and would probably have more emotional significance as a result of the tragedy. Even the glass circle where Mecca once stood would retain that significance. Unless someone unexpectedly invents a bomb capable of blowing up the past or destroying metaphysical religious concepts, Mecca's status as a religious symbol seems safe.

All of this ignores the possibility to Space-Muslims, of course, or some sort of intradimensional Muslims with no way to return; but somehow I feel confident that they would find a way to cope. I wonder, for the intradimensional Muslims--would a pilgrimage to an alternate-dimension Mecca count? Aquillion 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is the location of the holy sites in and around Makkah, rather than the actual buildings and/or relics that are of significance to Muslims. As an example, the Great Mosque surrounding the Kabbah, has been rebuilt in recent years on a much grander scale. Previously the mosque simply enclosed the Kabbah and adjacent sites (such as the Well of Zamzam and the Station of Abraham). The new building is a multistorey complex which has been extended on one side to enclose completely the low hills of Safa and Marwah, between which pilgrims perform an important rite. The grandeur of the new mosque does not in anyway affect the performance of the pilgrimage. If the entire city was to be obliterated, it would still be the location of the Hajj, although performing the rites might be a bit difficult.

As to Muslims who cannot make the pilgrimage, there are dispensations which have been used in the past. Firstly, the aspiring pilgrim has to satisfy several criteria before going on the pilgrimage (e.g. possession of sufficient wealth, reasonable health, and provisions for the pilgrim's family, in case the pilgrim does not return). For example, if the residents of a remote village were too poor to afford the lengthy and dangerous journey (before jet aircraft and air conditioning), then they could pool their resources and nominate a small party to undertake the Hajj on behalf of the entire village. Thus, all the villagers completed the pilgrimage without actually visiting Makkah.

The question of Space-Muslims has been partially (but wrongly) answered by the film Pitch Black, where a party of Muslims searches for New Mecca. Instead of undertaking an arduous journey, the Space-Muslim could simply ask forgiveness from God, for not being able to perform the Hajj. 213.104.241.134 22.48, 01 October 2005 (UTC)

Islam template

Is it just me or does Template:Islam seem inappropriate here? None of the cities from the old Christianity template or the Judaism one have the templates on them. It just seems rather odd since the city is not just religion, whereas the concepts are. gren グレン 09:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article is heavily focused on Mecca's significance to Islam, so in that respect it's not surprising--just glancing at its text, it is basically written as an article about a central part of Islam. The same is not true, I think, for any of the Christian or Jewish cities mentioned... They are important, but not in the way that Mecca is to Islam. Mecca's importance to Islam is so great (and specific to that religion) that it rightfully dominates this page. The template is just a sign of that. Or, to put it another way: Basically everyone who searches for Mecca on Wikipedia is doing so specifically to read about an aspect of Islam. Aquillion 11:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but that is only a facet of Mecca and heavily shows the viewpoint we're coming from... since... most of us are non-Muslim I would presume and the Saudis have interestng laws. I think it should at least be moved down to The importance of Mecca section because... There is life in Mecca outside of Islamic ritual and that information probably isn't as easy to come by as the stuff about Islam is... It's a minor point I suppose but the city doesn't deserve the Islam template, the sections related to Islam do... If if the article had more about Meccan history it would show things about the Quaraysh and wouldn't all be about Islam. I just wanted to bring this up... hopefully the article will flesh out and it will become more apparent that Mecca has more to it than just Islam. gren グレン 12:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillion on this point. The fact that Mecca is the location of the holiest place in Islam is sufficient for the article to have the Islam tag. I appreciate your viewpoint about non-religious aspects of Mecca gren, but whatever else is included in the article will not detract from the fact that Mecca is firmly associated with Islam. It really doesn't matter whether the Christian and Jewish articles have the tag or not (maybe they should have tags too), but I think the case is clear with this article. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Understandable... and if this article ever has more about its non-Islamic role then it will make more sense to broach this subject. gren グレン 16:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Mecca/Makkah is pretty much dominated by religion. Certainly there are some institutions one would expect in a city of this size, but the restriction on non-Muslims, the annual Hajj pilgrimage, the year-round Umrah pilgrimage, the numerous smaller mosques, the large service industry specifically aimed at pilgrims, and the Umm-al-Qura' Islamic University and hundreds of madrassahs all focus on the religious aspect of the city. To attempt a secular discussion of Mecca/Makkah is similar to a secular discussion of the Vatican City. Certainly there is a bank and a radio station, but the main focus is the religious aspect. 213.104.241.134 23.36, 01 October 2005 (UTC)

Section removal

I've removed the section on 'Incidents in Mecca' for the following reason: it doesn't belong here as it's specific about incidents pertaining solely to the Hajj, which is where I've moved (+ renamed section title + corrected some details + given links) the section to. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Section removal

I've removed the section on 'Incidents in Mecca' for the following reason: it doesn't belong here as it's specific about incidents pertaining solely to the Hajj, which is where I've moved (+ renamed section title + corrected some details + given links) the section to. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)