Talk:Hajj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Saudi Arabia / Mecca (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mecca (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

Hijra[edit]

Does the Hajj, at least in part, commemorate the Hijra, Mohammed's journey from Makkah to Medina in 622CE?

Proposed merger from Istita'ah[edit]

Proposing this for IP user 90.218.98.130. "The topic is simply never going to expand beyond two lines, and hasn't done for seven years now. What it relates to is whether a Muslim can or cannot perform the Hajj pilgrimage. This can easily be covered by transferring the two lines of text to the lead section of the Hajj article." ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 10:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, as per nomination. The article should be merged. Faizan 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe a new article like "Conditions for Hajj" can be created, and it will not be too short. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 09:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss Disputed material before Edit warring here also[edit]

There are several editors here, i am sure we can start a discussion and involve more editors in regard to the content you are adding here. A discussion started on Ramadan already covers two position held by two editors. More views can be added before consensus says the section meets the criteria for inclusion, esp as a sep section. --Inayity (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What criteria fro inclusion you mean apart from the fact that it is reliably sourced? See the discussion there that 1. you don't understand WP:WEIGHT 2. you simply dont like what it says. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Relevant and sourced: Let me just discuss that. DId I revert it? What is the next step? Per wikipedia policy. YOu think it is okay, I disagree. You seem to always need to have your way. We discuss disputed edits, gather agreement WP:NORUSH, but you pushing an agenda hard and strong. You said I do not understand weight. This is not what Wikipedia said, this is your words. You do not understanding editing policy. So do me a favor and stop telling other people what you think they understand and do not understand and make proper mature arguments for inclusion and refutation based on proper debate process.--Inayity (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And the proof of a problem is in this remark which shows the intent to WP:WAR and get your way by pushing 3rr, disturbing childish tactics.--Inayity (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I am giving you a kind reminder, and you use it against me. Not nice. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah so you can have your way, Nice move But I can count. Worry about your warring. I will worry about mine. --Inayity (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Istita'ah be linked to Hajj?[edit]

I do not agree that Istita'ah should be merged. This is an totally another debate and it is quite obvious that if you have the financial stablity to go and perform Hajj, you should because its obligatory.

One should also save and prefer hajj more over umrah if he/she have not done so as yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtahaalam (talkcontribs) 08:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Newly added content in Ihram section[edit]

There is a factual inaccuracy in this edit. It is totally wrong to say During the Hajj, women must have their faces uncovered... It will be During ihram... The sources cited in first paragraph clearly state this. Even the source provided the contributor (http://islamqa.info/en/woman/36619) of this new content says 8 – It is haraam for the muhrimah to wear the burqa’ or niqaab…. and muhrimah is a women in ihram, mentioned two lines above. Again, nowhere in the source is written Prophet Muhammad strictly forbade women from covering their faces during the Hajj as claimed in the content. -AsceticRosé 04:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. Now I understand why you removed this paragraph. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "prophet"[edit]

WP:SAWW is pretty clear about the fact Muhammad is be referred to as simply Muhammad and not as prophet. In spite of this, AsceticRose keeps reverting the term into the article for reasons that seem less than convincing to me. I see no need to restate Muhammad's importance within Islam, which is already explained in the lead, despite AR's protestations to the contrary and fail to see how the use of the term impacts on the mention of Abraham later in the sentence. Dolescum (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The article already says "Islamic prophet Muhammad" in the lede, and that should be enough. Further mention of "prophet" is a violation of WP:HONORIFICS and more specifically WP:SAWW. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Muzdalifah Image[edit]

AsceticRose, you restored an image. I think that the image is too vague and of low quality to address the subject. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 08:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Something is better than nothing. If a better image of Muzdalifah can be provided, we can replace the present one. Also, the removal was unexplained. -AsceticRosé 15:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
No, AsceticRose, this picture is not better than nothing. This picture looks like a typical Middle eastern roadside, and has no distinguishing marks. Not to mention the angle of the picture. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If this is the case, then it is okay to remove it. However, removal of an item on account of low quality should also be accompanied by an effort to substitute it with a better one so as not to leave the readers in want of it. -AsceticRosé 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiimoora's edits[edit]

So. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 09:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Rightly so. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I shall restore the images, since you seem to have no objection. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand my intentions. I do object. I think the text accompanying the images should use some normal English, and that otherwise they should not be posted. Feel free to change the text though and post them afterwards. I can't do that, since I don't understand what these captions say. Which is precisely the reason I removed them from what still is the English Wikipedia. 17:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
I did change the captions and re inserted the images, anyway, will do that. ––Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Please, Fauzan, read the following caption: "This diagram depicts the path of Tawaf around the Kaaba and Sayee between Safa and Marwa during Hajj or Umrah". I see 5 non-English words in this one sentence, out of only 20. That is 25%. Can you please use some English here? I won't revert, because I appreciate your efforts and the fact that you are actively involved in the discussion here, but please understand that this is the English Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but there are actually no English equivalents for these words, and all these are regularly used in the mainstream media.
  • Hajj and Umrah might do with "pilgrimage", if there is some consensus for doing so.
  • For "Tawaf" and "Sayee", I don't think any alternative exist in the English language. (Circumambulation is not an adequate description for Tawaf.)
  • "Kaaba", "Safa" and "Marwa" are proper nouns.
I hope this clears it up a bit! --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I know only Hajj and Kaaba. But thanks for your explanation, your edits and for being on this talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hajj/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shii (talk · contribs) 07:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Before I do copyediting and image checks, I would like to see a huge cleanup in the sources used. Nothing published by "PositivePsyche.Biz Corp" will ever be a WP:RS. Islamic sources are good if they are published by reputable imams or Muslim academics, but "Islam For Dummies" is quite weak as a source and hajjumrahguide.com, published by two random people, is completely unacceptable as a source for Muslim practice. Also the citation style is messy in the first place. Shii (tock) 07:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shii, thanks for undertaking the review task. I'm working on providing reliable sources. However, will you please explain what you meant by "citation style is messy" so that it can be corrected. The citations I added earlier were arranged as per citation template. -AsceticRosé 03:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort. I was referring to the stray references like "Peters, F. E., p. 71" and "Hamza Yusuf, Pilgrims with a Purpose" that lack necessary information to identify what is being cited. Hamza Yusuf is an example of a source that would be excellent to use if we could supply his citation with a page number and ISBN. I'll keep an eye on this page if you have any further questions. Shii (tock) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually I used "Peters, F. E., p. 71"-like references because a full citation has already been provided above about Peters (here currently the citation no. 16 in this article), but I'm not sure if I should use the full citation every time about the same reference. If the latter is the case, I will change them. (This issue was confusing me for a long time).
Another inquiry is will the website islamqa.info and iqrasense be regarded as RS? However, I'm trying to find better sources. Thanks -AsceticRosé 04:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see. You are mixing two different styles of citation. You can see when citations can be shortened here: I Ching <-- In this article, the number of books being cited has been cut down to the bare essentials and there are no extra webpages in the footnotes. You can also see that there is a link taking you to the full name of each specific book, which makes things easier for people seeking out sources.
IslamQA looks like a popular website, but who is it operating under? How can a non-Muslim reader know that they are representative of mainstream Muslim practice? IqraSense looks worse than that, I have doubts that it is an RS. You should be thinking about how general readers often want to verify the information in the article, and how we can direct them to quality sources. Websites are convenient but might not be the best option. Shii (tock) 04:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Shii, I have cleaned up the reference section as far as possible. Will you please have a look? -AsceticRosé 09:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Shii, are you currently active on Wikipedia? -AsceticRosé 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that! I got distracted halfway through checking your sources.
Although a FA might require more rigorous sources than this, it seems that you have found reliable sources for everything and there are no longer any dubious statements in the article. I checked the use of images and everything looks good there too. The article's general layout and prose is admirable and close to FA quality. I don't see any other problems for GA. Shii (tock) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't intended as a proper GA review, but just reading through this I had a bunch of questions:
  • Tawaf: reading this section I didn't understand what this word meant. The article doesn't wikilink it. There's a truly mystifying sentence that introduces the section: "The pilgrims perform an arrival tawaf either as part of Umrah or as an welcome tawaf." The article then explains things done during tawaf without saying whether they define or make up the entirety of tawaf.
  • Al-Safa and Al-Marwah: the article does a poor job of conveying where these hills are located and doesn't include images of the gallery between them that I see in the linked article.
  • Costs: the article talks about programs by other governments to help with costs, and mentions a sacrifice voucher program, but doesn't detail what the costs are. It should start with a general figure of how much the pilgrims are told they should budget, then break it down more specifically.
  • Quotas: how does the Saudi government decide how to set the national quotas (is there a formula, or is it a matter of foreign relations?) and from within each national quota, who to allow to enter for hajj and who to exclude each year?
  • Mount Arafat: Neither this article nor that one explains who is allowed to preach from the mountain or how they are chosen.
Wnt (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Although the article has already become a good one months ago, still I've addressed some of the issues raised above. The issues of Tawaf and Al-Safa and Al-Marwah have been addressed as further improvement. Thanks for pointing out those shortcomings. --AsceticRosé 15:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When does this occur in the year ?[edit]

January, August, December, approximately ? This should be easy to find out in an encyclopedia article without reading the whole thing. If it progressively changes, it should at least state : "the date for 2014 was/will be ....". I couldn't find it. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've created a separate section on the timing of Hajj to address this problem. -AsceticRosé 15:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So I would assume that approximately every 34 years Hajj would occur twice in one western/Gregorian year, correct ? The Western dating system would have great difficulty handling such a concept I assume, as this implies that a Hajj year can only be correctly stated according to the Islamic calendar, yes ? If so, I feel the article should discuss this and state the relevant Islamic years together with the Gregorian years in the section "Timing of Hajj". Rcbutcher (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The last time when the Hajj occurred twice in the same Gregorian year was in 2006 (AH 1426 & 1427) -- the next time will be in 2039 (AH 1460 & 1461). Tables with the dates (according to the Umm al-Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia) for the Hajj for past and future years can be obtained from here. AstroLynx (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hajj date is determined by Islamic calendar or not[edit]

I'm not sure why this edit was necessitated. What is the merit of deleting this line The date of Hajj is determined by Islamic calendar (known as Hijri calendar or AH) which is a lunar year which gives information to those not adequately familiar with how dates of Islamic events are determined/chosen. Moreover, these information are supported by provided sources. For example, the Harrison source clearly says The date is determined by the Hijri calender which itself relates to a journey, the migration of the Prophet.... Again, Marshall's Islam-Beliefs, practices, culture says The timing of Hajj, like that of Ramadan, is based o lunar calender (see). I see no problem in saying that The date of Hajj is determined by Islamic calendar or the like.

Another problem of the edit that it has attributed the above sources to a new sentence Every year, the events of Hajj take place in a... which they do not correspond to. -AsceticRosé 05:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply return that first sentence. In addition, the sentence "Every year, the events of Hajj take place in a five-day period, starting on 8 and ending on 12 Dhul-Hijjah, the twelfth and last month of Islamic calendar." is now sourced to the same sources that the old sentence was sourced to, which seems a mistake. So that sentence should be restored to its previous location. Debresser (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've resorted to original wording. Thanks Fauzan for adding Day of Arafah in the section. -AsceticRosé 16:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not add the dates for the next few years (per Umm al-Qura calendar)? AstroLynx (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I could not access the source, so my mistake there in carelessly changing the attributed sentence. Regarding "determined", I think it is might not be strange for a Western viewpoint to use such a wording; but, see, we never say "The date of the Indepence Day of the Unted States is determined by the Gregorian calendar." Any thoughts? --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Years wrong in "Number of pilgrims per year" section[edit]

Hajj occurred twice in Gregorian year 2006 : 1426 and 1427. Table years appear to go wrong from 2006 onward. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the table. However, the data for 1426 AH (and also most of 1429 AH) is still missing. AstroLynx (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
One could copy those from the Arabic WP which should be reliable enough. AstroLynx (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed the issue a couple of days ago. -AsceticRosé 15:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Numbers for 2008/1429 are still incomplete. AstroLynx (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I will try to collect data on it some time later, being busy now. However, others can contribute also. -AsceticRosé 15:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent spree of reverts[edit]

Recently, there has been an unnecessary spree of reverts over a single reference, the last one being this. I think the issue doesn't deserve it. What do you think, Shii and Debresser? -AsceticRosé 15:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Routine cleanup, I think the issue is taken care of now Shii (tock) 17:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I am shocked at what was been fought over, But I do not understand Debressers passion for keeping the dubious reference, what possible political, social, ideological, religious profit could the user gain from it?--Inayity (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Inavity, why would you be shocked? I am shocked by your assumption that my edit is motivated by "political, social, ideological, religious profit". I find that offensive, actually. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes shock and being offended are part of some people's identities. Let me give clarity, people disagree over things of value (however you define that value --maybe you like the book, maybe you feel it gave balance), your recent edit war (from as far as I can see) had in ZERO value. --Inayity (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Inayity, more tolerance is needed when commenting on other users. Focus should be given on objective discussion, not on subjective one.
Shii, would you please share with us what is particularly wrong with this book? -AsceticRosé 01:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is "wrong" with it, nothing is wrong with The Da Vinci Code either, but it's embarrassing to add a citation to either book as if it helps us prove a point Shii (tock) 01:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
AsceticRose have you seen the RS check on it? The bigger the claim the stronger and more authoritative a source should be. --Inayity (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)--Inayity (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a big claim, but hardly a controversial one, and certainly not a derogatory one. In any case, the source probably isn't that good, I came to realize in the end. But I do protest Inavity's bad faith assumption, which I still don't understand where it came from. Debresser (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It not a WP:AGF issue, it is a I could not conceive of any possible rationale for the WP:EDITWAR. IF you liked the book, i could at least have understood that.--Inayity (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The word "edit war" also seems an exaggeration in this case. If you don't understand why an editor does something, in the future you should perhaps visit his talkpage and ask him? That seems a better idea than publicly ascribing ulterior motives. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Lack of ulterior motives in this case, almost like pointless. And no discussion on talk for edits. b/c I watched it and was trying to understand what it was about. Then I went to the R/S noticeboard and then favored Shii.--Inayity (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I've just seen the WP:RSN on it. Like Debresser, I also realize at the end that it is probably better to avoid such source for such claims. But Inayity again, no personal attack, please. It reflects poorly on you. Thanks Shii for sharing his view. -AsceticRosé 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)