Talk:Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam

Stylistic considerations

I'm listing here, for future reference, some stylistic decisions and their basis.

• Does "hajj" take a capital letter?

There is no consistency across articles for this presently on English Wikipedia. However, as discussed at Talk:Hajj#Capitalisation, multiple style guides specifically for professionals writing about Islam in English recommend lower-case.

• Does "hajj" need to be italicised?

No, because "hajj" and "hajji" are loanwords in English,[1] not to be treated as foreign words. Words relating to other pillars of Islam have not achieved the status of loanwords and may need to be italicised.

• Does "hajj" need a definite article?

There is right now no consistency, even in article titles, in whether English Wikipedia uses "of the hajj" or just "of hajj". When talking about the trip made by an individual pilgrim, it's natural to use the indefinite article "a pilgrim's hajj". So this question is about when talking about the hajj in general. There is variation among the article's sources. At present I'm just aiming for within-article consistency so I've used the definite article rather than hajj on its own. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: at Talk:Hajj#"Hajj"_or_"the_Hajj"?, consensus seems to be emerging that it is fine without an article. Further arguments have been set out about capitalisation at Talk:Hajj#Capitalisation MartinPoulter (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation?

"It was the world's first major exhibition telling the story, visually and textually, of the hajj" - really?? Is there some heavy lifting being done by "major" or would something like "It was the world's first featured exhibition in a top world museum telling the story, visually and textually, of the hajj" be more accurate? Lovingboth (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lovingboth: It's normal to leave citations out of the lead if the same material is stated in the body of the article with citations. Refs 11, 12, and 13, in the current version of the article are relevant and are what the statement is based on. I think the phrase "top world museum" is unnatural English and I don't know what it means or how we would establish the set of "top world museums". The phrasing "world's first major exhibition" was decided in the Featured Article Review, in Harry's section. Hope this answers your question. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter I would prefer wording that focuses on this exhibition's role in the West. For example "It was the first major exhibition in Europe telling the story..." or "It was the first major exhibition in the English language telling the story..." My reasoning is that as English Wikipedians, we are limited in our ability to fact check that there haven't been any major exhibitions about the hajj in Muslim majority countries, where there would be limited English language sources. The Guardian, The Diplomat, and The Independent are all good sources for British, English language content, but I doubt they were making the claim that no museum in a Muslim majority region had a major exhibition on the hajj.

What do you think about keeping "major" but changing the scope from "the world" to something a little narrower? AdJHu 胡 19:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@AdJHu: But those sources do make that claim, not the narrower claims that you propose. The Independent specifically comments on the fact that Britain hosted an exhibition on the topic before Saudi Arabia did. It doesn't matter what claim you wish they had or hadn't made. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)