Talk:Masjid al-Haram/Archive 1

Images

We have three images for this page. 2 are uknown copyright status, 1 is copyrighted, all are crap quality. I'm sure there have to be more sources so can anyone help remedy this? gren 19:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding images, this website [1] has some computer generated images of the mosque, but I'm not sure if that's what you're really after. In fact (I just found this), it's excellent, as it's also got clickable panoramic views of the mosque. I'll put it in the external links. --Mpatel 10:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I put up a new pic, The aerial view one, so adjust it as you like--Maliki 786 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes we need more images with correct licenses because they keep getting deleted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Details

The article is very short considering it is highly important to a large part of human race. The information about Hajj is also only a small paragraph, while it should be at least four big paragraphs. More general details; like what is inside the mosque also seem to be absent. The history abruptly ends when it was constructed. Did nothing notable happen in all these centuries? The image High veiw.JPG seems to have a fake copyright license. The license says it is a work of US govt, but it is sourced from this page, that is copyrighted. The page mentions it is satellite image, but not all satellite images are US-govt works. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the mosque is the largest in the world by quite some way... holding over a million worshipers... and details?? 82.22.68.162 00:48, 21 September 2006

(UTC)

I would like to see some information about the most recent renovation of the mosque, as overseen by Mohammed bin Laden and his construction company. He should definitely be mentioned, because it is due to him that this mosque can now accommodate the millions of people per year that it does. Bonus Onus 05:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

74.89.56.83 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does the date for establishment say 638 if it is spoken of during Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime (he died in 632 AD) and by Ptolemy?

Makam Ibrahim

I can't find whether the article mentioned anything about Makam Ibrahim or not. Can anybody help? --TheEgyptian 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone wrote the seizure was by "Shia Islamic fundamentalists"

Make sure this won't happen again. --HanzoHattori 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the domes?

I've been looking around for an answer to this question but haven't had any luck so far. Anyone know what the three domes are for? Do they have names? Do they serve a purpose? Is there something under them that's important? Thanks, Elonka 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another way of writing the title is "Masjidil Haram"

It would be useful if this phrase is used for redirecting/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.74.135 (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the redirect. If anyone (that has an account) would like to make other redirects from alternate spellings, just add this to the appropriate page:

  #REDIRECT [[Masjid al-Haram]]{{R from alternative spelling}}

--Elonka 02:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

I came to this page and the page on Mecca looking for information on the events of Nov 20, 1979 when a group of Sunni Muslims barricaded themselves within the mosque for 15 days. But I can't seem to find information on this topic anywhere on Wikipedia, except for a brief reference in the biography of King Khalid bin Abdul Aziz. Can anyone who knows about this help and expand on this, either here or on the Mecca page?

Good point! I was looking for the same events today, and couldn't find a thing. Meanwhile, I seem to remember there used to be an extended Wikipedia article about those events. It is beyond imagination that such important events are missing from Wikipedia, so I wonder what happened. (25 April 2006)

--- is the mosque open during the non-hajj period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.91.136 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 74.89.56.83 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Masjid is open year-round to Muslims.

When was the Mosque actually made?

And when did construction start?--Steven X (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 74.89.56.83 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The "white part" of the mosque was built around the Ka'aba sometime in the Ummayyad period after Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime and after the time of the Rashidun Caliphate, so probably circa 700 AD.

The Ka'aba existed as shrine long before the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and according to Islam, since prehistory (the time of Adem (pbuh)).

so its kinda like...

the St. Peter's of the Muslim world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.33.92 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture of pilgrim

I have removed the picture prominently showing a smiling pilgrim with a small Ka'bah in the background. This is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia as the focus is clearly upon the person and not the subject of the article. DO NOT replace this picture with out at least discussing the issues I have raised—Wikipedia is not a depository for tourist pictures. Xargon666x6 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

74.89.56.83 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Kind of*, only with the exception that pilgrimage to the Masjid is obligatory for an able Muslim.

How do the Saudis keep the Masjidul Haram clean?

Every time I look at the interior of the Masjidul Haram it looks immaculately clean. I simply cannot imagine hundreds if not thousands of workers polishing all of that marble pillars, capitals, architraves, stairs...the lift machinery to reach the heights of the columns and walls...it boggles the mind. AbdulHakeem1 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Could someone please edit the development section of this article. It contains the term " The death of the stupid, silly King Fahd " Uncalled for in an encyclopedia as it's blatantly someone's personal inflammatory opinion. --01:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

not enough r.s ref

there is a serious lack of ref and this article will need them. Who is writing most of these sections is not necessarily inaccurate but we need sources for those statements, esp when people need to verify info by themselves. I cannot trust things without ref. --Inayity (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Inayity, I hope you are well. You are right. I'm trying to clean up the prose, but it's also clear to me that the article needs reliable neutral sources. I'll search for some as time permits. Please free to add some too. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

use the edit summary to explain your edits

By doing that it communicates the issue so other editors know. Saying "un constructive" does not inspire much collaboration. b/c I was very confused at the reversion. WP:ES--Inayity (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

what was the first thing built?

I'm a bit confused by this: "the very first construction of the Kaaba, the heart of the Masjid al-Haram, was undertaken by Abraham. The Qur'an said that this was the first house built for humanity to worship Allah.[Quran 3:96] With the order of the God [Quran 22:26], Abraham and his son Ishmael found the original foundation and rebuild the Kaaba [Quran 2:125] [Quran 2:127] in 2130 BCE." What was the "original foundation" found by Abraham, if he build the first construction? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Islamic tradition, the original foundations were the foundations of the first Ka'bah, built by Adam. I have found a good online reference for this (Story of Holy Kabah and its People by S.R.M Shaabar | First Chapter; Ka’aba - The House Of Allah)--Speeditor (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Transliterated words

Unfortunately, most of the Arabic names doesn't have a standard transliteration in English. So I suggest, if a word doesn't have a standard transliteration in English then we should use Wikipedia article name on that subject, if exist. For example if Wikipedia article names the cuboid building as Kaaba, then all words refer to thaere should be Kaaba in the Article. Not Qaaba, Qabah, Kabah, Kaabah etc.. Similarly, Wikipedia transliterates the city where Kaaba is in as Mecca. So we should stick on this name. If you believe that "i.e. Mecca" is a wrong transliteration then go ahead and discuss that issue on that page before making a change on this page. Thank you. Yakamoz51 (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Yakamoz51, you make perfect sense to me. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone transliterate the Arabic at the beginning of the article? Thanks (I don't know Arabic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.26.237 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Masjid al-Haram," it's "Al-Masjid Al-Haram"

Yes it means exactly what one thinks it means. There is no such thing as a mosque, anywhere in the world, called "Masjid Al-Haram." The reason is because the meaning of that would be "the mosque of prohibited things" rather than the real name for the grand mosque, "AL-Masjid Al-Haram," which actually means "the sacred mosque." Writing an Arabic ism (not exactly the same as a noun but close) without the definite article followed by another ism which actually does have the definite article causes the first word to become a possessor and the second to be a possession. That is not the case with this mosque; it is "THE masjid" and "haram" is functioning as a na't or adjective describing it as holy or sacred. If we even look at the Arabic Wikipedia version, "المسجد الحرام," we will see that the definite article is attached to both words; not doing so is a really blatant grammatical error.

Thus, I would like to propose two possibilities...we either change the article's name to "Al-Masjid Al-Haram" or just change it to English per WP:ENGLISH. Either way, this current title does not refer to an actual place because no mosque on Earth, including the subject of this article, is called that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to quote two policies: WP:VERIFY which says that material "must clearly support the material as presented in the article". And WP:WEIGHT which says that content is featured "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So essentially, it does not matter if it grammatically wrong - what matters is whats in the sources. The fact remains is that the current phrasing IS found in reliable sources hence i'm gonna vote to keep it as it is. Pass a Method talk 07:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I recommend the page name is changed to Al-Masjid al-Haram. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose a name change. Pass a Method talk 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Pass a Method, you are an outstanding editor and I seldom find myself disagreeing with you. I just know, as an Arabic speaker, than one needs the first direct article. My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a google books search [2]. I currently support the move. Pass a Method talk 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So, how does this work? Do we need to put a template on the article or notify project Islam first, or are comments from the three of us enough? Should we maybe wait a little longer? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I also support the "move". I am convinced by the claim and thank for pointing this out. regards Yakamoz51 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok so what happens now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Masjid al-Haram → Al-Masjid Al-Haram – Better get this dispute discussed properly :: see last but one paragraph hereinabove. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I did not see anyone disagree with the move, it is a very clear cut argument per every book on the subject. --Inayity (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Inayity "moved" the article by copy-pasting, so its history was incorrect. I posted on Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move_repair_holding_pen about it. I just wanted the article's history restored after the move, but my request seems to have been misinterpreted as a request to move the article back to Masjid al-Haram. I don't disagree with the move; there was a consensus for it. —rybec 23:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• I did the history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your efforts. I should have said "misinterpreted as a request to also move the article back." —rybec 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, or move to Grand Mosque. The use of the Arabic title, as shown with this issue, is problematic. Because al-Masjid al-Haram means The Sacred Mosque, we can't write "structures in the al-Masjid al-Haram"; we'd have to write "structures in al-Masjid al-Haram", which sounds completely unnatural in English. In some ways, it seems plausible that "the Masjid al-Haram", with the Arabic al replaced by the English the should actually be acceptable. This is much in the same way we're okay with the and mosque replacing their Arabic equivalents in "the al-Aqsa Mosque" and omitting the second the in the article name al-Aqsa Mosque. (And many sources don't even use the article the before al-Aqsa Mosque, even though it introduces a grammatical issue.)

However, it might just be better to avoid this issue altogether by using "Grand Mosque", which, apparently, is the more common name in English, especially outside texts aimed at Muslims. Compare 15,600 Google Books results for "Grand Mosque" mecca -wikipedia vs. 1,980 Google Books results for "al-Masjid al-Haram" mecca -wikipedia (the latter of which is largely serious Islamic texts by Muslim authors). I'm indifferent between the two options, but I oppose moving this to "al-Masjid al-Haram", which, as suggested by the nature of the Google Books results, is just not English. -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is about Al-Masjid Al Haram per RS (not what sounds cool in English), Grand mosque has many claiming that title. So why are you comparing a disambig to a specific unique name.? The above logic you have conjured up makes no sense per WP:TITLE. It is like doing a google search and saying Mosque is more popular than Masjid al-Aqsa, so let us rename it to Mosque b/c it is more common or worse because it is in English. The only argument would be if we were debating spelling (Haraam vs Haram), and we are not.--Inayity (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That Google search was specifically "Grand Mosque" mecca -wikipedia -- with "mecca" included -- in an effort to narrow down the results to just ones about the mosque in Mecca. Sure, there might be a few false positives, but browsing through at least the first few pages of those results, I see that all of the references are to the mosque in Mecca. There is certainly no basis for the insinuation that 90 percent of those results are references to other mosques or the straw-man argument that accompanies that.

"What sounds cool in English" is actually relevant here, because this is the English Wikipedia. There are a number of sources that use the allegedly grammatically incorrect "the Masjid al-Haram", including publications based in the Arab world. Among these sources are The Diplomat, a publication by the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UAE-based The National, al-Jazeera (which never uses "al-Masjid al-Haram") the BBC (which never says "al-Masjid al-Haram"), and The New York Times (which also never uses "al-Masjid al-Haram"). There is ample evidence to suggest that "the Masjid al-Haram" is acceptable in English and that "al-Masjid al-Haram" is just Arabic transliterated. And that doesn't even say anything about "Grand Mosque", which al-Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, the AP, etc, seem to much more strongly prefer, being, of course, English. -- tariqabjotu 09:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong move- The name is Al Majid Al-Haram, it does not have another name! Not much scope for a debate when the name is what the name is.--Inayity (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We go by reliable sources. There are plenty such which bear the current title. Pass a Method talk 11:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• "in the al-Masjid al-Haram" with two "the"-words together is the same sort of form as in the commonly written "at the La Brea tar pits". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard: It's not quite the same thing. The English the is associated with the Tar Pits. If this were "the al-Haram Masjid" (or "the al-Haram Mosque"), there would be no grammatical issue, just as there isn't one when people say "the al-Aqsa Mosque". -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Premature move

Sorry. I was checking how to move the page if and when an editorial consensus emerged. I accidentally did it. I have reverted my move. I apologize. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the Move debate was poorly advertised in the correct communities and hence got a low turn out. Most of the people who supported the move did not even use the above vote. Total opinions only 3 Including me.--Inayity (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Abraham/Ibrahim?

The article switches between the two names for the same person. I suggest only "Ibrahim" be used as his relation to the Kaaba is only in the Islamic tradition. Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, and it's why I opened up this talk page to look at it in the first place. Paragraph 1 below the TOC uses Abraham and Ibrahim. To clarify for non-Muslims etc. perhaps the paragraph should be restructured to use "Abraham" at first, and then changed to Ibrahim throughout. I dunno. I ain't that smart. :)

Administration section

Can we get some sort of definitive listing, some sourced official source, so that the list of who is Imam when and all that isn't a source of constant disruption? I don't know enough to fix this and it's frustrating the hell out of me. Peter Deer (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we need this long section ?

Imams and Muadhins section is more than a quarter of the article. And also it is merely list of current and former imams/muadhins. Imagine, we put all the names of former imams/muadhins than it would be a list of thousands of people throughout the history. Several of them even doesn't have a WP page. So I propose to summarize (if not remove at all) this section and keep only very notable imams and muadhins. Yakamoz51 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—87.109.95.234 (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. You haven't said what you think is in error, and the coordinates in the article appear to be correct. If you still think that the coordinates are erroneous, please explain the nature of the error below. Deor (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

suggest change to opening text

It is currently written:

Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām (Arabic: المسجد الحرام, The Sacred Mosque or The Grand Mosque)

'''Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām''' ({{langx|ar|المسجد الحرام}}, ''The Sacred Mosque'' or ''The [[Grand Mosque]]'')<ref name =GME>[http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE77J0W520110820?sp=true Saudi Arabia starts major expansion of Grand Masjid in Mecca]</ref>

I suggest:

Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām (Arabic: المسجد الحرام, The Sacred Mosque), also known as the Great Mosque of Mecca,

'''Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām''' ({{langx|ar|المسجد الحرام}}, ''The Sacred Mosque''), also known as the '''Great Mosque of Mecca''',<ref>{{cite web|title=Great Mosque of Mecca - Mosque, Mecca, Saudi Arabia|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/254837/Great-Mosque-of-Mecca|publisher=Britannica}}</ref>

• "Great Mosque of Mecca" gets "About 8,920 results" in books
• "Masjid al-Haram" gets "About 5,510 results" in books (often presented as "the Masjid al-Haram")
• "al-Masjid al-Haram" gets "About 2,020 results" in books

GregKaye 11:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved to al-Masjid al-Haram, however an RM to further discuss a specific move to an anglicized version such as Great Mosque (Mecca) seems warranted if someone will take the initiative to start one. Discussion in the new RM should be limited to an anglicized version of this title and not dredge up issues surrounding al-Masjid al-Haram. Mike Cline (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Masjid al-Haram → al-Masjid al-Haram – The title al-Masjid al-Haram is more recognizable and preferable to use in English. In addition, it is also a correct transliteration from the Arabic name, because Arabic uses the definite article al- (المسجد الحرام, al-Masjid al-Ḥarām). Masjid al-Haram, on the other hand, is grammatically incorrect to use for this mosque, and in addition, also not recognizable. So per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, I request to move this page to al-Masjid al-Haram. Previous discussions at this talk page show that most users (including MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs), GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs), Yakamoz51 (talk · contribs), and Inayity (talk · contribs)) supported the move to the proposed title which uses al- at the start, and also a fifth one (rybec (talk · contribs)) has agreed there is a consensus for the move. Only 2 users have opposed the move, though it seems even one of the two opposers (Pass a Method (talk · contribs)) at one point made up their mind to support the move in a discussion above. That leaves only Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) who opposed the move. I agree with Rybec there was a consensus for the move. Khestwol (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per my previous comments on the subject. It doesn't matter that Masjid al-Haram makes no sense in Arabic; this isn't the Arabic Wikipedia. What makes sense in a variety of English-language sources is the current title (BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, al-Jazeera, a Saudi government agency, UAE's The National) or the Grand Mosque. Al-Masjid al-Haram is hardly used in the English language outside highly focused works written by Arabs and Muslims. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Masjid al-Haram is not so commonly used in English sources either. But to those familiar with the mosque and the usage of its name, it is not as recognizable as the proposed name. Khestwol (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure anyone that recognizes al-Masjid al-Haram as this site in Mecca can recognize Masjid al-Haram as the same place. The idea that the Arabic grammar issue prevents that is, frankly, far-fetched; they're pretty much the same thing. At the end of the day, the argument for the move boils down to the idea that "al-Masjid al-Haram" makes more sense in Arabic.

Unfortunately, though, as I said, what makes more sense in Arabic is irrelevant. What's important is what makes more sense in English. Do realize that WP:RECOGNIZABLE, which you linked in your request, states this multiple times, including as follows:

• Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
• Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

I have shown that there are reliable English-language sources, including English-language sources written in the Arab world, that use "Masjid al-Haram" -- and I'm sure the authors of those Saudi and Emirati publications are fluent in Arabic too. Previously I also showed that al-Jazeera, the BBC, and the New York Times all don't use "al-Masjid al-Haram" at all. So far, you have not countered that with sources. -- tariqabjotu 16:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Google books also have thousands of results for al-Masjid al-Haram (2,020 results), which is just less than half than that of Masjid al-Haram (5,620 results), but none of the 2 names are too popular so as to beat the other in terms of popularity. However, again, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY applies:

• The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

Al-Masjid al-Haram is more recognizable. In addition, the proposed name also has another advantage in terms of consistency:

• The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

Other similar articles also use -al at the start of their titles, most importantly al-Masjid an-Nabawi, the second-holiest mosque after al-Masjid al-Haram. Khestwol (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that al-Masjid al-Haram is more "recognizable" to someone familiar with the subject is purely anecdotal, and, to me, it doesn't make sense. There's no way someone who recognizes what al-Masjid al-Haram is can't recognize what Masjid al-Haram is. So we're left with considering other criteria.

And consistency sure isn't one of them. Dude, the only reason al-Masjid an-Nabawi is where it is is because you moved that article from its long-standing location two weeks ago. I can move that back too if consistency is the issue. -- tariqabjotu 17:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

False assertions. The previous title of al-Masjid an-Nabawi also used the definite article al- at the start. The existence of that article offers an advantage for the proposed title. Khestwol (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see that now. My apologies. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, all of your citations make reference to "the Masjid al-Haram". In this case and similar cases I think that WP:THE is difficult to apply as the second (I believe) confirmatory "al-" remains in the text. I could support either Great Mosque of Mecca, al-Masjid al-Haram (which would require in page code to produce the initial "a") or Al-Masjid al-Haram but, on basis understandings of Semitic languages and on the basis of George Custer's Sabre's comment below, I think it would be against Wikipedia's role as a WP:encyclopedia to present a potentially incoherent content. GregKaye 10:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying, but let me take a stab at a response. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you're meaning.

My best guess at what you're saying is that those [many] sources that say "the Masjid al-Haram" are basically writing "al-Masjid al-Haram", but just translating the first al. Assuming this were true, this doesn't make sense anyway. Per WP:THE, when the is not capitalized, it's not part of the title. It's not capitalized when "Masjid al-Haram" is mentioned in English -- and there's nothing stopping those sources from capitalizing it (unlike in Arabic, where capitalization doesn't exist). Therefore, the shouldn't be part of the title, in English or in Arabic.

Second, there's really no way to reconcile the with Masjid al-Haram in this instance. As stated a number of times, the definite article completely changes the meaning of the phrase in Arabic. Appending ال to مسجد changes the meaning of the phrase from "Mosque of the Forbidden Things" [or however you choose to translate حرام] to "the Sacred Mosque". Appending the to Masjid al-Haram in English does nothing of that sort. Except in designated instances where The is capitalized (i.e. not here), the [noun] and [noun] are understood to mean the same thing. And they are here.

Now, I know some will say yes, but that's why the current title is a problem. But, it's not. Yes, مسجد الحرام (transliterated as Masjid al-Haram) doesn't 'make sense' in Arabic. But as sources show, in English (including English-language sources based in the Arab world), Masjid al-Haram makes sense in English; it means the site we're talking about here, المسجد الحرام. Once again, let me caution you, and other commenters, to not give heed to simple comments like "I know Arabic, and this makes sense in Arabic, so that should be the title on the English Wikipedia". Our policies suggest that line of thinking is not appropriate. -- tariqabjotu 12:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the move. I'm fluent in Arabic and agree it only makes sense as "al-Masjid al-Haram". George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This should be at the English title Grand Mosque instead. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That is an ambiguous title, because many mosques are known by that name in English. See Grand Mosque. So we will have to resort to using a qualifying disambiguation in parenthesis, which the proposed title doesn't need as it is not ambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• 209.211.131.181 a very valid optional title could be Great Mosque of Mecca which is the title that Britannica use for the subject and which is widely used on the internet. However, an existence of a third title is not a reason to oppose a present proposal which is made on grounds of improvement. GregKaye 10:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But this mosque is commonly called the Grand Mosque in English - I realize that a few mosques get referred to as "grand mosque of such-and-such" as well, but this one is just the Grand Mosque, and it is clearly the primary topic. And the existence of a title which follows Wikipedia's naming conventions most certainly is a reason to propose moving to the title that follows Wikipedia's naming conventions - rather than moving from one title that doesn't follow naming conventions to another that also doesn't follow them, and especially when the forseeable consequence is twenty more move requests initiated by people who want to add or remove three characters from the title instead of simply using English. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

209.211.131.181, interesting. I have provided some stats on usages in the thread below and to these I can add that "Great Mosque" "Mecca" gets "About 20,500 results". Great Mosque (Mecca) might be a suitable title but perhaps Great Mosque of Mecca can still be considered. Perhaps you can counter propose one or both of them for consideration. GregKaye 13:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per my own request. Khestwol (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, predominantly as per Al-Masjid an-Nabawi, Al-Kadhimiya Mosque, Al-Nuqtah Mosque, Al-Safa and Al-Marwah and the (lol) Al-Aqsa Mosque. GregKaye 09:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• change as Oppose, I think the title contains enough religious POV as it is. It currently presents a disjointed Arabic rendition of ~"*Mosque (the) Sacred". I don't think that we can use Wikipedia's voice to present "The Sacred Mosque" even in transliterated Arabic. Within the article we can present the religious belief but we can't do so in our voice. GregKaye 14:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what point you're going with here. Yes, there are many articles on Wikipedia that begin with al. The only relevant comparison here, though, is Al-Masjid an-Nabawi. But that's just a single data point. Your remaining examples are irrelevant. The constructions of both the original Arabic names and the selected article titles are completely different. Al-Safa and Al-Marwah aren't mosques and don't modify any other words.

al-Aqsa Mosque actually hurts your point. The direct transliteration from Arabic is al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The article does not reside at that location. There isn't even a redirect, because, well, that's not English. There also isn't a redirect from The al-Aqsa Mosque. (Your laugh at the use of the before al-Aqsa suggests you misunderstand the construction -- "al-Aqsa" does not add the definite article to the mosque, but reordering in English leaves us with the weirdness.) Al-Aqsa Mosque, the way I see it, is just a reordering of Masjid al-Aqsa (the transliteration that is at the top of the article). Like here, مسجد الاقصى doesn't quite mean the same thing as the actual name. But, again, it doesn't matter because al-Aqsa Mosque, and Masjid al-Aqsa, predominate over al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Same goes for Haram al-Sharif (bolded and written many times as such in the Temple Mount article) rather than al-Haram al-Sharif [not widely used in English]. The proposed name would be the odd one out, and I have yet to see any reason why it would be justified in being such. -- tariqabjotu 12:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Tariqabjotu, I have also presented other supportive arguments above but the main issue that I presented here was to present, as you picked up, Wikipedia has a president for presenting titles beginning "al-" or "Al-". I then regard there to be a relevance in presenting content that makes coherent sense. I suspect that our presentation may, to Arabic proficient readers, be akin to speaking like Yoda from Star Wars. I am reasonably familiar with the "Al-Aqsa Mosque" and, as an arguably irrelevant comment, lived for a year in private accommodation within 700m of the site - so, for me, this certainly wasn't literally "the farthest mosque", "(lol)".

Most importantly though I do not think, just because there is "weirdness" in the presentation of a topic such as "al-Masjid al-Aqṣā" in many texts, that this in anyway justifies presenting weirdness within another title.

Al-Aqsa Mosque, more correctly, is a reordering of al-Masjid al-Aqsa. That this is a red-link, however, may provide an indication of support for your argument. GregKaye 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The weirdness I was referring to was saying "The al-Aqsa Mosque" despite al- and the both meaning the same thing.

And, again, we gain nothing by stating here are five other titles that begin with al- so let's add al- to the beginning of this article. That's a drastic misuse of WP:CONSISTENCY. There is no attempt to consider how those titles may be similar or dissimilar to the situation here. This is like saying The Game starts with the, so The Mona Lisa, The Super Bowl, and The Beatles should all start with The. There are many merits to consider. If this discussion is going to come down to simple comparisons like that, and repetitions of what makes sense in Arabic rather than in English, all I can hope is the closing admin gives due weight to policy-based arguments. -- tariqabjotu 13:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It is quite established in English to write "The al-aqsa mosque". There are also a significant amount of usage of "The al-Masjid". I can definitely see that the whole thing is problematic and this is also shown in my "Grand mosque" quote below. The article text reads: "The Grand Mosque is another name for Masjid al-Haram, in Mecca, ..." and here usage of neither "the" or "al-" has been included. Perhaps this provides a good argument for an application of WP:USEENGLISH. GregKaye 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Per reasoning by Khestwol. Also Encyclopedia of Islam uses "al-Masd̲j̲id al- Ḥarām". News, books and academic journals commonly use the word al-Masd̲j̲id al- Ḥarām to refer to this. Mbcap (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  Then that would be a reason to support al-Masd̲j̲id al- Ḥarām as the title of the article. But, of course, that's clearly not English, which runs afoul out our policies to use English-language names. And, further, I'd contend that your point isn't true. It's 5,360 vs. 2,030 in favor of Masjid al-Haram (or 3,330 vs. 2,030 if the former includes "Al-Masjid al-Haram") on Google Books, and 1,110 vs. 364 (or 746 vs. 364) on Google Scholar. I'm not sure what sources you're looking at that show al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām, but again we're looking for mainstream English-language sources, not highly specific sources aimed at Arab and Muslim audiences that would be used to seeing direct Arabic transliterations. -- tariqabjotu 01:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Counter propose: Great Mosque (Mecca)

Counter propose: Great Mosque (Mecca) as per:

• the opening text of Grand Mosque: "The Grand Mosque is another name for Masjid al-Haram, in Mecca, the holiest mosque in Islam";
• the format of all the similar titles in that article,
• all the search results I have previously provided and
• the confusion of presenting an Arabic "al-Foo" when a writer also wants to indicate an English "the".

While I would support the above change I think that this move would be more valid thus:

• Support as nom and ping: Khestwol, Tariqabjotu, GorgeCustersSabre, 209.211.131.181, GregKaye 13:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Greg: I think the title al-Masjid al-Haram is our best option especially as per WP:NATURAL. Why use a parenthetical disambiguation when the Arabic-derived proposed title offers us a natural disambiguation? Khestwol (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol I have really tried with the al-Masjid al-Haram but, either way, I see problems in regard to the al-/the issue. Many people will not experience a great deal of recognisability with "al-Masjid al-Haram" but will experience an extremely high level of recognisability with the words "Great", "Mosque" and "Mecca" and, putting them together, the whole message would be extremely clear. I honestly don't understand all the fuss about the provision of topic clarifications in parenthesis but, if there is thought to be a problem, an alternative usage of Great Mosque of Mecca. This wording gets higher hits than "al-Masjid al-Haram" which I think is of important note because Great Mosque of Mecca is in English. "al-Masjid al-Haram" could be used in relation to texts in any language that makes use of Latin scripts and perhaps some others. I really like the use of bits of other languages in Wikipedia and, for instance, I will often argue for the inclusion of diacritics. However, in this case, for me the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH in the context of the "the" issue were just too great. Sorry. GregKaye 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There's a possibility data may still support this proposal, but I should point out the Google research you did (searching for "Great Mosque" Mecca on Google Books) turns up many results where "Great Mosque" is used in reference to a different mosque and Mecca is just on the same page. In the first ten results, I see references to Great Mosques in Tunisia, Cordoba, and Mali. Another turns up an index, where several different Great Mosques (not the one in Mecca) are mentioned. Also, I'm confused about your first bullet point; wouldn't that support Grand Mosque instead of Great Mosque? -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

TY tariqabjotu, good points both. I mentioned the Grand Mosque as an illustration that other names are used for the site. However a use of more specific Google results indicates:

• "great mosque of Mecca" gets "About 8,260 results" in books while
• "grand mosque of Mecca" only gets "About 3,410 results" in books

The former is also the title used in Britannica. I did think of the Great / Grand difference when reading through but forgot it when writing down. I am also open to changing this sub thread into a discussion regarding best alternate title. What do you think? GregKaye 14:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support any variation of the English-language name over the proposal above. I don't suppose I have to repeat my above comments here; they still apply. For clarity: I prefer "Grand Mosque", but would support any move away from the disputed Arabic title to English as an improvement. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that readers would experience any great dilemmas in recognisability between "Great .." and "Grand ..". I think that Great Mosque is more supported externally but, if I'm understanding what you are saying, Grand Mosque would fit with other Wikipedia content. GregKaye 21:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Britannica says "Great Mosque, Mecca." The initializer (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I still believe that "al-Masjid al-Haram" is the best title. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, I also still think al-Masjid al-Haram is the best title. "Great Mosque" is not even a translation from the original Arabic name anyway. I hear "Great Mosque" and "Grand Mosque" for al-Masjid al-Haram only rarely in English language. Khestwol (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't think that we could use Wikipedia's voice to present something like Sacred Mosque of Mecca. I don't think that we can declare anything as sacred. At most we can say that Muslims consider it to be the "Sacred Mosque" or, in other words, that Muslims declare it to be "al-Masjid al-Haram". GregKaye 14:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am interested to know what other reliable secondary sources predominantly call the mosque then? I for one almost always see it as al-Masjid al-Haram normally but it maybe because I mostly hear it in religious settings, not scholarly settings. One user mentioned Britannica but that's clearly a nonreliable tertiary source on the topic. Khestwol (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose - Masjid al-Haram is the common name. Brill online uses that name and so do the vast majority of other news, book and academic sources. Mbcap (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't agree that there's anything wrong with "using Wikipedia's voice" to call this the Sacred Mosque if that's what it's called, in Arabic or otherwise. I'm neutral about this name though because I feel there are better arguments for this name than al-Masjid al-Haram, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the current name. The optimal name, according to Wikipedia policies, appears to be the one we currently have. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggest change of from picture: File:Masjid al-Haram.jpg

File:Masjid al-Haram.jpg

Consensus rejected image

Alternate suggestion

Masjidul-HaramAerealView

The picture has a curious file name considering the topics of other discussion in operation at the moment. I would like to question the use of this image. It uses a photographic technique so as to present an unreal depiction of its subject. I also think it presents a POV of the mosque as being a geographically dominant presence in the world. Various people may believe this religiously but I don't think that it is appropriate to push such a view pictorially through the use of image manipulation or distortion. Is there another appropriate image that can be used? GregKaye 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these arguments. If there is an appropriate picture which gives a real depiction of the mosque then that picture needs to be used in this article. Khestwol (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Some better images can be found on C:Category:Masjid al-Haram. Khestwol (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use the manipulated image, or any manipulated image. There's no way to avoid POV problems when doing such things. I've added an alternate suggestion here , which I found to be the best one on the Commons page. How do other editors feel about switching to that one? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's better, but, goodness, is it ever daytime in Mecca? -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There are daytime pictures on Commons, but almost all of them have shadows from one of the minarets obscuring part of the interior. I chose a nighttime picture because the even lighting actually makes it clearer. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I for one would like to 'Oppose' such a replacement. Not because of any overt "concerns" but because the rationale given is kinda absurd. The rationale presented is that the picture shows the mosque to be a dominant feature of the landscape and that such a depiction is POV. This rationale is inherently flawed, as the mosque building 'IS' the most dominant feature of that landscape , so the only POV here is of the person wishing to remove it. If there is any other reason for replacement please be kind enough to list it. If we started replacing pictures just because "they look dominant" we will be doing pov editing. As proof you can view the file I have linked below the original.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the manipulated image doesn't portray the Grand Mosque as a dominant feature of the local landscape (which of course it is), but falsely presents it as taking up a large portion of the Earth's surface. That is a serious problem, both because it is false, and because the motivation for the false image is to represent "importance" as a feature of the mosque's architecture. I don't think such a manipulated image can be acceptable. For the record, however, when I said "feel free to revert", I meant it - I made a bold change, and disagreeing with it is certainly allowed. It ought to be changed back nonetheless. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

In an encyclopaedia our duty is to display clear unfiltered information. The manipulated image fails to do this. We can't deal with manipulations. Our only duty is to present straight forward information with as much clarity as possible, GregKaye 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If editors here have views in regard to the general theme of this thread, comment would also be welcome at Talk:Church of the Holy Sepulchre#Unencyclopedic pic. Ping Fauzan, FreeatlastChitchat, GregKaye 08:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The first image is a better representation as it gives a complete picture. Now regarding the "manipulation", it is obvious to the reader that it is a fisheye projection. The objection that the image "falsely presents it as taking up a large portion of the Earth's surface" is absurd in the same way as saying that a gray scale image "falsely depicts the landscape of being devoid of color" and is a "POV". It's a photography technique, and the image is the best available one represent the structure. We may as well mention it in the caption about the fisheye. For now I have replaced the image with a cropped one that I hope resolves the issues. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks much clearer Fauzan now that it is zoomed in. Khestwol (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)