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)
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)
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)
(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?
I can't find whether the article mentioned anything about Makam Ibrahim or not. Can anybody help? -- TheEgyptian 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Make sure this won't happen again. -- HanzoHattori 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
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, El on ka 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
#REDIRECT [[Masjid al-Haram]]{{R from alternative spelling}}
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?
--- 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.
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)).
the St. Peter's of the Muslim world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.33.92 ( talk) 10:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 18:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"Grand Mosque" mecca -wikipediavs. 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)
"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)
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)
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. :)
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)
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)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 87.109.95.234 ( talk) 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It is currently written:
Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām ( Arabic: المسجد الحرام, The Sacred Mosque or The Grand Mosque)
'''Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām''' ({{lang-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''' ({{lang-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>
Greg Kaye 11:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Counter propose: Great Mosque (Mecca) as per:
While I would support the above change I think that this move would be more valid thus:
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? Greg Kaye 15:46, 1 April 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, Greg Kaye 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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?
I can't find whether the article mentioned anything about Makam Ibrahim or not. Can anybody help? -- TheEgyptian 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Make sure this won't happen again. -- HanzoHattori 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
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, El on ka 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
#REDIRECT [[Masjid al-Haram]]{{R from alternative spelling}}
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?
--- 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.
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)).
the St. Peter's of the Muslim world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.33.92 ( talk) 10:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 18:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"Grand Mosque" mecca -wikipediavs. 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)
"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)
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)
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. :)
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)
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)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 87.109.95.234 ( talk) 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It is currently written:
Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām ( Arabic: المسجد الحرام, The Sacred Mosque or The Grand Mosque)
'''Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām''' ({{lang-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''' ({{lang-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>
Greg Kaye 11:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Counter propose: Great Mosque (Mecca) as per:
While I would support the above change I think that this move would be more valid thus:
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? Greg Kaye 15:46, 1 April 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, Greg Kaye 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)