Talk:Hajj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hijra[edit]

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

No, Hajj dated back to the time of Abraham (Prophet Ibrahim (a)).--Ali.shakeri.1987 (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Hajj is only for those people who can afford it and are physically, financially and mentally fit(point to be noted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.120.194 (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2018 (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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hajj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hajj as the largest gathering: some observations[edit]

The article currently says: The Hajj is the largest annual gathering of people in the world which is supported by reliable sources. A google search shows many more sources saying the same. Someone correctly placed a dubious tag on it because the Arbaeen Pilgrimage article claims the same. One important point is that the claim that Hajj is the largest annual gathering is supported by more reliable sources and relatively large number of sources than the Arbaeen claim.

However, I'm personally not so interested in this largest-claim game. If row ensues in future, we can do away with it by saying The Hajj is one of the largest annual gatherings of people in the world. -AsceticRosé 15:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Layout issues[edit]

Why is the tawaf not under what is done on the 8th day? -Russell's teapot (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hajj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Haj[edit]

Until 4 October this year Haj redirected here but was retargetted to Hannover Airport (IATA code HAJ) on that date. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 29#Haj I have proposed that it be retarggeted back to this article. You are invited to contribute to the discussion there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sexual harassment of female pilgrims in Mecca[edit]

The #metoo movement has outed the practice of sexual harassment of women pilgrims in Mecca making the Hajj.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-43174322/groped-by-holy-mosque-guard-during-hajj-in-mecca

109.147.100.127 (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"annual gathering"[edit]

To say "annual gathering" is true if you mean the Islamic "annus" but not the one people normally mean. As the article says below, every 33 years it can fall twice in one Gregorian year. I suggest "annual" be replaced with "regular" or kept with the comment (according to the Islamic year).--2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:9995:35A:3713:2FAB (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)