Talk:Hajj

message: "Furthermore, the increase of religious tourism from about 12 million Muslims annually to almost 17 million by 2025 has given rise to increasing luxury hotel businesses in the area to accommodate pilgrims."
2025 is still 5 years away, so it hasn't given rise to anything. So grammatically inaccurate. This may be a projection to 2025 or perhaps it should be 2015? 68.33.94.181 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hajj and the Saudi economy 

message: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32171882 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancellation?

message: This article has many issues that have to be addressed or else its status as a good article may need to be revoked. Hajj is a vital article visited by tens of thousands every month, which just rubs salt into the wound.
*The lead section has 8 paragraphs, an article is best with 4 ones as per WP:LEAD
*There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs
*Some sections/subsections are one or a few more sentences long, mostly in sub-sections of the Second day: 9th Dhu al-Hijjah-section; Some sections are completely unsourced
*Some sources are outdated and some are broken (or have missing information)
*All tables in the article have missing sources, and the tables themselves seem very pointless (especially the last one about the number of pilgrims).
If anyone is willing to rewrite the lead and address these issues that would be great. Wretchskull (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. If anyone wants to get it reassessed, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I'm unfamiliar with the process and Hajj in general, so don't feel comfortable in doing it myself in case I mess it up. KaraLG84 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The GA volunteers are already swamped with new nominations, and I know from experience that GA reviews don't necessarily go anywhere any time soon, so it may be better for everybody to try and see if we can't resolve the issues and restore the page to something passably close to GA status instead. I've just gone and fixed the opening para fragmentation. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment needed 

message: Once I had edited it (might be a defunt account whose, password I think I lost) (I don't believe in password management software, which I deem bad) and I was told something along: "Not a good faith"  as a revert edit. Is going to mecca by bycicle irrelevant to wikipedia? 
Is it in a corona period? Is it due to ecological reasons? Is bicycle travel in the spirit of the of mecca? (It's a pilgrimage no?). What makes plane companies able to be spoken about? But not bycicle travels? 
There are also many articles about bike travels. 
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/2461/from-whitechapel-to-mecca-by-bicycle-2000-mile-pilgrimage-to-raise-funds-for-ambulances-in
Specialised press
https://www.albawaba.com/editors-choice/tunisian-becomes-first-woman-reach-mecca-bicycle-1337605
Tunisian press
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-11768182
From South Africa
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05pzhdy
From United Kingdom. 
http://www.islam.ru/en/content/news/elderly-kazakh-muslim-cycle-mecca
From Kazaksthan.
Coming from many places.  
Taking only plane companies into the article, would just make it incomplete and promotional toward plane companies as well as discriminatory.
--Joujyuze (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycle travel 

message: Should we be aiming for consistency in use of the definite article? Text like this: "tawaf, known as Tawaf al-Ifadah, an essential part of Hajj. It symbolizes being in a hurry to respond to God and show love for Him, an obligatory part of the Hajj" looks stylistically inconsistent (emphasis added). At present, we have "the Hajj" in the lead while "Hajj" (without the article) dominates the rest of the text but, as shown, there is variation even in adjacent sentences. I see that we're not even consistent in article titles, having Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Hajj and also Incidents during the Hajj. Note that I am not making any suggestion about the title of this article or about mentions of an individual pilgrimage, such as "a pilgrim's Hajj" or "solutions for Hajj pilgrims". MartinPoulter (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hajj without a 'the' is totally natural, e.g.: "planning to go on Hajj'. In Arabic, it is also natural to use 'Hajj', without the 'al-'. In English, it can sometimes sound more natural to add the 'the', but this is often stylistic. When people say 'the Hajj' in English, just rolling it around in my head, it is often in instances where it would also be appropriate to say 'the annual Hajj', of which it can be like a contraction, so, e.g.: as suggested above, 'during the (annual) Hajj', i.e.: every Hajj, OR, where the time period of the Hajj in question is specified, e.g.: 'the Hajj' as in 'the current year's Hajj', but when it is spoken about in general it tends to take on the traits of a collective noun, much like 'pilgrimage' versus 'the pilgrimage'. The first sentence of this article could  just dispense with the prefacing 'The' - it would certainly be cleaner. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the feedback. In response I've deleted the definite article from the first sentence and from "obligatory part of the Hajj". MartinPoulter (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hajj" or "the Hajj"? 

message: I would encourage other, more capable and knowledgeable, editors to look into the changes made during the rule of Ibn Saud, founder of Saudi Arabia.  I suggest more open-minded, perhaps non-Muslim editors... since it appears there is a fairly considerable whitewash happening. Huge changes took place due to Ibn Saud's Wahhabist beliefs.  One example is that the Egyptian practice of taking the mahmal on the hajj was deemed illegal, and many Egyptian pilgrims were actually beaten severely for attempting it.  Over 98% of Islamic historical sites, like the homes of many figures in Islam, were destroyed so that no one could visit them, since it's deemed idolatrous to the Wahhabist Saudis. Many more changes than this occurred, and it's not found anywhere in this article, the 'History of the Hajj' article, or even in the 'mahmal' article.  It really does seem like a concerted effort to erase that aspect of Saudi history. 
Perhaps a good start for anyone looking for information and citations on this issue:
https://www.ihrc.org.uk/whose-hajj-is-it-anyway/
Bzzzing (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive additions needed 

message: Very important topic, dealt with with just one sentence! Arminden (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a great page. One of the many not-so-good GAs of yesteryear. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darb al-Hajj article needed 

message: The redirect Pilgrimae to mecca has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Pilgrimae to mecca]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Discussion opened at Talk:History of Hajj#Darb el-Hajj needs own article + more info here, please contribute there. The Darb el-Hajj/darb al-hajj (red links introduced) is a major topic, hardly touched upon! Arminden (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darb el-Hajj needs own article