Talk:Hegra (Mada'in Salih)

message: This page should be merged with Madain Saleh. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 00:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there have been no objections and these articles are about the same place with different spellings, I'm proceeding with the merger. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: "Cities of Saleh," which was coined by an Andalusian traveler in 1336 AD.[10] The name "Al-Hijr," Arabic for "rocky place," has also been used to allude to its topography.[5] Both names have been mentioned in the Qur’an when referring to the settlements found in the locality.[11] 
How can the first of the two names have been mentioned in the Qur'an when the it pre-dates the "Andalusian traveler" by over 700 years?
Jvarn13 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for the "Andalusian traveler" is a dead link, so I’ll remove this.  This article used to have text from the Qur’an at one stage, which made these references a little easier to check, but I can’t remember of the top of my head if the current name was used.  I suspect not.  In any case, without a reference it should be removed. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Name -- contradictory? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mada'in Saleh. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211083605/http://www.zubeyr-kureemun.com/SaudiArabia/PhotoGalleryOfMadainSaleh.htm to http://www.zubeyr-kureemun.com/SaudiArabia/PhotoGalleryOfMadainSaleh.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mada'in Saleh. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225071814/http://www.zubeyr-kureemun.com/index.htm to http://www.zubeyr-kureemun.com/index.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20081011152514/http://www.splendidarabia.com/mada'in_salih.htm to http://www.splendidarabia.com/mada'in_salih.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715133649/http://www.qatarvisitor.com/index.php?cID=448&pID=1764 to http://www.qatarvisitor.com/index.php?cID=448&pID=1764
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I’ve followed this article on and off for a few years now and although the most dubious edits seem to be in the past, it still seems to slide back into a random mix of religious and historical information from time to time. A perfect example of the lack of thought given is the recent anonymous edit by 86.209.172.18 which removed the phrase “According to Islamic tradition” from the first History section “Era of Salih and Thamud”.
“How can there be an islamic tradition about this site when islam was not even invented until the 7th century AD? Making reference to this as being part of islamic 'tradition' is grossly misleading and the articel should stick to real history” —86.209.172.18
Sadly, this was the only remaining marker to show that this wasn’t academic information, but religious tradition, so this edit has actually done exactly the opposite of what it intended.
Once upon a time, this article had a section about Mada‘in Saleh in the Qur’an which served to keep this information defined and separate. I wouldn’t argue that such information shouldn’t be in the article—obviously it’s an important fact that there are Islamic beliefs and traditions about the site—but we should be careful that we keep this information distinct from that put forward by historians. Maybe it’s time to reintroduce that section.
I also notice another ‘helpful’ anonymous editor took it upon themselves to normalise all year references to AD/BC because…
“Since BCE/CE came into favor among a minority during the 1970/80s counter-religion movement I chose the many centuries old former way of describing time.” —74.199.16.247
This is a totally non-neutral reason for doing this. The only justification for normalising one way or the other is the predominant usage in the article when you start editing it, not your personal opinion. If fact, this is how the article was before that edit…
      	Old	Old	Old  	New	New	New
      	AD 	BC 	Total	CE 	BCE	Total
Occurrences	1  	3  	4    	8  	6  	14
Clearly the reasonable thing would have been to normalise to CE/BCE so I will do that. I doubt I have time for more restructuring today. —☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 09:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More discussion needed!