Talk:1987 Mecca incident

message: NPOV?  I don't know whether the anti-Iran claims have any basis, but somebody should check.  --Nargmage 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to clean it up a bit, though I don't know much about the riot itself Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, "massacre" is as pointed as "riot" is the problem, just in the other direction. Do you have a more neutral term in mind to suggest? Incident? Clash? Shooting? (were they even shot?) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: moved it :) Feel free to make any corrections you feel the article needs, by the way Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Please someone describes why there should be these tags?--Sa.vakilian 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of good reasons.  For one thing the article tries - not so subtly - to imply that the Saudi police just woke up one morning and decided kill these people because they were Shi'as.  This is, of course, absurd, as Shi'a pilgrims had been coming to Mecca annually before this incident, and continued to come annually afterwards without such clashes occurring.  It also takes it at face value that Khomeini had instructed pilgrims to be peaceful and quiet when there is every indication he insitgated the protests to embarass his Saudi enemies.  Finally, it calls it a "massacre" when 85 armed Saudi policeman were also killed.  From the discussion above, it looks like someone moved it to "massacre" unilaterally.  Instead of "riots" (which favors one side) and "massacre" (which favors the other), the article should be moved to "clashes", and then let the reader decide based on the facts (after some editing, of course).  Regards. -- Slacker (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and Disputed tags

message: The title "1987 massacre of Iranian pilgrims " is biased and unjust. It wasn't only 275 Iranians who died at the riot. as a matter of fact, many others including 85 Saudis including policemen, and 45 pilgrims from other countries also died in the riot. Also the use of "massacre" is an original research. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. --Kaaveh (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even "Pilgrims" seems a bit POV, since they were demonstrators. "1987 Hajj shootings" might be a better direction to look - with some refining. Shooting at the 1987 Hajj? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  20:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I suggest "1987 Mecca riot". --Kaaveh (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was specific to the Hajj, I'd prefer to mention the event that sparked it, rather than the city. "1989 Toronto riot" doesn't give as much information as "1989 Fisherman's Riot in Toronto" or something.  Of course, with "Hajj", we don't need the "Mecca" in the title imho, as it's assumed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It all make sence. Therefore it would be "1987 Hajj riot". --Kaaveh (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Iranians that protested there did not protest against the Saudi regime, their protest was against the American government in a tense period of relations between the two. There is no widely accepted source that indicates Iranians were responsible for the killing of those 85 Saudi police. Iranian pilgrims protested against the United States because of its support for Iraq and delivering chemical weapons to Saddam. Nothing indicates that the protest was violent before the Saudi's were shooting anyone in sight with guns: http://www.irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=261. On another note, Saudi's strict ideology of Wahhabism classifies Shiites as Kafirin (disbelievers) and there are some that have issued fatwa endorsing the murder and persecution of Shiites. 1987 Massacre would seem more reasonable. There is a claim by Saudi's that Iranians were planning to 'destroy the holy mosque' but this is of course outrageous and has more to do with Iranophobia a deep hatred for the Shiite faith as being agents of satan etc.--Paradoxic (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wonderful opinion, but I think Wikipedia endorses a NPOV so maybe something like "1987 Hajj clashes" would be more appropriate? 2.89.98.208 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the Article 

message: I've undone the unilateral renaming of the page, which was against Wikipedia policy. This is a controversial topic, so the page should not be moved or renamed without formal request for move, and a clear consensus, as outlined at WP:Move. Additionally, the title "Mecca massacre" generates six times as many results as "Hajj Demonstrations" on Google Books and Google scholar, which are generally used to measure the academic usage of term fit for the title. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The unilateral renaming was done by Paradoxic, . There was no consensus for that move, as shown by the above section. I renamed it to what it was before: A more NPOV name. Unflavoured (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is ancient history in Wikipedia terms, a move done two years ago that was uncontested at that time, and therefore not seen as controversial. The policy NOW is that you can not move the page to a new name AT THIS TIME, without a FORMAL REQUEST FOR MOVE since I am contesting your move and it is therefore a controversial move. Which is why you need to follow WP:MOVE's guidelines on controversial moves. Also, read WP:TITLE, your proposed title is not supported by most academic sources, as "Mecca massacre" is the most commonly used terminology in academic source, and therefore the more appropriate title. NPOV has nothing to do with it, as there are hundreds of pages on Wikipedia titled "Massacre X or Y". If there are many academic sources use the term "massacre" (which they do in this case), then that's what the title should be. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncontested ?! Scroll up just a little. I already pointed this out. Additionally, "Mecca Massacre" is a POV title. If you are serious about using the most common name, then you should change it to "1987 Hajj Riots," as that is the most common name, according to Google. But that is slightly POV as well, so I choose the most NPOV: "1987 Hajj Demonstrations." Unflavoured (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you're just being disruptive. If you want to move the page, you need to request a move per our guidelines on controversial moves. If you persist on on ignoring the Wikipedia polices and guidelines, you will just be blocked. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not accuse me of being disruptive. I fully explained the reason for the revert. And you reverted my edits without cause: I had taken out several NPOV and unsourced statements. Unflavoured (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral moving of the page 

message: To clear up any misunderstanding, I would like point out a few items:
1- The name "1987 massacre of Iranian pilgrims" was disputed, and there a consensus for the article to be renamed "1987 Hajj Riots", later changed to the slightly more NPOV "1987 Hajj Demonstrations."
2- User Paradoxic changed the name of the article to "1987 Mecca Massacre," without discussing this move on the talk page, and against previous consensus.
3- I changed the name back to what it was before: "1987 Hajj Demonstrations." Unfortunately, this was reverted.
Since this article was move-protected, I have requested it to be moved []. Unflavoured (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Text added in 2007. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  NortyNort  (Holla) 11:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the content was pasted from which was cited at the time, which infringed on that book and may have infringed on other sources as well. Additional content was pasted from that geocities website which has now also been removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I responded here to the similar comment on my talk.--NortyNort  (Holla) 13:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This edit  was made without consensus. If it was a neutral edit, it would be fine, but this presents the Irani POV as fact. Please use neutral terms, and do not engage in POV pushing. Present both sides of the argument, and do not put the blame exclusively on one side. Please revert this edit to present NPOV. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you're the one engaged in POV pushing, using primary sources from 1987 to present Saudi apologist claims from 25 years ago like "we  did not shoot anyone, they all died in a stampede", which have since been proven to be false, by independent academic third-party sources, as facts. My edits were supported by ACADEMIC SPECIALIST SOURCES which outweigh your cherry-picked outdated primary sources/partisan sources. Also, you seem to be using the non-standard non-English  "Irani" as a derogatory term to flame other editors. You're just asking to get blocked, what can I say. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV-pushing is when you present a POV as fact. NPOV is correctly showing both sides of the story, without lending more weight or credibility to one side over the other. And please do not remove the Prince Bandar response. I made it abundantly clear that Prince Bandar's response is Prince Bandar's response, and did not present it as fact. And the LA Times is not a primary source, so that is no excuse. Unflavoured (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  NPOV and showing "both sides of the story" does not mean putting Saudi claims which have been proven to be false by third-parties on equal footing as the neutral facts supported by academics and historians. Please familiarize yourself with WP:Undue. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to take this opportunity to state once more that I firmly believe that a person should follow one's own advice before sharing it. The opinion that the demonstrators were absolutely innocent, and that the Saudi response was completely unprovoked... is actually the minority opinion. The article, as it is now written, reverses this and gives more weight to the minority opinion, which is contrary to the understanding of people who have taken the time to familiarize themselves with WP:Undue. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's actually the prevalent non-partisan opinion by respected academics and historians, and that's all that counts in Wikipedia. What your Sheikh or Prince and their friends may thinks or believe, is irrelevant in Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Prince Bandar's words on the subject are quite relevant. They show the general opinion of Saudi officials regarding the riot, something which is quite important to the article. Unflavoured (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The general opinion of Saudi officials" is the key phrase here. Not a statement of fact, which is why the claims should be given only some weight, and clearly attributed to the officials as direct quotes as is the case now, no thanks to you by the way. Now on the other hand, an academic or historian refuting the Saudi officials' false claims, is indeed a statement of fact, as it comes from a third-party academic source. For example you removed "unarmed" as "POV", because the Saudis claim otherwise, that's not how Wikipedia works though. Professor David P. Dolan says "Saudi forces killed more than 400 unarmed Muslim rioters", that means they were unarmed as far as the academic position is concerned, and that's the only position we care about for statements of facts, and what your Sheikh or Prince's opinion on this matter, is irrelevant as far as statements of facts go.Kurdo777 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allow me to clarify: Some sources claim that the demonstrators were innocent and unarmed, and the Saudi police had attacked them without provocation. Other sources say the exact opposite. This is a controversial issue, and both sides of the argument must be presented to the reader, in accordance with the policies and guidelines set by Wikipedia. Unflavoured (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't play with words. We evaluate sources. If by "some sources" you mean Saudi sources, and primary sources quoting Saudi officials, they're worthless in comparison to academic 3rd party sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe my words are a bit difficult to comprehend, so I am going to present it in a different manner, hoping that you will understand what I am trying to say. An incident occurred in Saudi Arabia. Many statements were issued regarding this incident, showing the views of the different parties involved. These statements were reported by multiple sources. It is vital that these statements be included in the article. Included, not as fact, but included in a NEUTRAL manner, and clearly indicating who made these statements. If you give the POV of one side, and not include the POV of the other, then you are POV-pushing. If you present the POV of one side as the truth, and ignore the other side, then that is POV-pushing as well. I hope that makes things clear. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to have a misunderstanding about what NPOV actually means. Statements are one thing, facts are another. Both Saudi and Iranian statements should be given equal weight. But neither one can be given equal weight as FACTS reported by neutral academics and historians whose views , research and findings should set the tone of the article. By your logic, and your reading of NPOV, half of Armenian Genocide page should be dedicated to the Turkish official revisionist opinion that there was no genocide, when academics and historians say there was. By the same token, Saudis claim that they didn't shoot at people, when academics and  historians say they did. In which case, the Saudi claim cannot be given equal weight as the academic opinion/findings/research. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a controversial case. What you consider to be facts, others consider to be myths. Plenty of academics and historians lean towards the Saudi POV, and oppose the claims made by Iran on the issue. But if I were to insert Saudi opinion into the article as fact, then that would be POV-pushing, even though it is backed by academics and historians. In the same manner, inserting pro-Irani opinion as fact is also POV-pushing. The neutral way to approach things is to FAIRLY present both sides of the argument, and clearly point out who is claiming what, and let the reader read the article without the POV of either side presented as the truth. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV edits 

message: Each one of the alternative titles CAN BE REFERENCED. We just don't use references for titles in the lead, it's bad practice, so please don't shove a reference in the title section, in order to list your preferred alternative title first. The alternative titles should be listed in alphabetical order, as they are now. And they can all be referenced, so this is an exercise in futility. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative titles 

message: The title of the article  is still disputed as "riot" is as much of a loaded word as "massacre", plus the fact that the more  neutral "Mecca incident" actually generates the most results on Google books and scholar. The article's WP:Lead also lends undue weight to the Saudi claims which have been proven to be false by third-party independent academics and historians. (ie " there was no shooting") The lead should proportionally reflect the weight of the various academic' opinions and reported facts, as opposes to the Iranian and Saudi "claims" and "counter-claims" which is the case now. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Massacre" implies the people who died are innocent. "Riot" is much more neutral, since there are plenty of very legitimate riots: 2008_Greece_Riots, and the riots in Tunisian_Revolution#Sidi_Bouzid_and_Mohamed_Bouazizi. Unflavoured (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You also mention: (ie " there was no shooting"). This is not in the lede. Unflavoured (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Indeed, because there is a paragraph that states: "The Saudi security reportedly opened fire on the demonstrators, a charge which Saudi officials deny," that means I am tendentiously questioning something ?! Try to understand that both sides of these controversial details must be presented to the reader. And you are wrong: An item from an uninvolved American newspaper is a secondary source, so there is no WP:PRIMARY issue. Please state which sentences in that section you feel are inaccurate, so that your concerns can be addressed, and this tag can be removed. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been one week, and Kurdo777 has not specified which part or which sentences are not well sourced. Please specify what needs to be fixed, so that the tag can be removed. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Multiple news stories from 1987 are secondary sources. Please read up on the difference between secondary and primary sources. There are no primary sources being used in the article. The riot that occurred is not disputed: Every item written about this has mentioned the riot. Once again: Please state which sentences you feel are not well sourced, so that your concerns can be addressed, and the tag can be removed. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I am not Saudi nor Iranian, I am not American nor a muslim (I'm a Catholic Brazilian), I am just a person who read in the news about the time when 400 pilgrims were killed by police in 1987 and I still can't decide if I should laugh or feel disgusted by the fact that the article about in in Wikipedia refers to it as an "incident". I don't care about who's right or who's wrong, but, when 400 are killed by gunfire, no matter the reason, it is not an "incident". It should be changed, without a doubt, to anything not laughable, such as "1987 Hajj shooting". 187.181.176.138 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like the "Kennedy incident" in 1963, or the "San Bernardino Incident" of 2 Dec. 2015.  Or the "WTC Incident" of 2001.  We use that wording because we don't want to offend anyone. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Grammar'sLittleHelper, dont make me laugh, please. There are dozens of examples of "incidents" that, depending on the ideology of the best skilled Wikipedia editors, are labelled as "incidents" (if they support the authority of the place where it happened) or as "massacre" (if they're against the authority of the place where it happened). See for example "massacres" during the Syrian civil war, where there are cases in wich Syrian government soldiers were also killed (as it happened with Saudi soldiers in this case), but that "incidents" are labelled as "massacres". Unfortunately, that is one of the hundreds of cases of lack of NPOV, double standards, etc... that lately fill this supposed encyclopaedia...--HCPUNXKID 23:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I will have to agree. I don't even get if the user who "deffended" the word incident was being ironic or not, 'cause no one seriously refers to a "WTC incident of 2001" - I'd feel disgusted if they did (just as I still feel about the current title of this article). Anyone opposes us moving the article / renaming it to "1987 Hajj shootings"? 187.181.176.138 (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I remember correctly, the term "incident" was chosen because according to the sources we're citing in the article, there is no agreement to what extent the deaths actually were attributable to "shooting", or to a "massacre". According to the article, "Iranian officials maintain that the Saudis had fired on the protesters without provocation, and that the demonstrations had been peaceful. Saudi officials insist that no shots were fired, and that all deaths were caused by the melee and stampede". As far as I can see, none of the outside neutral sources we are currently using give us any reason for preferring the one version over the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current title is ridiculous 

message: Following your request for cleaning up the article, I am going to remove the first paragraph of Background which is so far from 1987 Mecca incident and lead to make a long section, as a result, most of the article is Background. Do you agree?Saff V. (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of the background belongs to 1925 and 1943, while the event belongs to 1987. In another hand, there is no source to confirm the relation between  1987 Mecca incident and material of the first paragraph. This might be OR! All in all, I picked it up!Saff V. (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  All is Background 

message: I am not sure that the book was used in my edit is self-published or not. So please tell me to remove it if it is!Hispring (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published