text:
Talk:1987 Mecca incident

Title
NPOV? I don't know whether the anti-Iran claims have any basis, but somebody should check. --Nargmage 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC) --Evidently not--220.238.70.149 10:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

 * 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)

Not sure if am missing something but: "This resulted in 402 people killed (275 Iranians and 85 Saudi policemen)" - what about the other 42? if it was "(including 275 Iranians and 85 Saudi policemen, plus a number of bystanders" it would make more sense (assuming that's what happened) - could someone with a bit more knowledge of the event deal with this? --Black Butterfly 15:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

can we change the title of this from riot to something else? the pro iran side would say that it was not a riot but a massacare

 * 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)

from an iranian point of view it wasnt a riot but more like an attack by the saudi police. i think protest is a much more nuteral word. it was an initial protest by the iranians that led to the incident.

 * 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)

state sponsored terrorism
Hey guys! On that day Iranians organized a calm and peaceful demonstration as every year. They organized the demonstration in previous years with no problem. It was nothing new. We have also numerous government-organized demonstrations in Iran throughout the year. It is just for 1 hour and then it finishes. That's all. Saudi's regime killed 400 people! 400 is 1/5 of 11/09. This was a massacre. A terrible one. These western countries were all silent. Why? If there is a demonstration in Iran and Iranian regime kill one person, suddenly 100 countries will condemn that!! Saudi's fundamentalist regime killed 400 innocent normal (very normal tourists). .....This was one of the biggest tragedy for Iran of 20th century. Many families lost their members. Sina Kardar 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There are insufficient independent accounts to make a good assessment.--Patchouli 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think every thing is clear if one sees the following points:

 * Every year hundreds of thounsands of Iranians go to Haj. These people are normal people. (I am not writing to those fanatics who think all Iranians are terrorists!)
 * They used to organize a boring government organized demonstration like every year. Such demonstrations have been always calm both in Iran and Saudi arabia.
 * There is a strong anti Iranian feeling among some arabs. Even in his last minutes, Saddam used the opportunity to say Death to Persians. This is pure racism.
 * Alqaeda which is a sunni (vahhabi) group was at its formation period at that time in Saudi arabia. Extremist sunnis think it is fair to kill Shias.
 * I have a direct experience with this event as my mothers cousins were all there and become injured. They would never go to Saudi arabia if they knew such a thing is going to happen.

Guys! we even condemn killing a of person like saddam. why do we lose our humanity when it comes to such clear bloody act ? We all condem if in a peaceful demonstration in tehran, the regime arrest 5 person or beat a few. Then why do we lose our sensitivity when it comes to killing of hundreds innocent by police? I will stop here and I will not make any comment further. If the reader has a tiny bit of ethics and humanity, he/she will see the dirty act of Saudi regime. Sina Kardar 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * 1) --Patchouli 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) --Patchouli 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Governmant organized demonstration happens every week in Iran and it is almost always peaceful (There might be very very few exceptions that I can not remember). But in Hajj it was ALWAYS peaceful. If Saudi Arabia did not like "Baraa-at az Moshrekin" ( برائت از مشرکين), it could easily ban Iranians of entering Saudi Arabia but has no right to beat let alone kill hundreds of civilians. Let me summerize the whole story: Saudi said any demonstration against Israel and US in Mecca or Medina is Ok and acceptable but not inside the Great mosque. They believed this would be an innovation in Islam. And an innovation in Islam will make God angry and those innovators will go to hell. That's all. Sina Kardar 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1943, a Saudi religious judge ordered an Iranian pilgrim beheaded for allegedly defiling the Great Mosque with excrement supposedly carried into the mosque in his pilgrim's garment.Sina Kardar 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The demonstration was not peaceful at all. Just take a look at the following scholarly source.
 * ''On Friday July 31, 1987, a demonstration by Iranian pilgrims against the enemies of Islam (including USA and Israel), erupted into fighting between the demonstrators and Saudi security forces.
 * The violence by the demonstrators led to shooting by the police which culminated in a stampede of the pilgrims (K. McLachlan, Iran and the Continuing Crisis in the Persian Gulf'', GeoJournal, Vol.28, Issue 3, Nov. 1992, p.359).
 * Heja Helweda 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what the majority of the sources say. Don't try to justify killing of unarmed demonstrators. --Mardavich 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Violent demonstrations
"..Khomeini included the customary plea to pilgrims that they avoid clashes, insults, and disputes, and warned against those intent on disruption who might embark on spontaneous moves."

POV and Disputed tags
Please someone describes why there should be these tags?--Sa.vakilian 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 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)

Wow...Im saudi and find this article completly absurd...Just as absurd as persian arabphobic feelings or vice versa... If the "protest" as you call it was compleltly normal like all the othe years before, then why did the police attack them on that day only? was it not an anti-saudi riot because of saudi's support of iraq? and about bannning iranians from coming to saudi, saudi arabia does not bar any muslims because of their origin (as there is always a limit based on a country's muslim population and not on the relationship with the country, even saudi's are not allowed to go to hajj more than once in 10 years)

Please...Persians, stop escaliting everything, we might have conquered your country a long while ago, but that was a long time ago...The iraq and iran war were caused by the two most radical people in middle eastern politics...that doesnt mean arabs and persians should hate each other....I mean ye sure, maybe mock each other from time to time but not HATE.... By the way my grandmother was persian...So plz dont accuse me of being a racist...I just want the baathists of both sides to stop making everything so tense through such articles.... khuda hafez :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Title of the Article
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 No original research. --Kaaveh (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You are right, I suggest "1987 Mecca riot". --Kaaveh (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It all make sence. Therefore it would be "1987 Hajj riot". --Kaaveh (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Unilateral moving of the page
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)
 * The unilateral renaming was done by Paradoxic, |here. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Page name
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)

Requested move (May 2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 1987 Mecca riot. On strength of arguments, the support side carries the day here. The only tangible attempt to actually substantiate an oppose argument on "common name" grounds, by Kurdo777, is clearly flawed, since he didn't even compare the google results to those of the competing proposal (see also Ankimal's refutation.) His argument to discount the POV issue is also flawed, since we are not dealing with a proper name, but a descriptive title. In order to fall under the exemption stated at WP:POVTITLE, it would first have to be established that "Mecca Massacre" is clearly predominant as an established, conventional proper name; such a demonstration is lacking. We are thus left with the rules for descriptive titles (WP:NDESC), where neutrality is paramount. Given the fact that there is in fact contention over whether there was a "massacre", and "massacre" is obviously a charged term, the necessity for this move on the basis of policy has been established, even in the absence of a majority in terms of !vote count. Note: I have taken the freedom of changing the proposed title to lowercase, since "riot" (just like "massacre") is not part of a proper name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mecca massacre → 1987 Mecca Riot – This is the title that had the previous consensus. The current title is POV and consensus was against it. Unflavoured (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - As the nominator. Unflavoured (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Mecca massacre" with 11,800 results on Google Books/Scholar [] is the most commonly-used term by academic sources for this event. POV does not apply here. WP:TITLE, which is the Wikipedia policy on titles, clearly states that " When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors". Kurdo777 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The number of GHits is not really a reliable way of analyzing this; besides, just putting the search term in quotes drops the number of hits by more than an order of magnitude (ie most of those 11,800 hits were not related to the topic). Significant numbers of sources appear to use each of the terms, so let's default to the less dramatic one. VQuakr (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * oppose A good number of G-hits used Mecca massacare..., the riot also occured but then there was an ensuing massacare. So the two terms do not contradict but the massacare portion seems much more significant than simple rioting.   --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is POV and consensus was against it. Kaaveh (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Some editors keep throwing around the word "consensus", you all need to read WP:Consensus] to understand what a consensus is. There has never been a consensus on what the title should be. If you believe otherwise, you should re-read the talk page here from top to the bottom. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They say one should set an example to others by following one's own advice before sharing it. Perhaps if you had read this talk page, you might have come upon this section: Talk:Mecca_massacre. You can clearly see a couple of editors discussing the title and coming to a consensus. A year later, Paradoxic decided to change the article title... against consensus. Unflavoured (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My point stands, you still seem to be lost on what a consensus actually means in Wikipedia. A couple of editors sharing the same POV, does not constitute a community consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment a massacre implies intention mowing down of pilgrims, this seems to have been a stampede? Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose - The current title is no where anyone's POV rather it's a term used by many authentic sources. Many reliable and other sources term that event as Mecca Massacre. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed name is obvious POV.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the above user meant "Support" for the renaming and move. Kaaveh (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure they mean that the proposed name is POV when they say "The proposed name is obvious POV." Of course, the current name, "Massacre" is absurdly POV, but that seems to be ok. Who knows... Unflavoured (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Support I'm afraid you misread your Google findings, Kurdo777. Go to the last page: Your 11,800 hits melt down to 377. Have a look at those 377 hits: Many of them are books published long before 1987. Next, google for the whole phrase instead —- "mecca massacre", in double quotes (as explained in the advanced search tips) — and see what you get: only 39 results, some of them mirroring Wikipedia, some others referring to a 1858 massacre in Jeddah. You will get more and better results if you google for "mecca riots" (59). - Ankimai (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose according to Name the current title (Mecca massacre) is the best title to describe what happened in a short name. All of us know that the first criteria to choose a title for an article is it's commonality, and the common name for this article is definitely Mecca massacre. Razghandi (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment. I'd appreciate if at least some of the oppose voters would have a look at this Google diagramm and change their mind. Note that the far fewer findings for Mecca massacre include books that put massacre in italics: Mecca 'massacre'. - Ankimai (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blanket revert
Please do not blanket revert. I used "Iranian" instead of the earlier "Irani." You can cite sources in the lede, as shown here: Al Razi. The current title is disputed. All my edits are sourced. Please do not simply revert because you do not like it. Discuss and provide proper reasons, thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:LEAD, we do not cite sources in the lead. And the current title, disputed or not, cannot be changed in the text of the lead, until the formal request for move, has been fulfilled. The title and the lead should match regardless. You can't just bypass Wikipedia rules and procedures. Also, what is "Irani"? Kurdo777 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read WP:LEAD, and it seems to say: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." I hope that satisfies you on that point.

 * I am taking into consideration your position on the title, and thus until the title issue is settled, I will go for a compromise.

 * And you, again, blanket reverted all my previous edits, instead of the parts you have issue with. Please do not do this. All the statements I added are sourced. If there is a part with a particular issue that you want to discuss, please do so. Blanket reverting over and over is not helping improve the article. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with Kurdo. Regardless of what you think about your own edits, your edits are disputed, and full of POV. Just to name a few, you are being selective about sources, citing blogs and unreliable webpages, removing an acadmic source, and clutreing the lead with ciation. You need to get a consesus for your edits, edit-warring will not get you anywhere. --Wayiran (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings, and thank you for your response. The sources that I added were:
 * The Seattle Times
 * The Straits Times
 * Chicago Tribune
 * The Washington Post
 * ABC Evening News
 * The CIA
 * And three books: "The Iran-Iraq War: Chaos in a Vacuum", "Middle East Contemporary Survey: 1987", and "Saudi Arabia: Government, Society and the Gulf Crisis"
 * Which of these is a blog or is unreliable ?! Which of my edits is POV !? Unflavoured (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those sources are not necessarily neutral and academic, and they need to be attributed. However, I do not see where in the article they are referenced.. It seems you are referencing sources that use those sources (blogs), which is a different issue since blogs are not allowed in WIkipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some misunderstanding. What blog are you talking about ?! Please explain, since both you and Wayiran mentioned blogs. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean the Martin Kramer source (this seems like a blog rather than a serious scholar.. what is his academic background)? Also the numbers seem to be disputed, why just mention Saudi numbers? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah !! You mean this:, yes ?! I suspected that this might be it. This is not a blog. This is a chapter from a published book: . You can view nearly all of the chapter here: , it is the chapter titled "Khomeini’s Messengers in Mecca." In any case, I have been trying to quote/cite the book directly, instead of using the webpage. Take a look: . Unflavoured (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay but the source you brought states: ""Martin Kramer was director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University and is now currently Senir Middle East Advisor to the 2008 Presidential campaign of Rudy Giuliani".. this seem like a non-neutral source (campaigining for Rudy Giuliani and being frankly from a country that is not on the best term with the Iranian government), I think at least the source needs to be attributed and not taken as a fact.   Probably, we need some serious university and academic scholars with no political ties to any country that has analyzed this issue from a 3rd party perspective.  Else just putting Saudi numbers in the introduction or using such sources in the introduction seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.  Unfortunately, I do not want to spend too much time on this issue (I do not like modern political articles and I am not a political person nor do I like any of the governments in region), but I think it is best to try to first find a serious academic 3rd party source that has written in detail about this event, and has given all the viewpoints. As hard as this might be, I think should be the first step to see if such a source can be found. Campaign advisor for Rudy Giuliani though is outside of the bound of neutrality as would be quoted say an Iranian government official... --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So basically you are saying: "We cannot use an American as a source." I am sorry, but that is not acceptable. Martin Kramer has been used in the article as a source since January 2006, and no one claimed that he was not neutral. Unflavoured (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NO you did not understand what I said. First, there is no such thing as an American source.. we are discussing an indivual with political leaning and involvement.  It cannot be seen as absolute truth, but rather the source needs to be attributed...like "Martin Kramer who is the director of X and campaigned for Rudy Guliani believes that: "Y"..".   Because the source is hardly academic.   Furthermore, what I said is that we must look at 3rd party unbiased sources (if they exist) that describe this massacare.  Then at the same time, put the views of Saudi Arabia, Iran and also such people as Martin Kramer..  That will create a balanced article.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kramer's book was published in 1996. How does his political affiliation in 2008 figure into that ?! Furthermore, if you take the time to actually read the chapter in question, you will find that it gives good coverage of both sides of the story, and thus is NPOV. Unflavoured (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, there is nothing that shows the book is neutral and also the person is part of a country not on the best term with IRI.. I am not saying who is right or wrong, but rather, any quote from the person needs to be attributed rather than taken as a fact. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, if that is the case, then there is no problem, as there is nothing that shows the book is biased. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
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)
 * 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)

The material in question, are essential to the context of the article, they should be restored as attributed quotations per our copyright guidelines, which clearly states "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Kurdo777 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded here to the similar comment on my talk.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent POV edits
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Alternative titles
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)

Article issues
Greetings. The current issues that I feel need to be addressed are:

1- NPOV. It is very clear that there are two sides of the incident: Iranian pilgrims and Saudi security. As a results, it is easy to find pro-Iranian POV statements that present the pilgrims as fully innocent, and that they were attacked for absolutely no reason, and that they were unarmed and had only good intentions, that all the deaths came from Saudi firing, etc etc. It is just as easy to find pro-Saudi sources that present the exact opposite picture: That the Iranis were instigators, and that the riot was premeditated and planned, and that the pilgrims were armed to the teeth, and that all the death were purely a result of the stampede, etc etc. For this article to be neutral, we must present both sides fairly, and not give either POV more weight, or treat either POV as fact.

2- Naming. The article name is clearly a source of dispute. No need to elaborate here, as there is a rather section detailing the issue on this talk page already.

3- Riot details. That includes the number of deaths, who started what, etc etc. It falls under NPOV, but if you take a look now, the lede says that Saudis shot and killed 400 people, while the main section states that 85 of those killed were from the Saudi police. There are conflicting reports on the details, and as such this must be clarified.

4- History section. The details of previous demonstrations, the origin of the demonstrations, the past actions of Saudi officials regarding the demonstrations, are all important aspects of this incident. But instead of all that, we have currently two letters, one from King Khalid to Saddam Husien, and the other from Khalid to Khomenei, and a third message from Khomenei to the pilgrims, taking up nearly half the section. Of course, the letters and messages may help the reader's understanding of the issue, but important details about the demonstration itself is what matters most. Currently, details of prior demonstrations are confined to two measly sentences.

These are the issues that I feel stand out most. I hope we can discuss how we can improve these issues now, so that we can have an informative, neutral, balanced article that is worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Ok, so let us start with the lede. According to policy, the lead should define the topic, summarize the article, while not giving undue weight. Since this is a controversial topic, there will be parts both sides agree on, and parts both sides disagree on.

 * 1-Both sides agree that there was an incident, and both sides agree on the date. Both sides agree that there were tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, even before this particular incident in 1987. Both sides agree that there was march (or a demonstration) that was stopped by the police just before it reached the end of its planned route. Both sides agree that there was a scuffle/melee/confrontation between the demonstrators and the police. Both sides agree that there was a resulting deadly stampede.

 * 2-There is (obviously) a disagreement on who is to blame for these deaths. There is a disagreement on whether the Saudi police fired on the protesters or not (though this one is mostly by the Saudis). There is a disagreement on whether the pilgrims were armed or not. There is a disagreement on whether the majority of deaths were caused by the firing or the stampede. There is a disagreement on WHO died: Some sources states only pilgrims died, other sources give the number of Saudi police who died. There is a disagreement on the number of deaths.

 * My proposal is to leave out the most controversial parts (who is to blame, who was innocent, etc), other than the ones that are critical to the lead, such as the number of dead. We can also add a sentence in the lead to clearly indicate that there is a controversy, so that the reader knows about it. We can include the non-disputed parts without putting the blame on either party. For example (and re-using part of the current lead):

 * "The 1987 Mecca Massacre, also known as the 1987 Mecca Incident or 1987 Mecca Riot, occurred on 31 July 1987 as a result of escalating tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iranian pilgrims had held an annual demonstration against Israel and the United States, but in 1987, a cordon of Saudi police and National Guards had sealed part of the planned demonstration route, leading to a confrontation between them and the pilgrims. This escalated into a violent clash, followed by a deadly stampede. There is a controversy regarding the details of the incident, with both Iran and Saudi Arabia laying much of the blame on the other side. Some sources claim the death toll from the incident was 402 people: 275 Iranian pilgrims, 85 Saudi police, and 42 pilgrims from other nationalities. Other sources claim that more than 400 pilgrims had died, and thousands more injured."

 * So how is it ?! Unflavoured (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Regarding the history section, maybe instead of having these letters from Khalid to Saddam and Khomenei, we can elaborate further on the history of these demonstrations. Also, the current wording of the sentence: "There was also a clash in 1981 in Mecca and Medina between Iranian pilgrims and Saudi police" does not make it clear that that incident involved the same "Distancing ourselves from polythiests" demonstrations as the 1987 incident. Perhaps we can go along the lines of what I wrote here:, though I suspect the second-to-last paragraph is too wordy and too detailed, now that I am rereading it. Any suggestions ?! Unflavoured (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 * On the demonstrations section: This section is simply too short, and has too few details. Considering that the article itself is about the demonstration, we should expand this. Perhaps by detailing who ( if any ) important figures were there, where the demonstration started and where it ended ( the planned route ), where the Saudi police stopped the demonstration, the escalation of the demonstration into a riot, the Saudi firing on the crowd, the details of the stampede... there are many details that we can add. Currently, the only details are: "Saudi police fired on the demonstrators" and "the number of dead was so and so." This is hardly sufficient, as a normal reader would expect more information from a typical Wikipedia article. Unflavoured (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Article has been unprotected, but I have received no feedback on my suggestions. Comments, please ?! Unflavoured (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After receiving no objections, I have added most of the above into the article. I tried to keep most of the old info in as well, except for the letter from Khalid to Khomeini. But if anyone feels that this letter is relevant, and that it helps improve the article, I am not going to contest it being put back in. Unflavoured (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I still believe that the details of the riot are not enough. As mentioned above, details or maybe maps of the planned route, details of the stampede, more info on Saudi firing, etc etc, would be very helpful. Currently, the "Details" section still has too little details, and could use two or three more paragraphs of info. Unflavoured (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tags
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)
 * "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. Unflavoured (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You also mention: (ie " there was no shooting"). This is not in the lede. Unflavoured (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Unflavoured is tendentiously trying to question the now established fact (as reported by independent scholars and historians in modern scholarly works) that the Saudis used firearm on unarmed protesters by citing Saudi claims quoted in a 1987 news item as "facts" and equally-valid points. This is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, and WP:PRIMARY as outdated news item from 1987 ( a primary source) and Saudi claims wherein cannot be used to refute a modern scholarly source ( a secondary source). I've therefore tagged the section in question as inaccurate. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I was away for 10 days. A news clip from 1987 is a primary source, and Saudi claims wherein cannot not be used as facts, when new modern acadmic research has refuted such claims. Also, you're using disputed controversial terms like "rioting" as a fact. The section needs to be re-written in a neutral and factual tone, using modern independent academic sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

Requested move (July 2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1987 Mecca riot → 1987 Mecca incident –

The current title projects a certain POV as a fact. As the opening line of the article states, this event "has been variously described as a "riot" or a "massacre" by different sources, and the circumstances surrendering the protests are disputed. Some authors like Thomas Friedman call it a "peaceful protest" which resulted a subsequent "massacre" by the Saudi forces, while others say it was a "riot" which resulted in a stampede. So it's safe to say that "riot" here is obviously a disputed charged term. Since neither "Mecca Massacre" nor "Mecca Riot" are neutral terms, and neither apparently fall under the exemption stated at WP:POVTITLE, as neither title is clearly predominant, "Mecca Massacre" generates 36 hits on Google Books , while "Mecca Riot" generates 43 hits on Google Books. In light of the dispute, and the lack of a predominant title, we are left with the rules for descriptive titles (WP:NDESC), where neutrality is paramount. Therefore, "1987 Mecca Incident" which generates 98 hits on Google Books, is the most common name, and the best title in accordance with the relevant polices on WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - per above, as the nominator. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am afraid you have your numbers wrong. Searching for 1987 Mecca riot returns 792 hits on Google Books, yet returns only 767 hits for 1987 Mecca incident, so "1987 Mecca riot" is actually higher. Putting these full terms in quotes returns only 1 or 2 results. You also state that "The current title projects a certain POV as a fact," but this is not so, as there have been many legitimate riots. We have already established that "Mecca Riot" was the previous consensus, and you rejected "Mecca Demonstrations" as a compromise, since you did not like it. As such, we have to go for the most common term that is used in the media, and that is "Mecca Riot." I do not wish to accuse you of bad faith, but it seems that you are not nominating the name move based on solid reasons: Even the numbers you provide as the basis for your request are not accurate. Unflavoured (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are actually manipulating the search results. You need to use quotation marks for "Mecca riot" and "Mecca incident" plus the year of the event (1987) as a qualifier, for accurate true results which deal with this particular incident, as I have done above. Your "search" contains hundreds of false positives. It is clear that most academics use the term "Mecca incident" to address this event. My nomination is based on solid evidence, backed by the relevant Wikipedia polices. It seems like you have run out of valid arguments, which is why you`re restoring to ad hominem.  Kurdo777 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a normal user. I cannot manipulate Google search results. As you requested: I have Googled "Mecca riot" and "Mecca incident" plus the year of the event (1987) as a qualifier, and "Mecca riot" gets 1140 results while "Mecca incident" gets 362 results. I am pretty sure that one these terms is winning by a huge landslide. Unflavoured (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you acting coy or do you really not get it? Mecca and riot are common terms. For true accurate results, you need to use QUOTATION MARKS around "Mecca incident" and "Mecca riot", in order to filter the false positives out, and limit the results to this particular event in 1987. The results are clear, the verdict is out, you`re simply refusing to get the point: "Mecca incident" + (1987) generates 98 hits, while "Mecca Riot" + (1987) only generates 43 hits. . Kurdo777 (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * and . Feel free to compare the number of hits. Oh and BTW, another reason why "Mecca incident" is not an acceptable name, as the "Mecca incident" is what is used commonly to refer to the 1979 seizure. Unflavoured (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a regular Google search! You need to stop playing games, you know very well that we do not use Google search which includes Wikipedia mirrors, blog and forum comments and similar junk, as a measurement of commonality of a term in academic literature which is what matters in Wikipedia. We use Google Books and Google Scholar for that. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that "academic literature" is not the be-all and end-all of everything. We must take into account the COMMON NAME, as used by mainstream media. Unflavoured (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Web Search is not the medium for that, Google Books is. Wikipedia Guidelines say "Google Book Search has a pattern of coverage that is in closer accord with traditional encyclopedia content than the Web, taken as a whole, is; if it has systemic bias, it is a very different systemic bias from Google Web searches. Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept. Google Book Search can locate print-published testimony to the importance of a person, event, or concept." Kurdo777 (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many media and news reports that can be accessed via Google's web search, as well as online articles, that are not shown in Google books. And there is one thing that you forgot to mention: Several of the sources that show up in Google Books call it BOTH "incident" AND "riot," once again proving that that is not the be-all and end-all of the issue. If it were, then you would have no leg to stand on: A search for "1987 mecca incident" returns a paltry 2 (two!) results. (Unsigned Comment by Unflavoured)
 * Well that's just semantics. We go with the most logical and practical method to conduct a search test, with objective results that reflect the common usage in scholarly works, and that's Google Books. Also, a search of "1987 Mecca riot" also returns merely 2 results. . So your point there is moot anyway. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, your point is moot. You started the MR, yet you acknowledge that Google Books shows only TWO sources using the term "1987 Mecca incident." You have completely failed to prove that "1987 Mecca incident" is the common name. Unflavoured (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't act coy. The term in question is " Mecca incident", 1987 is there as a qualifier to specify which incident. Otherwise, by your own criteria, the current article title shows only TWO sources too, and is therefore not a common name. Actually, by your proposed method, "1987 Mecca massacre" is the most common name of all with 9 results.  Face it, you lack a coherent, and consistent argument.  Kurdo777 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't act like you do not get it. You cannot practice selective hearing, because my words are still there. I will repeat once again: Google books is NOT the be-all and end-all of everything. That is proven by the fact that all these terms appear only a very few times if using the EXACT quotes. But if you search just for the Mecca incident, most sources talk about the 1979 event, while searching just for Mecca riot, most source talk about the 1987 event. On the other hand, as has been proven earlier, news and media outlets, online articles and other sources prefer Mecca riot. Please understand that refusing to get the point does not help your case. Unflavoured (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I researched Google books, Unflavoured's argument makes no sense whatsoever, I think Kurdo is correct, "Mecca incident" is more commonly used in books for this event. --Wayiran (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mecca incident" is the common name of a completely different incident in 1979. "Mecca riot" is what this incident is called, with or without the added "1987." On the other hand, you will need to add the "1987" to the "Mecca incident." Unflavoured (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Mecca riot" also has other uses. This is besides the point though, as we use 1987 as a qualifier for the results. Like it or not, "Mecca incident" is more commonly used in academia for this particular event in 1987, than "Mecca riot" is, and that is all that matters in Wikipedia. You need to accept this fact and move on. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Mecca riot" has few or no other uses, while "Mecca incident" does refer to a different incident in 1979. That is a very important point, since a common name typically does not need a year as a qualifier. Like is or not, "Mecca riot" is more commonly used in the media for this particular even in 1987, possibly twice or three times more often as "Mecca incident" is, though of course, that is not all that matters on Wikipedia. You need to accept that this is a talk page, and telling people to "move on" may be considered rude, especially if you personally invited them to comment on an issue. Unflavoured (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be 1979 Mecca incident and has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about 1987 Mecca incident. Mecca incident is more commonly used by academic for this event, than Mecca riot, regardless of its other uses. That is a fact. Again, you`re refusing to get the point, I am sorry to say this, but you are all over the place, trying to salvage the current title regardless of what the Wikipedia polices dictate, for what appears to be POV reasons. Policy is not on your side here, that is why I told you to move on. You made your objection clear, there is no need for redundant and repetitive comments which clutter up the discussion. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a "Mecca incident," it happened in 1979. There was also a "Mecca riot," which happened in 1987. These are facts. You seem to be trying to ignore these facts, but you need to get the point. Trying to insist that the discussion focus only on one or two items that you prefer is not productive, as Wikipedia does not work that way. You cannot force your POV and disregard Wikipedia's policies. I have made my reply to User:Wayiran, and you commented on that, as is your right. I will respond to your comment, as is my right. If you want to open a new section so that this discussion can move there, instead of redundantly cluttering up this section, feel free to do so. Unflavoured (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That the common name of the event that happened in 1987 is "Mecca riot" is your subjective opinion, and the Saudi POV, not an objective fact. Most academic use "Mecca incident" to describe the event in question, that is a fact which has been proven beyond a doubt, through an objective search test of Google Books. So it is you who is disregarding Wikipedia polices, to push a POV. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That the common name of the event that happened in 1987 is "Mecca riot" is proven by the New York Times, The Washington Post, the CIA, and multiple scholarly books. That is a fact which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would like to advise you against disregarding Wikipedia policies to push a POV. Unflavoured (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You saying it does not make it be. I see no such proof. The only objective criteria we have for measuring the commonality of a term in scholarly works, is Google books which tells us that you're wrong. I would advise you to take your own advice! Kurdo777 (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you see no such proof, because you yourself removed it: . Here         is your proof. The New York Times, The Seattle Times, The Straits Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, ABC News, The CIA, and several published works... ALL call it the Mecca riot. Please read the criteria for deciding on a common name, where it specifically points to using news and media outlets for help. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Kurdo777 is correct here. "1987 Mecca riot" is definitely against WP:NPOV. "1987 Mecca incident" is a better title that describes what really happened that day. Razghandi (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Was this the only incident in Mecca in 1987? Must be a sleepy town. —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of incidents happened in Mecca in 1987, but only one riot. Unflavoured (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, only one massacre. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of incidents happened in Mecca that year, but only one of them was notable. So when we mention to "1987 Mecca incident" everyone understands that we mean "1987 Mecca massacre". Razghandi (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of incidents happened in Mecca in over the years, but the common name "Mecca incident" refers to only one of them: The 1979 one. Similarly, the common name "Mecca riot" refers to the 1987 event. Unflavoured (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is talking about "Mecca incident". We are talking about "1987 Mecca incident". Razghandi (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Incident is more reasonable.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the reasons of Kurdo777 is logical as far as the word incident is more neutral and hits more result on google books.--Aliwiki (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Unfortunately, a move request was started without a discussion taking place first. It would have been much more fruitful if a discussion was started, so that arguments could be made first, but it is too late for that now. Some have complained that the above section is being cluttered by arguments, even though there have been only 3 votes so far. I welcome those who have these complaints to continue the discussion here, if they wish to do so. Unflavoured (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Requested moves, much like AfDs, are built on consensus, so it's perfectly fine that the requested move discussion has many arguments in it. It is generally far more productive to have an actual discussion, such as this, rather than having people simply vote "support" or "oppose". Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current title is ridiculous
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)
 * 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)
 * 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...-- HC PUNX  KID 23:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * 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)

All is Background
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)
 * 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)

Self-published
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)

title: Talk:1987 Mecca incident


text:
Talk:Oneiromancy

Someone Needs to Finish This
This was last updated in January and it still has placefillers.

I don't know enough about dream interpretations to finish it, I was actually looking for this information, so if any kind soul will be a fine gentle(wo)man and do your civic duty, the world will be a better place.

The way forward, and Oneiromancy
Questions:

 * 1) This article has various "to be written" parts. Isn't this against Wikipedia policy?
 * 2) This article covers—or tries to cover—both psychological dream interpretation and mantic or spiritual methods. I look at Oneiromancy and wonder if maybe we should consider the articles together.
 * We could combine the article, presumable into "Dream interpretation," which would cover both topics.
 * We could separate the topics; everything "magical," "mantic" or "spiritual" would go to Oneiromancy (with a suitable in-article reference). "Dream interpretation" would only cover psychological theories.

What do people think? Lectiodifficilior 03:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am speaking to you from the future; can you hear me past? It looks like this page doesn't get a lot of visitors.  It seems the article "dream interpretation" was merged into "oneiromancy", which strikes me as a little backwards.  Most pages reach here through a redirect (the few that don't are your and my user pages, some pages on magic, and i before e except after c); dream interpretation is the most popular redirect, and unless there are protests, I'm going to move this page there in a week or so.  --Mgreenbe 17:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * Talk:Oneiromancy — Oneiromancy → Dream interpretation – Oneiromancy is one form of dream interpretation; most pages reach oneiromancy through a link to dream interpretation. --Mgreenbe 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Manually merging contemporary material into the latter page. --Mgreenbe 10:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you believe I came back to change my vote and say exactly that? Actually it looks pretty straightforward by the light of day. AvB ÷ talk  13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not what you meant? Wait, let me move all that stuff back... :) --Mgreenbe 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Result looks good to me. This is a compliment. ;-) AvB ÷  talk  22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support. Oneiromancy is a more specific term, and doesn't merit its own page — for now, at least. --Mgreenbe 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I performed the original merge. I believe this was a mistake. The pages should be separate, but oneiromancy deserves its own page. freestylefrappe 18:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Dream interpretation is a superset of e.g. Oneiromancy and various forms of (psychological) dream interpretation. Oneiromancy assumes supernatural input into the dream process and/or the interpretation process: the dream is used to predict the future (Wordsmith). Freud combined information gathered from dreams with a set of symbols in order to explain the person's past and present feelings and behavior. Others try to activate dreamers to discover possible hidden meanings in their own dreams. AvB ÷  talk  23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments

Anyone awake, or all you all dreaming? --Mgreenbe 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm here, not sure about anyone else. Anyway, unlike you, I would say your position means Oneiromancy can have its own article until someone creates a general Dream interpretation article. To me that would be the right time to merge Oneiromancy into Dream interpretation... AvB ÷ talk  23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the comment. Are you saying that contemporary theories of dreaming are in fact oneiromancy and all is right with the world?  Or are you saying that WP:RM is too heavy-handed and I should cut the modern stuff and paste over the redirect? --Mgreenbe 23:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) you say oneiromancy is a special case of dream interpretation, I say the same thing (2) You want to move (for now), I want to keep things as they are (for now). (3) I Try to convince you that the special case cannot be moved to the main class unless the main class explains about itself being a main class and oneiromancy as a special case
 * Or perhaps I should just demonstrate what I mean - or try again tomorrow after a good dream or so (it's late here). AvB ÷ talk  00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, okay, I agree entirely. It's late here too (2:51am here in Haifa), so whoever gets to it tomorrow first...wins?  --Mgreenbe 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning
Grammatically, wouldn't Oneiromancy literally be the manipulation or controlling of dreams, not the interpretation of such? 68.102.179.135 08:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Oneirocritic literature
The article on Oneirocritic literature seems to overlap with this one. Neither article is overlong. They might do better together as a single article. What do we think? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has since been merged with Dream dictionary. -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

link rot
The Heessel link doesn't work. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Relates to Restructure of Main article "Dream"
In an ongoing restructure of Wikipedia's Dream article, some detail content currently there will be moved here, and this Oneiromancy article will be highlighted there for readers seeking details. Canhelp (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Oneiromancy


text:
Hopkin

Hopkin is an English language patronymic surname meaning "son of Hob", derived from the masculine given name Hob meaning "famous". There are variants including Hopkins. Hopkin is uncommon as a given name. People with the name Hopkin include:

 * David Hopkin (born 1970), Scottish footballer
 * Deian Hopkin (born 1944), Welsh historian and Vice-Chancellor
 * Fred Hopkin (1895–1970), English footballer
 * Mary Hopkin (born 1950), Welsh singer

Given name

 * Rhys Hopkin Morris (1888–1956), Welsh politician

title: Hopkin


text:
Forest of Argonne

The Forest of Argonne is a long strip of mountainous and wild woodland in northeastern France, approximately 200 km east of Paris. The forest measures roughly 65 km long and 15 km wide filled with many small hills and deep valleys formed by water run-off from the Aire and Aisne rivers rarely exceeding more than 650 ft in elevation. Following the First World War, the landscape of the forest was forever changed as trench warfare led to parts of the forest being riddled with deep human-made trenches along with craters from explosives. The forest is bordered by the Meuse River on the west and rolling farmland and creeks to the east. The forest is largely oak, chestnut, and pine trees, and ferns cover much of the forest floor. Common animal life consists of wild boar, red deer, roe deer, hares, rabbits, foxes, and wildcat.

History
In 1792, Charles François Dumouriez outmaneuvered the invading forces of the Duke of Brunswick in the forest before the Battle of Valmy.

During World War I, the forest again became the site of intense military action. Bitter fighting between German and Allied units took place here in fall and winter 1914, summer 1915, and fall 1918. During the Meuse–Argonne offensive (1918), several United States Army soldiers earned the Medal of Honor there, including Colonel Nelson Miles Holderman, Major Charles White Whittlesey, Sergeant Alvin C. York, Corporal Harold W. Roberts and William Henry Johnson (a.k.a. "Black Death"), most of them part of the "Lost Battalion". The World War I Montfaucon American Monument consists of a large granite Doric column surmounted by a statue symbolic of Liberty. The monument is located 20 mi northwest of Verdun, not far from the Meuse–Argonne American Cemetery and Memorial.

Points of interest

 * Arboretum du Petit-Bois
 * Chattancourt
 * Lachalade Abbey
 * Meuse-Argonne American cemetery
 * Varennes-en-Argonne

title: Forest of Argonne


text:
Gaisce – The President's Award

Gaisce – The President's Award (Gaisce – Gradam an Uachtaráin) is an award in Ireland, earned by young people between the ages of 14 and 25 for participating in several activities for a certain period. There are three awards: bronze, silver and gold.

The term "gaisce" is from the Irish language and can be translated as "achievement". The award was established by a trust deed under the patronage of the President of Ireland on 28 March 1985. In 1988 the award became part of the Duke of Edinburgh's International Award Association. The profile of the award was raised substantially following the first award ceremonies performed by President Hillery in 1989.

Overview
Gaisce's mission is to contribute to the development of all young people through the achievement of personal challenges. The process is non-competitive, meaning that all participants who complete their challenges may receive the Gaisce. Awards can be entered directly (without a previous award) or indirectly (from a previous award). The award is presented at a regional ceremony by either a famous person (bronze/silver) or the President of Ireland (gold).

There are four challenges in each award, which all must be completed outside of school activities (except ECDL):

or
 * Community Involvement – Charity work, Help with a youth club, Green Schools, Tidy Towns, Helping with children
 * Personal Skill – ECDL, Musical instrument, Dance, Singing lessons, Web design, Learn a foreign language (No sport allowed)
 * Physical Recreation – Walking, Cycling, Tennis, Badminton, Golf, Soccer, Gaelic, Rugby, Swimming, A marathon
 * Adventure Journey/Research – Adventure center, European walk/cycle, Mountain hike, Canoeing, (Those who would be unable to accomplish this due to a physical disability perform a suitable replacement activity such as research)
 * Residential Project (Gold only) – Volunteering in a foreign/3rd world country, Attend a sports coaching, Irish language course

Every participant has the support of a President's Award Leader (PAL) who guides them through the challenges and sets appropriate activities.

Bronze
Participants must be at least age 15 to enter. A minimum of one hour a week is required. There are five sections to complete;
 * Community Involvement – 13 weeks
 * Personal Skill – 13 weeks
 * Physical Recreation – 13 weeks
 * Additional activity in any section of your choice from the three above – 13 weeks
 * Adventure Journey/Research – Plan prepare and undertake a 2-day, 1 night adventure journey in a group covering a minimum total distance of: Walking 25–35 km or Cycling 100–130 km over two consecutive days.

Silver
Participants must be at least age 16 to enter. A minimum of one hour a week is required. There are five sections to complete if entering directly to the silver award with no previous Bronze Gaisce award, four if entered from with a Bronze award already received;
 * Community Involvement – 26 weeks
 * Personal Skill – 26 weeks
 * Physical Recreation – 26 weeks
 * Additional activity in any section of your choice from the three above – 26 weeks (not required if the participant has received the Bronze award)
 * Adventure Journey/Research – Plan prepare and undertake a 3-day, 2 night adventure journey in a group covering a minimum total distance of: Walking 50–79 km or Cycling 190–220 km over 3 consecutive days.

Gold
Participants must be at least age 17 to enter. A minimum of one hour a week is required. There are five sections to complete if entering directly to the gold award with no previous Silver Gaisce award, four if entered from with a silver award already received; or
 * Community Involvement – 52 weeks
 * Personal Skill – 52 weeks
 * Physical Recreation – 52 weeks
 * Additional activity in any section of your choice from the three above - 26 weeks (not required if the participant has received the Silver award)
 * Adventure Journey/Research – Plan prepare and undertake a 4-day, 3 night adventure journey in a group covering a minimum total distance of: Walking 80–110 km or Cycling 300–350 km over 4 consecutive days.
 * Residential Project – A shared activity with a group in a residential setting for 5 days and 4 nights.

Affiliation with Scouting Ireland
Gaisce is now closely affiliated with Scouting Ireland. It is integrated into the new 'One Program' for those who are at the qualifying age. Scouting Ireland has an award scheme called the Chief Scout Award which is an award that runs in conjunction with the Gaisce, although it is considered by many to be more difficult. Scout, Venture Scout, and Rover Scout Chief Scout Awards are affiliated with the Bronze, Silver and Gold Gaisce Awards. Through the Chief Scout Award you can in turn earn your Gaisce, but this does not work the other way around; if you have completed your Gaisce you do not receive your Chief Scout Award as well. All leaders who have been invested into Scouting Ireland and who have the appropriate training can take the role of being a PAL, if they so desire.

Bronze Award (15+ years)
All Participants must undertake a further 13 weeks in either the Service, Skills or Physical Recreation.

Silver Award (16+ years)
People who do not have the Bronze Award must undertake a further 6 months in either the Service or the longer of the Skills or Physical Recreation Sections.

Gold Award (17+ years)
People who do not have the Silver Award must undertake a further 6 months in either the Service or the longer of the Skills or Physical Recreation Sections.

Joint Award Initiative
In Northern Ireland participants completing the Duke of Edinburgh's Award can choose to accept a certificate from the Gaisce or an International Award Certificate instead of a Duke of Edinburgh certificate.

title: Gaisce – The President's Award