Saudi Arabia C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 20, 2009, November 20, 2010, November 20, 2012, November 20, 2015, November 20, 2021, and November 20, 2022.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: The Siege of Mecca - NPR Throughline podcast Declassified documents

No, it wasn't. Don't say that banning women's rights, forcing people to become muslim and banning every other religion is Islamic, it's not.

Did you get this info from Bill Warner or something? Don't say something is about the sharia when you can't back it up without a surah.

Saudi Arabia is about as Islamic as a Pork Chop and a bottle of Vodka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:8886:300:68B5:3C57:78C6:2E65 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:FORUM violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't describe this incident as Iraq-related, since it happened in Saudi Arabia, even before the first Gulf War.

The article mentions 200 dissidents, however another online article has the count at 500. Which is correct?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a10070brothersties

The article says this: Islamic Militants, strength: 200 militants, casualties and losses: 250 killed, 600 wounded, 68 executed, this is 250+600+68= 918 "militants". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.239.205.43 (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I first read the article, last April, there was not even one article linking to this one. I linked to it from 3 other articles; it wasn't even mentioned in a list of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia! I suppose it merits some more links, as there are so many aspects to this, relatively early, Islamist attack. GdB 10:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK another article on Wikipedia about alqutaibi mentions that there were 1200 to 1500 terrorists, but this article sayd there were 250. Another mistake, the mosque is in Mecca, but, in the quotations from the Middle East expert, they mention that the Mosque is in Medina, a different city.

Wow, there's a whole lot more to this article than the last time I looked at it. Good job, people!

first of all There Was No Pakistani Involvement

i have two videos of the incident. all the troopers and vehicles in the videos of combat were Saudis. the Pakistani involvement is a rumor , not a fact. and its only started by "it is said that.." or a rumor by an anti-Saudi propaganda book which can not be reliable as a source.

only 3 Frenchmen from GIGN were connected but they never participated. they were sent to the military base in Taif to provide quick training for Saudi Special Security Forces on non-lethal gas weapons.

if it is possible on wikipedia , i may upload the live-combat two videos and make them available online.

--77.31.203.146 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)SaudiVeteranReply[reply]

The first citation in "notes" goes to a video which is completely unrelated to this event. The video in the notes is about an anti Israeli protest the Iranians held in 1987 which was fired upon by the Saudis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.43.177 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no evidence of the French and Pakistani forces being involved. It should be either deleted, or someone should provide proof.--70.230.200.219 12:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musharraf's autobiography In the Line of Fire makes no reference to the event. This would be an important event in his life I would think. Also, he was a Colonel at the time, not a Major, as mentioned here. Junaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.214.86 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I heard alot about french support in this case . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 13:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless you can provide a few links from reliable sources, it should go. Mbslrm 20:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don't worry , i still did not contribute. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't provide online reference but I have read several times that French anti-terror units commanded the rescue operation upon fetvas from religious figures about using weapons in Kaaba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.131.29 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's often said in Arabic sources that the Jordanian army (not Pakistani) was involved with French assistance but there's no evidence either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.208.211 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has not the first hand account by Ukraine-born Yaroslav Trofimov, now with the Wall Street Journal in his book confirmed that there were French connection to the whole episode and not Pakistan's elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.156.40 (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is time to remove all this incorrect claims about Pakistani assistance, there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. Tehre are many sources discussing both French Special Forces involvement, as well as US pilots flying Saudi aircraft helping hte Saudis end this takeover. The only Pakistani angle at all seems to be the burning of the US embassy in Pakistan.

Fareed Zakaria: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=63320228838951049 NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14765835 Former WSJ reporter book, including declassified diplmatic cables: http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/siegeofmecca/theBook.php SMih4 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I heard something about Juhaiman being declared the Mahdi during this debacle. Does anybody know further? (Thanks for the link to the book on the subject, I want to check it out now.) Rustoler 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)RafiReply[reply]

http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Forgotten-Uprising-al-Qaeda/dp/0385519257

Additional information regarding the siege have appeared, included detailed information of GIGN involvement. Anyone keen to surmise the salient points?

Koxinga CDF 13:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See what you think.--BoogaLouie 23:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"National Guard troops had infiltrated weapons, ammunition, gas masks, and provisions into the mosque compound over a period of weeks before the new year."

These are National Guardsmen sympathetic to the militants? This should be stated explicitly, it's confusing in its current form. Evercat (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reworded it. Prevoiusly it sounded as though the whole National Guard was on the side of the insurgents. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you “infiltrate“ weapons? I assume you mean “smuggled in“. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.11.41 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The slow motion revert war that has been ongoing for the past several days is remarkably lame. While it's also mildly amusing, does anyone want to explain why they are reverting? - BanyanTree 00:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm rvting to keep the article accurate. Wright (who interviewed many people) did NOT say

Because non-Muslims are not allowed in the holy city, they were used as advisers and the main storming of the building and retaking of the Holy Mosque was done by the highly trained Pakistani S.S.G commandoes

.... he said the French converted to Islam:

Lawrence Wright reports that only three Frenchmen were called in, members of the highly trained GIGN counter-terrorism unit. Because non-Muslims are not allowed in the holy city, they converted to Islam in a brief formal ceremony by Saudi religious leaders.^[1] Saudi officials deny the French actually entered Mecca. According to Wright, who interviewed Saudi officials, flooding and electrocuting were dismissed as impractical and lethal to the hostages, but an attempt to subdue the resistance with non-lethal gas failed also. Grenades were dropped into the chambers through holes that were drilled in the mosque courtyard and more than two weeks after the revolt began "the surviving rebels finally surrendered." ^[2]

Aude says he is rvting "so that the text matches what the cited source says," but there's no contradiction.

The text does not say this is what happened, it says this is what Wright says happened. And Wright is a credible source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an interest in the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and also participated in the rescue effort on September 11, 2001 in New York City at the then bombed World Trade Center. I am not particularly interested in intra-Muslim conflicts, but my other interests continually bring me to pages like this one.

The very last line in "Aftermath," implies success for the takeover--Saudi Arabia moved backwards (my view) towards repression of not only women, but dogs. If this is true, it needs to be cited carefully, because the fallout of a "domino effect" within the heart of Muslim culture would imply impact world-wide, including downtown Manhattan on that day, the day the "music died."

Oddly, wherever I look in wp and in other sources, I find old-school Nazis and shady Swiss bankers! What is up with that?--John Bessa (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is "most disturbing" about the leader having been formerly a member of the National Guard? The SANG employs many thousands of people, often just to provide them with an income. As a member of a traditional tribal family it was inevitable that he would have been a member of the guard.JohnC (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just finished read 'The Siege of Mecca' and I'm curious how such a major event (covered well in the book) could contain so many errors within this article. Since finishing the book I've been amazed at how many people (some quite well read) had never heard about this event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.214.50 (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a particularly important event in the English speaking world, which has more than enough religious nuts and extremists movements of its own. --NEMT (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also read the book. But from my understandings it was obvious that the author, although claimed that he was fluent in Arabic, knew nothing of the Islamic jurisprudence. He made a glaring mistake by concluding that the Wahhabi movement conquered Mecca and Medina because the need of water for the ritual of Islam, ignorant of the Tayamum that was allowed by the Quran. He also tried very desperately to connect the siege of Mecca to the rise of the movement of Al-Qaeda, when it was very obvious that Osama bin Laden's radicalization was due to the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980's, and it had nothing to do with Juhayman Al-Otaibi, whom were dismissed as heretical when he declared his own brother-in-law as the Mahdi.(Funny, this part of information was conveniently left out by the author)

No, I did not made this up, you can straight up read the book. It was very obvious that the author had a hidden agenda in his writings. 210.195.200.224 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did the insurgents have a plan for anything, or did they just (like insane violent Münsterites) expect angels to come to fight at their side? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be a bit missing from the narrative - the point of how the siege was actually resolved? Slac speak up! 06:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The date changes with the setting of sun in the islamic calender, not at midnight. So the first prayer would be the dusk prayer (Maghrib), not the dawn prayer (Fajr) as mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauzan Zaid (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"By the evening, the entire city of Mecca had been evacuated. " - some two million people? I think this statement is a bit far-fetched.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An unknown user via IP 203.170.74.82 has been add some info about this topic by Pakistani Gen. Pervaiz Musharaf was included in this operation. This is a new and Non-authentic information which is not present before any pakistani media even Musharaf book's "In the line of fire" is also silent about this topic. The Editor of this info is requested that give trustfull reference of this news, other wise requested to admin of this page that delete this information . This behavior may create Controversy.

Given reference i.e.<ref> 'http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthread.php?42193-Remembering-the-siege-of-Holy-kaba-in-Makka-in-1979' </ref> is just a chit chat not a valid news source.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

It seems this article is relying heavily on a Book " Wright, Looming Tower, (2006)", can someone verify the accuracy of this article? It seems there is still a conflict about Support by Pakistan & France. Can someone verify accuracy of their involvement also, Currently there are not enough references available to conclude something. Thanks --Foodie (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote from " Wright, Looming Tower, (2006)" was deleted and alternative theory about how Pakistani commandos led the eviction of the occupiers, was inserted. I have since restored Wright's quote about French commando helping, added more sources, but also and kept the Pakistani part. I also added a cite for the Pakistani commando theory, see here --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as whether Wright is a fringe theory. I have come across two other books on contemporary Saudi Arabia
[Lacey, Robert, Inside the Kingdom, Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia, Viking, 2009;

House, Karen Elliott, On Saudi Arabia : Its People, past, Religion, Fault Lines and Future, Knopf, 2012]

that talk about French help and make no mention of Pakistan. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The aftermath section says: "First photographs of women in newspapers were banned, then women on television. Cinemas and music shops were shut down." This is not right; I worked as a journalist on a Saudi newspaper in late 1980 and again at various times in the 80s; we were allowed to print photographs of women in the paper, and women were not banned from television. Nor were music shops shut down -- Jeddah had dozens of them in late 1980, selling cassettes of Arab and western music. As for cinemas, I know of no public cinema ever being open in Saudi Arabia before or after the mosque seizure. Any comments?Manormadman (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The opening line reads The Grand Mosque seizure occurred during November and December 1979 ... during the annual Hajj pilgrimage. This cannot be correct as a little later the begin of the GM seizure is stated to have occurred on the first day of the Islamic year 1400, i.e. three weeks after the Hajj. AstroLynx (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point this is just speculation without any reliable source. At best it should be listed under 'conspiracy theory' or rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.13.146 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should there not be a consistency between the title of this article and Masjid al-Haram? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many inconsistencies and historically incorrect facts in this article. I am writing as someone who has researched the event for 7 (seven) years, has talked to over 150 people in Saudi, Jordan, France, USA, UK, Kuwait, UAE travelling more than 160.000 miles, with the purpose to produce a comprehensive documentary film for European television. The film is finished and since late 2018 is being aired on public broadcasting channels in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, many other European countries and the USA. A reference to the film can be found here at the film's main website, here at Germany's first national broadcaster ARD, here at INA, the French National Institute of Audiovisuals who helped producing the filmand here at World Sales company PBS in the USA. As all films, this one also has a time limit, in our case we had roughly 80 minutes. And because we had to tell the whole story, the bulk of the sometimes hour-long interviews had to be shortened, some to two or three short appearances only. But as you will be able to see on the project webpage (here: ) and when you watch the film, we have 1) collected testimonies from all sides, 2) refrain from judgement or making any statements, and 3) attempt to describe the event itself with as many details as we could fit into the 80 minutes we had at our disposal. In the very near future, we will put up a website that will publish ALL the interviews in the ENTIRETY, including the transcripts (from Arabic, English, French, and German). But this will take a considerable amount of time, resources, and people who work with us. We are talking about approximately 165 hours of interviews and approximately 3200 pages of transcripts.

Now, since Wikipedia for many people is a major resource of research - for some it is the only one they have the patience to go to - I would very much like to hint to some of the facts that to us seem to be incorrect, missing detail or simply wrong. One of the most urgent of these details is the allegation that Pakistani Special Forces were participating in the liberation of the Grand Mosque. The article right uses several citations, among them Christian Proteau, the founder and former commander of French Special Forces GIGN. We interviewed Prouteau twice in Paris in mid 2017 and one of the questions we asked was about a Pakistani participation. He categorically denied that there were any Pakistanis involved. Now before you start thinking "why does he say that?", think about something else: Prouteau was not himself present in Mecca. He sent his team of three specialists to handle the affair. So any he says could possibly only relate to what those three officers observed and witnessed. Neither of them - team leader Paul Barril, weapon specialist Ignace Wodecki, or gas specialist Christian Lambert, all interviewed at length by us - have had ANY meeting with any Pakistani security forces, nor any recollection of any foreign military presence beyond their own. All of them though describe the state of major agitation, anxiety and fear among their Saudi colleagues: what was happening had caught everybody by surprise.

The fourth source: when we were researching and filming in Saudi Arabia, we were contacted by Abdulaziz Al Dhahri, the son of the Saudi General Faleh Al Dhahri who was the commanding military officer in Mecca of all operations taken out by Saudi forces. Again, we asked explicitly about Pakistani forces, and again the answer was no, there weren't any. The fifth source: one of the more extraordinary interviews we could secure was with Prince Turki Al Faisal, for almost 25 years chief of Saudi secret service and in 1979 appointed by Crown Prince Fahd and th Saudi royal family to lead the operations at the Grand Mosque. Same question, same answer. Turki though added an interesting detail: in the first days of the siege, Jordanian King Hussain flew to neighboring Saudi Arabia and offered his help. He was received by King Khaled himself at Riyadh airport, who thanked him but told him no Jordanian help was needed (and BTW, the Jordanians would have qualified SO MUCH BETTER than the Pakistanis: they were living nearby, they were British trained, and they knew the territory). Turki claimed that resolving the Mecca crisis was an operation that had to be resolved by the Saudi Royal Family itself whose duty was (and is) to be the Guardians of the Two Holy Places. We could corroborate his claim by other three sources.

Again, wait before you draw conclusions. Because if it seems interesting that Saudi kept the French involvement a secret (for obvious reasons), France did the same. No, I correct myself: France IS STILL DOING THE SAME. The "Mecca Mission" by the GIGN until today is not officially recognized by French authorities. Recently, a French broadcaster produced a big documentary about the special forces GIGN - the only mission that is not mentioned even once in the film is the one to Mecca. Our film though presents eye-witness accounts of people who were personally present when the official Saudi request for help was issued by Crown Prince Fahd himself to the French ambassador in Jeddah.

I could go on an on, but I don't have the time right now, even though I notice that even after more than 8 years of research on this subject, I am still passionate about it. The 1979 Seizure of the Mecca Grand Mosque was so much more than a "military event" or a "hostage crisis": it was the first and until today the most dangerous attack on the legitimacy of the Saudi Royal family's rule since their ancestor King Abdulaziz had founded the Kingdom in 1932. It was the number one trigger event that lead them to shift their country shift to extreme religious conservatism. And it ultimately was one of three events that lead to the formation of religiously motivated terrorism (the other two being the Iranian revolution and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, all three of them significantly occurred in 1979). But that is the beginning of another story…

If there is something like a "chief administrator" for this page, I am more than happy to be contacted by him / her and provide a private link to the English version of the film, and some more material if needed. I can't provide that link publicly because it would mean basically to steal from myself (I do films for a living and "giving my work for free" therefore is not an option). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutreMer1966 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your extensive comment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

User:Truthwins018 (and before that various IPs) keeps adding claims that Pakistani forces were involved in the siege but I do not regard the main source: [1] as satisfying WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Mztourist you have also quoted half of a passage from the doctrine of terror book which clearly quotes that pakistani troops took part. Also another article i would like to provide you a link of which clearly states of pakistani involvement^[1] and another one which clearly quotes "Saudi Special Forces were unable to take back the holy site and had to call on French GIGN and Pakistani SSG commandos to intervene"^[2] and doctrine of terror also quotes " He claims that Pakistani SSG commandos, carried out the operation instead. "^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwins018 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC) and " An Elite Pakistani Unit called “Rahbar” was rushed to Makkah from Pakistan on the Saudi Governments request^[4] and " After more than two weeks of cross-fire with the Saudi Army, and with the help of Pakistani and French forces" ^[5] and " allowing Saudi forces along with Pakistani commandos to enter the site and take out the militants"^[6] and also many arabic local sources e.g " حيث أُرسلت القوات الباكستانية للسعودية في العام 1979 بعد الهجوم الذي تعرض له الحرم المكّي في مكة المكرمة" ^[7]" , which translates to " where Pakistani forces were sent to Saudi Arabia in the year 1979 at the attack on the Great Mosque of Mecca" and some video sources of KJreports ^[8] which is a very trustable source and their article which mentions Pakistani commandos^[9] and an article from the diplomat which quotes " After all, Pakistani soldiers have previously deployed in Saudi Arabia: in 1979, after the Iranian Revolution, and to help out during the Grand Mosque siege in Mecca. The security commitment may include a “nuclear dimension.” ^[10] and thenational quotes "In 1979 when religious radicals seized Makkah, the Saudi monarchy called on the Pakistani military to help battle the rebels and reclaim the mosque. Since then the two countries have maintained strategic military ties"^[11] and of arabweekly which quotes "Pakistan’s ties with Saudi Arabia go back decades. It helped fight the 1979 siege of Mecca’s Grand Mosque"^[12] Hope these would clear out the issue of pakistani involvement and i have plenty of sources left including in the arabic language Truthwins018 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the sources that you have provided are not WP:RS and those that are do not definitively detail Pakistani involvement in the siege, rather they contain vaguely worded reference to Pakistani assistance etc. RS requires properly researched information, not just anything you find on the internet. Mztourist (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Mztourist you mentioned most of the, not all of them. And every article is published after much research. And the main source of this is the doctrine of terror book and it clearly mentions pakistani commandos involvement and it has even been quoted in the article but skipping the next line for involvement of Pakistani commandos^[13] And i would not term the RS for involvement of three french commandos as reliable too, that is WayBackMachine. So i think it is best to quote both the claims on what happened Truthwins018 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The French involvement is well known and documented in several RS, Pakistani involvement only appears to come from the Doctrine of Terror book and as I cannot access it I can't assess the relevant passage, please provide the quote that confirms Pakistani involvement. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Mztourist It is quoted as "He claims that Pakistani SSG commandos, carried out the operation instead.^[14]" I would also like to raise that almost all of the RS of french involvement are also quoted from the Doctrine of Terror bookTruthwins018 (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that Mahboob Illahi's Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion (FriesenPress, 2018) appears to be a self-published work and by admittance of the author on the copyright page to be largely dependent on Wikipedia. AstroLynx (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doctrine of terror remains one of the most important source available and the whole of this wikipedia page is mostly sourced by it. Another book acknowledging pakistani involvement is The Audacious Ascetic: What the Bin Laden Tapes Reveal About Al-Qa'ida^[15] Truthwins018 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of the books can be regarded as reliable sources and the newspapers are just passing mentions. You are welcome to take the books to the reliable sources noticeboard for community opinion. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean by "the whole of this wikipedia page is mostly sourced by it"? Doctrine of Terror is cited only twice in the article. Also, even Doctrine of Terror isn't giving a very strong endorsement of Pakistani involvement; instead of asserting definitively that Pakistani troops were involved, it only states that Christian Prouteau "claims" that Pakistani SSG troops carried it out. Audacious Ascetic is a little better as a source, but its mention of Pakistani involvement is even more limited. From scanning the sources it looks like French involvement is always mentioned, but Pakistani involvement is only sometimes mentioned, and not with much detail. If you're going to include it at all, I think it would have to be in speculative style, like "Some claim that Pakistani SSG troops were involved".--Shmarrighan (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Shmarrighan, unless better sources can be provided that is all that should be stated. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Shmarrighan If the source of doctrine of terror is quoted in the article, I don't find it suitable to erase out a phrase from the ending of the quoted source. If christian Prouteau's views are under the seige section, he also mentions Pakistani involvement and it is completely justified to mention it with something like, quoted by Christian Prouteau. If you find doctrine of terror source as untrustworthy, either remove it from the whole of the article or stop trimming sources Truthwins018 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no RS of Pakistani involvement. I have just finished reading Black Wave by Kim Ghattas and it mentions French involvement, not Pakistani involvement. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truthwins018 As I said before, I would be fine with mentioning the possibility of Pakistani involvement as long as it's phrased in the style of "Christian Prouteau claims..." or something similar. The trouble is that it has been inserted into this article as if it is undisputed fact, which it is not. But I would also see no problem removing Doctrine of Terror from the article completely, particularly as it's now only cited one time. We would want to replace it with a reliable source for the French involvement. Mztourist, would Black Wave work as a source for the text that currently is sourced to Doctrine of Terror? The text is "the three GIGN commandos trained and equipped the Saudi forces and devised their attack plan (which consisted of drilling holes in the floor of the Mosque and firing gas canisters wired with explosives through the perforations), but did not take part in the action and did not set foot in the mosque but the action was rather performed by Saudi commandos." If Black Wave (or another source you have access to) holds this same information, I would appreciate if you would substitute it for the Doctrine of Terror citation.--Shmarrighan (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Wave doesn't go into that level of detail. I'll check Robert Lacey's Inside the Kingdom. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked Robert Lacey's Inside the Kingdom and there is no mention of any Pakistani involvement. He says that the French commandos stayed in Ta'if and didn't enter Mecca. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going by our discussion, I would like to reach consensus on phrasing it like " and pakistani troops as claimed by Christian Prouteau" as approved by Shmarrighan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwins018 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely not, there are no RS that support Pakistani involvement. Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there is NO evidence of pakistani troops, whatsoever. being from pakistan myself, i know what happens: first of all, this claim is considered common knowledge in pakistan and people are extremely proud of it. they will know nothing else or little about the incident. as such, someone from pakistan lands on this page and doesnt see any mention of their country's involvement they will add it.

since its not by done by one person but a large population, i think this article needs to be locked. it is frustrating to have this page being edited 20+ times for the same false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F05A:A900:3168:5D30:1A84:619A (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]