This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Is it worth to mention accounts of witnesses? -- Saqib ( talk) 07:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been at least 6 other serious (more than 30 people killed) crush-events in Mecca since the 1990 tragedy, not including this event. These should be mentioned on the article page (particularly as some have had hundreds of deaths). http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/72398169/Mecca-stampede-kills-at-least-700-injures-hundreds-more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 ( talk) 23:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Decide it here, we want condolences in the article or we don't want them? Sheriff ( talk) 11:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The article mentions several incidents - crane collapse, tent fires, etc. - that don't seem to be relevant to the stampede. What is the purpose of including these? Is it merely to emphasize the safety failings of the Saudi government? I have grouped these incidents into § Other 2015 safety incidents. The section should either be expanded with context explaining how it is relevant to the stampede, or deleted. Presenting this information as related may be considered WP:SYN if reliable sources have not explicitly made a connection. 2601:644:101:9616:4D1C:78CE:3547:D79D ( talk) 16:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind that I've never been in a situation like this, and I suspect that most people haven't. The closest I've ever come is going to DragonCon in Atlanta where many thousands of people gather together to geek out at various different panels in hundreds of rooms and where people dress up and show off, or take pictures of people who dressed up.
So I can't comprehend how a stampede like this can happen. Naturally, the only reason a person will be physically forced (or strongly encouraged) to move forward is if the tail end is pressing forward into other folks. But how is it that the tail of the queue is trying to advance and forces the head of the queue to run into the path of a different queue?
Can anyone please explain how this stampede happened? D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 18:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/07/crush-point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.170.156 ( talk) 06:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In my view, I believe this article should touch on the spark. All it says is that it's at an intersection of two streets. If the reason was that a scheduling conflict occurred wherein two groups expected to be able to occupy the same space at the same time, it should say so. If it was that two groups were passing through when only one was supposed to be there, it should say so. I realize we may not know the reason, but perhaps the article should then acknowledge that we don't know why it happened. To say that this occurred accidentally implies that you can't solve it. You, user:SheriffIsInTown said the Saudi government is trying to do just that. How can they solve a problem where two groups collided on a street--and not even particularly close to the Stoning of the Devil! D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The clearest explanation on Wikipedia is found on the Hillsborough disaster page. I suggest that stampede be forked into two pages, with a separate one for human crush-events that adequately explains the causes and mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 ( talk) 23:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The citation :
... sounds quite hasty and racist, and may be viewed as encouraging ethnic tensions / violence, which is legally prohibited by several law systems. It's quite unsafe to keep this in the article as we may get backlash from it. 193.49.236.11 ( talk) 15:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Anti-Saudis (especially shites) appear to be having a field day with this article. How is it racist? He said african, not black africans. He may very well be making a statement based upon info, not simply jumping to hasty conclusions. The evidence seems to back him up based upon african casualties. People need to cease their anti-Saudi agenda and accept, in this case, that their are Muslims who simply do not follow the rules, especially due to coming from non-law abiding, uneducated backgrounds. 120.18.21.187 ( talk) 00:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed Saudi statement about diplomatic covoys from the lead [2]. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the statement seems out of place in the lead, unless further details are added like the allegation a Saudi prince's convoy was a factor in the stampede. (I wasn't that familiar with the latest claims, so when I went the bit about diplomatic covoys, I didn't understand why that was mentioned.) The statement itself appears to already be covered in more details in the article proper. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an upclose photo of a young male's penis during an act of masturbation. Shocked b/c so disrespectful! Please remove/replace IMMEDIATELY and block whomever this source was from any future submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.79.147 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, September 27, 2015
Can someone please update victim count for Morocco. Source is here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34372745 Sherenk1 ( talk) 09:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The numbers in the casualties table do not add up to the indicated Total number.
2.177.232.114 (
talk)
12:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why my pictures were deleted... The Pancake of Heaven! 15:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2015 Hajj stampede has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Administrators,
The content of this page is extremely bias against Saudi Arabia. Please make sure the content is cited of all parties. Please check.
Thank you,
92.99.125.117 ( talk) 14:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2015 Hajj stampede has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Updating Iranian Casualties: Dead: 167, Missed: 304. P. Pajouhesh ( talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2015 Hajj stampede has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unprotect table of deceased, injured and missing persons during stampede in the article or please provide / create separate article for this table because this table is more informative and uncontroversial. Think05 ( talk) 15:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Please update the following deceased data in the table: Pakistan: Dead=27 [Source: http://www.breakingnewspak.com/mina-tragedy-death-toll-of-pakistani-martyred-pilgrims-jumps-to-27-over-300-still-missing/] Morocco: Dead=87 [Source: http://news.yahoo.com/foreign-toll-saudi-hajj-stampede-132057544.html] Ivory Coast: Dead=14, Missing=77 [Source: http://news.yahoo.com/foreign-toll-saudi-hajj-stampede-132057544.html] Nigeria: Dead=40 [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think05 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a small table below the main casualties table which appears to be intended to list the nationality of individuals killed during the stampede. It currently contains 5 names. Is this intended to cover all 700+ victims, because that really doesn't appear to be practicable. I would suggest that this table be removed and keep just the summary table. danno_ uk 18:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@ 92.99.125.117:, @ Strivingsoul:, @ Deli nk:, the page has been temporarily protected due to edit warring by you three. Please discuss your revisions and come to a compromise about the information so the page can remain in a stable state. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 14:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Several sources e.g. huffingtonpost, economictimes, newindianexpress, ibnlive, thestatesman, etc. have put the higher number for Haj stampede death toll. Also, there is this article Shocking inhuman behaviour towards dead bodies of Hajj pilgrims showing how Sauds and Saudis manage Haj.-- 116.202.158.43 ( talk) 17:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the incident has just unleashed a wave of historical outrage against Saudis especially by Shia muslims. This article is probably the most scathing analysis I have read. The author is an Ugandan British Shia leftist. Should we quote this article especially for the substantial arguments by the author, or should we dismiss it in sectarian terms on the ground that it would give greater voice to Shia analysts?
The jaw simply drops. Saudi Arabia executes one person every two days. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr is soon to be beheaded then crucified for taking part in pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring. He was a teenager then. Raif Badawi, a blogger who dared to call for democracy, was sentenced to 10 years and 1,000 lashes. Last week, 769 faithful Muslim believers were killed in Mecca where they had gone on the Hajj. Initially, the rulers said it was “God’s will” and then they blamed the dead. Mecca was once a place of simplicity and spirituality. Today the avaricious Saudis have bulldozed historical sites and turned it into the Las Vegas of Islam – with hotels, skyscrapers and malls to spend, spend, spend. The poor can no longer afford to go there. Numbers should be controlled to ensure safety – but that would be ruinous for profits. Ziauddin Sardar’s poignant book Mecca: The Sacred City, describes the desecration of Islam’s holiest site. Even more seriously, the pernicious Saudi influence is spreading fast and freely. King Salman has offered to build 200 mosques in Germany for recently arrived refugees, many of whom are Muslims. He offered no money for resettlement or basic needs, but Wahhabi mosques, the Trojan horses of the secret Saudi crusade. Several Islamic schools are also sites of Wahhabism, now a global brand. It makes hearts and minds small and suspicious, turns Muslim against Muslim, and undermines modernists. (Source: The evil empire of Saudi Arabia is the West’s real enemy) Strivingsoul ( talk) 06:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Mecca was once a place of simplicity and spirituality. Today the avaricious Saudis have bulldozed historical sites and turned it into the Las Vegas of Islam – with hotels, skyscrapers and malls to spend, spend, spend. The poor can no longer afford to go there. Numbers should be controlled to ensure safety – but that would be ruinous for profits,highlighting how a profit-motivated commercialization of the ritual is undermining its spiritual and egalitarian spirit. Strivingsoul ( talk) 09:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The following blog from IEEE Spectrum may be relevant here. AstroLynx ( talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible that the last mentioned Alhaji Shehu Kontagora is NOT a citizen of the country called Niger but a Nigerian citizen? IN the country called Nigeria there is a state called Niger, which should not be confounded with the neighbouring country called Niger. After reading the source Nigeria News it seems to me that Alhaji Shehu Kontagora is a citizen of Nigeria. Can someone pls help to find out?-- 176.2.88.149 ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The article raises a serious issue of npov: i noticed that too much weight is given to shiite politicians, analysts (such as al ahmad and al shehabi) and other shiite observers. Shiites are fanatically anti-Saudi and so they are unsuprisingly all highly critical of the saudis in this issue by default (whether warranted or not). Why does the article block-quote shiite Mohammed Jafari? Is he someone significant or especially qualified? Or is it just because the article is overrun with shiite editors? Forgetting the shiite propagandist pov issue, we musn't ignore that too much weight is given to the views of a muslim minority. Do we really need so much iranian political commentary?-- 120.18.58.122 ( talk) 08:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In the Shi'a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[1] Taqiyya has also been legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shia, in order to maintain Muslim unity and fraternity.[8][9] In Sunni jurisprudence, denying faith under duress or other permissible reasons as per Islamic law is viewed "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory".[7]
Below is some content that i added to the article earlier but was removed by Drmies, the eyewitness, an official from Nigeria contends that this was not a stampede and hints that it was Saudi-induced incident, if possible i want this included in the article:
Among the eyewitnesses was Kebbi State Deputy Governor Alh Samaila Dabai Yombe, who insisted that the incident at Jamrat was not a stampede, adding:
“Whoever said it was a stampede either does not know the meaning of a stampede or he is not saying the truth. What actually happened was that all the pilgrims scheduled to throw Jamrat at that time were channelled to one particular street. At a time we got to a certain point around 8:00am, a military vehicle was set across to create a barrier and then some of the Saudi soldiers were standing by, suggesting that you cannot go beyond that point. About 5,000 people coming from the same direction were not aware of the road block in front, which resulted to a tight and stationary human traffic, which made it very difficult for us to even stand. So, we continued to squat to make room for fresh air while the temperature was about 47 degrees celsius. Pilgrims, in efforts to get fresh air, attempted to scale fences of tents on both sides of the road. Very few succeeded, while most people just succumb to the situation. It was at this juncture that we saw dead bodies piling up around us.” (Source: HAJJ TRAGEDY LATEST: 100 NIGERIANS MAY HAVE DIED) Sheriff ( talk) 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
A large share of pilgrims in the Hajj belongs to locals (Saudis and expatriates) (both registered and non-registered) (upto 1 million pilgrims?). But the present death toll figures only show the deaths of the foreign pilgrims. This should be indicated in the article for clarity, especially any death of expatriates. Think05 ( talk) 05:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
"The disaster controversy", paragraph 4, contains an extended quote from the Deputy Governor of Kebbi State, Nigeria. I think that this statement should be changed to a shorter paraphrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned about the use of the word "stampede" in describing this event. For starters, there is WP internal consistency. the stampede article describes a stampede as "an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose." This is not at all what happened by anybody's account described in the current article. They did not run, and they did not lack direction or purpose. It completely fails the criteria. Second, there are connotations of animal behavior with the word "stampede." Third, we rarely use the word "stampede" in the title of the articles describing such events outside of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.
I am NOT just being politically correct. Look at the List of human stampedes page and see which linked pages use the word "stampede" in the title. They are almost all in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Only 3 of the 19 articles describing crowd crush disasters outside these regions use the word "stampede" in their titles, while 20 of the 24 articles describing crowd crush disasters within the Middle East, Asia, and Africa use "stampede" in their titles. This is very dangerous for Wikipedia, as it constitutes strong evidence of not only Western bias, but also an attitude that it's ok to refer to others as being somehow different from us in the West. It connotes crowd behavior that is somehow different. This is not just random variation in naming.
I believe we need to start right here and right now to fix this discrepancy and move this article to a different namespace that does not include the word "stampede." We can refer to these disasters as crowd crushes, crush disasters, or simply disasters. I don't really care what term we use, but we cannot continue describing crowd behavior using different terminology because it happened in another place that we are less familiar with. Dcs002 ( talk) 03:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In raising "Definition of stampede" on this page a few days ago, I did have this potential for appearance of bias/prejudice in mind; though, same as previous contributor, not to allege or imply conscious, deliberate or malicious intentions. It wouldn't need to be intended that way to be simply inaccurate. It does not accurately describe the events reported. You only have to look at the definition on Wikipedia to see that; or in any dictionary. A stampede has at least two defining features: pace/velocity and irrationality/panic. People simply walking en mass into a restricted space and thereby causing crushing injuries and fatalities is not a stampede. This article would both more accurate and arguably less prone to further inflame opinion if "crush" was used, as suggested above and I suggested a few days ago; or "disaster": see Hillsborough disaster. The Stampede article could do with some edits with this in mind but that's for another day. Thanks, all.-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 08:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Dcs002 again makes some excellent points. I'd say that "Hajj crush disaster", though admittedly tending towards the cumbersome, is both more accessible and more distinct from the crane incident earlier this year. In my view, the use of "Mina" in the lead, as in the current version "2015 Mina stampede", is not terribly helpful; the wrong word has been changed! Thanks, all.-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 13:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is becoming a little TLDR, but I thought I'd just add a link to a previous discussion that took place on this, just this past January: Talk:2014 Shanghai stampede#"Stampede" vs, "crush". I seem to remember a few people getting upset by the use of the word "crush" as somehow being disrespectful to those killed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, how similar 2014 Shanghai stampede was to this incident. It might have been a true stampede but this does not seem like a stampede if we go by reports and eyewitnesses, below is some content that i added to the article earlier but was removed by Drmies, the eyewitness, an official from Nigeria contends that this was not a stampede, i do not want to post this under multiple sections but i think this text should be included under Reactions section in the article, here is the removed text:
Among the eyewitnesses was Kebbi State Deputy Governor Alh Samaila Dabai Yombe, who insisted that the incident at Jamrat was not a stampede, adding:
“Whoever said it was a stampede either does not know the meaning of a stampede or he is not saying the truth. What actually happened was that all the pilgrims scheduled to throw Jamrat at that time were channelled to one particular street. At a time we got to a certain point around 8:00am, a military vehicle was set across to create a barrier and then some of the Saudi soldiers were standing by, suggesting that you cannot go beyond that point. About 5,000 people coming from the same direction were not aware of the road block in front, which resulted to a tight and stationary human traffic, which made it very difficult for us to even stand. So, we continued to squat to make room for fresh air while the temperature was about 47 degrees celsius. Pilgrims, in efforts to get fresh air, attempted to scale fences of tents on both sides of the road. Very few succeeded, while most people just succumb to the situation. It was at this juncture that we saw dead bodies piling up around us.”
(Source: HAJJ TRAGEDY LATEST: 100 NIGERIANS MAY HAVE DIED) Sheriff ( talk) 15:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In the discussion on the "Shanghai stampede," the only objections I saw to "crush" were that it was not used in some media (though many examples exist in which it was used), and that we don't use "crush" in other titles. One objection was that people don't crush people; machines crush people. I don't care if we use the word "crush" in the namespace. I consider it urgent that we remove the word "stampede" from the title because we have blatantly created a double-standard in which only 3 of 23 articles covering such events in the Western world use "stampede" in the title, but 20 of 24 articles covering such incidents in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa use the word "stampede" in the title. Stampede connotes impulsive, uncontrolled, animal-like behavior, and there is no consistency in using "stampede" for actual stampede events. The determining factor in WP is where the event occurred, in the West or in the East. This was not a stampede event, and it did not take place in the West. Our language is not only biased, it is bigoted. It was never intended to be bigoted, but it is clearly a double standard. Run a statistical analysis on the likelihood that this discrepancy was not based on location, and you'll see it's nearly impossible that this discrepancy was random. We need to change now. We cannot let our titles reflect bigotry, and right now they do. Surely this reflects usage in early media reports, but we cannot let that stand as an excuse to continue with this bigoted, or at least differentiating us vs. them language. Dcs002 ( talk) 20:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I mostly watch Pakistani media and they are referring it as "Saaniha-e-Mina", literally meaning "Mina disaster", I myself will prefer the word "Mina" over "Hajj" and "disaster" over "stampede" or "crush", making the name as "2015 Mina disaster", it is different from Mecca crane collapse because that did not happen in Mina. Sheriff ( talk) 00:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was steeling myself to do the edit today but am glad someone has got there first, so I didn't get the chance to mess it up! (Would have been my first edit.) I agree with Dcs002 that the use of "stampede" in other articles needs careful review. Arguments about definitions (mine) and bias (well made by Dcs002) aside, if you want a graphic argument as to why "stampede" is not appropriate, just go to the Stampede article and see what image is used to illustrate the word. I'm not proposing to edit these other articles, for the reason I mentioned earlier, but I think it ought to be done. Is there a process for discussing, agreeing and then actioning this sort of thing? More experienced editors, please advise.-- 86.181.38.185 ( talk) 09:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 09:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The Main Page In the news section still uses "A stampede" to link to this article. I've asked whether it can be changed to reflect the re-naming of this article. Thanks, all.-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
So you or someone else edited on that basis without waiting for further views? I thought that, judging by views expressed on this Talk page, we had a consensus not to use "stampede" and I thought that was the way Wikipedia was supposed to work I.e. discuss first, then edit. Not simply edit and quote policies and one's interpretation of them. It cannot be inaccordance with a policy of precision to use such an inaccurate term. "Stampede" has meanings and implications, which are not appropriate. Can I refer you - as others previously - to the Hillsborough article? No use of stampede there...because it wasn't one. Neither was this. Please would you re-read the comments from other user above and re-consider? Thanks. -- 86.181.38.185 ( talk) 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. Having looked at the policies referred to WP:PRECISION and WP:Verifiability, I'm not convinced that either support "stampede" as opposed to "disaster", "crush" or other terms. I'm even less convinced by the assertion that Wikipedia articles "generally use specific titles" in any sense that demands the use of "stampede" or similar here. E.g. The Hillsborough article I already referred to; Tenerife airport disaster, 2004 Sri Lanka tsunami-rail disaster none of which attempt the sort of precision Brandmeister seems to mean. I could be missing it but I don't see how WP:Verifiability applies at all unless it is taken to mean that the language used in some or even many sources ought to be replicated in the article or indeed the title of the article, which would seem surprising to me. I had thought that it was the content of the article which needed to be verifiable; not the language used or, in this case, a single word in the article title. I wonder if this isn't stretching the application of both policies when a more simple test can be applied; to whit: do the events, as far as we know them, fit the definition of "stampede"? It is important at this point to actually refer to some dictionary definitions and note that many refer only to animals. Others who have previously commented against stampede, please come back in!!-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 16:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Victoria Hall disaster, Khodynka Tragedy, Shiloh Baptist Church disaster, Barnsley Public Hall Disaster, Italian Hall Disaster, Burnden Park disaster, Estadio Nacional disaster, 1979 The Who concert disaster, Luzhniki disaster, Heysel Stadium disaster, Hillsborough disaster, Orkney Stadium Disaster, Nyamiha disaster, Ellis Park Stadium disaster Sheriff ( talk) 17:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Brandmeister, really? The move was discussed; at some length. See earlier comments in this section of this Talk page. If the consensus wasn't 100% for "disaster", it was clearly against "stampede" with arguments made on two grounds i) definitions and ii) bias/WP. See also the 'Definition of stampede' section further up this Talk page. So, please look again? I can't help pointing out that your argument was on policies - to which I replied - and now your argument is on definitions. Granted some dictionaries have secondary definitions, as are the two you quote, but important to acknowledge, I think, that in both the primary definitions refers to animals and not human beings. Now, my argument was on accuracy, which may be somehwat diminished by the definitions you have supplied (secondary definitions though they may be) but the arguments of User:Dcs002 are not. Again, please re-read and re-consider. How or why is it that stampede is somehow acceptable in some circumstances but not in others? Coming from the UK, I know that if anyone referred to Hillsborough as a "stampede" there would be an outcry. If there is an argument that the meaning and implications are materially different elsewhere, perhaps someone could make it but it hasn't featured in the debate thus far. Thanks. -- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
My latest post crossed with yours. Looks like I could have saved myself some trouble. Thanks for your flexibility. So, can we go back to "disaster"? Can whoever reverted to "stampede" re-revert or someone else make the change. Would do myself but conscious that I have no editing experience whatsoever and don't want to screw it up! Thanks, all. -- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 17:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Brandmeister, Thank you but i am unable to move now, says "name already exists". Someone needs to clean up to make that name available, i do not have experience with that either. Sheriff ( talk) 18:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This article was moved too many times since it was created. Please finalize the title of the article and consider move protecting the article to prevent further moves. Thanks Ayub407 talk 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more as I got confused while revisiting the page. Eruditescholar ( talk) 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We have an agreement now but i could not move, it says the name already exists. We want to move it to "2015 Mina disaster". Sheriff ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Is it worth to mention accounts of witnesses? -- Saqib ( talk) 07:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been at least 6 other serious (more than 30 people killed) crush-events in Mecca since the 1990 tragedy, not including this event. These should be mentioned on the article page (particularly as some have had hundreds of deaths). http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/72398169/Mecca-stampede-kills-at-least-700-injures-hundreds-more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 ( talk) 23:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Decide it here, we want condolences in the article or we don't want them? Sheriff ( talk) 11:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The article mentions several incidents - crane collapse, tent fires, etc. - that don't seem to be relevant to the stampede. What is the purpose of including these? Is it merely to emphasize the safety failings of the Saudi government? I have grouped these incidents into § Other 2015 safety incidents. The section should either be expanded with context explaining how it is relevant to the stampede, or deleted. Presenting this information as related may be considered WP:SYN if reliable sources have not explicitly made a connection. 2601:644:101:9616:4D1C:78CE:3547:D79D ( talk) 16:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind that I've never been in a situation like this, and I suspect that most people haven't. The closest I've ever come is going to DragonCon in Atlanta where many thousands of people gather together to geek out at various different panels in hundreds of rooms and where people dress up and show off, or take pictures of people who dressed up.
So I can't comprehend how a stampede like this can happen. Naturally, the only reason a person will be physically forced (or strongly encouraged) to move forward is if the tail end is pressing forward into other folks. But how is it that the tail of the queue is trying to advance and forces the head of the queue to run into the path of a different queue?
Can anyone please explain how this stampede happened? D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 18:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/07/crush-point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.170.156 ( talk) 06:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In my view, I believe this article should touch on the spark. All it says is that it's at an intersection of two streets. If the reason was that a scheduling conflict occurred wherein two groups expected to be able to occupy the same space at the same time, it should say so. If it was that two groups were passing through when only one was supposed to be there, it should say so. I realize we may not know the reason, but perhaps the article should then acknowledge that we don't know why it happened. To say that this occurred accidentally implies that you can't solve it. You, user:SheriffIsInTown said the Saudi government is trying to do just that. How can they solve a problem where two groups collided on a street--and not even particularly close to the Stoning of the Devil! D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The clearest explanation on Wikipedia is found on the Hillsborough disaster page. I suggest that stampede be forked into two pages, with a separate one for human crush-events that adequately explains the causes and mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 ( talk) 23:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The citation :
... sounds quite hasty and racist, and may be viewed as encouraging ethnic tensions / violence, which is legally prohibited by several law systems. It's quite unsafe to keep this in the article as we may get backlash from it. 193.49.236.11 ( talk) 15:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Anti-Saudis (especially shites) appear to be having a field day with this article. How is it racist? He said african, not black africans. He may very well be making a statement based upon info, not simply jumping to hasty conclusions. The evidence seems to back him up based upon african casualties. People need to cease their anti-Saudi agenda and accept, in this case, that their are Muslims who simply do not follow the rules, especially due to coming from non-law abiding, uneducated backgrounds. 120.18.21.187 ( talk) 00:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed Saudi statement about diplomatic covoys from the lead [2]. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the statement seems out of place in the lead, unless further details are added like the allegation a Saudi prince's convoy was a factor in the stampede. (I wasn't that familiar with the latest claims, so when I went the bit about diplomatic covoys, I didn't understand why that was mentioned.) The statement itself appears to already be covered in more details in the article proper. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an upclose photo of a young male's penis during an act of masturbation. Shocked b/c so disrespectful! Please remove/replace IMMEDIATELY and block whomever this source was from any future submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.79.147 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, September 27, 2015
Can someone please update victim count for Morocco. Source is here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34372745 Sherenk1 ( talk) 09:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The numbers in the casualties table do not add up to the indicated Total number.
2.177.232.114 (
talk)
12:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why my pictures were deleted... The Pancake of Heaven! 15:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2015 Hajj stampede has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Administrators,
The content of this page is extremely bias against Saudi Arabia. Please make sure the content is cited of all parties. Please check.
Thank you,
92.99.125.117 ( talk) 14:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2015 Hajj stampede has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Updating Iranian Casualties: Dead: 167, Missed: 304. P. Pajouhesh ( talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2015 Hajj stampede has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unprotect table of deceased, injured and missing persons during stampede in the article or please provide / create separate article for this table because this table is more informative and uncontroversial. Think05 ( talk) 15:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Please update the following deceased data in the table: Pakistan: Dead=27 [Source: http://www.breakingnewspak.com/mina-tragedy-death-toll-of-pakistani-martyred-pilgrims-jumps-to-27-over-300-still-missing/] Morocco: Dead=87 [Source: http://news.yahoo.com/foreign-toll-saudi-hajj-stampede-132057544.html] Ivory Coast: Dead=14, Missing=77 [Source: http://news.yahoo.com/foreign-toll-saudi-hajj-stampede-132057544.html] Nigeria: Dead=40 [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think05 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a small table below the main casualties table which appears to be intended to list the nationality of individuals killed during the stampede. It currently contains 5 names. Is this intended to cover all 700+ victims, because that really doesn't appear to be practicable. I would suggest that this table be removed and keep just the summary table. danno_ uk 18:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@ 92.99.125.117:, @ Strivingsoul:, @ Deli nk:, the page has been temporarily protected due to edit warring by you three. Please discuss your revisions and come to a compromise about the information so the page can remain in a stable state. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 14:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Several sources e.g. huffingtonpost, economictimes, newindianexpress, ibnlive, thestatesman, etc. have put the higher number for Haj stampede death toll. Also, there is this article Shocking inhuman behaviour towards dead bodies of Hajj pilgrims showing how Sauds and Saudis manage Haj.-- 116.202.158.43 ( talk) 17:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the incident has just unleashed a wave of historical outrage against Saudis especially by Shia muslims. This article is probably the most scathing analysis I have read. The author is an Ugandan British Shia leftist. Should we quote this article especially for the substantial arguments by the author, or should we dismiss it in sectarian terms on the ground that it would give greater voice to Shia analysts?
The jaw simply drops. Saudi Arabia executes one person every two days. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr is soon to be beheaded then crucified for taking part in pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring. He was a teenager then. Raif Badawi, a blogger who dared to call for democracy, was sentenced to 10 years and 1,000 lashes. Last week, 769 faithful Muslim believers were killed in Mecca where they had gone on the Hajj. Initially, the rulers said it was “God’s will” and then they blamed the dead. Mecca was once a place of simplicity and spirituality. Today the avaricious Saudis have bulldozed historical sites and turned it into the Las Vegas of Islam – with hotels, skyscrapers and malls to spend, spend, spend. The poor can no longer afford to go there. Numbers should be controlled to ensure safety – but that would be ruinous for profits. Ziauddin Sardar’s poignant book Mecca: The Sacred City, describes the desecration of Islam’s holiest site. Even more seriously, the pernicious Saudi influence is spreading fast and freely. King Salman has offered to build 200 mosques in Germany for recently arrived refugees, many of whom are Muslims. He offered no money for resettlement or basic needs, but Wahhabi mosques, the Trojan horses of the secret Saudi crusade. Several Islamic schools are also sites of Wahhabism, now a global brand. It makes hearts and minds small and suspicious, turns Muslim against Muslim, and undermines modernists. (Source: The evil empire of Saudi Arabia is the West’s real enemy) Strivingsoul ( talk) 06:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Mecca was once a place of simplicity and spirituality. Today the avaricious Saudis have bulldozed historical sites and turned it into the Las Vegas of Islam – with hotels, skyscrapers and malls to spend, spend, spend. The poor can no longer afford to go there. Numbers should be controlled to ensure safety – but that would be ruinous for profits,highlighting how a profit-motivated commercialization of the ritual is undermining its spiritual and egalitarian spirit. Strivingsoul ( talk) 09:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The following blog from IEEE Spectrum may be relevant here. AstroLynx ( talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible that the last mentioned Alhaji Shehu Kontagora is NOT a citizen of the country called Niger but a Nigerian citizen? IN the country called Nigeria there is a state called Niger, which should not be confounded with the neighbouring country called Niger. After reading the source Nigeria News it seems to me that Alhaji Shehu Kontagora is a citizen of Nigeria. Can someone pls help to find out?-- 176.2.88.149 ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The article raises a serious issue of npov: i noticed that too much weight is given to shiite politicians, analysts (such as al ahmad and al shehabi) and other shiite observers. Shiites are fanatically anti-Saudi and so they are unsuprisingly all highly critical of the saudis in this issue by default (whether warranted or not). Why does the article block-quote shiite Mohammed Jafari? Is he someone significant or especially qualified? Or is it just because the article is overrun with shiite editors? Forgetting the shiite propagandist pov issue, we musn't ignore that too much weight is given to the views of a muslim minority. Do we really need so much iranian political commentary?-- 120.18.58.122 ( talk) 08:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In the Shi'a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[1] Taqiyya has also been legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shia, in order to maintain Muslim unity and fraternity.[8][9] In Sunni jurisprudence, denying faith under duress or other permissible reasons as per Islamic law is viewed "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory".[7]
Below is some content that i added to the article earlier but was removed by Drmies, the eyewitness, an official from Nigeria contends that this was not a stampede and hints that it was Saudi-induced incident, if possible i want this included in the article:
Among the eyewitnesses was Kebbi State Deputy Governor Alh Samaila Dabai Yombe, who insisted that the incident at Jamrat was not a stampede, adding:
“Whoever said it was a stampede either does not know the meaning of a stampede or he is not saying the truth. What actually happened was that all the pilgrims scheduled to throw Jamrat at that time were channelled to one particular street. At a time we got to a certain point around 8:00am, a military vehicle was set across to create a barrier and then some of the Saudi soldiers were standing by, suggesting that you cannot go beyond that point. About 5,000 people coming from the same direction were not aware of the road block in front, which resulted to a tight and stationary human traffic, which made it very difficult for us to even stand. So, we continued to squat to make room for fresh air while the temperature was about 47 degrees celsius. Pilgrims, in efforts to get fresh air, attempted to scale fences of tents on both sides of the road. Very few succeeded, while most people just succumb to the situation. It was at this juncture that we saw dead bodies piling up around us.” (Source: HAJJ TRAGEDY LATEST: 100 NIGERIANS MAY HAVE DIED) Sheriff ( talk) 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
A large share of pilgrims in the Hajj belongs to locals (Saudis and expatriates) (both registered and non-registered) (upto 1 million pilgrims?). But the present death toll figures only show the deaths of the foreign pilgrims. This should be indicated in the article for clarity, especially any death of expatriates. Think05 ( talk) 05:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
"The disaster controversy", paragraph 4, contains an extended quote from the Deputy Governor of Kebbi State, Nigeria. I think that this statement should be changed to a shorter paraphrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned about the use of the word "stampede" in describing this event. For starters, there is WP internal consistency. the stampede article describes a stampede as "an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose." This is not at all what happened by anybody's account described in the current article. They did not run, and they did not lack direction or purpose. It completely fails the criteria. Second, there are connotations of animal behavior with the word "stampede." Third, we rarely use the word "stampede" in the title of the articles describing such events outside of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.
I am NOT just being politically correct. Look at the List of human stampedes page and see which linked pages use the word "stampede" in the title. They are almost all in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Only 3 of the 19 articles describing crowd crush disasters outside these regions use the word "stampede" in their titles, while 20 of the 24 articles describing crowd crush disasters within the Middle East, Asia, and Africa use "stampede" in their titles. This is very dangerous for Wikipedia, as it constitutes strong evidence of not only Western bias, but also an attitude that it's ok to refer to others as being somehow different from us in the West. It connotes crowd behavior that is somehow different. This is not just random variation in naming.
I believe we need to start right here and right now to fix this discrepancy and move this article to a different namespace that does not include the word "stampede." We can refer to these disasters as crowd crushes, crush disasters, or simply disasters. I don't really care what term we use, but we cannot continue describing crowd behavior using different terminology because it happened in another place that we are less familiar with. Dcs002 ( talk) 03:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In raising "Definition of stampede" on this page a few days ago, I did have this potential for appearance of bias/prejudice in mind; though, same as previous contributor, not to allege or imply conscious, deliberate or malicious intentions. It wouldn't need to be intended that way to be simply inaccurate. It does not accurately describe the events reported. You only have to look at the definition on Wikipedia to see that; or in any dictionary. A stampede has at least two defining features: pace/velocity and irrationality/panic. People simply walking en mass into a restricted space and thereby causing crushing injuries and fatalities is not a stampede. This article would both more accurate and arguably less prone to further inflame opinion if "crush" was used, as suggested above and I suggested a few days ago; or "disaster": see Hillsborough disaster. The Stampede article could do with some edits with this in mind but that's for another day. Thanks, all.-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 08:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Dcs002 again makes some excellent points. I'd say that "Hajj crush disaster", though admittedly tending towards the cumbersome, is both more accessible and more distinct from the crane incident earlier this year. In my view, the use of "Mina" in the lead, as in the current version "2015 Mina stampede", is not terribly helpful; the wrong word has been changed! Thanks, all.-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 13:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is becoming a little TLDR, but I thought I'd just add a link to a previous discussion that took place on this, just this past January: Talk:2014 Shanghai stampede#"Stampede" vs, "crush". I seem to remember a few people getting upset by the use of the word "crush" as somehow being disrespectful to those killed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, how similar 2014 Shanghai stampede was to this incident. It might have been a true stampede but this does not seem like a stampede if we go by reports and eyewitnesses, below is some content that i added to the article earlier but was removed by Drmies, the eyewitness, an official from Nigeria contends that this was not a stampede, i do not want to post this under multiple sections but i think this text should be included under Reactions section in the article, here is the removed text:
Among the eyewitnesses was Kebbi State Deputy Governor Alh Samaila Dabai Yombe, who insisted that the incident at Jamrat was not a stampede, adding:
“Whoever said it was a stampede either does not know the meaning of a stampede or he is not saying the truth. What actually happened was that all the pilgrims scheduled to throw Jamrat at that time were channelled to one particular street. At a time we got to a certain point around 8:00am, a military vehicle was set across to create a barrier and then some of the Saudi soldiers were standing by, suggesting that you cannot go beyond that point. About 5,000 people coming from the same direction were not aware of the road block in front, which resulted to a tight and stationary human traffic, which made it very difficult for us to even stand. So, we continued to squat to make room for fresh air while the temperature was about 47 degrees celsius. Pilgrims, in efforts to get fresh air, attempted to scale fences of tents on both sides of the road. Very few succeeded, while most people just succumb to the situation. It was at this juncture that we saw dead bodies piling up around us.”
(Source: HAJJ TRAGEDY LATEST: 100 NIGERIANS MAY HAVE DIED) Sheriff ( talk) 15:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In the discussion on the "Shanghai stampede," the only objections I saw to "crush" were that it was not used in some media (though many examples exist in which it was used), and that we don't use "crush" in other titles. One objection was that people don't crush people; machines crush people. I don't care if we use the word "crush" in the namespace. I consider it urgent that we remove the word "stampede" from the title because we have blatantly created a double-standard in which only 3 of 23 articles covering such events in the Western world use "stampede" in the title, but 20 of 24 articles covering such incidents in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa use the word "stampede" in the title. Stampede connotes impulsive, uncontrolled, animal-like behavior, and there is no consistency in using "stampede" for actual stampede events. The determining factor in WP is where the event occurred, in the West or in the East. This was not a stampede event, and it did not take place in the West. Our language is not only biased, it is bigoted. It was never intended to be bigoted, but it is clearly a double standard. Run a statistical analysis on the likelihood that this discrepancy was not based on location, and you'll see it's nearly impossible that this discrepancy was random. We need to change now. We cannot let our titles reflect bigotry, and right now they do. Surely this reflects usage in early media reports, but we cannot let that stand as an excuse to continue with this bigoted, or at least differentiating us vs. them language. Dcs002 ( talk) 20:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I mostly watch Pakistani media and they are referring it as "Saaniha-e-Mina", literally meaning "Mina disaster", I myself will prefer the word "Mina" over "Hajj" and "disaster" over "stampede" or "crush", making the name as "2015 Mina disaster", it is different from Mecca crane collapse because that did not happen in Mina. Sheriff ( talk) 00:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was steeling myself to do the edit today but am glad someone has got there first, so I didn't get the chance to mess it up! (Would have been my first edit.) I agree with Dcs002 that the use of "stampede" in other articles needs careful review. Arguments about definitions (mine) and bias (well made by Dcs002) aside, if you want a graphic argument as to why "stampede" is not appropriate, just go to the Stampede article and see what image is used to illustrate the word. I'm not proposing to edit these other articles, for the reason I mentioned earlier, but I think it ought to be done. Is there a process for discussing, agreeing and then actioning this sort of thing? More experienced editors, please advise.-- 86.181.38.185 ( talk) 09:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 09:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The Main Page In the news section still uses "A stampede" to link to this article. I've asked whether it can be changed to reflect the re-naming of this article. Thanks, all.-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
So you or someone else edited on that basis without waiting for further views? I thought that, judging by views expressed on this Talk page, we had a consensus not to use "stampede" and I thought that was the way Wikipedia was supposed to work I.e. discuss first, then edit. Not simply edit and quote policies and one's interpretation of them. It cannot be inaccordance with a policy of precision to use such an inaccurate term. "Stampede" has meanings and implications, which are not appropriate. Can I refer you - as others previously - to the Hillsborough article? No use of stampede there...because it wasn't one. Neither was this. Please would you re-read the comments from other user above and re-consider? Thanks. -- 86.181.38.185 ( talk) 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. Having looked at the policies referred to WP:PRECISION and WP:Verifiability, I'm not convinced that either support "stampede" as opposed to "disaster", "crush" or other terms. I'm even less convinced by the assertion that Wikipedia articles "generally use specific titles" in any sense that demands the use of "stampede" or similar here. E.g. The Hillsborough article I already referred to; Tenerife airport disaster, 2004 Sri Lanka tsunami-rail disaster none of which attempt the sort of precision Brandmeister seems to mean. I could be missing it but I don't see how WP:Verifiability applies at all unless it is taken to mean that the language used in some or even many sources ought to be replicated in the article or indeed the title of the article, which would seem surprising to me. I had thought that it was the content of the article which needed to be verifiable; not the language used or, in this case, a single word in the article title. I wonder if this isn't stretching the application of both policies when a more simple test can be applied; to whit: do the events, as far as we know them, fit the definition of "stampede"? It is important at this point to actually refer to some dictionary definitions and note that many refer only to animals. Others who have previously commented against stampede, please come back in!!-- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 16:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Victoria Hall disaster, Khodynka Tragedy, Shiloh Baptist Church disaster, Barnsley Public Hall Disaster, Italian Hall Disaster, Burnden Park disaster, Estadio Nacional disaster, 1979 The Who concert disaster, Luzhniki disaster, Heysel Stadium disaster, Hillsborough disaster, Orkney Stadium Disaster, Nyamiha disaster, Ellis Park Stadium disaster Sheriff ( talk) 17:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Brandmeister, really? The move was discussed; at some length. See earlier comments in this section of this Talk page. If the consensus wasn't 100% for "disaster", it was clearly against "stampede" with arguments made on two grounds i) definitions and ii) bias/WP. See also the 'Definition of stampede' section further up this Talk page. So, please look again? I can't help pointing out that your argument was on policies - to which I replied - and now your argument is on definitions. Granted some dictionaries have secondary definitions, as are the two you quote, but important to acknowledge, I think, that in both the primary definitions refers to animals and not human beings. Now, my argument was on accuracy, which may be somehwat diminished by the definitions you have supplied (secondary definitions though they may be) but the arguments of User:Dcs002 are not. Again, please re-read and re-consider. How or why is it that stampede is somehow acceptable in some circumstances but not in others? Coming from the UK, I know that if anyone referred to Hillsborough as a "stampede" there would be an outcry. If there is an argument that the meaning and implications are materially different elsewhere, perhaps someone could make it but it hasn't featured in the debate thus far. Thanks. -- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
My latest post crossed with yours. Looks like I could have saved myself some trouble. Thanks for your flexibility. So, can we go back to "disaster"? Can whoever reverted to "stampede" re-revert or someone else make the change. Would do myself but conscious that I have no editing experience whatsoever and don't want to screw it up! Thanks, all. -- Stratfordjohns ( talk) 17:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Brandmeister, Thank you but i am unable to move now, says "name already exists". Someone needs to clean up to make that name available, i do not have experience with that either. Sheriff ( talk) 18:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This article was moved too many times since it was created. Please finalize the title of the article and consider move protecting the article to prevent further moves. Thanks Ayub407 talk 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more as I got confused while revisiting the page. Eruditescholar ( talk) 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We have an agreement now but i could not move, it says the name already exists. We want to move it to "2015 Mina disaster". Sheriff ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)