Talk:2015 Mina stampede/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Other injuries

One Indonesian critically injured: http://www.beritasatu.com/nasional/309499-korban-wni-di-insiden-mina-3-tewas-dan-1-kritis.html (Indonesian, but English language sources will substantiate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Witnesses accounts

Is it worth to mention accounts of witnesses? --Saqib (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Background

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)

Those are mentioned at Incidents during the Hajj § Stampedes and failures of crowd control, which is linked in the "Background" section. 2601:644:101:9616:4D1C:78CE:3547:D79D (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Condolences

Decide it here, we want condolences in the article or we don't want them? Sheriff (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. This incident has managed to get condolence messages from almost 150+ state leaders, so far. Are you going to include them all here? --119.159.71.65 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't decision about this! You must follow the rules.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop your edit warring User:Gire 3pich2005 or I will report you to admin. See the note added by a Wikipedia admin. --119.159.71.65 (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Gire 3pich2005, there are at least three editors reverting your edits here, you must stop and resolve the matter here. I do not much myself care if they go in or not but if they go in then they all go in. Then, order must be decided, you cannot just put Vatican on top of all because you like Vatican very much. Either, they need to be sorted alphabetically or in the order the page is updated or in the order they are issued from those heads of states! Sheriff (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has already violated the three reverts rule WP:3RR. Ayub407^talk 13:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Both Gire 3pich2005 (talk · contribs) and 119.159.71.65 (talk · contribs) have more than 3 reverts in the recent run. Dragons flight (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I reported Gire 3pich2005 for violation of WP:3RR. Ayub407^talk 13:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is problematic for two reasons. First, other disasters include condolences, so this contravenes usual practice. Second, this falsely gives the impression that the main response has been to condemn Saudi governance, when in fact the main reaction has been sorrow, with a smaller number of commentators offering criticism. 2601:644:101:9616:4D1C:78CE:3547:D79D (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added a POV template to address this problem. 2601:644:101:9616:4D1C:78CE:3547:D79D (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The practice of listing out condolences by heads of state serves no purpose. It's only included in articles because other articles have it (that's the only reason I've seen people give). There's no encyclopedic basis to their inclusion. If you want to add a few sentences covering the basics of them, that's fine. But listing the messages and quoting heads of state is pointless. Their words generally mean nothing and are empty messages just to maintain status quo with international relations. Actual offers of assistance are warranted, such as sending monetary assistance or medical teams, but messages that amount to "I'm sorry that happened to you guys" have no place here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree. International condolences/condemnations (depending on the event) all follow the same form and reporting them doesn't impart any real information. If some international actor were to diverge wildly from this practice—say, if Kuwait were to respond to the stampede by saying, "We're glad this happened"—that might warrant inclusion. But just trotting out a bunch of countries and their spokespeople who all have the same thing to say isn't helpful. And as other commenters have observed, this is not a problem unique to this article. But that doesn't mean that this article should consequently suffer from it. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a potential compromise to the situation. It acknowledges that condolences were given, but keeps it to a single sentence since they're all essentially the same. Opting to drop a comment here rather than re-revert SheriffIsInTown so I can get their input on this as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Single sentence is not encyclopedic as well. It's a given fact that condolences will be offered. Incident like this ought to bring condolences from around the word. No one wants to stay behind in that. Then, the question arises who do you want to include in that sentence after the word "including" and disagreements can arise on that as well. I think, it's unencyclopedic to include one sentence about something such an ordinary. Sheriff (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sheriff; there's nothing particularly notable about the condolences, so there's little reason to include them. Condolences which are also calls to action are potentially notable, though. "You're in our prayers," isn't notable, but "You're in our prayers, and we're going to send a bunch of crowd management planners to Mecca to help prevent tragedies like this in the future" or "you should put off the Hajj because SA can't handle the flood of people right now" might be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated incidents

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)

I have removed these for now: while information about the Hajj and previous stampedes there was relevant, this seemed to resemble WP:SYN. If anyone finds reliable sources associating this with the incident, feel free to readd it. --Rubbish computer 21:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of mention of it, such as in [1]. It is frequently being mentioned as an aside, on the heels of, ect. so I stuck a link to it in the see also section. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Event trigger?

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)

The first thing to understand is that usually for these disasters, the word "stampede" (used by Wikipedia articles too) is a complete misnomer. It's usually crowd physics taking over due to bad planning leading to overflows, and not individual bad behavior or panicked running. See this article for an explanation:

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)

If it's anything like the historical events, it's simple. You take a million or so people, make them urgent to get somewhere through a narrow opening, leave something in their path, wait for some to trip over and then watch while hundreds upon hundreds are crushed to death by the momentum of the people behind those who fell over. An example that isn't mixed in with the Middle East is that described at Bethnal Green tube station, where nearly 200 people were killed in a crush during the Second World War. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So why were these folks urgent to get someplace, and what was in their path (other than other people--how do we not know this yet?), and why couldn't the tail just chill out and wait their turn? I realize that the pilgrims are there for a reason: my question is why were they in a hurry? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Read Stoning of the Devil for more information. If it's still unclear for you, perhaps find someone of the faith who can talk you through the significance of this. As for "chill out", you clearly need to understand what it's like to be surrounded by two million people. You (and I) can't describe what that's like, particularly if someone trips over and a surge of humanity overwhelms the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man explained it quite rightfully. A large number of people were standing at an intersection while they should have been moving. New people kept entering into the intersection without knowing that they are building a pressure at the front line. People next to walls started getting pressed to the walls. People standing next to them might have realized that the guy next to him is going to get crushed against the side wall and he has no room to move but thousands of people at the tail did not know that. Some people might have fell down as well because of building pressure, more fell on top of them, then more and more, some space opened up and people behind them started running in panic, some ran on top of the fallen, some ran back which caused more chaos. The area where this specific ritual gets performed is the same in the measurement which was centuries ago but people who perform the ritual are getting increased. Every muslim must perform pilgrimage once in their lifetime. The pilgrimage is important for a Muslim that they do not care whether they get killed performing it. They just want to perform it once in their lifetime. Saudi government is trying their best to meet the growing needs but that area cannot be increased further, they can build bridges and stories to accommodate more people, which they have been doing. Sheriff (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't find it at all surprising that this could happen. If a crowd a thousand ranks deep is all pushing with 1 pound of force and the front line is up against a strong wall (maybe the path does a right angle there, say) then the frontmost people will be under a half ton of force, will they not? Then they can't breathe and suffocate. But everyone else feels just one pound pushing them. This might be the case even if they're barely touching (just arms outstretched gently prodding the back of whoever's in front). If there's a bottleneck like a turn and everyone's focused on passing it you probably don't even need side walls to prevent a route of escape. It's just not possible for anyone to resist such force, you can't push a thousand people out of the way. If even a small percentage of people start pushing harder for any reason then it'll likely quickly cause panic (especially since stampede danger must be unusually well known in the pilgrim subculture and they've all probably heard of "1,000 killed, thousands injured", "death almost every year".)

Maybe for historical/religious reasons the footprint size is set but I suggest making what is stoned taller and adding more stories to stone from. Make it 20 floors if they have to. If they can build a kilometer high building they can build that. Another idea is to have a untoppleable tower tall enough to see everything well and *a single* stampede expert there with binoculars who monitors at all times and gives instructions via a public address system as needed. He could shine colored lights to tell people if they're in the section that should do something and at least some of the crowd could be given a standardized object to raise to get his attention when something bad's happening. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

They actually have changed the station significantly; it used to be some pillars, now they built a huge wall. The problem isn't the actual stoning of the devil, though; it is people GETTING there (or leaving) which typically causes the crushes. They've widened the bridge and various passageways, but there's only so much they can do. From what I've read, what happened here was that two groups of pilgrims were directed at right angles to each other, so the people in the cross-roads got caught in a crush between two masses of people. Many such crushes are triggered by someone falling down, and people pushing from behind, leading to a pile-up; if you look at the videos, there are masses of humans lying around on the ground, some dead, others alive. It doesn't matter how big the station is if people are getting crushed on the way there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:57, 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)

I withdraw some of my criticism as perhaps it is already answered to some extent under "Reactions" where various people are laying blame. But perhaps the blame-laying should be better situated in another part of the article, perhaps one headed up as "Possible causes" or something more appropriate, and leave "Reactions" for other material. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to do the research and enhance the article. That's what all of us try to do. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 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)

Thanks for mentioning Hillsborough disaster, whose article does a much better job of explaining not only how a disaster like this can be averted but also how it happened in the first place. I realize that social sciences are not "hard" sciences like physics, but it confuses me that two groups of people collide which might cause deaths from asphyxiation, but the deaths occur only to hundreds out of the thousands that are involved in the event. So my questions are:

1. How is it that in an open street, people in the back are so rushed that they are willing to get so close to the guy in front of them that it causes them to run over the next guy in front of them? Is the pilgrimage a timed event? Shouldn't people be more aware of their surroundings and more respectful of other people's personal space?

1. Why did only hundreds die and not thousands? Why did those hundreds die that did, but the others did not?

I'm just trying to get a better sense of how these things happen. Most other Wikipedia articles do a really great job of explaining things (or linking to articles that do have better explanations), and I feel like this article is just like "so, this thing happened the other day, hundreds died, and btw, this has happened before, but to understand why you had to be there". D. F. Schmidt (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well it did just happen the other day and the article is therefore very young and needs expansion. You are welcome to do the research and improve the page (and the many other Hajj pages of a similar nature)! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Racist or not but i am taking the comment by a Saudi minister seriously about some people from African heritage causing the stampede. I have head from first accounts from relative pilgrims in previous years and not from just one pilgrim but from many relative pilgrims who has performed Hajj before, spanning many years. They say that what pilgrims from African heritage do is that they hold each other's hand and make a wall and then run on the street especially during the Tawwaf and what they do is that they push people around out of their way instead of being considerate that if some one is walking in front of them then they need to leave each other's hand and pass by those other people without physically touching them but they do not do that, they just push that person aside and since they are physically built stronger than people from other races and they use that physical strength to make their way in the crowd and that might have been the reason for the stampede. It's also possible that since the Saudi minister knows that tradition of African pilgrims and he might as well be using that as a cover for their own mismanagement which was, one of the Saudi officials going there with a full entourage and changing the direction of the traffic which in result might have caused the stampede. Sheriff (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Which, of course, is all anecdotal and subjective and not to be included in an encyclopedic article without verifiable reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk)

1. Is it possible they were trying to get to the jamarat by the most auspicious time? The article says that if you die in the Hajj you automatically go to heaven, which would kind of seem to make it closer to "nothing to lose" for some people than the crowd events we might be used to. 2. Presumably after the crowd reached maximal "compression" only the victims exposed to the most pressing force were under enough pressure long enough to lose their life, and a zone with less pressing suffered injuries (up to hypoxia vegetative brain damage at Hillsborough), and those with fewer still behind didn't get physically injured and experienced "pain or shortness of breath" through "no physical discomfort" depending on how much they were pressed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't take Indians word on this? Most of their media is controlled by Hindu majority and they have no knowledge of Islam and try their best to malign Islam in any way they can. Suicide and trying to take your own life is prohibited in Islam and person who tries to take his own life cannot enter heaven unless he is forgiven by Allah by his will and mercy. Sheriff (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Suicide of course is not allowed but I was thinking maybe it might make some people decide it's hopeless and stop escape attempt a bit too soon and think about their family, life, God etc. when they actually had a chance if they fought very hard and long to get out? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you need to try your best to live as long as possible, even an extra second for it to not be considered suicide? Sorry for being ignorant of Islamic thinking. The preferred time being after a specific daily prayer I first heard in a Hajj documentary on PBS though, a reliable channel, that's why I took the Indian site's word when they said the same thing. And it's the Wikipedia article that states that pilgrims who die in Hajj go to heaven. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They do go to heaven, but only if they die during Hajj due to natural cause or an accident but if they try to take their own life or try not to save their life while they could have saved it which is also considered a suicide then it undoes the blessings of dying during Hajj because it is strongly prohibited by Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) in his sayings. Sheriff (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Racism ?

The citation :

The governor of the Makkah Region and head of the Central Hajj Committee Prince Khaled al-Faisal blamed the stampede on "some pilgrims from African nationalities"

... 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)

If it's what was said, and is attributed to the speaker, then "we" are fine as regards backlash--any hurt feelings are the result of an intolerant governor, surely. GRAPPLE ^X 15:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Chances are this quote has been intentionally selected to make the governor sound dismissive and racist, but if the quote is accurate then there is no legal concern. Possible POV editing is a separate issue. 2601:644:101:9616:4D1C:78CE:3547:D79D (talk) 16:41, 25 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)

If the governor has said this, the blames is on the governor, not those who truthfully quote him.--2001:A61:21EA:CC01:D49B:1651:F2D8:C9A1 (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

YOU need to calm down.65.209.62.115 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Part of Saudi statement removed from lead

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)

pornographic photo insults topic and disrespects victims

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

Already taken care of. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Update victim count

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)

My pictures

I wonder why my pictures were deleted... The Pancake  of Heaven!  15:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Pancake of Heaven!: They were removed because they violated Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Both were taken directly from the BBC and failed to provide any encyclopedic value to the article that could not be covered by text or simple link to another article. The map can be easily replaced with a free version and the picture of the ambulances arguably has a free alternative (as there were tens of thousands of people in the area, someone could have taken a similar picture and uploaded it under free-use). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok... I'm still a beginner of Wikipedia. I'll try to upload better-content images next time. The Pancake  of Heaven!  12:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 September 2015

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)

There are ongoing discussions regarding the neutrality of this article in the following sections: Racism ?, Condolences, and Serious issues of neutrality. You are more than welcome, encouraged in fact, to take part in these discussions to help improve the article. The article was protected as other editors disagreed with your revisions and discussion became necessary to maintain the article in a stable state. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate 92.99.125.117 talk concern in protecting the article from being disputed and Cyclonebiskit for protecting the article. Ayub407^talk 15:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 September 2015

Updating Iranian Casualties: Dead:167, Missed: 304. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 September 2015

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)

The protection will only last for another 2.5 hours or so. Splitting content isn't really necessary since it's a short period and requests to update the table in the interim can simply be made here on the talk page. I'll be happy to make the necessary updates if sources are provided. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:31, 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)

Nationalities of victims

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)

No, that is not for all 700+, these are about the people who were mentioned in the news sources as notable or dignitaries from several countries. I think it's encyclopedic to mention that some nationally or internationally recognized people were among the deceased as well. Sheriff (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute

@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)

Well I think we saw obvious vandalism with no or bogus explanations for the repeated sweeping removals. And I was just going to demand administrative intervention that you intervened. Anyway, for my part I will be more than happy to discuss the dispute if the IP user in question puts forward a serious substantiated case. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I failed to understand why the page has been fully protected since only IP addresses were involved in removing the text. --Saqib (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Saqib: The IP questioned the reliability of sources (namely Ad-Diyar, PressTV, and Daily Times) with the removed content so there's a potential case for their edits being just. I can't speak to whether or not they're right in this action, but the constant reverting back and forth is not helpful. The protection is simply a way to force discussion rather than block potentially helpful edits (though they're certainly in question). It's only in place for 3 hours since all members involved are active on the site right now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I request all three users involved in edit warring to be blocked before the page is unprotected or at least the IP user since there were two users reverting IP's revisions that establishes that IP was more at fault than other two. My fear is that it is going to start as soon as page is unprotected. Nothing personal against anyone. Sheriff (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We can't block people preemptively as it breaches WP:BLOCK policy (the IP wasn't warned about the reverting policy until I established the protection). But if the edit warring continues once the protection expires blocks will certainly be in order, namely for the IP as they're the only party involved not talking (Deli nk didn't break 3RR). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying as I do not know much policies myself, still learning. Sheriff (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I should note that I didn't think I broke the three-revert rule for user Deli nk had intervened in the process defending the stable content against the IP's insistent removals. Moreover, the IP was actually warned multiple times yet refused to bring his/her case to the talk page. But I leave the decision to the admins' discretion on any measure in regards with the IP, since the user seems to be new to Wikipedia so he/she might deserve a pardon. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The three-revert rule applies to all similar reversions within a 24-hour period, so technically you did break it but it was in good faith so there's no reason to act further. I could simply be overly lenient in this case and a block for the IP may have been warranted earlier. Handling POV issues is certainly not my forte so I aired on the side of caution and allowed the IP further opportunity to speak and make their case. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I see! So my apologies and thanks for your good faith. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Haj stampede death toll at 1090

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)

Instances of shocking inhumane behavior towards the victims is also reported by Iranian sources such as this PressTV report. Also in the same report, the head of Iran's Hajj Organization puts the total death at around 2000. Farsnews also quotes a senior Pakistani cleric accusing the Saudis of hiding the real death toll. I think we should include these reports. They are significant but before additional corroboration we can cite them as claims by these sources. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We should include above numbers in the article, it seems they are being quoted through External/Foreign Affairs Ministry of Government of India, which IMHO is reliable source.--121.244.54.32 (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

More scathing analyses appearing against the Saudis

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)

Is the author notable? If not, then I don't think his opinions are. If he is notable, then his remarks must be handled in context. If we need examples of opinions on one side or another of the blame game, then this contains soundbites that are as good as any. I'm not so sure we need more blame-oriented opinion content though, especially if the author is not notable. Dcs002 (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely notable. And it is a woman by the way: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mia culpa. I always write in gender-inclusive language if I don't know. I don't know how I got it in my head this was a male author. Ok, she's clearly notable, but do we need more blame in the article? I still think we should hold off on this. This is an opinion piece. Emotions seem to be heating up still on all sides of the blame game. (No doubt we'll soon hear that it was the Illuminati or Barack Obama's doing.) I think we should steer clear of giving more exposure to the hate and blame, at least for now. Dcs002 (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the reason this article caught my interest was not its emotional charge or scathing language, but the fact the author puts forwards a perspective and explanation that is fairly unique and not contemplated by other sources, i.e. 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)

Don't think this article is right place to put general content from this piece. We may include it somewhere else (if there is article which criticizes Saudi Government, etc).--121.244.54.32 (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well most POVs in this article criticize the Saudi government for this incident. But, regardless, I don't see how this has any bearing on whether or not including a POV on more fundamental causes of the incident. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think my main concern is that she states these things as facts that are true, and she does a poor job of supporting them. At least one of them is false. They do indeed control numbers in an attempt to ensure safety, but this crush does not appear to be the result of having too many pilgrims on the Hajj. It seems more like a traffic accident where someone slammed on the breaks at an unexpected roadblock and got rear-ended. That does not mean there were too many cars on the road. It tells me the plan for managing the traffic was inadequate, even if it didn't account for a few hundred people not following directions. Her opinion piece is only her opinion, and though she is notable, I think it is a poorly supported, inflammatory piece that would be risky to quote. It might be a unique POV, but another way to frame that is that he found yet another reason to spread blame. But I don't think she is really unique. I think Iranian sources have been saying many of these things for years. Dcs002 (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's why we would be quoting it as a POV not as a fact. Even if she is not accurate on one point, she is still making a number of other quite reasonable points, but at any rate we're not here to decide inclusion of a significant notable viewpoint based on our personal attempt at verification. And at least as of now, her analysis does remain unique. No other sources quoted in the article have put forward a similar analysis. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hajj Pilgrimage Safety Challenges Crowd Simulator Technology

The following blog from IEEE Spectrum may be relevant here. AstroLynx (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Deceased dignitaries

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)

That seems correct. Sheriff (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch! Thanks for pointing that out. [[4]] <-- a source showing he was the accountant general for Niger state in Nigeria. Dcs002 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Serious issues of neutrality

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)

As one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is the assumption of good faith in other editors, I would caution against assuming that the article is "overrun with shiite editors". Furthermore, the claim that "Shiites are fanatically anti-Saudi" is, in addition to being a sweeping generalization, more likely to stoke communal hostility than improve the quality of this article, which is what we're all ostensibly here for. Let's keep our discussions of the article limited to the contents of the article, rather than hazarding unverifiable guesses about the intentions/identities of the editors. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There's Iranian commentary because as it stands, Iran was the worst-affected country. Even though Shia is the minority in the world, that doesn't change that it is the state ideology in Iran, a regional power whose relations with Saudi Arabia are poor, and this is making it worse. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In view of the above, i've removed the pov template. --Saqib (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I asked very specific questions above, none of which were answered beyond accusing me of making generalisations. Since none of my concerns were answered, you have no right to remove the pov tag and it shall be restored.--120.18.186.58 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Iranian reaction seems to be a lot bigger than every other country's reaction in the article. Whether this was intentional is up for debate. Perhaps more reactions from the Saudis should be added? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that at least 136 Iranians died and no known Saudis, it seems reasonable to include a good representation of Iranian responses. Perhaps we need more Pakistani responses, since over 200 of their citizens died. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan government don't care. --119.157.183.22 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the neutrality allegation is exaggerated. The mismanagement theory seems just to be a significant viewpoint as to the cause of the incident. There are already multiple non-Iranian/non-Shia sources sharing the same view. And given the monarchical nature of the Saudi government and the absence of any democratic accountability in that country, the theory does not seem far-fetched, and calling it promoted by irrational sectarian motivations is just passing personal judgement. It is also quite understandable for Iran that has lost 130+ pilgrims in the incident to demand probe and accountability. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I did a count and we currently have five statements from Saudi Arabians (not all of them government sources, but the government response seems pretty monolithic), several comments from Turkish government officials, and two to three responses from Nigerian sources. That seems like plenty of non-Iranian/non-Shiite commentary. If a lot of the commentary is critical of the Saudi government, it's because it's very difficult to put a positive spin on yet another Hajj disaster under their watch. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no question of neutrality here. People need to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to fight Shia/Sunni wars. You have been fighting these wars in the field for so long now and cannot resolve these matters. There are more Non-Iran comments because simply there are more Non-Iran nations. If they want more Shia commentary, they need to issue more Shia commentary. We cannot quote Ayatollah ten times only because we have "five statements from Saudi Arabians (not all of them government sources, but the government response seems pretty monolithic), several comments from Turkish government officials, and two to three responses from Nigerian sources." It simply cannot happen, those are three separate nations, it's not about Shia/Sunni, it's about including comments from various different nations regardless of whether Shia or Sunni. While on this topic, I am in favor of including Hassan Nasrallah's point of view, he is an important Muslim leader whether a Lebanese official or not. Sheriff (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not at all suggesting that if we had, say, 15 Sunni sources, we need to have 15 Iranian/Shiite sources. I was merely pointing out that we have so many non-Iranian/Shiite sources that the claim that the article was biased in favor of Shiites was incorrect. If you will glance further up the discussion, you will see that this was prompted by a user claiming that this page was "overrun by Shiites". Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I also agree that we should not allow Sunni-Shia differences play into the content of the page. Just allow notable/respected Islamic figures be quoted regardless of sect/nation for Hajj is a ritual that concerns all Muslims. However in regards with the general sentiment towards the Saudi Kingdom, one can hardly sympathize with this monarchy, considering her substantial role in creation of the barbaric ISIS terrorist insurgents that have caused catastrophe for millions of Muslims and non-Muslims in the Mid-East, and also their recent ruthless war in Yemen that has destroyed the entire country, causing thousands of civilian death. So there must be no surprise why there is a great deal of criticism against a monarchy for causing one new disaster after another for the Muslim world. And don't forget that Shias have been/are among the primary victims in all of these catastrophes, and yet you see them exercising much restrain in their reactions than we may normally expect from a persistent victim. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Says the shiite!! How surprising...of course saudi arabia is the villain and iran is the innocent little angel who only seeks good in its meddling in iraq, yemen, syria, bahrain, lebanon...Typical shamelessness of your sort.--120.18.47.16 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please keep civil as per WP:CIVILITY and keep your prejudices for yourself! Do you think truth is Shiite or Sunni or Christian or Jew when it comes to empirical facts?! We're not going to discuss politics here, but as far as I know Iran has not been involved in bombing nations as Saudis are in Yemen, or suppressing democratic protests in Bahrain. Sunnis in Iran have been living peacefully and are represented in Iran's parliament, compare that to the situation in Bahrain where a ruthless Sunni monarchy is ruling over a Shia majority! As for the merits of the claim that Iran is meddling in other countries one needs to look into the motivations and the nature of these so-called meddling. For example was it wrong for Iran to meddle in Iraq to save millions of Iraqis when the country was being swallowed up by the ISIS monsters?! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

thankyou for confirming my previous comment.--120.18.234.54 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

But thank me for what really?! For pointing out the falsity of your claims? A brotherly advice for you, my friend. Look beyond the Saudi/Western corporate propaganda for understanding conflicts in the region! ABC of learning truth has always been looking beyond the prejudices and studying all sides and sources while keeping the financial/political/ideological biases of each side in check. We're not going to achieve anything by just parroting the political propaganda coming from corrupt powers and some corporate media. Look for steadfast honesty and integrity of your sources of information. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

a shiite lecturing me on honesty and fact-checking!!! Now you have opened a whole new kettle of fish! A person who follows a religion based upon taqiyya (lying for sectarian gain) is not in a position to preach about the virtues of honesty. In fact, the shiite masses are themselves the victims of taqiyya by their own clergy and rulers; you are a people enveloped by false propaganda and lies, especially the fanciful story of your "hidden" imam you allude to on you user page.--120.18.219.15 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please filter out negative emotions and hateful language. You can read Wikipedia page on Taqiya to see a very reasonable and legitimate wisdom behind this practice, and that it is not a practice confined to Shia Islam.

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]

And remind you again, we get nowhere by regurgitating prejudice and propaganda, but by keeping an open mind to truth and objectivity, and only then there can be hope for peace, justice and unity. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion in check and about the article only. Talk about personal beliefs and opinions on religion have no place here. Additionally, please do not attack other users over their beliefs. Continued actions in this manner are grounds for a block. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No personal opinions on my part, but only sharing some referenced information with the hope of discouraging influence of sectarianism and prejudice in this page. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion to include other non-Iranian sources is not really Sunni-Shiite related as that Iranian sources take up a lot more or the reactions than any other country regardless of sunni or shiite. Perhaps adding a Pakistani reaction would help? It also seems that the Saudis should have a bit of a larger reaction since the event happened in Saudi territory. This is not as much sunni vs. shiite as just balancing out different countries' POV in the section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

When the Wikipedia article includes the opinion of Lebanon-based newspaper "Ad-Diyar" which is loaded with assaults and accusation to the Saudi government without a single source for their information, only citing it to "information confirmed that...", it should also include the international "Asharq Al-Awsat" that has a different point of view saying that the incident was caused by Iranian pilgrims who did not follow instructions, and have cited the words of a Hajj mission official. I.Sharif 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree, reading the extant article I see perfectly acceptable coverage, no violation of WP:NPOV -- the article is neutral. Quoting what other people have said is understood to not be an approval or an acceptance of what was said. Reasonable neutrality seems to me to be achieved in this article. Damotclese (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts

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)

I think we need to have a separate section for eyewitness accounts where the above account can also be added. There are also many eye-witness accounts from Iranian pilgrims non of them yet covered in this page. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, it's already included in the article, somehow I missed it. It was removed from one section and added to another. Sheriff (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Expatriates Death Toll

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)

Deputy Governor of Kebbi

"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)

Stampede or crush? Real danger for WP

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)

After learning more about this incident, I believe we should name this incident as "2015 Mina crush", I wouldn't support "2015 Hajj crush" though since it wouldn't sound right but according to eye witnesses this was not a stampede, people were forced and crushed to death but again, we cannot rely on couple of sources. There are also accounts that pilgrims from African or Iranian background did not act right and brought on this stampede but again there are sources suggesting otherwise which says Saudi authorities forced and crammed people because of a prince or king's entourage. Sheriff (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that, whatever the cause, the result was still not a stampede as far as the available reports indicate. Also, I just looked at the List of human stampedes page again, and I realized I had only counted the 21st and 20th centuries. If earlier years are included, the numbers get even more more unbalanced (3/23 vs. 20/24). Dcs002 (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your scrutiny and suggestion. I think I concur with you. Elsewhere in the Wikipedia I have repeatedly warned about deeply-entrenched cultural biases of the Western media towards Eastern cultures and peoples in general and Islamic in particular. The Palestinian American thinker, Edward Said extensively studied the impact of this systematic culture bias on Western representations of Muslim culture and conduct in his famous work Orientalism (book). That's why with this theoretical basis, I can see merits in your claim that such characterization could be indeed influenced by anti-Muslim prejudices of the Western man (however it must also noted out that these biases mostly work unconsciously so our Western friends here should not take any offense). The details of the incident as you also pointed out do not fit into definition of "stampede." So we may want to proceed by changing the page title. I agree with @SheriffIsInTown:'s suggestion: "2015 Mina crush". Strivingsoul (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please let me clarify: I did not say that this current bias arose from anti-Muslim sentiments. The word "stampede" is used for the vast majority of incidents occurring in India, China, and Africa, as well as in predominantly Muslim nations. I see this as an issue of labeling the strange-seeming unknown people with words that set them apart from our more familiar neighbors. It's the same as Americans having "astronauts" and the Soviets having "cosmonauts." Having a different word suggests there is a fundamental difference, and that can allow us to feel better than, or afraid of, the people we don't know or understand. I think the current use of "stampede" for this incident first arose among journalists, and the WP is just carrying on with that momentum. I am not suggesting any WP editors have used the term out of prejudice. (I am a white guy in the US, non-Muslim, for the record.) Dcs002 (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I also hinted in my earlier comment, this could be a result of much more innocent presuppositions. But still the reason why this perception of "strange-seeming unknown people" automatically leads to such judgements could still be the widespread presupposition that the non-Western cultures are somehow less civilized. It ignores the fact that the Western Modern Civilization itself emerged out of so many wars, occupations and exploitation of the 'lesser' non-Western peoples, and still perpetuates that feature to this day. I don't know how much this theory applies to the case at hand, but I thought it is at least worth considering. And now knowing your non-Muslim background, I feel a greater urge to thank you for your good-faith suggestion and open-mindedness. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 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)

We can also call it 2015 Mecca crush or as Stratfordjohns suggested, the word "disaster" is a good alternative making the name "2015 Mina disaster" or "2015 Mecca disaster"! Sheriff (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not too fussed about what we call it, but I do have some ideas I think we should consider. First, calling it the 2015 Mecca disaster would not distinguish it from the crane collapse, which was also a 2015 Mecca Hajj-related disaster. Calling it the 2015 Mina crush/disaster/whatever doesn't seem as accessible unless there are re-directs from other more obvious titles. I think the event will not be remembered in most of the world as the 2015 Mina event. People will associate it with the Hajj and most likely (incorrectly) with Mecca. It is a Hajj-related event, and I have no problem with that being in the title, especially as this is the 8th fatal crowd crush since 1990 associated with that particular stop along the Hajj (none of which are remembered as the 199X or 200X Mina event). I understand there is probably concern with associating the name of the holy pilgrimage with the disaster, but it did happen as part of this year's Hajj. I am trying very hard to ease any religious implications of this tragedy (because I don't see any - ATM this looks like a crowd control issue, not the religion per se), but I think it's objective to say it was a (very) sad chapter in this year's Hajj, and I think it's ok to say that in the title. The two pages covering earlier crushes at the site both have Hajj in their names. I think I would favor "2015 Hajj crush disaster" to distinguish it from the crane collapse, but again, I'm not to fussed about the final wording, as long as we lose the word "stampede." And yes, I think this article should use similar wording to the Hillsborough disaster article. Suggestions of ineffective crowd control by authorities who were not up to the task and early accusations of noncompliance by members in the crowd (though in the end not a real factor at Hillsborough - RIP96, YNWA) are features of both, and both featured people walking deliberately and orderly into a space they didn't know was confined and overcrowded. One was a soccer match, the other was a religious pilgrimage, but the human element seems almost identical at this point. That's why I don't see any religious implications. Dcs002 (talk) 12:05, 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 have no real objection to "2015 Mina Disaster," and I sympathize with the desire to remove reference to the Hajj in the name. However, I think what we do here will have bearing on the 1990 Hajj stampede and 2006 Hajj stampede pages, which should then be changed to reflect the consensus that develops concerning this issue. I guess that's a good thing. When I raised this issue, it was in the context of a systemic bias and alienation of Middle Eastern, Asian, and African people with our language, so it will require a much broader consensus to fix this anyway. Jeez - I just noticed the name has already been changed here. Thanks folks! Dcs002 (talk) 03:04, 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)

Given the word stampede still appears around 75 times on the article, I think the move is somewhat premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Disaster" seems an odd word for a stampede? Both it and "crush" seems to be a less specific euphemism for stampede, though I would prefer disaster over "crush". Crush assumes death by compression as opposed to trampling or the other means that can cause death in such an event. As the creator of 1990 Hajj stampede I will note that the 1990 coverage of that event mostly all called it a stampede, including the Malaysian newspapers (many of the dead were Malaysian)[5] ("July 2 stampede"), and including articles written by those in the Middle East.[6] Of course, over time certain words fall out of favor and get negative connotations never intended by earlier writers. That doesn't mean I was biased in titling the 1990 event a "stampede." Frankly I was more shocked that we had no article on a tragic event where 1,426 people (at least) died. Sure it was covered briefly in Incidents during the Hajj but it was a major tragedy. But our lack of an article was not only due to Western bias; complaints about the tragedy were shut down in a way we don't see as much in Western nations. Whether that changes in the aftermath of the 2015 event will be interesting to see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:PRECISION, we should use titles precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. Many sources, including those in the article, use the word "stampede". "Disaster" is quite vague and doesn't specify the nature of the accident. Wikipedia articles on air crashes, avalanches, fires, etc generally use specific titles, without the word "disaster". This is also consistent with WP:Verifiability. Brandmeister^talk 15:19, 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)

From what I see, the move from stampede to disaster was undiscussed, without prior consensus on talk. The word "stampede" has several meanings and if you look in dictionaries, one of them is "a sudden rapid movement or reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus" (Oxford Dictionary), "a mass movement of people at a common impulse" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This is what occurred and this is how it is referred to in multiple sources: BBC, CNN, The Independent, The Guardian, USA Today, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg to name some. Brandmeister^talk 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: This move was biased, look at the List of human stampedes, would you consider replacing word "disaster" with word "stampede" in all of the following because they are not per WP:PRECISION, or is it that when "stampedes" are involving christian population then WP:PRECISION is silent and they are called disasters but if they involve people from other religions then they are referred as animals who run around uncontrollably and cause "stampedes"!

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)

That is because majority of sources about those incidents use either "disaster" or "tragedy" per WP:COMMONNAME, while in this case several sources use "stampede" and several something else (apparently, because it's a recent event). But if you want "disaster", I wouldn't insist. Brandmeister^talk 17:39, 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)

Article moved too many times

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)

I appreciate the agreement and "2015 Mina disaster" exist as a redirect page to this article. Ayub407^talk 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So, how can we make is the main page and this the redirect? Sheriff (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about that sort of technical detail. If you now decide you want to move the page, take it to WP:RM. We'll do the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)