Talk:2015 Mina stampede/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sources

Iran and Saudi Arabia rank 8th and 17th last, respectively, on RSF's 2015 World Press Freedom Index.[1] If there is the slightest indication that a statement citing only sources from either country is implausible, skewed or extraordinary, just remove it.[2]--Anders Feder (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"the slightest indication that a statement .... is implausible" Oh! what an extremely, incredibly arbitrary criterion to suppress important sources covering POVs party to the conflict, especially set by someone with a demonstrated record of anti-muslim anti-Iranian anti-Arab racist prejudice! You should stop this behavior. It is beyond obvious that Iran and Saudi Arabia are important parties to this tragedy and controversy, and hence the need to include POVs reported by Iranian and Saudi Arabian sources as per WP:NPOV. I'm restoring the sweeping removals. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no "need" to include anyone's POVs at all, and certainly not yours: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."[3] There is a need to only cover what is covered in reliable sources: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public", nor among state-propaganda outlets that individual editors cherry-pick in order to prop up their favorite dictatorship.[4] As for "prejudice", you need to look no further than your own block log.[5]--Anders Feder (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you calling Iranian and Saudi reportings "anyone's opinion" when they are the ones most involved in the incident?! Who else have more authority than countries with pilgrims lost in the incident to have a say in this? It is clear that their accounts are significant for their connection to the subject. Do you expect to hear eyewitness accounts from Iranians or Nigerians arriving at their home-countries from Western sources?! As always, you're imposing a gross systematic bias even on topics that require sources whose accounts are critical for their connection to the subject. And your repeated allegations of dictatorship against Iran is also false and dishonest considering the fact I've refuted your allegations elsewhere. Iran is a democratic Islamic Republic where the highest authority is appointed by and accountable to an elected body of Legal Experts. Your mentioned anti-muslim rhetoric in the past also reveal prejudices that influence your edits in Islam-related topics. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We had also agreed earlier to include eyewitness accounts from Iranian sources here, and your false claims against Iran can not undermine that consensus. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have agreed to nothing of the kind, and even if you had, the burden would still be on you to achieve consensus that your sources are reliable and have any relevance at all per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, neither of which you have done while you have been edit warring. I have no "prejudices" of any kind except against POV warriors like yourself.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You claim to have no prejudices but your record as I said speak for itself. You continue to cite WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS ignoring and providing to counter argument to my argument that Iranian perspective and testimonies should be covered because Iran has been a great part of this tragedy and there is also a dispute between Iran and Saudi Arabia on the causes and death toll of the incident. So as per WP:NPOV we should include POVs from all parties. I am looking forward to your counter argument instead of baseless allegations against me. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You claim not to be a POV warrior but your block log as I said speak for itself. I continue to cite WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS for as long as you fail to follow it and edit war instead. I have already countered your claims a long time ago: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for state propaganda and "Iran" is not a party to the event anyway, unless you have reliable sources that say the Iranian government somehow conspired to cause it. So as per WP:NPOV no policy states or implies that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream sources as if they were of equal validity.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First off as for your repeated allegations of POV-pushing, here is a reminder for you from WP:POVPUSH: Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them. Unnecessary and uncivil, especially because presenting POVs can be crucial for upholding WP:NPOV and moderating WP:BIAS. That said, you continue to intentionally dodge my argument and ignore or falsify what I've been repeatedly saying: since Iran like many other countries has lost a high number of pilgrims, and since different aspects of the incident are disputed among the affected countries, as per WP:NPOV we should include POVs by those countries. Those countries' POVs also do not count as minority or extraordinary. In fact many of the countries and analysts share the view that Saudis' mismanagement had been instrumental in the tragedy as already documented in the page. So if anything these POVs represent a majority view not minority. Calling Iranian reports "propaganda" is also rooted in your personal hatred of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Islam in general as evidenced in the discussion I linked earlier. Perception of propaganda can be quite subjective and considering your general anti-Iranian and anti-Islamic bigotry, nobody buys your allegation as having any substance. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't called someone "a POV-pusher". I've called you what anyone can see from your block log that you are, which certainly is better than your calling others "prejudiced" without any evidence. As for you "presenting POVs", WP:NPOV doesn't authorize you to edit war just because you are incapable of convincing others of your POV. Iran hasn't "lost" any pilgrims. Hajj is not video game, and pilgrims are not units that belong to the state of Iran. The undemocratic government of Iran does not represent any of those who were killed. If many "countries and analysts" support the content you are trying to include, why don't you just put forward the plethora of reliable sources for it you must know of to make such a bold claim? Calling Iranian propaganda for propaganda is rooted in every reliable source on the matter[6][7][8]—your subjective opinion of media suppression is not relevant.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about anything else but this last comment was completely prejudiced and show a strong prejudice towards Iran. How can you call Iran's government, an undemocratic government? Would you indulge us about your definition of democracy? 464 Iranian pilgrims were killed in this incident and state of Iran has every right to speak for them. They were Iranian citizens. You cannot criticize Iran for that. Sheriff (report) 13:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"... this last comment was completely prejudiced and show a strong prejudice towards Iran." No, it wasn't prejudiced in any way, shape or form. Please substantiate your accusation, or it counts as a personal attack. "How can you call Iran's government, an undemocratic government?" Perhaps because that is how every reliable source in existence characterizes it? E.g. Democracy Index#Democracy index by country (2014) -> tenth least democratic country out of 167. See also the discussion here. For an explanation of what democracy is, see e.g. this page.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As I have explained in the past such as this discussion here, such claims against Iran coming from you or your "reliable" sources are all ideologically, politically and/or financially biased. Politically and financially, there's a serious conflict of interest in claims that draw on reports from such sources as the US-funded anti-Iranian Freedom House or a study run by a magazine like The Economist funded by the powerful Rothschild banking/corporate family or the BBC that has historically acted as a propaganda outlet for British Imperialist agenda against Iran. It is critical to note that the Islamic Republic of Iran came out of a glorious Islamic Revolution that in fact terminated the imperialist/colonialist subjugation of Iran to those very same powerful interests that have been hel bent on toppling the Iranian government ever since they lost their imperialist grip over the country. And Iran is not unique. Just as the example of Iraq war also showed, throughout history Western imperialist agendas against independent/resisting nations or governments has always been advanced under the guise of human rights and democracy promotion and often based on similar charges promoted by western government/corporate-funded institutions such as the ones you referenced above.

Moreover, if this pattern of political/financial bias and conflict of interest is not enough, the ideological bias of these sources is on itself sufficient to take their claims against Iran with a grain of salt. These institutions all adhere to the Western liberal notion of rights and since Iran's constitution is based on Islamic law it obviously conflicts with the liberal ideology on the basic premises of rights and values. So using liberal standards to judge a distinct notion of democracy that has emerged from the idea of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists in a muslim nation is beyond faulty and flawed, and this faulty practice is inherent to all Western liberal organizations that publish reports against Iran. So your constant references to these reports considering their various deeply entrenched biases prove nothing of the claims you repeatedly make to discredit Iranian sources. And indeed these typical allegations can only be taken seriously by someone who himself shares the same ideological prejudices against Islam and Iran. So I conclude by saying, that we are bound to include reports by Iranian sources on this topic as per WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:BIAS. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yadda yadda yadda - you have not "explained" anything. The only thing you have ever done is waste everybody's time with moronic conspiracy theories. As your block log shows, you are not here to build an encyclopedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please keep civil! Calling referenced historical information "moronic conspiracy theories" speaks much about your integrity. Any honest sane person can read and understand my explanations but given your strong prejudice against Islam and Iran, I never expect you to admit my obvious reasonings. But it is useful for other readers to know who we are dealing with here. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Other readers can see in your block log and extended history of edit warring exactly who they are dealing with - there is no need to waste space on this talk page on it.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit my faults in the past due to my newness to Wikipedia! But that does not discount your willful ignorance and bigotry against Islam and Iran even when you are allowed an opportunity to learn about the historical prejudices and ignorant perceptions that you have inherited from the status quo. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If I'm "ignorant and bigoted", ask on WP:RSN or through WP:RFC and see if you can find anyone agreeing with your allegations that there is a vast "bias" in reliable sources due to the machinations of CIA, British Petroleum, the Rothschild family (naturally), and whoever else. Of course you won't do this because you know you are simply lying.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm simply lying because I substantiate every claim I make here with references and specifics, whereas you're the farthest thing from bigotry and dishonesty, God forbid, considering that you continue to dismiss everything, regardless, by dropping out your favorite mind blocker rant or the "conspiracy theory" -- a worn-out, disgusting method of deflecting and suppressing any serious intellectual discussion about documented history. And rest assured, there will come a time sooner or later when we expand the scope of the acknowledged WP:BIAS to include the patterns I mentioned above. By the time, these discussions could be viewed as warm-ups for a major change in Wiki guidelines on WP:RS and WP:BIAS! Amen! Strivingsoul (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That only thing that is disgusting is you and your wasting everybody's time with your trivial soapboxing across multiple articles.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please calm down - there is no need to be emotionally involved. As editors do not make allegations, we only state in a neutral manner what reliable sources say. I agree the article would be biased if it included pages of Iranian government testimony, and only a few sentences from other sources. Mamyles (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

But other Wikipedians can add testimony from other sources as well. I neither have time nor knowledge of Arab/Indo/Pakistani sources to include testimonies from those countries. Moreover, Iran as I said is an important part of this tragedy. More than 500 pilgrims lost. So it is reasonable to give Iran's perspective and testimonies a proportional coverage. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul: Is there any special statement being discussed here or you are talking about Iranian/Arab sources in whole? Mhhossein (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean the sources in general. We need to include reports from all afflicted countries. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul: Of course, why not? Mhhossein (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The issue being discussed here is a lack of information from sources other than Iranian. Removing the Asharq Al-Awsat account, the newspaper of which is described as "one of the oldest and most influential in the region", is not productive toward including information from a broad variety of sources. As such, I've re-added the one sentence account from this source. Mamyles (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mamyles: Of course, as you know, being "one of the oldest and most influential in the region" does not justify not obeying WP:ONUS and ignoring WP:UNDUE. I expected you to pay attention to what I said instead of reverting the edit. Mhhossein (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Frankly, your opinion that this source not be included does not constitute a consensus. ONUS and UNDUE do not justify your removal of content. Tell us, why would including such a well-reputed source be providing undue weight? Just as some sources suggest that African pilgrims going the wrong way began the disaster, it is neutral and necessary to include at least one of the many sources pointing toward Iranian pilgrims, at least until a more clear investigation is completed. Mamyles (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mamyles:: I agree with you when you say that "it is neutral and necessary to include at least one of the many sources pointing toward Iranian pilgrims...," but according to UNDUE we should pay to it as much as it deserves (in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published). That's why I say a report from an unknown Iranian official with unknown rank is not some thing to be included here, specially when the investigations are not completed. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for reflecting such a minor opinion from an unknown man be it published anywhere. Anyway, you can find a better source accusing Iranian pilgrims, this one is not really suitable. Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: In that case, the source PressTV should be removed from the article. The viewpoint of that government-backed source is unique to Iran, and is not representative of any western or Saudi sources. In contrast, the Asharq Al-Awsat was widely reported across the world, and is supported by eyewitness accounts. Again, UNDUE does not justify your unilateral removal of content. Mamyles (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what you said, Press TV has to be there, as Iran is one of the major involved countries whose viewpoint toward the incident is of a great importance here, just like African countries or any other countries whose pilgrims died there. I explained why UNDUE and unreliability made me remove the paragraph, but you did not explained why UNDUE does not justify the removal. I'm not saying "Asharq Al-Awsat" is not reliable, neither I say it is absolutely reliable (there's no absolutely reliable source). By the way, if you want to add materials accusing Iran then search for a better source and simply add it here. Mhhossein (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

So, why you don't consider "Asharq Al-Awsat" a better source and why you need a better source than that. Please indulge us with an example of a better source so we can look at proper places. If you think only an Iranian source is a better source then i am afraid we won't find one criticizing Iran or Iranian pilgrims. Sheriff (report) 18:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein has a long history of pro-Iranian-Islamist bias, see e.g. this discussion. If you have any problems with him, report him there again, linking to that discussion. As I wrote in the OP, if you find anything from Press TV to be implausible, just remove it in accordance with WP:BURDEN. Iran's views have no primacy of any kind, here or anywhere else in Wikipedia, in contrast to what is being suggested. What has primacy is reliable sources. You can ask at WP:RSN if you want help establishing the reliability of particular sources, or search the archives there. Generally, the best sources with regards to news are Associated Press, BBC etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I afraid Anders Feder gets the boomerang if the thread is prosecuted. Any way, @SheriffIsInTown: if you read the thread you'll get to know that "Asharq Al-Awsat" is just reporting an speculation from an unknown Iranian official and we actually don't know how much his speculations are valid. Does that make sense? I never said "only an Iranian source is a better source!". I think You might simply find other sources reflecting the viewpoints of other analysts criticizing Iranian pilgrims. Mhhossein (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thread has strayed off-topic here. Since this conversation has moved to ANI, permit me to hat it in an attempt to keep page scrolling down and civility up. Mamyles (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No threads are "prosecuted". Wikipedia does not have kangaroo courts like Islamist countries do.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC) It The phrase about Islamic countries has nothing to do with our discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Then don't bring it up.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I do not agree with Mhhossein, but it is clearly you Anders Feder, seizing every opportunity to push in your anti-Islamic rants! I wonder how a person can be so shamelessly dishonest, projecting his own digressive rants on others before everyone's eyes! Strivingsoul (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Stop wasting people's time on your soapboxing here. If anyone is being "anti-Islamic", take it to WP:ANI so they can block you again.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I seriously consider that! But do you think you would have any other recourse at ad hominen if I had not violated the three-revert rule and got temporarily blocked once in my early activities in Wikipedia?! And do you think my wrong once in the past justifies your fanatic atheist prejudice that persists and escalates to this day and shamelessly lying before our eyes?! Strivingsoul (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Stop "considering" and start doing instead of continually derailing the discussions on this talk page.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC) "Derailing the discussions!" Shameless lair! Strivingsoul (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC) If it is "shameless", why don't you move it to WP:ANI where it belongs? Is it that you can only engage in your pathetic off-topic yelling and screaming when admins aren't watching?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Proposals for combating/minimizing several systematic biases that exist against Islam and Islamic countries is on my long term plan, and it's not therefore originally a personal matter with you. But by the time I will have prepared my substantial proposal, I will still have to negate your anti-Islamic anti-Iranian allegations since you continue to bring them up despite knowing that they are at best disputed or at worst negated. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Plus we never need any consensus on basic Wiki policies that you regularly violate such as WP:CIVILITY by derailing discussions and then dishonestly accusing your counterpart for that exact violation! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I have never claimed "we need consensus on basic wiki policies". I have said you aren't taking your off-topic user conduct accusations to WP:ANI because you know you will be blocked for your moronic antics when you do.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oh, if you seriously believed that I can get blocked for my "moronic antics" then you wouldn't have needed to beg me to open an ANI! You would've already done that yourself long ago! And don't make any mistake! I will continue to disprove your repeated anti-Islamic/Iranian allegations anytime you bring them up again to justify your biased editing! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC) As you wish.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article has no shortage of speculation and opinion by interested parties. I think we should be trimming speculation and estimates as more facts emerge. (I don't think it's reasonable for any fatality estimate over 4000 to appear in this article anymore.) I also think that we should avoid adding new opinions from interested parties unless we remove old ones. There is already a great deal of very harsh criticism of the Saudi government in the article, which IMO is excessive given 1) many come from people or publications with known hostilities or bias against the Saudi government, and 2) the investigation has only just begun. There is a lot of complaining in the press and by government officials, before the fact, that the Saudi investigation will be inadequate. That is not our concern right now. Wikipedia does not exist to advocate anyone's position, right great wrongs (whether historically justified or not), or promote any opinion. I think we are giving undue weight to blame against the Saudis. Regardless of their history, we do not know what happened, yet we repeat premature blame and rumor in our article. That's not how to build a great encyclopedia. Just think of the WP:BLP standard applied to Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, who is said in one source (Ad-Diyad) to have blocked a street and caused this catastrophe. The cited page is largely opinion, and IMO the paper is a bit dubious in its mixing opinion with news. We are on very thin ice as things stand. We should not be talking about balancing opposing opinions. Wikipedia is not a battleground where opposing factions hammer things out. We should be talking about reducing opinions and increasing factual content, especially in emotional articles such as this. Dcs002 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing that all possible causes of the incident be removed from the article. Such theories are typically included in Wikipedia articles about recent events, and are important content in this developing article. Our job as editors is to provide such content in as neutral, unbiased manner as we can, not remove it entirely. Mamyles (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but that is not what I think we should do. I think we should reduce the opinions of blame to a representative sample (without undue weight) and not add more. I also think we should reduce opinions and speculations when these opinions and speculations can be replaced by reliable fact. The rest is my reasoning. "All possible causes" is not a good standard though. That includes fringe ideas like UFOs, Christ's punishment for 9/11, and the Illuminati. Dcs002 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• The following source contains much that can be used as reference under Reactions|Governments and Reactions|Analysts, as well as Eye-witness Accounts. It includes accounts from important eye-witnesses from Nigeria. I don't have the time at the moment to collate and sift through it all at the moment but one of you might.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC) http://saharareporters.com/2015/10/05/nigeria-narratives-saudi-tragedy-and-need-critical-choices-yinka-salaam
• One thing I would like to mention about sources: whenever possible, I've been wikilinking the "work=" and "agency=" (as is MoS practice) in the citations to the Wikipedia articles on those sources. This lets someone very quickly click on a link and find out basic information about a source (like if it owned by a certain government or corporation). I hope this helps a bit with some of the concerns about source POV. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Pure ignorance and laziness"

When even your own article says that your title is totally misleading, you have a problem Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.153.93 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not just "our" article; it's your article too! We have many processes for addressing problems in WP. It would be more helpful if you participated in the solution to a problem that is also yours. The RM discussion is closed here, and it was an open and fair process. (More than fair from my POV, with all I had to say.) But that does not mean WP is done working on the problem. WP is always a work in progress, and there are always options to improve the encyclopedia. I think the closer made a good point - that this issue would be difficult to resolve one article at a time. System-wide improvements are possible, but WP needs your help. So take part in making things better! And if nothing changes as a result, the sun will rise again anyway :) Dcs002 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, you had a discussion and made the decision so you wouldn't change it. So yeah, it's your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.153.93 (talk)

All the discussions held in Wikipedia are based on consensus and not personally. Ayub407^talk 09:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud - BLP problem

I think it's time to take out the material referring to Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud and his entourage. It comes from one questionable source, it can be seen as libelous, and it is really unlikely to be true. In keeping with WP:BLP, I think it needs to go. If someone starts an ugly rumor about someone, that doesn't mean we should continue to repeat it without proper sourcing. Thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's flimsy and far too prominent, which is why I added the descriptor "conspiracy theory" (which no one challenged!!). I'd be happy to see it taken out. The rumor is important only to the extent that the Saudi press office was put on the defensive, denying that a VIP entourage was involved. But a denial doesn't need this to establish context. Rumors always swirl. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Death toll

I previously said we should stick with the official (Saudi) toll of 769 - but actually now think there is a good case for putting some higher tolls from other sources. For example the "BBC Monitoring put the death toll at 1,216, based on official statements and media reports from 34 countries who lost citizens in the stampede." (Source). It is a difficult issue as I would rather we stick to 'official sources'. Either way we should tidy up the intro and discuss the details in the 'Casualties' section.--الدبوني (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• BBC is probably more reliable at the moment. Seems the death toll will exceed the 1990 as the worst one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• King Salman's title calls him "Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines (Mecca and Medina)". Does that title give him the right to hide the true death toll? For lack of another statement from the Grand Mufti excusing the King's behavior, we should certainly continue to report the aggregate numbers and BBC total, alongside the House of Saud's increasingly preposterous and unchanging "official count". Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the Saudi figure does seems too small given totals from other countries exceed it. The problem is that politics is involved and some want to exaggerate the numbers (just as the Saudis want to down play the figure). I think reports which say 4,000 died are probably too weak to be included in the article now - although that could change.--الدبوني (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand, the "over 4000" figure is based on that screen shot published by Press TV in Iran, showing a quote by a Saudi official that was later denied by his ministry, and is now a suspected hack. Other sources using that figure point back to the Press TV source, right? If that source has been discredited, we need to remove it and the 4000+ figure from any discussion of casualties, though if we do develop a section or separate article on controversies it should go there. But that story from Middle East Eye is pretty compelling, though of course not RS for an actual count. If their anonymous source is correct, yeah, wow. That could change. They were very careful with their writing too - no sensationalism, and no minimizing the weakness of a single anonymous source. Thanks for linking it. Dcs002 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• It has been discussed above as well, but the 4000 figure coming from Iranian sources has been discredited, including by a Wall Street Journal reporter. The Associated Press appears to be sourcing the best updated numbers recently. 1399[9] in the latest report (up from 1313 reported less than 24 hours prior). Look at the bottom of the 1399 article, you will see that AP reporters in a number of countries are combining to obtain this information, this is solid reporting. When I recently researched the 1990 and 1994 Hajj events, I could only find one credited AP reporter on news reports before the stories fell out of the public eye.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a dubious tag on 1,657 killed, please do not remove it until the dispute is resolved. I see that separate accounts of nationals are sourced that is fine, but the WP:OR kicks in when someone tries to add them all up. Either source the final figure or don't include it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If anything the dubious tag belongs with the official Saudi figures. The tag should now be removed, 1470 is sourced.Cpsoper (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

One comment on the death toll. Even when all the dead are accounted for, we should not expect the official death toll to add up to the total of deaths by nationality. Some of those killed likely held multiple citizenship (or some references may be incorrect). I ran into this problem working on the Mecca crane collapse article and made note of the discrepancy in a Note. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fair comment, although is it really likely to double the numbers, especially when foreign citizens travelled from their own countries?Cpsoper (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In the case of the Mecca crane collapse article the official death toll was 111, while the total of all nations added together was just 120, a difference of less than 10% Carl Henderson (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment If the 2015 death toll exceeds the 1990 Mecca tunnel tragedy figure of 1426, it would indeed make this "the deadliest disaster in Hajj history". But also, according to this useful table of crowd crushes compiled by Pldx1, it would be the deadliest crowd crush disaster in modern human history. I'm sure the Saudis knew that grim reality within a day or two. A big PR problem. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There is another table here that ranks it as the 3rd worst, behind "Mass panic at air raid shelter" during the 1941 Bombing of Chongqing (4000 dead) and "Ponte das Barcas disaster in Porto, 1809" (6000 dead), though the Porto disaster involved a bridge collapsing beneath a crowd fleeing from Napoleon's army, so not sure if that's technically a crowd disaster or an engineering disaster. (It did result from people fleeing.) A photo in the Chongqing article shows a pile of bodies that look like the aftermath of a crowd collapse on the steps leading into a shelter. The Wikimedia caption says "4,000 people were trampled or suffocated to death trying to return to shelters," but accounts are conflicting elsewhere (suffocating while trying to get out, numbers from 700 - 4000, might be multiple incidents). Dcs002 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Translation

"Tactlessness" doesn't make sense in the quoted passages. Could a better translation be provided? Was "incompetence" meant? Also "mismanagement and improper measures that were behind this tragedy should not be undermined″ doesn't make sense. Instead of "undermined" perhaps "ignored", "tolerated" or "understated" was meant. I am only fluent in English, so even if I had access to the original I couldn't fix these "quotes".

signature for robot archive. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 October 2015

Please replace in Indonesia section:

with:

Carl Henderson (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I added the publisher, but not the editor. It's a bit odd for a news site to list the editor of a story but not the author, which makes me think the "editor" label is a mistake, and it's not the person's full name, either. With that much ambiguity, I thought it was best just to leave it out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes. I think you made a reasonable judgement call on removing the "editor=" label. I agree it was a weird credit--especially with no corresponding author or agency credit--but I don't know how Xinhua News Agency operates. It's possible they might even be using "editor" in the same way Wikipedia does. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment There's nothing I can do about it this three-day blanket editing ban, but I'm with Carl Henderson that there's a lot of productive editing still going on, including a general improvement in sourcing, that's quite apart from the spat about how the lede should handle the aggregate death toll. We've had some lively Talk dialogue, yes, but we've a history of working things out with Good Faith (that's what the Talk page is for) and I'd hate to see a series of such bans discourage the article's overall improvement. We're missing good follow-up stories and helpful emendations. I particularly like that this page has drawn valuable input from a diverse set of editors around the world. We are, for the most part, a very good and cooperative crew here. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2015

Iran's casualties are recorded wrong. According to official reports, there are actually 399 people confirmed dead and 65 are still missing but considered and reported dead which sum up to 464 casualties in total. This is also how it is submitted on the Persian Wikipedia.

Pro translator (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I need to see consensus from other editors before making this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

For the Iran casualties? Or for lifting of the overall blanket ban on editing? I think the Iran casualties change is a 'go' from me; it's never been a controversy. We're all eager to get back to improving this article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No go from me since last paragraph in English version says

Some 464 Iranian pilgrims have been confirmed dead and 65 are missing, but the Hajj and Pilgrimage Organizations considers the later among the dead.

and first paragraph says 399 bodies recovered which to me means that bodies of remaining is not recovered but they are dead. Sheriff (report) 13:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2015

Please replace in Indonesia section:

with:

Please replace in Saudi Arabia section:

with:

Please replace in Saudi Arabia section:

with:

Please replace in Saudi Arabia section:

with:

Please replace in Saudi Arabia section:

with:

Sorry to have to repeat these. Someone deleted all but one of my edit requests before an admin could get to them. Apparently, there is an rule somewhere that edit requests are to be bunched up rather than submitted separately. I will be grouping them in the future. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Carl Henderson (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm worried about getting all these in the right place. Would you mind putting your proposed version in Draft:2015 Mina stampede and I'll copy it over. Assuming that other editors are fine with these changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is open now. I will apply them. Thanks! Carl Henderson (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Total Death Toll from AP

Think05 has found an Associated Press article from 9 October 2015 putting the total death toll "at least 1,470".

This seems like a well-sourced figure that's higher than the Saudi government figures (which seem to be quite low), but not as high as some of the figures coming out of Iran and its allies. What do people think about going with this total until better information appears on a provisional basis. I would propose the revised lead sentence be "On 24 September 2015, at least 1,470 people (according to Associated Press estimates) were suffocated or crushed to death during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mina, Mecca." This also moves the more contentious "overcrowding situation" out of the lead pending further discussion and evidence.

What do you all think? Carl Henderson (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. This is being discussed above. My error. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

References

RFC on the use of the word "Stampede" in Article titles and content

An RFC has been opened at Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch to discuss the use of the word "Stampede" in article titles and content and may be of interest to editors interested in NPOV issues.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the assertion that "stampede" is applied racially is tenditious (spelling?), the reason IMO that more "non-white" situations have "stampede" in the name is simply because they are less familiar to westerners and therefore given generic names. Ie, instead of "Hurricane Bess", "2012 Indonesian Hurricane" (I don't think either of those exist). Irredisregardless, I agree we shouldn't use the word "stampede" simply because it is inaccurate. It's impossible to stampede when you're at that level of crowding.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree 'stampede' carries connotations of careless behaviour which may be pejorative and inaccurate. Crush, overcrowding, crowd incident all seem better. The AP article is best source on numbers so far, and is deliberately conservative, citing a minimum. Cpsoper (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome, Cpsoper, and everyone else who wishes to comment, the discussion for the RfC is at Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. If you care to make your opinions known, that's the place, not here. This is just a notice. Dcs002 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Working it Out

Now that the page is blocked for us lowly editors for three days, it's about time to have a nice dialogue. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that the primary dispute on this page is the death toll and implications thereof. This is complicated by the inherent sectarianism in such a discussion - ie Iran and Saudi Arabia. My opinion offered with utmost diffidence is that a minimum death toll is just that - a minimum. Now a minimum can be interpreted to mean "the lowest figure given by a reliable source", but what is a reliable source? Should we give any bearing whatsoever to the Saudi figures? And if not, should we use the AP figures or a synth figure? Should we give a minimum at all, or a range? And is it worth giving any credence to the theory that a princely entourage caused the disaster? Commence discussion. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Monochrome Monitor wrote: "This is complicated by the inherent sectarianism in such a discussion - ie Iran and Saudi Arabia." Inherent sectarianism? What on earth does this have to do with sectarianism? If an editor notes that the Saudi figures have been discredited, does that make one sectarian? or even Iranian? Iran lost 465 citizens; is that sectarian? No one here has placed Iran's suggested high toll of 4173 at the top of the page. Does that make us all shills for the Saudis? Sectarianism is a red herring that some people use to either claim false neutrality or to avoid the responsibility of objectivity. There is nothing inherently sectarian about trying to find out the true death toll, nothing prejudiced about adding up figures from the cited sources. Harping about sectarianism constitutes editorializing and original research, which are not allowed anyway. Let the sourced facts speak for themselves. Heavenlyhermes (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple Question: Is there a policy which says that you cannot synth a figure from multiple figures from multiple reliable sources? Sheriff (report) 23:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand why the page was locked in the first place. I know there was some disagreement among editors, but it seemed to be handled in a relatively rational and non-contentious fashion, and I think the article was slowly getting better. Was I missing some huge drama? I want to be able to go back to fixing citations. It relaxes me. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well you can blame me because I'm the one who put it up for protection, but I think it was justified by the rather acute spike in editing and reediting the same figure over the past day or so. We are arguing more because we haven't set down a foundation of what we mean by "minimum death toll" then because the minimum death figures are actually increasing. It's distressing.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple response: I have no fucking clue. That's the problem. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Breaking it down

Feel free to add to this.

• Is Saudi Arabia RS?
  • Sometimes: It should only be cited if a non-Gulf state RS agrees with it.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Iran RS?

• • Sometimes: It should only be cited if a non-Iran allied (Russia, Syria, Lebanon) state RS agrees with it. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we SYNTH multiple RS?

• • No.Yes.< --Monochrome_Monitor 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY is in question here otherwise I would have responded you in the same manner. If you have no clue then why are you reverting the edits? Now, I will come to your remaining points, Saudi Arabia is not sourced in the table and there are multiple Non-Iran sources who agree with Iran's 465 figure and I tend to disagree with you that we cannot synth up multiple reliable sources. Sheriff (report) 01:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had a clue, but I lost it. I was almost positive that we couldn't use synth but now I'm not sure. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This page should be of some help. [10] --Monochrome_Monitor 01:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4". (Whether to express only the result 4, if it is not explicitly given by any source, could be a point for discussion, but in any case it is not SYNTH.)"

I believe this means adding up multiple RS source is not SYNTH. So there's nothing wrong with a figure giving a sum of RS.

However, we need to verify that each country's total is RS, and I still don't think we should give the sum as our absolute minimum, unless we know that each country is giving a minimum of deaths verified to have occurred in this incident (and not just a list of missing persons or of deaths for the entire pilgrimage). --Monochrome_Monitor 01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Think05 is doing a great job by collecting sources and I trust that he is making sure that all those figures are from crowd disaster but you are welcome to double check them if you have doubt. I think it is doubter's responsibility to verify them or leave them alone. Then, I am sure Carl Henderson has been expanding the refs and he must have noticed if there was any discrepancy. Sheriff (report) 01:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but for the most part, I've not been checking references against content unless I have some reason to (like where you pointed out the possible sketchiness of the given source for the claim about Sanusi in Nigeria). I've not had the spare mental bandwidth to do much encyclopedic writing right now, and fixing and formatting references is a place I can contribute that is fairly mechanical—and strangely relaxing. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we synth from different sources? Yes, as long as it is not OR. Can we sum? Usually, but not always. The WP:OR policy page (see WP:CALC) says, "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." (Emphasis added.) So, is the sum obvious and correct? I think we'll probably agree that the individual numbers in the table correctly reflect their sources, but is the sum meaningful? I am not convinced our number is correct in any way except to say that it is the correct sum of the numbers in the sources we have cited, and as the sum of sources of varying reliability, and as the sources are still updating their numbers when they can, I think the meaningfulness of our sum is limited. We can't vouch for the reliability of any single source, especially when disinformation is suspected of being used by some of the parties for political gain. Our sum is for the convenience of the reader, not to be used to justify new (or refute existing) statements or claims. I don't think we are justified in characterizing our sum as a death toll, a minimum number of deceased, or any more reliable than anyone else's estimate of the number of dead (including the Saudis'). I think taking that extra step constitutes interpretation of the number's significance, and therefore OR. Dcs002 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. Considering that, what should we use as a minimum? I think the AP toll is more than fitting. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the totals of deceased, injured and missing persons at the end of the table and open the article for edit to add the updates in the article.Think05 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think our sums are limited in what, if anything, we can infer from them, but I disagree with removing them from the table. This is still a developing story, and people will check in from time to time for a quick look, and I might be wrong, but I think many of them appreciate having a continuously updating total to gauge the magnitude of the loss. Fewer people will be interested, I think, in the daily updates to any single nation's totals than to a readily accessible grand total. I think those are the readers who are most served by the sums at the bottom of the table. Dcs002 (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am for the consistency, if we are keeping the totals at the the end of the table then the info table at the top and top lead should show same totals otherwise remove the totals from the table and keep whatever figure you want to keep in the lead whether it's Saudi official or AP but keep some consistency. Sheriff (report) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm for a range of values. Ie, Saudi-AP. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! The Saudi official total of 769, unchanged since Sept. 26th and very much an RS source reflecting Crown Prince and Interior Minister Muhammad bin Nayef's portfolio over domestic media (see Censorship in Saudi Arabia), should certainly be reported alongside the very RS AP Exclusive: Saudi Crush Was Deadliest Hajj Tragedy Ever (October 9, 2015). Of course MBN has already been absolved of possible mismanagement by the Grand Mufti, whose spiritual authority derives from royal appointment. Meanwhile, in spite of Pakistani governmental efforts to suppress criticism of the Saudi response—the AP all but suggests this has much to do with Saudi patronage, in short, an effort by Saudis to buy Pakistani authorities off—here's a poignant domestic article about what victims' families are going through. Just imagine how many crush victims were buried without family notification, and how much worse this problem must be for family members from countries not nearly as cozy with Riyadh. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So, instead of saying "a minimum of...", we could say "769-14XX killed" with "XXXX" reported missing. And then for the sum table we show the sum but don't interpret it other than saying: "Country subtotal, Total (reported killed, missing, whatever)". I think we're close to reaching an agreement. So is it pretty much decided that we don't have our aggregate total in the lead as the minimum? --Monochrome_Monitor 22:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not wed to the specific wording, but I'd prefer it spelled out along the lines of: "While official Saudi sources gave a figure of 769 fatalities, the Associated Press and BBC, who have not been permitted to report from inside the Kingdom, tallied 1490 fatalities based on deaths confirmed through sources in pilgrims' home countries." In an earlier edit, I was confused by a range of fatalities with a dash ("769-1490") because it looks almost like a U.S. phone number. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, where did you get this from that we have an agreement or even nearing an agreement. I prefer the way the article has figures currently but I decided to give a leeway after hearing the proposal from Think05 that we should remove the totals from the table so I suggested that this can be one way to go and then we can put any total in the lead or top table whether Saudi or AP and article will not look inconsistent but I honestly think that the article is actually in a best state currently because we have totals from the table and we Saudi official figure quoted in the lead and we have AP figure as well. Since this has been all along my position and until there is a compromise from a party, there can't be an agreement, so below are three options I can accept:

1. Keep the figures as they are now

2. Remove the totals line from the table and then you can put AP figure in top table and also in the lead but then missing and injured should come from same source for consistency purposes

3. Add two more lines at the end of nationalities table, one for Saudi official total and the other for single source total and then just use one total from either of these three in the lead and top table. Sheriff (report) 01:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on all those points but the AP in the lede. Are we using it in the lede as a minimum? I liked what someone suggested several inches above "While official Saudi sources gave a figure of 769 fatalities, the Associated Press and BBC, who have not been permitted to report from inside the Kingdom, tallied 1490 fatalities based on deaths confirmed through sources in pilgrims' home countries". --Monochrome_Monitor 02:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Our total should be listed as minimum because that is WP:COMMONSENSE. Let me explain why because we are updating in real time almost as soon as we get an update from any country, we update our total. AP's total is usually one day behind because they do not update in real time, they update once a day and Saudis do not update at all. Sheriff (report) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Think05 has cited an Associated Press article from 9 October 2015 putting the total death toll "at least 1,470".

This seems like a well-sourced figure that's higher than the Saudi government figures (which seem to be quite low), but not as high as some of the figures coming out of Iran and its allies. What do people think about going with this total, on a provisional basis, until better information appears . I would propose the revised lead sentence be "On 24 September 2015, at least 1,470 people (according to Associated Press estimates) were suffocated or crushed to death during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mina, Mecca." This also moves the more contentious "overcrowding situation" out of the lead pending further discussion and evidence. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourced Updated Death Tolls

• 14 October 2015 Agence France-Presse "at least 1,636"

• 14 October 2015 Associated Press "at least 1,621"

• 12 October 2015 Associated Press "at least 1,480"

• 10 October 2015 Associated Press "at least 1,470"

Carl Henderson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes Made to Lead—I have "been bold" and gone ahead and updated, tweaked, and made some rearrangements to the lead paragraphs based on the most recent reliable sources, and my best understanding of the consensus here. Please note: my words are not precious; I will not be offended or annoyed by changes or reversions. Please review my changes and see if they need to be improved upon! Carl Henderson (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Recent Changes to Lead Paragraph

• I agree with Heavenlyhermes that the first paragraph should reflect the three figures he or she noted: 1) total of people killed from the most recent sources used to created the "Nationalities of victims" table, 2) the Saudi official total, and 3) the latest total(s) (Wikipedia editor calculated) from reliable independent sources covering the disaster such as the Associated Press and Agence France Presse. However, currently the lead paragraph starts with our calculations of the totals, and does not say that's the source. In fact, the sources cited don't for that sentence don't agree with that number.

I strongly recommend that we consider the language below instead for the first paragraph (along with my proposed Note 1), to make it clear numbers are based on what sources, and to use the lower AP or AFP sourced number in the lead sentence.

On 24 September 2015, overcrowding caused the reported death of at least 1621 pilgrims who were suffocated or crushed during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mina, Mecca.[1][2][3][4] The Mina crush now stands as the deadliest Hajj disaster in history.[1][4] Based on the total of the individual national reports cited in the table below ("Nationalities of victims"), at least 1,845 people died,[note 1] making the Mina crush deadliest crowd crush disaster to occur in modern times.[citation needed] Official Saudi Arabian government figures, unchanged since two days after the event, record at least 769 killed with 934 others injured. However, other sources have estimated the death toll to be much higher.[5][6][7][8] On 14 October, 2015, the Associated Press listed a death toll of at least 1,621,[4] while Agence France-Presse cites a slightly higher figure of at least 1,636 killed.[3]

Note 1—The 1,845 deaths number is based on the total of people killed from the most recent sources used to created the "Nationalities of victims" table. This number is calculated from those sources by Wikipedia editors. Additionally, the total of all deaths reported by individual nations may not add up total deaths reported by most up-to-date reliable sources. Some of those killed may have held multiple citizenships and some national sources may be incorrect or outdated.

• The structure of the third sentence, "The official government death toll in Saudi Arabia, where newspapers, broadcast media, and the Internet are heavily censored, has remained unchanged since two days after the event, with at least 769 reported killed and 934 others injured". is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Yes, it is pretty clear that the Saudis are lowballing the death toll by a huge amount, but it isn't our place as Wikipedia editors to say that. We need to find reliable independent sources that demostrate that.

• We should not link to the Wikipedia article on Saudi censorship WP:WINARS, instead of citing reliable third party sources who say the Saudi media is heavily censored. Such sources should not be hard to find.

I'm not going make these further changes to the lead paragraph without discussion here. (Unless there are no comments.) Carl Henderson (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Death Toll Sources, Updates

No time to edit and do addition but here is a place to list sources that others may consider who are interested in updating the table of nationalities:

Hajj stampede: Nigeria’s death toll hits 145: http://thenationonlineng.net/hajj-stampede-nigerias-death-toll-hits-145/Heavenlyhermes (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Egyptian pilgrims’ death toll in Mecca stampede reach 181 ("those missing decreased to 53"): http://www.thecairopost.com/news/171375/news/egyptian-pilgrims-death-toll-in-mecca-stampede-reach-181Heavenlyhermes (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources in Saudi Arabia? Some Saudis I know have privately contacted me to say that a number of friends have apparently perished in this incident; there is a Saudi death/missing toll as well. But the Saudi media is saying nothing. I suppose it would be extremely dangerous for Saudi bloggers etc. to research it or to say anything openly, but it's something to keep an eye out for.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Number injured in the table going down - fewer hurt or more dying? Or data errors?

The number of injured started out around 1000 as I recall, and our table has shown many hundreds (don't remember if it was ever over 1000, though I think it was). Even the Saudis said 934 were injured. Right now our table says only 117 were injured. It has been declining for some time. With over 1800 now dead on our table and over 1600 in RS, I would like to know where all those injuries went. I cannot believe that more than 800 injured people have now died from their injuries. 1600+ fatalities and only 117 injuries? Can that even be plausible? Most crowd disasters (among those I've looked at) seem to have a similar number of injured, or else far more injured, compared to the number killed. Do any of the more current sources give a total of injuries? (I had a look and found none.) When more current sources for each country are found, if they do not list the number of injured, is the previous number of injured from that country being erased? What's happening? Dcs002 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Could our sources be moving people be moving from the "injured" to "dead" when they die, or from "injured" to "non-injured" when they recover (in the case of minor injuries)? It may be time consider removing that column, if the passing of time makes it increasingly inaccurate. Carl Henderson (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's what's happening, I think we do need to remove that column. We should still give RS injury totals in the text and in the lead though. Our total is down to 116 now, and I can't see that as plausible. Maybe some countries are reporting the number of people still hospitalized? We need to find out and fix it or remove the column. I know a lot of work has gone into that headache though, and I appreciate it. Dcs002 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The totals for deceased, injured and missing at the end of the table are the totals AT PRESENT or most recent figures. When Saudi will update their figures, they will also show increased number of deceased and very decreased number of injured as compared to their present figures.Think05 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey figures

Initial reports stated that 4 Turks were dead, 5 were missing, and 8 were injured. Weeks later 4 of the missing were found dead, which somehow brought the total number of dead to 7 instead of 8. Last missing Turk was found among the wounded, bringing the wounded number to 9. Unfortunately no source mentions all this information, so all the references are there in the table, unless someone has a better idea.--Orwellianist (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

OK, I replaced the sources with those two. They should be sufficient. I guess the injured figures includes more lightly injured onces, since it is higher for the same date, but whatever.--Orwellianist (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I checked and confirmed through official Saudi sources that the total injured of the hajj stampede were 100 on 10th Oct. 2015 (https://www.sauress.com/en/saudigazette/259209) but Saudi Gazette removed the news later on. Therefore, it is not logical that 24 Turkish are still injured since 28th Sept. 2015. Countries are updating the number of injured regularly and I did not see any injured figure from Turkey recently for this incident.Think05 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Think05, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Of course they are not still injured, that's the number of people injured in the stampede and haven't died.--Orwellianist (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the number of injured from Turkey to 0 and removed the source. May I ask why? The link you gave mentions the number of people who are currently in Saudi hospitals, it has nothing to do with the number of injured from Turkey. Of course they are not in Saudi hospitals (the source that you removed said that they were brought to Turkey), and presumably most of them aren't in any hospitals (they should have recovered by now). How does this negate the fact that 24 Turks were non-fatally injured in the stampede?--Orwellianist (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

All the figures/numbers in the table are the present number of deceased, injured and missing reported and updated by the countries regularly. If interested, please include other columns in the table or include one other table in the article to indicate the initial number of deceased, injured and missing in the stampede.Think05 (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Think05, I think you have a clear misunderstanding of what the injured figure should represent. I wonder if you would update the 1903 Iroquois Theatre fire article. You should probably add the 250 injuries to the deaths part, I don't think any of them is alive at the moment. You should also update 1994 Hajj stampede article, I don't think 200+ people are still in hospital after 20 years, you ought to update the injured figures to 0.--Orwellianist (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Ministry of Health figures 12 October

I don't understand the figures given at the end of the Casualties section. It purports to be the number of deceased and totals 7,477 which corresponds to the number of entries in the list (in Arabic) in the citation given. This is much higher than most other figures. Is it the number killed, injured, involved, or what?

If one excludes the number from Saudi Arabia and unidentified, it still amounts to 4,458. Most other statistics suggest the number of Saudi casualties (given as 1,511) was minimal. Unless an Arabic reader (I am not) can confirm the significance of these figures I suggest they should not be included. Chris55 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The purported Saudi Ministry of Health numbers are ultimately source back to list pseudonymously posted by the same person to two document/slide sharing sites: SlideShare & Issuu. Aside from two very tiny online news sources printing stories citing those same lists, the "Saudi Ministry of Health" death numbers appear in no other media sources. I am of the opinion that those postings are a hoax. I'm removing the last paragraph referencing them in a few minutes. I'm happy to see those numbers come back, if new evidence shows up demonstrating their verifiablity. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, a probable hoax. Thanks for tracking that down. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. Unfortunately the same individual has now posted similar figures with another Arabic source. Chris55 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've now removed them as they appear to be part of a sectarian propaganda effort. I will invite the author to discuss it on this page. Chris55 (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Chris55, please check that the Arabic source cited is CNN.com. I think the CNN is a reliable source for us. CNN is quoting the head of the Iranian Hajj and Pilgrimage organization, who is top official from Iran on this issue. Also, it seems that we are becoming biased to not accept any news from Iran and consider everything from Iran as "sectarian propaganda". Iran has their own resources and intelligence and their officials cannot quote anything without proof.Think05 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I missed any for CNN.com in the article. It may have been deleted. The only two new websites that I saw referencing the document: AWD News and Salem-News. Both of those, only reference the two sources of the pseudonymously posted "Saudi Ministry of Health" document. I am more than willing to accept CNN as a Reliable Source on this. And happy to use Google Translate! Carl Henderson (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Think05 Yes, I was aware that it was a CNN Arabic language source but that doesn't help me at all as I don't speak or read Arabic. The issue is that these numbers are way out of line with most other numbers quoted in the article. Why do you think they are to be preferred? Any intelligence sources have to be taken with due care as they have many reasons to present biassed accounts. Chris55 (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris55If you do not understand Arabic then please use google translate to read the same and verify. We are here not to decide what news is correct and what news is not correct. If CNN can publish this news then why not Wikipedia? Let the Iran and Saudi to decide who is correct in their statement. If the 7400 deceased number be wrong, Saudi will deny it and we will also include the same with reference.Think05 (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

When I use Google Translate it reads "Iranian authorities claimed to have killed more than seven thousand people in a stampede of pilgrims in Mina". Is this the claim that you wish to endorse? I am aware as you are that automatic translations are of limited value. However the aim of Wikipedia is to present a considered and objective view of a story not to keep it up to the minute with every possible news story. You have made up till this morning 467 edits to this page since 27 September and not a single edit to any other page on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you take a break from editing this article or my suspicion that you are an employee of some organisation that has a vested interested in this story will be strengthened. Chris55 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What am I doing is none of your business to check my activities. Please be within your limits. I do not care what you have been doing on wikipedia. I am disappointed from your this statement.Think05 (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris55 From now on I will not update this article anymore. Be happy.Think05 (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Chris55: I think this was totally uncalled for what you said to Think05, we cannot and should not prohibit anyone from contributing to Wikipedia, if it was not for him, this article would not have developed as much as it did, if i was you, i should have awarded him a barnstar for an excellent job which he has done. Now, we come to the contentious matter here. In my opinion, we should not include biased claims in the article until they are confirmed by an RS. I agree that CNN is an RS but CNN is quoting an individual who is not an RS in this matter and cannot speak about any other country's causalities except his own. Sheriff (report) 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not had any problem at all with the vast majority of Think05's edits to this article. My only complaint was that he/she found new references faster than I could expand them! And I fixed that by concentrating on fixing refs in other parts of the article that were not changing daily. Think05 may be a Single-Purpose Account WP:SPA, but that's not forbidden. If there is a CNN source for that, we should include it. I am thinking that for now, it might be best to create a "Claims of Higher Death Toll" subsection under "Casulities" as there seem to be quite a few that differ from 1) the official Saudi count (which is way too low), 2) the AP count, and 3) the total of all the national reports as added up here. Carl Henderson (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The death toll being reported is exceptionally high and the source is sketchy. I would want primary, secondary and tertiary, all RSes to give any credibility to this. Sheriff (report) 10:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The original sources I saw were quite dubious. However several people have claimed upthread that there is a Arabic language CNN source confirming the same information. I need to see a link; I have looked in the article and recent changes and can't find one. If there is a CNN source (and it is not their user-generated content "iReports" section), then I would support including the 7,477 figure in a subsection along with other "Claims of Higher Death Toll"s. If not, then we need to ignore it, as all the sourcing I've seen is far from reliable. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sorry for what I said. It's now four weeks after this terrible incident and it may be time to start taking the longer view. When something has just happened there may be an argument for taking the most up-to-date account, but it seems there is still a tendency to substitute a report just because it's new and to throw away perfectly good material because it's a few days or weeks old. In this case an editor chose to ignore discussions and previous changes and reassert material that had been questioned without providing any reasonable defence of it. After you jumped in, you evidently realised that you didn't agree with these edits either. "One issue" editors inevitably arouse suspicion and I hope that Think05 will soon contribute to other articles as well as this one. I am not proposing that he should be banned from Wikipedia although the community has the right and the means to do so. Chris55 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an exceptional incident and needs exceptional coverage. We have a government which is hiding the true death toll and if we keep getting new updates about death tolls, we should keep updating the article otherwise we will not do justice to encyclopedia. I don't have a problem with outdated information being replaced by new and updated info whether it can take years to get to the final conclusive figure. Sheriff (report) 10:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)