Talk:2015 Mina stampede/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removal of Nawal El Saadawi in Reactions Section

Heavenlyhermes removed the Nawal El Saadawi quote from the non-governmental part of the "Reactions" section. I disagree with his reasoning and believe that we should restore it. I don't think it is out-of-place or a "flaming non-sequitur". It's a minority viewpoint in the Muslim work, certainly, but I don't think a few sentences in the Reactions section is giving it undue weight.

• Egyptian physician and feminist writer Nawal El Saadawi said "They talk about changing the way [the hajj] is administered, about making people travel in smaller groups. What they don’t say is that the crush happened because these people were fighting to stone the devil. Why do they need to stone the devil? Why do they need to kiss that black stone? But no one will say this. The media will not print it. What is it about, this reluctance to criticise religion? ...This refusal to criticise religion... is not liberalism. This is censorship".

I'd like to get other's opinions here before attempting to restore it to avoid any edit wars. Thanks. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call hers "a minority opinion in the Muslim world". She's neither a Muslim nor a Muslim reformist, but a critic of Islam (the Guardian profile makes clear she's not a believer). She may be well respected for her contrarian opinions as a feminist and Egyptian political dissident, but I don't think any Muslim would grant her standing to say what components of the Hajj are necessary or not. Yes, she's Egyptian, and Egypt is a majority-Muslim country, but that's the extent of her relevance. She's all about blaming Muslims for being over-fervent in other contexts (FGM, the veil, etc) so I lean toward excluding her quote, as that of a religious outsider without any particular insight into the details of this tragedy. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think she was a Muslim, just that she lived in Egypt—a Muslim nation. She's a well-known and notable critic of Islam. I think having one critical voice (beyond Sunni-Shi'a disputes) concerning the religious practice of the Hajj itself, is not unreasonable. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not she is a Muslim does not affect her notability, and therefore shouldn't affect her inclusion. The section isn't "Muslim reactions", it's "Reactions". She is notable, relevant to the topic, and her reaction is presented in a very notable mainstream news source, so I would definitely support its inclusion. Distaste for her views and her position as a "religious outsider" is hardly a valid reason to exclude her reaction. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Points taken. I'd be assuaged if she were at least identified as an outspoken (or longstanding) critic of Islam. The article is about a crowd crush disaster in the context of religious pilgrimage. She has a problem with religious fervency and people of faith. Precisely how are her views "relevant to the topic"? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support the exclusion since it's not a reaction on the incident itself rather it's the criticism of religion and a religious practice. To me, she is not notable if she does not know why Muslims stone the devil or why they kiss the black stone. She does not even seem slightly intellectual asking these questions. A lot of research is due on her to learn more about Isalm and these practices. She has no right to speak about something about which she has no knowledge. This is the most stupidest of reactions i have read and i do not think it has a place on an encyclopedic article such as this. I am sure there must be an article on "stoning the devil" and "kissing the black stone", if she does not have access to any other academic resources, at least she can read those Wikipedia articles to get her abreast with the knowledge about these topics. What are we building an encyclopedia for, if it cannot benefit dumb people such as her? Sheriff (report) 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because her reaction includes critiques of religious practices that she finds unnecessary doesn't make it any less of a reaction to the incident. Those religious practices led directly to this disaster, and to several other very similar disasters in the past. She has every right to question their necessity. She knows the literal "Why?" of why they do those things, she is questioning their real world necessity, which, while it may seem offensive or stupid to you, is an absolutely valid point that she is allowed to make. When discussing the Sheffield stadium incident, should anyone who is not a soccer fan be barred from having an opinion on the stadium's responsibility to prevent such disasters? Of course not. I have no problem with her being identified as a critic of Islam, it is after all a correct identification for her, but her reaction is absolutely valid and should be included.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What about using this minor rewrite.

• Nawal El Saadawi, and Egyptian physician, feminist writer, and critic of Islam commented: "They talk about changing the way [the Hajj] is administered, about making people travel in smaller groups. What they don’t say is that the crush happened because these people were fighting to stone the devil. Why do they need to stone the devil? Why do they need to kiss that black stone? But no one will say this. The media will not print it. What is it about, this reluctance to criticise religion?".

Carl Henderson (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not even this rewrite. I am questioning her intelligence and knowledge about Islam. She has no clue what she is talking about. Her lack of knowledge about the subject makes this text not worthy to be included in this article. First of all, no one was "fighting to stone the devil", her comments are inflammatory and offensive to billions of Muslims who practice this religion and perform this duty every year. No one was fighting to stone the devil, show me one reliable source saying they were fighting to stone the devil. She is trying to put the blame on pilgrims by saying they were fighting to do something. Nobody fights over there, it's against the essence of this worship. Then, she has no knowledge that ""stoning the devil" has nothing to do with "kissing the black stone". Two totally different rituals, kissing the black stone never caused a disaster, at least not that i know of. So, again she needs to learn about Islam, learn about the topic before she can open her mouth about the topic otherwise she would seem like talking from her ****** (censored). Sheriff (report) 15:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me address each of your points in order: 1) On Nawal El Saadawi's knowledge of Islam, the rewrite I proposed identifies her as a critic of Islam, which should be a signal to a reasonable reader, that she might disagree with Islam and hold substantially different views about it; 2) "inflammatory and offensive" is not a criteria considered in editing Wikipedia (see WP:CENSOR, WP:DISC, and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ); 3) The quote is verifiable WP:VER to a major newspaper The Guardian which is normally considered a Reliable Source WP:RS within Wikipedia, and Nawal El Saadawi is Notable WP:NOTE as a multiple award-winning writer and activist, specifically on the subject of Women in Islam; 4) the article already includes remarks from various from several sources who attempt to "put the blame" on the pilgrims; 5) Both Stoning of the Devil and Tawaf (and I am aware that the Tawaf is performed outside the Hajj, as well) are part of the overall Hajj, so I think it is incorrect to say they have nothing to do with each other; 6) I also respectfully disagree that there have been no disasters related to the Tawaf. The Mecca crane collapse this past September killed 111 people—that construction had been undertaken to expand the Grand Mosque to handle crowds around the Kaaba. Additionally, both Muslim and Western scientists have noted the potential for the Tawaf ritual to contribute to the spread of disease during the Hajj, and sought ways to minimize that risk. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Do we really have any basis for including this critics' reaction? She commented on the stampede in the context of a longer interview, and her comments do not appear to have gotten press coverage, so her reaction does not appear to be a notable one. However, I disagree with SheriffIsInTown that she doesn't know what she is talking about. Her comments are not directly factual ("fighting"), but are in greater context of why these tragedies happen. Her frustration is not uncommon -- basically millions of people are filing into a massive human parking garage to throw stones at long walls, the logistics are such that deaths are inevitable despite the Saudi's efforts to improve things. But there are probably better reactions on that point to include than hers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what she meant and i know she did not mean "fighting" literally. What she means by fighting is "scrambling" or "people trying to get ahead of each other to stone the devil" either of it is not proven by any RS. It was just pure crowd collapse. People just happened to converge at same intersection by two different sides. She is just doing her guess work sitting in her drawing room. When i say she has no idea what she is talking about, i am basically saying that she has no first hand look or a second hand look on circumstances which led to this disaster. And then she goes on and associate "stoning of devil" with "kissing the black stone", i am sure if the interviewer have asked her about the correlation, she would not be able to tell the difference between both rituals. She seems to be associating one with the other. Sheriff (report) 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

For quite some time now, it's been deemed sufficient merely to gesture at the Black Stone (marking each of seven circumlocutions) rather than kiss it. Is she ignorant of that? She seems far less concerned with understanding where and what went wrong logistically with the crowd crush than dismissing the whole religion as superstitious ritual, complaining about "censorship" for not having been given once again the opportunity to throw her own stones. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Number injured must reflect total injured in the event

Think05, and others concerned in number of injuries: It is customary (universal in WP, and other encyclopedias, as far as I can tell) to report the number of people who were killed, the number who were injured (both in the past tense), and it is proper to give the number who remained missing (past tense) as of a certain date (see WP:DATED). Present tense statements will always elapse. The total number who were injured is the number most people are interested in, if other disasters are an indication. Pick your own disaster and see how it's done in other articles in WP (in those articles that report injuries). No one says how many remain injured. Here's a few that I looked at. (italics to highlight verb tense):

• At the Love Parade disaster, 21 were killed and at least 510 "were injured." We don't say how many remain injured.
• We say "The Hillsborough disaster resulted in the deaths of 96 people and injuries to 766 others."
• At the 1902 Ibrox disaster, we say "25 people died and 517 were injured."
• At the 1971 Ibrox disaster, we say "66 people were killed in a crush," and "More than 200 other fans were injured."
• We say the Akashi pedestrian bridge accident "killed 11 people, including two adults and nine children, and injured 247 others."

And in the Jamaraat Bridge article we say:

• "On April 9, 1998, at least 118 pilgrims were trampled to death and 180 injured."
• "On February 1, 2004, 251 pilgrims were killed and another 244 injured in a stampede."
• "On January 12, 2006, a stampede killed at least 346 pilgrims and injured at least 289 more."

We never say how many remain injured. If the number injured is given, it only refers to the number who were injured, not the number who remain injured. The goal of the numbers we give is to be permanent and encyclopedic. Nobody who was injured in the 1902 Ibrox disaster is alive now. Saying the number injured is zero is ludicrous though because hundreds were hurt. The number of injuries is a measure of the scope of the event, not the amount of suffering or healing that remains. 517 people were injured at the 1902 Ibrox disaster. That will always be a true statement. Because the numbers from the Mina event are still unfolding, we do our best to provide accurate numbers, with the goal of reaching permanent, encyclopedic information. But it has to remain a past tense total - past tense because the event happened in the past. They received their injuries in the past. Dcs002 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to tell him above. The source and figures that I mentioned for Turkey should be brought back, though one wonders if other sourced injury figures were also removed because of the strange approach Think05 mentioned.--Orwellianist (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Orwellianist, I think more than one editor has been following that convention. Sources are probably unclear too. We started off with over 1,000 injured, and we have fewer than 100 now. It has steadily dropped since the event. I think it's a serious problem for this article to say that fewer than 100 people were injured. (That's why I decided to start this new section instead of simply replying above.) We need to restore the numbers of injured from the individual nations' sources or eliminate the injured column, because the number there has no meaning at all. Are we to believe only 5 Nigerians were injured when 199 were killed? No Iranians were hurt when 464 were killed?

We need a RS for total injured that we can put in the lead. Right now I think the Saudi number of 934 is better than anything else we have, and I think we can agree that their record as a source for reliable numbers is not the most respected. Dcs002 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following the article, it is interesting if more than one editors somehow all spontaneously agreed to that convention without discussing, considering how strange and unprecedented it is. I think it would be much harder to find a source regarding the total injured than total dead, probably the best we can do (other than Saudi Arabia's figures) is to sum up numbers given by individual countries. I guess we already had those sources in the article at some point, if the number was initially over 1,000. That number shouldn't decrease except when injured people die, which shouldn't be too many: if they didn't die in a few weeks, their injury probably wasn't mortal.--Orwellianist (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also the killed/injured by country table is confusing. In its totals section it lists both the accepted total and the official Saudi total, but it doesn't make clear what the official Saudi breakdown by country is, as the table above it seems to have numbers totaling the larger number. Perhaps the Saudi total should be moved out of that table, since none of the data in the table supports that total it makes it seem like a maths error rather than a different set of figures. If the Saudi totals are to be included in the table, then the Saudi totals by country should also be included since that is the purpose of that particular table (as the totals alone are covered elsewhere in the article, it doesn't make sense to include them there without a by-country breakdown). At least that would make more sense to me. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no way, we can find per country figures for Saudi official total and neither I am in favor of putting those in because I do not consider them reliable. I don't have problem with Saudi official total being removed. It was put in because there was a contentious going on between some editors and that was only way to resolve the matter to put in both totals. Sheriff (report) 00:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of Wiki Editors Total in Infobox

I have a real problem with featuring the wiki editors total in the InfoBox. It is too close to original research for my tastes. I recognized that the consensus of editors was that we needed to keep the cumulative count from the "Nationalities of victims" in the lead paragraph (and I included it when I did my recent revisions of that paragraph), but... I don't know. Maybe call it something else. I will think about it. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried "Total–National Counts" as an alternative. Carl Henderson (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"At least 2,177 killed" means the lowest reliable figure is 2,177

I don't think we should say at least 2,177 were killed and then say Reuters gives a figure of 2,070. Reuters is a well-respected wire service, and we shouldn't dismiss their lower total in favor of AP's equally respected total, claiming it to be the lowest. If we are going to say "at least", we need to give the least among the reliable figures, which right now seems to be Reuters. It looks a bit... silly the way it is. It's certainly illogical. I am going to change it. Dcs002 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a sensible change. I can't believe I missed the logical flaw when I did an update of the paragraph last week! Carl Henderson (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

wikilinks in cs1|2 |language= parameters

Editor Carl Henderson reverted my edit noting that Wikilink to Language is not listed as a CS1 error Help:CS1_errors. That is somewhat true because the value assigned to |language= does not effect other parameters nor is it made part of the citation's metadata so does not rise to the level of an error. However, the inclusion of wikilinks in |language= add the page to Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language a maintenance category. There is a green message that identifies these templates in much the same manner as the regular red error messages except that editors must enable their display. See Controlling error message display.

|language= handling in Module:Citation/CS1 is used for display and for categorization. In its present state, the module does not understand anything but ISO 639-1 language codes and their written-out names (en → English, fr → French, etc.) and simple comma separated lists of these codes or names. Perhaps someday the module will be improved to the point that wikilinks are permissible. Until such time, templates and wikilinks do not belong in |language=. This restriction is documented at most if not all cs1|2 template documentation under the heading title at the language bullet point which reads:

• language: The language in which the source is written. Displays in parentheses with "in" before the language name or names. Use the full language name or ISO 639-1 code. When the source uses more than one language, list them individually, separated by commas, e.g. |language=French, German. The use of language names or language codes recognized by Wikimedia adds the page to the appropriate subcategory of Category:CS1 foreign language sources; do not use templates or wikilinks. Note: When the language is "English" (or "en"), no language is displayed in the citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Could you add that information (essentially your reply here) to the Help:CS1_errors page, so that others don't make the same mistake I did? Carl Henderson (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing the Injury Column from the "Nationalities of victims" Table

I think it is time to do this. The totals keep going down as victims either recover or die, and at this point fewer sources are reporting total injuries, too. I suspect even the Saudi number is much closer to the actual non-fatal injuries than our current 120 number. If no one objects over the next few days, I'm going to go ahead and delete that column. Carl Henderson (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. The information in that column has become meaningless. Dcs002 (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Carl Henderson: I thought the convention with these things was to list those initially injured which did not die (even if they have recovered). But I agree if the information doesn't have much meaning (and it looks like it doesn't, because of how the news sources are reporting it now), it's better that it isn't presented like that and the column to be removed from the table. For instance, the Algerian sources are reporting that four are "still hospitalized", but we don't know how many who were initially hospitalized died, and how many recovered. The information we want to show is how many were initially injured and did not die, but it's not possible to do that any more. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to remove the "Injured" column tomorrow night. Carl Henderson (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I just looked over the French language sources because someone had requested it earlier, and they give 163 additional injured to the total we had (was 116, now 279). I am starting to suspect the numbers were removed for reasons other than the fact that they were not mentioned in the most recent sources, because all 163 of these were given in the current sources. I'm gonna have a look at the English sources now and see if something larger is happening. Dcs002 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Carl Henderson, I went through all the sources used in the table (except one that kept timing out on me) and found 455 minimum injured, just using the current sources. Still, it seems like a ridiculously low number and not very meaningful. Dcs002 (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Are you okay with me going ahead and taking that column out, then? Carl Henderson (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Carl Henderson, I've got no problem with it. I don't see us ever getting meaningful numbers from each country when some countries report every scraped knee and others only report those emerging from comas... if anyone at all. I say purge it. Dcs002 (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It is no more! Carl Henderson (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Economist Citation

@Heavenlyhermes: has removed the following sentence from the "Background" section several times. On each occasion the sentence has been restored by other editors (one of which was myself), only to be removed again:

The 2015 Hajj occurred among such obstacles as regional turmoil, the hottest temperatures in Mecca in 20 years, "all-time high" tensions between Sunnis and Shias and MERS.

On 21 October 2015 Heavenlyhermes removed it commenting that: "The Economist opinion piece -- with no author listed -- is dated Sept 21, before the incident. It's use here is i) a flaming non-sequitur; and ii) involves irrelevant sectarian editorializing, not news."

On 22 October 2015 Heavenlyhermes removed it commenting that: "Sentence unacceptable as is. i) The Economist opinion piece is not news but an opinion piece discredited by its very title. ii) It is dated Sept 21 and is a flaming non-sequitur. iii) The sentence here involves sectarian editorializing."

I believe the sentence provides needed background for the events surrounding the 2015 Hajj season, and that Heavenlyhermes objections are incorrect.

Heavenlyhermes states that the Economist source for the sentence is an "opinion piece". But the source material is not an opinion piece; it's part of the regular "The Economist Explains" section, described as "On this blog, our correspondents explain subjects both topical and timeless, profound and peculiar, with The Economist's trademark clarity and brevity". Blogs are not necessarily opinion; WP:RSOPINION states, "Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." "The Economist Explains" is a clear example of such a source.

Heavenlyhermes states that the Economist source has "no author listed". This is not correct; the author is credited by his or her initials "M.R." However, even if no author were listed, that would not disqualify the source. It is very common for news organizations to publish uncredited pieces. There are dozens cited in the "2015 Mina Stampede" article itself.

Heavenlyhermes also states that the source is "discredited by its very title" and "dated Sept 21 and is a flaming non-sequitur". Though the Economist source's headline "Why the haj is safer than ever" is ironic in light of the tragedy of the 2015 Hajj, it does not impact the factual information that the cited source is used to support. And while Economist source is dated previous to the Mina disaster itself, this is irrelevant as the sentence clearly addresses the background to the 2015 Hajj—and not the disaster itself.

Heavenlyhermes' final objection to the Economist source is that it "irrelevant sectarian editorializing, not news". Based on previous edits, I believe (and I welcome correction if I am wrong), he or she is referring to the statement about "'all-time high' tensions between Sunnis and Shias". I fail to see how this is editorializing or sectarian. It seems to be an accurate summary of the current political situation. Sectarian tensions underlie much of the politics of the region. Iran (the major Shi'a power) and Saudi Arabia (the major Sunni power) are involved in a proxy war in Yemen, supporting different sides in the multi-party war in Syria, and have been exchanging increasingly heated words on all manner of topics.

I believe both the source and the sentence are accurate and useful—in context—as part of the "Background" section of the article and should be restored. I would welcome suggestions on how to make it better. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Carl Henderson, for the detailed critique. For the record, Heavenlyhermes is a "he" so no need for the 'he or she' locution :-) As for the critique itself:

Carl first says that the economist piece is not an opinion piece, but later says that it is "not necessarily opinion." I've read the piece: It reads like a paid advertisement of the Saudi Kingdom, not an objective news story. The propagandistic nature of the piece makes it unreliable.

The initials give no clue as to who the author is; the piece is virtually unauthored. On the other hand, this is a secondary, not primary critique. It is relevant only to the degree that the primary critique is relevant (see previous paragraph).

The headline is discredited, not merely by the Mina disaster, but by the crane collapse that happened just days earlier. Although the article mentions the crane incident, it goes out of its way to minimize that event as well. Again, a public-relations exercise, not serious journalism.

The article states, "tensions between majority Sunnis and minority Shias are at an all-time high". This is a banality. Most of the victims were not Shi3i; the Iranians did not play up any sectarian element, and most of the victims of sectarianism have been Sunnis killed by self-styled Sunnis. The question of whether Wahhabism is even Sunnism is not addressed. It would be a travesty if Wikipedia took as canon the narrative that oversimplifies the so-called Sunni-Shi3i divide in accordance with the geopolitical agenda of the supporters of sectarianism. Iran is a regional rival of the Saudis, true. But not all Shi3is follow Iran and not all Sunnis follow Saudi Arabia. The identification of Saudi Arabia with Sunnism and Iran with Shi3ism constitutes a facile reductionism. Yes there is a tension between Takfirism and Shi3is, Takfirism and Sunnis, Takfiris and Sufis, etc. But to frame it as a tension between "majority Sunnis and minority Shias" is purely propagandistic, serving the sectarian interests of those that support and benefit from takfirism, viz., Saudi Arabia et al.

I'm willing to compromise but the Economist article by itself is unacceptable as a source of relevance in my view. Further: Facile, banal mentions of sectarianism are irrelevant and serve no editorial or edifying benefit in the context of the Mina disaster.64.58.21.163 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just because it comes from the Economist is not sufficient to qualify as a reliable source. A recent New York Times article uncritically reports that a Saudi "source" blamed the Mina disaster on Iran's Revolutionary Guards. I would be opposed to using that isolated, uncorroborated comment as well for a wiki article. Sources that are generally reliable must not be assumed to be infallible.64.58.21.163 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

PPS: "Iran (the major Shi'a power) and Saudi Arabia (the major Sunni power) are involved in a proxy war in Yemen". Even pro-Saudi sources in the Western media -- such as the NYTimes and many others -- have pointed out on numerous occasions that this claim is highly exaggerated and counts as little more than a pretense on the part of the Saudis. It is also worth noting that Zaydism, the branch of Shi3i Islam practiced by most North Yemenis, is in significant ways 1) closer to traditional Sunnism than it is Twelver Shi3ism; and 2) closer to traditional Sunnism than is the Wahhabism of the Saudis. Don't take my word for it, any expert in Islamic or Middle Eastern studies can verify this. Again, to reduce the complexities of Sunnism, Wahhabism, Twelver Shi3ism, Zaydism, and others to mere a binary division is inaccurate and serves the agendas of those who benefit from such a binary reductionsim.64.58.21.163 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Heavenlyhermes, thank you for elaborating. You have demonstrated to me that the common Shi'a vs Sunni narrative is very likely far too simplistic. I propose rewriting the sentence as follows: The 2015 Hajj took place against a background of regional turmoil (including wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya), the hottest temperatures in Mecca in 20 years, and the threat of MERS (and using the same Economist article for the citation). I'd like to add a second sentence that specifically addresses the pre-existing tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran (without reference to Sunni or Shi'a Islam), as one of the major results of the Mina disaster has been the worsening of that tension. Can you suggest a RS for such, that does not present the Saudi/Iranian tensions as primarily a sectarian affair? Carl Henderson (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Carl Henderson, you are welcome. Interestingly, most of your solution is the one I originally advocated weeks ago, when I only deleted the sectarian reference and not the entire sentence. If the Economist article is used for the narrow purpose you mentioned, I have no problem, since these are well-known facts. I would much prefer a supplementary or alternate source entirely; but, as I said at the outset, I'm willing to compromise. And indeed, the fallout for the Iran-Saudi relationship has been severe. I'll look for a reference for that too.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Carl Henderson Here's a reference for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/world/middleeast/iran-saudi-arabia-hajj-stampede.html

This article also contains some nonsense but you'll know how to sift through that. Still, other sources would be useful... Thanks! Heavenlyhermes (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I found a better source for the pre-Mina Saudi-Iran relationship: Saudi-Iranian Relations Since the Fall of Saddam: Rivalry, Cooperation, and Implications for U.S. Policy However, the NYT article you found will be quite useful for expanding the "Aftermath" section. Thank you. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is my rewrite:

The 2015 Hajj took place against a background of regional turmoil (including wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya), the hottest temperatures in Mecca in 20 years, the threat of MERS, and pre-existing tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I'm going to go ahead and add that to the "Background" section. Let me know if you see any problems. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Carl Henderson, Sounds good to me. Glad we could agree! Heavenlyhermes (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Added reactions from other major world powers

I added a list of world leaders that sent generic condolences as well as specific quotes from the leaders of Russia, the UK, the US, India, the UN, and the Vatican (along with references). My rational for this, is that the previous "Reactions" section concentrated on negative reactions and criticism, and I wanted to present a more NPOV version of the scope of international reactions. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Have I told you lately how much you rock, Carl? Well, a lot! Before you're done editing this article it will be so tight you could bounce a quarter off of it, and it will have such a shine that my sister can look into it and do her mascara! Thanks for the relentless tweaking, especially since the story isn't really in the news so much, and most of us have moved on. Dcs002 (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's my OCD in action :) Carl Henderson (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Removed and Reinstated Paragraph in "Investigation" Section

The following two paragraphs are based partly on material originally added by CSSG-IHS. The edit conflict that I would like help resolving has to do with whether removing the second of the two paragraphs is appropriate. My position is that having two whole paragraphs devoted to Najmedin Meshkati's proposal for a proper investigation is undue weight (especially since Saudi Arabia doesn't seem to be following his suggestions). NAMF2015 disagrees. Rather than get into an edit war, I brought the discussion here.

Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations at the University of Southern California, who is an expert in accident investigation, has contended in a Huffington Post article that: "the Saudi initiatives are encouraging and constitute necessary steps. However, the unclear nature, unknown mandate, and unspecified composition of participating technical disciplines in the announced investigation make this process questionable and very likely insufficient. This is especially true and vital for accident investigation, dissemination of lessons learned, and hopefully prevention of future stampede accidents." Meshkati has recommended that, the Saudi government "should embark on the immediate creation of an independent investigation commission/panel. This interdisciplinary commission/panel should be chaired by a nationally renowned and prominent Saudi statesman or scholar, with members selected from Saudi Arabia and affected countries based on their technical expertise and to include responsible governmental entities, first responder agencies, and academics of requisite disciplines for accident investigation."

Meshkati, based on his experience, has suggested further specific technical steps: “This internationally staffed panel should be able to draw upon repertoire of expertise and resources of major professional accident investigation agencies in the world, such as the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). And it should be empowered by the subpoena power and charged to conduct a comprehensive, systematic and interdisciplinary investigation by employing the system-oriented, robust “AcciMap” methodology to write the most technically-sound report on the root-causes of this tragedy. It should also ensure that lessons learned are understood, shared, and make specific implementation recommendations, with adequate built-in follow up mechanisms and milestones, to responsible agencies and affected entities and officials in Saudi Arabia and other countries."

Here is my history of that section of the article pieced together as best I can:

At 03:00, 21 October 2015, user CSSG-IHS, added the initial "Investigation" section with two paragrahs that later turned out to be based on the work of Najmedin Meshkati as reported in the Huffington Post, with the edit summary: "(→‎Reactions) (Tags: Possible vandalism, Visual edit)" (Note: CSSG-IHS was blocked as of 12:56, 21 October 2015 for a username violation by admin Alexf.)

At 03:52, 21 October 2015, I removed the initial addition of the Meshkati material as it had poor sourcing and no attributions, with the edit summary: "Removed two paragraphs from new "Investigation" section un-sourced opinion."

At 05:04, 21 October 2015‎, I added back the first paragraph of Meshkati material, with the edit summary: "Added back smaller quote form Najmedin Meshkati with sourcing and citing him by name."

At 20:51, 21 October 2015, NAMF2015 added back the rest of the text that was removed by by myself with this edit summary: "Investigation: I added some quotations from Professor Meshkati's Article in Huffington Post regarding the methods of root cause analysis of the recent Mina stampede tragedy in Saudi Arabia."

At 19:15, 16 November 2015‎, while updating the Investigation paragraph, I removed the second paragraph above with the edit summary: "Deleted Second Paragraph of Najmedin Meshkati proposal for investigation (undue weight since KSA doesn't seem to be following his suggestions."

At 05:20, 18 November 2015‎, NAMF2015 restored the paragraph I'd deleted without edit summary.

I welcome any corrections, and would appreciate comment from NAMF2015 as to why that extra paragraph is needed.

Thanks. Carl Henderson (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It could be condensed into two or three sentences with a link. These investigatory recommendations are welcome, of course, but the individual making them doesn't have particular weight or authority to see them effected; how notable is he? My feeling is his recommendations would mostly exist on the Wikipedia page as a positive form of protest, as Saudi Arabia is not about to allow any outside light to be shone on its failures here. To my mind, the death toll cover-up (and the failure of most other governments to register protest) is one of the most appalling stories of 2015. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in very late on this issue, but I have recently found that in the academic literature, in academic settings, and when talking about past events, the Saudis have indeed been pretty open about what has happened, as well as heavily funding such research, at least through the 2006 Hajj crush. They have released surveillance images for study and participated actively as collaborators in crowd dynamics and safety research. I am NOT defending their actions in this most recent disaster or any previous disaster, nor am I saying their numbers can be trusted in this recent event (that would be a joke), but in the years to come, the results of their investigation might not be advertised to the public, but they might likely be available to the international research community, and if the past is any indicator, their investigation is likely to be quite thorough. The other thing I've seen is that academic papers and presentations on previous disasters seem to have Saudi co-authors, so they might still be exercising some oversight on the context of how the data is used, though what I have read so far does not appear to be biased in favor of the Saudis. It seems more biased in protecting the victims and the sacredness of the Hajj itself, for example, showing security photographs, but only those necessary, and none showing actual deaths. That is just my impression after reading just a few papers only. I guess I'm saying don't give up on the Saudis. We might not get the full story for a few years, and they won't advertise it, but I think there's a good chance that true answers will come - eventually. Dcs002 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. It's a very politically loaded issue with Iran, but if and when it cools off they'll release the info. I do think they are recording the figures, even if they aren't releasing them. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@NAMF2015: added back the paragraph in question again tonight. I'm going to remove it and direct him to the discussion here. Carl Henderson (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if this is going to be a continuing issue, my honest opinion is that we should use as little of this as possible, or strike the whole thing. This professor is not an expert in crowd dynamics (like Keith Still is), nor does he seem familiar with the language or dynamics of crowd disasters. He speaks of systemic issues being the problem, but he does not say what those systemic issues are. He says next to nothing about the Mina disaster (other than the same recommendations everyone else has given, and which the Saudis already know, and which they may likely be following to a large extent anyway - he has no privileged information to know otherwise) in this opinion piece. Yeah, this is all based on one opinion piece written by Professor Meshkati himself. This is not a Huffington Post article, it is an opinion he published in the World Post (an HP offshoot I guess, but at least we need to use the correct name of the source). Is his opinion discussed by secondary sources? He describes broad, abstract concepts of the nature of accidents in general, mostly without applying them to this event. (He specifically said it was not caused by an earthquake :P ) He used the false 4,173 number to bolster emotional support. (That figure had been dismissed two days before his opinion piece was published.) He appealed to his own expertise as well as to readers' emotions. Those are not the signs of scholarly work. Those are signs of propaganda and self-aggrandizement. His ideas are great as broad generalizations for teaching investigators the basics, but nothing he says about the actual event or its actual investigation is newsworthy. And unless his rather self-serving opinions are covered in secondary sources, I don't think they are notable. </rant> Dcs002 (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Carl Henderson I respectfully disagree with contentions in last paragraph of the write up by the respected reviewer/editor who has decided to remove the "disputed" second paragraph. What professor Meshkati suggested in the disputed paragraph is a basic issues that should be considered in an accident investigation process..such as using the AcciMap model which is a scientific approach that for instance the US Chemical Safety Board has used in its refinery accident investigation... Furthermore, the logic that "he is not an expert in crowd dynamics" is irrelevant here. What Meshkati is talking about in this paragraph is the technically-sound accident investigation process and protocol that should be followed and not, as the last paragraph claims, "propaganda and self-aggrandization"....where/what is the "self-aggrandization" and "self-serving opinion" in his suggestion that the accident investigation should be interdisciplinary, uses the experience and methods of the NTSB, CSB, etc....Meshkati does not talk about himself, his experience or past in this paragraph;Meshkati has not created and doesn't have any vested interest in NTSB, CSB, or the AcciMap method...Why should proposing that the AcciMap method be used in this context, is considered a "propaganda"? propaganda for whom and what? Meshkati has NOT created the AcciMap and doesn't have copyright of the AcciMap; it has been created by the world-renowned Danish scholar, Professor Jens Rasmussen and used in several major accident investigations in Europe [see for example: Rasmussen, J. and Svedung, I. (2000). Proactive Risk Management in a Dynamic Society. First edition, Raddningsverket, Risk and Environmental Department, Swedish Rescue Services Agency, Karlstad, Sweden.] FYI, and for the record, Meshkati is highly qualified to talk about accident investigation process and methods; he has a long experience in this area. He has worked with the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, as an expert on human factors and safety culture, on the investigation of the BP Refinery explosion in Texas City (2005). He has been selected by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC) and has served as member and technical advisor on two national panels in the United States investigating two major recent accidents: The NAS/NRC Committee “Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety and Security of U.S. Nuclear Plants” (2012-2014); and the NAE/NRC “Committee on the Analysis of Causes of the Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Fire, and Oil Spill to Identify Measures to Prevent Similar Accidents in the Future” (2010-2011). In light of the above FACTS, I would receptively request the addition and NOT further deletion of the "disputed" paragraph which only talks about the proper and technically sound accident investigation process. Thanks NAMF2015 —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to address your response. You seem to have confused what I said about the paragraph in question with what another editor said. The terms "propaganda and self-aggrandization" and "self-serving opinion" are not from anything I wrote. Let me briefly restate the problems with that paragraph (or the new two paragraphs in one version, you have added). My position is very simply that devoting that much space to Najmedin Meshkati's proposals for a proper investigation is undue weight—especially since Saudi Arabia doesn't seem to be following his suggestions. I do not question Meshkati's reputation, research, or academic qualifications. They are just not relevant to this article.

As it stands the investigation section devotes 264 words to Meshkati's suggestions. Only 146 words are devoted to the Saudi official investigation, and only 95 and 152 words to the suggestions of other experts. A good argument could be made, in fact, that unless the Saudi authorities are using a methodology or assistance of a specific expert, that there is no reason for them to be in the article at all. I don't go that far. But the section on Meshkati's work is far too long, and out of place in this article.

On the other hand, based on what you have said about him, it is likely that Professor Meshkati might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article on him and his work—or that his more general recommendations might fit well in an article on Emergency management or Disaster risk reduction. If you decide to got this route (and don't have some sort of obvious conflict of interest), I would be happy to advise you on how best to make constructive edits elsewhere or create an article on Meshkati and his work. Please contact me via my talk page if you are interested in any such help. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References

New York Times article update per AP

I don't much care for it but here it is. The reporter uses the term 'stampede' and mentions the possibility that exits were closed, creating a panic. No academic interviews (outside of a Middle East history prof). The paper of record expending very little effort trying to understand how this or similar disasters happen. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Date for infobox totals?

As the estimated death tolls are not all necessarily stable, and our "by nation" counts and AP's counts have been changing but Reuters and Saudi officials seem only to have published one estimate each, I think it might be a good idea to add (as of September 26, 2015), or (updated November 27, 2015), or some variant of that to the infobox entries. If Reuters only made one estimate and they have no intention of updating it, I think that makes their estimate a little less meaningful than an AP or AFP estimate that was updated just last week, though perhaps more meaningful than the Saudi total that was released while they were still clearing away the bodies. I think there is room in the infobox to accommodate this on the same line.

Along similar lines, I think the prose in the lead needs to be written in the past tense, because it will expire, or it has expired. Reuters is not reporting 2,070 dead. Reuters reported 2,070 dead on October 29. Or rather, that article said "at least 2,070", so they didn't claim that was their actual estimate. It was only stated as a minimum, and therefore we might not want to rank that estimate with AP and AFP, who are apparently still monitoring the situation.

I don't mean to be too critical because I know how difficult it has been to build consensus on which numbers should go where, but the problem of current information expiring happens a lot in articles that were first written when the event was still unfolding. I hesitate to make abrupt, unilateral changes for that same reason. Any thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is a sensible approach. What about this version of the lead. It removes the Reuters estimate entirely, as it was last updated more than a month ago (29 October). (I just rechecked that via Google News and at Reuters' own site):

On 24 September 2015, a crowd collapse caused the deaths of at least 2,236 pilgrims who were suffocated or crushed during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mina, Mecca, making it the deadliest Hajj disaster in history. The exact number of dead is still unclear; the Associated Press reported 2,389 dead, while Agence France-Presse reported a figure of 2,236 killed. Based on the total of the individual national reports cited in the table below (nationalities of victims), at least 2,427 people died. The official death toll from the government of Saudi Arabia has remained unchanged since two days after the event, with 769 reported killed and 934 others injured.

For consistency and simplicity, I would also suggest removing the Reuters count from the InfoBox. Adding dates to the counts on the InfoBox figures is okay with me, but we need to determine how we are going to show date updated for the "Wikipedia count". (As I've mentioned before, I'm less than comfortable with promoting our count in the lead and InfoBox. However, I also realize consensus disagrees, and I'm okay with that.) I do want to make sure that continue to disclaim the Wikipedia count appropriately. Right now, I'd suggest going back into the Edit History and seeing when the last change was made to the the "Deceased" number in the "Nationalities of victim" and using that, and updating on a going forward basis whenever that's changed. We also should put in a hidden note for editors reminding them to update total, lead, and InfoBox numbers when any individual nations count changes. I will go ahead and do that bit. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Great ideas Carl. There are still two statements that imply present correctness: "The exact number of dead is still unclear" and "The official death toll from the government of Saudi Arabia has remained unchanged since..." It's totally ok to have things in the present tense, but it means someone needs to babysit those statements in perpetuity and fix them when they expire. An alternative example from RMS Titanic: "The sinking resulted in the loss of more than 1,500 passengers and crew". Adding the statement that the exact number is still unknown isn't necessary because the number is given "at least". It's still true that at least 1,500 were killed when the Titanic went down. Ten years from now, in this article, "at least 2,236" will still be true, even if more accurate estimates are available then (assuming the confirmed dead don't rise :P ).

But then of course we need a way to introduce the different numbers. Instead of saying the exact number of dead is still unknown, how about introducing the sentence by saying something like "Estimates of the number of dead vary, with X reporting a, Y reporting b, and Z reporting c"?

The Saudi count is more awkward IMO. Either it needs a vigilant babysitter or it needs the tired stock phrase "as of December 5th, 2015, the Saudi count..." I don't see a way around it. If they do release official numbers, I think it will be in the form of incidental information in some academic source, not a press release with fanfare.

I agree about Reuters. Time to say good bye, from the infobox as well. But if we do that, it puts less importance on the dates of the remaining totals. AFP and AP were both updated on Nov 27 I think, and I'm a little nervous about putting a more recent date on our total because at first glance it might give the impression that our number is more current, and therefore more authoritative. I hadn't thought about that when I first suggested putting dates on the totals in the infobox. Right now I'm thinking that since the totals we have there are all still updating periodically except the Saudi number, they are now of similar validity (AP and AFP I mean). What got me concerned in the first place was the age of the Reuters estimate, so if we ditch that, problem solved - or seriously mitigated. And I also am strongly in favor of disclaiming our total as well. I like it being there - in the table at least - but if it's in the lead, or anywhere else that's prominent, we need to be very, very careful. Dcs002 (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well as time passes it becomes less likely that more people will die as a result of their injuries, but I understand what you mean. Unfortunately this issue is given little attention as of late due to more pressing matters in the region.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Very true, Monochrome_Monitor. That is why I think we need to move to more permanent statements instead of statements that are true as of today. It's a matter of making this into more of a permanent article rather than a developing story. There is a guideline about this, but I can't remember the acronym. (Our alphabet soup of policy and guideline acronyms sometimes makes my head spin.) I think we can then start looking at bringing it up to GA at some point too. There are issues we need to address if we want to do that. Personally I don't put much value on GA or FA status though, but I know most people here think it's valuable. Dcs002 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WIP? --Monochrome_Monitor 22:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Try this rewrite based on Dcs002's suggestions:

On 24 September 2015, a crowd collapse caused the deaths of at least 2,236 pilgrims who were suffocated or crushed during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mina, Mecca, making it the deadliest Hajj disaster in history. Estimates of the number of dead vary; the Associated Press reported 2,389 dead, while Agence France-Presse reported 2,236 killed. Based on the total of the individual national reports cited in the table below (nationalities of victims), at least 2,427 people died. The official death toll from the government of Saudi Arabia remains unchanged since two days after the event, with 769 reported killed and 934 others injured.

Note 1 immediately follows the "Wikipedia Count" sentence. I propose expanding it to say the following:

This figure is based on the total of people killed from the most recent sources used to created the "Nationalities of victims" table, and is calculated from those sources by Wikipedia editors. Note that the of all deaths reported by nation (2,427) is higher than total deaths reported by most up-to-date sources (AP: 2,389 & AFP: 2,236). Some of those killed may have held multiple citizenships or some national counts or references may be incorrect.

I am still checking "Mina" and "Hajj" in Google News daily for any updates, but they have petered out for the most part. As for GA or FA, I'm a fan of both, not just because I like to collect trophies, but because they represent the closest thing to a formal peer review process we have on Wikipedia. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome_Monitor, WP:ASOF and WP:REALTIME are the acronyms I was looking for. WP:ASOF is a guideline and WP:REALTIME is part of the MOS/W2W. Carl Henderson, looks great except for 2 concerns. First, the note says "Note that the of all deaths reported by nation..." I think there's just a word missing? (I haven't even looked at the article yet to see if you've made these changes or that fix yet.) And second is the statement of the Saudi total. Maybe it's not likely to change anytime soon, but it will need a babysitter to watch it. Either that or one of those ASOF tags that I just learned about on the WP:ASOF page.

<rant>I have two issues with GA and FA. First, once they are achieved, usually the credit is given (and due) to one person, because one person has done most of the work, but that means it was less of a team project and more of an individual effort. I think welcoming broader participation is more important than preserving a polished article. But more importantly, my experience is that once an article is GA or FA, no one else is allowed to make any edits without getting reverted and snapped at. I think it quickly dismantles our 3rd pillar and tells newcomers they are not welcome. Yeah, I have a little personal baggage on this issue, but I don't think making a finely polished encyclopedia is compatible with the 3rd pillar. In fact, if we leave a few rough edges, it gives newcomers a way to participate :) </rant> Dcs002 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response time. I've been kind of swamped with RL work. This new version incorporates your suggestions, including use of the "As of" tag around "since two days after the event":

On 24 September 2015, a crowd collapse caused the deaths of at least 2,236 pilgrims who were suffocated or crushed during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mina, Mecca, making it the deadliest Hajj disaster in history. Estimates of the number of dead vary; the Associated Press reported 2,389 dead, while Agence France-Presse reported 2,236 killed. Based on the total of the individual national reports cited in the table below (nationalities of victims), at least 2,427 people died. The official death toll from the government of Saudi Arabia remains unchanged since two days after the event, with 769 reported killed and 934 others injured.

The "Note" has also been fixed to read:

This figure is based on the total of people killed from the most recent sources used to created the "Nationalities of victims" table, and is calculated from those sources by Wikipedia editors. Note that the total of all deaths reported by nation (2,427) is higher than total deaths reported by most up-to-date sources (AP: 2,389 & AFP: 2,236). Some of those killed may have held multiple citizenships or some national counts or references may be incorrect.

Unless someone has strong objections, I'm going to go ahead and use this version (and make corresponding updates to the InfoBox in the next day or so. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Carl Henderson! (I was away for a while. I got this research journal account, and I need to start using it for WP articles.) Dcs002 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Recommendations by independent experts

This section has only one expert making recommendations. I am not sure what the function of it is. I moved one paragraph to reactions/non-governmental because it is simply a speculation about why the Saudis are handling this in such secrecy, but two of those that remain are critical of what happened, offering no recommendations going forward, and the third is from a guy who wrote his own opinion piece, which doesn't seem to have been picked up by anyone, yet we're giving it coverage here. Not everything a notable person says is notable. So... I don't know what to do with this - maybe combine it with the reactions/non-governmental? And maybe divide that section into academics, religious leaders, etc? Any thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Recommendations by independent experts" section came about the "Investigation" section had become mostly about what people unconnected with the investigation were saying. As the Saudis have kept everything about the investigation very secret, it is understandable lots of speculation has flourished. I wanted to separate the "official" info from the rest.

I agree that the Toby Craig Jones paragraph probably does belong for in the "Responses–Other" subsection. When you mention, "third is from a guy who wrote his own opinion piece, which doesn't seem to have been picked up by anyone" are you talking about the Najmedin Meshkati article? If so, I'd rather not mess with that paragraph. There have been a lot of discussion between NAMF2015 (who added that information) and other editors about the level of detail that should be included regarding Meshkati's comments. We seem to have reached a compromise, so I'd rather not reopen that discussion.

I've found just today some comments by Amer Shalaby, a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto's Transportation Research Institute, former Hajj pilgrim, and consultant to Saudi government on crowd management, that I think will go nicely in that section. I'm going to try to add them tonight and see if people are okay with it. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Heya Carl! Yeah, I was referring to Meshakati's comments. It's been over a month since I left that comment, but I think I was confusing the above discussion about his comments with another rather controversial commentator. Ajmal's comments are simple criticism of what the Saudis did wrong. He does not offer any recommendations, which is the section name (if not the original intent). Keith Still is someone I've seen everywhere in crowd dynamics literature, but his comments don't offer recommendations either. I have looked around for other sources and didn't find anything more substantive. I'll try not to lose sleep over it :P

So where is the discussion regarding the split? Does that need to be started yet? I thing that split is long overdue. Dcs002 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dcs002, what split? Does the article really need to be split? I have no idea. As far as I know there has been no discussion.

As for the crowd dynamics questions, I found some stuff in researching, but never did much with it:

How human stampedes, like the one near Mecca, turn deadly

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/24/what-can-science-tell-us-about-human-stampedes/

Rachel Feltman

The Washington Post

24 September 2015

Quote: "In an email to The Post, crowd safety and risk analysis specialist G. Keith Still explained that actual human 'stampedes' are rarely observed. The incidents that members of the public refer to as stampedes are quite different from the animal equivalent, and most could be more accurately referred to as crowd crushes. [...] 'What this appears to be is a crowd crush as a result of two way flow in confined space,' Still explained. A compression -- not a stampede."

How people die in a crowd crush

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/72437352/How-people-die-in-a-crowd-crush

Anna Patty

Stuff.co.nz

25 September 2015

The Causes and Prevention of Crowd Disasters

http://www.crowdsafe.com/fruincauses.pdf

John J. Fruin

First International Conference on Engineering for Crowd Safety,

London, England

March 1993

Revised exclusively for crowdsafe.com, January 2002

Carl Henderson (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dcs002, what split? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Henderson and Vesuvius Dogg, it's in the Reactions section. As of right now, it is the most recent edit in the edit history, and there is no edit summary for it. It is a proposal to split that section away from the article. It was posted by Sukhoi 24 on January 20. I just happened to be looking at my watch list and there it was. (That's why I'm here now.)

Carl, I've read those references. For a newspaper article, the piece by Anna Patty is really quite good. Unfortunately, all these sources have to offer is either an assessment of what went wrong or recommendations that predated Mina 2015. I don't necessarily have a problem with that type of content per se. It's just that the content isn't all recommendations. If the section is called "Recommendations", I think each source should recommend something relevant to this disaster. My sense is that academics like Keith Still and Edwin Galea (and the others who keep a lower public profile) are waiting for more data before they make real interpretations and recommendations. Maybe the solution is to look for another section name? Or leave well enough alone? Dcs002 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I just thought about this... What about calling the section "Independent expert opinion" or maybe "Independent expert analysis"? Featured opinions would be limited to experts, and all four of the experts currently featured in this section are undoubtedly recognized experts in the disciplines on which they are opining. (Gawd, I'm writing like my dad!) It's just a matter of broadening the section name from recommendations to either opinions or analysis, which more closely represents the current content of the section. Dcs002 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dcs002, Vesuvius Dogg, I don't see any reason for a split at this time. The article is long, but at about 45 kB of prose, it is still under the 50 kB point where WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that an article "may need to be divided". If it gets substantially longer, we might revisit this, but I think it's fine for now.

As for the references I listed, I was thinking of them as possibly useful in expanding the "Description as Stampede" section; not for the "Investigation" section, as that's where Keith Still and Edwin Galea are quoted and cited currently. But looking upthread, I think I misunderstood what you were asking about. Carl Henderson (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah,, I see. Yeah, I certainly became the anti-stampede guy, so I see why you misunderstood me. The Anna Patty piece was new to me, but I have a copy of the Fruin paper, and I had read the Feltman article before. Again, that Anna Patty article is really top notch, and I'm really glad you linked it. She covered so much ground and consulted so many sources, which is all the more impressive because it was published the next day - New Zealand time, so even less than a day. Going forward, I have been collecting data on crowd disasters (nearly 300 now, which is more than I have seen in any database in the literature) and popular press coverage, and I hope to write up an analysis of the issue for a public health or medical journal, but accumulating the incident data has taken SO LONG (and is still far from complete), and accumulating popular press coverage will take many times longer.

As to the split, I think a brief summary of the types of reactions with maybe a few examples would better suit this article. It is currently a massive collection of very uninteresting and predictable statements, and I think it takes up way too much ink in this article. I don't think I've ever disagreed with you before Carl! Wise minds can disagree though :) But I think someone needs to open a formal RM or RfC (I don't know which is proper, or whether it's another process) before doing anything, and I don't feel strongly enough about splitting to take it on myself. If Sukhoi 24 doesn't get that process started sometime soon, I would have no problem with you removing the tag. It's almost a hit-and-run tagging right now, though I obviously understand that there is a defensible reason for wanting the split. I just don't feel strongly enough to take the lead. But the person who tagged the article needs to open the discussion, IMO. Dcs002 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The reactions should not be split, but trimmed of excessive unencyclopedic material. For example the reactions of the United Kingdom are of no value to a reader. It's just uninteresting quotes from politicians that belong in a newspaper. Jolly Ω Janner 22:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to trim the reactions, however, the original "reactions" section gave undue weight to reactions that were highly critical of Saudi Arabia. While criticism of the Saudi government is likely warranted, highlighting mostly those reactions seems to depart from NPOV.

If trimming is needed, I would suggest a judicious pruning in the government reactions section, and taking an axe to a lot of the less-notable non-governmental reactions. If the consensus here is for a trim rather than a split, I would be happy to attempt it. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That would also suit me just fine, Carl. My main concern is that the section takes up something like 40% of the column-inches (excluding references and after) in the current article, and it's very tedious and uninteresting (which is of course an opinion). I think we still need a balance that represents pro- and anti- Saudi sentiments but just less of it. You have excellent judgement in these matters, Carl, and I'm sure you will strike the right balance. Dcs002 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: Carl, if you put your pruning shears to work, I think you should also remove the split tag, as the pruning would be the solution to that problem, and Sukhoi 24 has not responded to two pings (now three). I'm not sensing any desire to make this a formal RfC, and I'm not interested in going through that if we can arrive at a consensus without one.) Dcs002 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Any one else want to comment? Or should I prune away? Carl Henderson (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a go. Sukhoi 24 seems to have tagged and left without caring to follow up, and those involved in this discussion seem to be in agreement. If you're willing, I say go for it. Dcs002 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent update.

Associated Press updated latest death toll to 2,426. ([Iran declines to take part in hajj over dispute with Saudis])

@Dcs002: The New York Times published an interactive feature drawing from one survivor's account (the link works from my mobile device): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/06/world/middleeast/100000004629018.mobile.html Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vesuvius Dogg. I've been very busy and haven't done much of anything here in WP for many months (new jobs - plural, and both at once), but I kept meaning to get to that notice flag... This is a very emotionally moving piece the NYT put together. It's odd how something as simple as a moving map can make me feel like this when it is coupled with one story from among the tens of thousands who survived near or within the crush. I thought I was all done with the teary eyes and sniffles over this sad event, but with the absolutely insane political circus going on right now in the US presidential race, it's somehow become hard for me to remember the reality outside the circus tent. (I'd forgotten what it looked like outside.) Thank you very much for sharing this. It shows that people still do care, and that there are kind, decent people who don't measure success by humiliating people. (PS: I haven't read it all, but I will tomorrow.) As-salāmu ʿalaykum or shalom aleikhem, whichever you prefer, or just "peace" :) Dcs002 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Crowd collapse"?

What is a "crowd collapse"? It sounds very peculiar, and is no doubt American slang. We should use standard English in Wikipedia.101.98.74.13 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds peculiar to this American, as well. Looking over this article and related articles, it seems to be a term favored by people who find "stampede" to be an objectionable term. --Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the PC brigade strike again, particularly nonsensical when the term links back to human stampede... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Crowd crush" and "crowd collapse" are essentially, far from slang, technical terms for two different but related phenomena, both of which are often described in news media, incorrectly, as "stampedes". See the stampede article, in particular the Causes of death section, and links to publications there. Pol098 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering that "stampede" has been the general term for many years, I fail to see how it can be "incorrect".--Khajidha (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Stampede" is understood to be people or animals panicked and running and out of control. This case involved people hemmed in and virtually unable to move. "Stampede" is used by authorities because it puts the perceived blame on the victims, not their failures to ensure safety. Pol098 (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Stampede is understood to be too many people in one area as well.--Khajidha (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There were long discussions about this here and here and here and here and then it started an RFC at Manual of Style/Words to watch (that was also long). The closer of the RFC noted that it had been shown there was a tendency to use "stampede" when talking about non-whites, but there was no consensus to change policy about the word. In the various discussions it was pointed out repeatedly that people running had nothing to do with the deaths in this incident. They just kept crowding in at walking speeds until people got crushed. Ultimately use of "stampede" is allowed to stand because the sources (newspapers mostly) use "stampede" and Wikipedia is not to be used to right wrongs. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly deceptive figures.

@Pol098 added the following to the lead:

but Lebanese daily newspaper Al Akhbar published online just before the 2016 pilgrimage a leaked database reported to be from the Saudi Ministry of Health listing the names of 90,000 pilgrims who had died visiting Mecca over a 14-year period. The Ministry of Health's statistics showed a Mina death toll of over 7,000.

References

The second citation is the leaked document. It is over 3,000 pages and it would require some analysis to verify. If the 90,000 over 14 years figure is correct, then an average year is just over 6,400. So I suspect the 7,000 is for the whole year not just the crush. We need to be sure we are not forwarding an exaggeration before adding it to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As it was I who added this, I'll add that it's not just that number-crunching is needed: the document purporting to be from the Health Ministry is leaked, not announced, and I personally have seen no evidence that it is genuine: if analysis supports the figures, they're still not proven. That's what I carefully worded "reported". The list of names translates as of "pilgrims of all nationalities" rather then "accidental deaths during the year", so it's reasonable that it applies to the pilgrimage. The dates in the table also allow pilgrimage periods to be identified; figures for 2015 start on 1 September. There are some odd dates, "2-Nov-36" mixed in with "5 Sep 15", presumably Islamic 1436 dates.

In fact the document is quite easy to number-crunch, even without knowing Arabic: count all entries not far from September 2015. The first citation has done some of the analysis. I have just done a preliminary "analysis" of the database. The deaths are year by year, not mixed up, with just a few "-36" dates mixed in with the "-15". The first date in 2015, on page numbered 2833 (PDF page 2854), has sequence number 85214. The last entry is 90276. Virtually all of the dates are in September and November of 2014. The difference, which can be expected to be the total for 2015 (or -36) is 5052, plus about 39 "-15" dates mixed in with earlier ones.. (I haven't checked whether any of the (numbered) pages are missing.

The point is that this figure is emerging and being reported in the Arab world; people are talking about it. It needs to be in the article, not as any sort of authoritative figure, but as a plausible figure being discussed. I should perhaps make it even more clear in the article that this is something reported, not an authoritative statement. In time information on the veracity or otherwise of this report may become available. But the possible existence of an unofficial list of the dead would be very important and shouldn't be ignored. Pol098 (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pol098, if it is a WP:FRINGE theory then we do ignore them. See WP:EXTRAORDINARY. You expect people to believe 7,000 people died in this one incident and even the government of Iran, who has every reason to go with the largest figure, didn't notice it? Iran's figure is around 2,400. They missed 4,600 people? The only reason this should be mentioned is to debunk it. You need some extraordinary evidence to support that figure and articles from fringe news sources are not it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it again. It is definitely WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I got a hold of better software and was able to extract dates. 7,000+ is for the whole year. While over 3,000 occurred in the month of September that does not tell how many died due to this one incident. Basically, it fails verification. Please do not put it in again. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)