Talk:2015 Mina stampede/Archive 3
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dcs002 in topic Human Stampedes Category in Wikipedia—Usage of "Stampede" in Title by Race
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Requested move 29 September 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved - For now. There's clear tension in the discussion over the "academic" view of stampedes and WP:Commonname. I am reluctant to ignore our Common name POLICY, especially because of the recent nature of this event. In surveying articles in Category:Human stampedes it is evident that the term is not only widely used in titles but in content. My suggestion to those editors who are passionate about their percieved misuse of the term is this. Open a RFC at WP:W2W to get a much wider community view of the use of the word "stampede" and document that view in WP:W2W. Overriding COMMONNAME on a one-on-one article basis is more problematic than the improper use of a term in a single article. Point of order: Positions in RMs should be stated as either SUPPORT or OPPOSE as individual editors don't APPROVE RM title options. Mike Cline (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
2015 Mina stampede → 2015 Mina disaster – Rationale is already discussed above in two different sections (see Definition of stampede, Stampede or crush? Real danger for WP and Article moved too many times) Sheriff (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose it was a stampede where hundreds were crushed to death. There is no "rationale" just an opinion based on personal preference. Sticking with reliable sources (with which the article is blessed many times over), we have dozens of different yet reliable folks calling this a "stampede". If you find it distasteful, time to start getting over it – this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with your assessment on its face value, but you need to go read the discussion above. It's not as clear cut as it seems. Especially where User:SheriffIsInTown lists a bunch of articles that describe stampedes but instead use "Tragedy" or "Disaster". Please go read the discussion and respond to it because right now you're arguing against a strawman. 24.153.226.234 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did "go read" the discussion, it changes nothing. We have a clear term being used by the vast majority of reliable sources, in multiple languages, whose dictionary definition stands up to scrutiny. Those trying to dumb it down, censor it, obfuscate it, politically correct it, or whatever, are simply doing the encyclopedia a disservice. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with your assessment on its face value, but you need to go read the discussion above. It's not as clear cut as it seems. Especially where User:SheriffIsInTown lists a bunch of articles that describe stampedes but instead use "Tragedy" or "Disaster". Please go read the discussion and respond to it because right now you're arguing against a strawman. 24.153.226.234 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM - I still believe it was a stampede and so do the sources by the looks of it, Crush IMHO does seem disrespectful and in my eyes it wasn't a disaster .... Stampede IMHO is the perfect title to describe this. –Davey2010Talk 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Approve because I, personally and at first, thought it was a cattle or horse stampede-Mr. Man (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM – We're not here to make our own opinion on the event and assign it a title of our own, we're here to consolidate and reiterate what is being published through reliable sources. WP:COMMONNAME overrides the idea of calling it a "disaster" as the vast majority of sources refer to the event as a stampede or crush. Whether or not the article is titled "2015 Mina stampede" or "2015 Mina crush" is a matter of semantics and difference in English dialect. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Approve, as nominator: I think as people with our own mind, it's our responsibility to cut the bias and clutter out from the reality. Although I agree that most sources use the word "stampede" but incident described does not fit the definition of stampede and neither do I believe that human beings can cause stampedes, it's an animal quality. Yes, it's possible that people can get crammed into a confined space and start dying because of suffocation or because of getting crushed. People can try to run away from a place where others are dying because of suffocation which our media terms as stampede so stampede is not an incident instead it's a result of a disaster which already started happening. It's just a matter of common sense, sometimes we accept one source as a reliable but at other times we are forced to think twice when a source is citing something which is against common sense and we reject that source no matter how reliable that is considered. I will reject a source if the source would say something against common sense. There are many stampedes which are referred as disasters only because people from certain religious or race were involved in that. That is why I say, it's time we reject all the bias and reflect reality, here are all those pages, do I need say that western media is biased and Wikipedia should not be tool to carry on that bias:
Victoria Hall disaster, Khodynka Tragedy, Shiloh Baptist Church disaster, Barnsley Public Hall Disaster, Italian Hall Disaster, Burnden Park disaster, Estadio Nacional disaster, 1979 The Who concert disaster, Luzhniki disaster, Heysel Stadium disaster, Hillsborough disaster, Orkney Stadium Disaster, Nyamiha disaster, Ellis Park Stadium disaster Sheriff (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)- Please see WP:GREATWRONGS. —David Levy 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: There is one "crush" as well The Camp Randall Crush and 1971 Ibrox disaster, how many examples you need. I am missing one more, not sure which was that. Sheriff (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Football stadium stampedes are known as disasters. I've fixed the others, except Khodynka Tragedy and the Italian Hall Disaster, which have become known by those names. zzz (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose for now: Not pleased to see the pointiness of other articles cited above now being moved to "stampede" titles. WP:COMMONNAME is our guide in each case, not our personal opinions as to what is appropriate. Nominator admits that most sources are calling this event a "stampede," which seems more commonly used in massive death situations. Even the Arabic version of this article calls it a "stampede" ( تدافع )--Milowent • hasspoken 02:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Approve See numerous earlier comments elsewhere on this Talk page. I don't accept the argument put forward by some that because numerous sources use a term, it makes it the right term; whether from a perspective of accuracy or bias/WP. The point has been very well made several times here and elsewhere that such incidents are not always referred to as "stampedes" - very far from it - and there does seem to be a case for cultural bias, as well as variations in interpretation of the word. I do wonder why some users seem to be so wedded to the word "stampede" and not apparently open to alternatives - "disaster" especially - when quite clearly "stampede" is not the sole choice and alternatives - namely "disaster" - are used elsewhere both in common usage and on Wikipedia.--Stratfordjohns (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Milowent is right; someone seems to think that re-naming the various non-stampede articles cited above is a clever wheeze. It's not. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia enough to find out who it is but - if you're reading this and I suspect you are, which is why you're doing it - are you sure you're doing the right thing?? --Stratfordjohns (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Silly meUser:zzz it was you, wasn't it? Other than your post above, are you going to give a rationale? Sorry to sound rude but you must know that if your argument is that somehow when it happens in a football stadium it's a "disaster" and elsewhere it's a "stampede" is weak to the point of being laughable....except for those two you have apparently decided are known by the names given. Re-read what came before: it is not about personal opinions. Thanks. --Stratfordjohns (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- See several RS including published sources that refer to the incidents that have been moved to "stampede" as "stampedes". We are not here to reinterpret things based on our own sensibilities, we use reliable sources, most of which use "stampede" for most of those articles. And why would we have a template called "Human stampedes" if not? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is a phenomenon called a human stampede. Something happens and suddenly people run like hell. That is not what happened here, nor in most of the articles labelled as stampedes. Do you consider our numerous dictionaries to be RS? As our use of "stampede" has been so racially separatist, we are justified in using things like dictionary definitions as RS to fix this travesty. Naming more articles as stampedes when they were not stampedes is ludicrous. If RS misuse a word, we are not bound to perpetuate that error. Dcs002 (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- See several RS including published sources that refer to the incidents that have been moved to "stampede" as "stampedes". We are not here to reinterpret things based on our own sensibilities, we use reliable sources, most of which use "stampede" for most of those articles. And why would we have a template called "Human stampedes" if not? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Approve: If you overlook the other Haj Stampede articles (which were all created within the last day and are each about one sentence long), you'll see that this type of event is generally referred to as a "disaster." "Stampede" is rarely applied, and when it is, it tends to be limited to incidents involving people of color. So let's not do that. Let's call it a disaster, which is what we'd call a comparable event in a Western stadium or concert. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wrote 1990 Hajj stampede on 24 Sept and its a decent start article already. The sources there almost all refer to it as a stampede, and not only in Western sources. 1426 deaths is massive, its beyond most Western "disasters" in loss of life by far.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Yeah, I was thinking more of 1994 Hajj stampede or 2001 Hajj stampede, which were created today and have one line of text each, not counting the infobox. The 1990 article is a solid article. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh I see, the stubmakers are out in force now.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Stubs are good! Expand them! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh I see, the stubmakers are out in force now.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Yeah, I was thinking more of 1994 Hajj stampede or 2001 Hajj stampede, which were created today and have one line of text each, not counting the infobox. The 1990 article is a solid article. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wrote 1990 Hajj stampede on 24 Sept and its a decent start article already. The sources there almost all refer to it as a stampede, and not only in Western sources. 1426 deaths is massive, its beyond most Western "disasters" in loss of life by far.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment one thing to consider is recentism. We all refer to the Hillsborough disaster as such because that's the name it's adopted over decades. Right now, we're a few days after this event, there was a surge of movement from a large number of people, so "crush" or "stampede" are both perfectly acceptable. Disaster is also used for rare incidents, like Hillsborough. If we change the Hajj incidents then we'll have "Hajj disaster 2006", "Hajj disaster 2012", "Hajj disaster 2015" etc, and as been noted previously, we've had at least two disasters in this one Hajj, so that doesn't seem helpful for our readers. And actually, that's fundamental here. We're not here to self-serve, we're here, as editors, to ensure our readers get to the articles they want to read as easily as possible. Right now, the vast majority would be looking for "stampede", not "disaster". If we want to make our readers' lives more difficult then move the page to obfuscate the actuality of the incident. If we want to help readers get to the information they need quickly, it's a stampede, as most reliable sources, including Saudi and other foreign-language sources have stated. (Also, a lot of the support for this move starts along the lines of "I think this happened" or "I don't believe that definition of stampede", which is charming but simply unacceptable as a verifiable reason as to why we should suddenly start calling events which have clear definitions (e.g. a stampede resulting in hundreds of deaths by crushing) by something completely unhelpful and vague (e.g. a disaster!)) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I cannot speak of anybody else but as soon as i heard about this incident in the news, i searched Wikipedia for "2015 Mina disaster", i did not find a page. I was about to create a page but then i thought let's google it. I googled "2015 Mina disaster" and i found "2015 Hajj stampede" Wikipedia article was the first search result. So i am quite certain, people will still reach the page no matter what their search term is. As for 2006 and 2012 incidents, i am not much aware of their circumstances. I will like to learn more about those incidents before i can say anything about them. Sheriff (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- People will use reliable sources, just as Wikpedia should do, and they almost all say "stampede". We can easily keep a redirect at "disaster" but as mentioned many times, there has been more than one disaster at Mina this year, and why are we afraid to use the actual words that describe the actual events? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose At least in American English, this type of disaster is referred to as a "stampede." Per MOS:RETAIN the term should remain, absent reason for change. A minority of similar incidents have articles titled a "disaster," but many of those may violate MOS:PRECISION and should be renamed. Mamyles (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- BritEng too. Perhaps in 30 years it will be otherwise referred to, but now, it's a stampede, per the dozens of RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. As discussed above, we base our content on reliable sources. We don't overrule them whenever someone decides to reject a dictionary definition that he/she finds insensitive. —David Levy 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry to say but this from our last three contributors are pretty much the same argument as from opposers since the outset of this discussion. See the various sections of this page cited above. The argument simply runs that this is common usage and there's not a lot else to it, to be blunt. I won't rehearse the arguments counter to "stampede" on grounds of i) definitions and ii) bias/WP here - they are set out at length elsewhere on this page - but I would feel more compelled by opposers' arguments if there was any evidence in the points they make that they had actually read and given some thought to the arguments previously presented...... The curious thing is that, in any case, on the general usage argument there is plenty of evidence to the contrary; again I'd refer users to the many articles cited above, which before the recent intervention of a certain user did not use the offending word to describe similar events. So, how can the common usage argument stand up? So, respectfully, if you haven't already, please read the earlier contributions, so perhaps we can get away from a to/fro based only on what we do or do not think is the common usage here, there or everywhere!?!? The point being made is that there may be other considerations. And before you say it The Rambling Man this is not about euphemisms. "Disaster" is neither more nor less euphemistic than "stampede". In the same vein, there is nothing more nor less accessible about "Hajj disaster 2006", "Hajj disaster 2012", "Hajj disaster 2015" when compared to "Hajj stampede 2006", "Hajj stampede 2012", "Hajj stampede 2015". Your point about recentism was well made though but, to turn it around, can we not take a slightly longer and wider view than the sources for this particular event thus far and read across intelligently and helpfully to the terms used for other similar events, in which quite clearly there is a choice of terms and "stampede" is not the only option. Thanks, all. --Stratfordjohns (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, not buying that. A disaster could be electrocution from overhead powerlines, a massive sinkhole opening up and swallowing people, a tsunami washing people away. A stampede is a very clear and easy to understand concept. That's what happened here. You don't like the word, I get it, I read it in dozens of reliable sources. Sorry you don't agree with our use of reliable sources or with the term, but continually using emotion or personal opinion to bias this is a waste of time. It's a stampede that crushed hundreds of people to death. I would be completely happy with "2015 Hajj crush" by the way, those people were crushed to death, no questions asked. Stick to the facts please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to say but this from our last three contributors are pretty much the same argument as from opposers since the outset of this discussion.
This observation reflects agreement among several editors as to why the requested move shouldn't be carried out. Would you prefer that we invent fictitious rationales, for the sake of variety?but I would feel more compelled by opposers' arguments if there was any evidence in the points they make that they had actually read and given some thought to the arguments previously presented......
I assure you that I did. Evidently, beginning my response with "As discussed above" doesn't constitute evidence of this, so feel free to assume that I'm lying.The curious thing is that, in any case, on the general usage argument there is plenty of evidence to the contrary; again I'd refer users to the many articles cited above, which before the recent intervention of a certain user did not use the offending word to describe similar events. So, how can the common usage argument stand up?
Please see WP:CIRCULAR.[The Rambling Man's] point about recentism was well made though but, to turn it around, can we not take a slightly longer and wider view than the sources for this particular event thus far and read across intelligently and helpfully to the terms used for other similar events, in which quite clearly there is a choice of terms and "stampede" is not the only option.
Please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. —David Levy 21:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment There are many which are using the word "disaster" and "tragedy", for example:
HAJJ TRAGEDY LATEST: 100 NIGERIANS MAY HAVE DIED
Hajj Disaster Leaves Many Unidentified-US News
Death toll in hajj disaster much higher than Saudi officials originally reported-New York Post
More than 700 pilgrims die in crush in worst haj disaster for 25 years-Reuters
Iranian survivor slams Saudi Arabia over deadly Mina disaster-Iran's PressTV
Saudi’s Health Ministry: Mina Disaster Death Toll Hits 4173-ALALAM
More Than 700 Pilgrims Killed in Deadliest Hajj Disaster-Haaretz
Top Iranian Quran reciters confirmed dead in Mina disaster-Tehran Times
Mina Disaster Due to Saudi Mismanagement, Inefficiency: President Rouhani-ALALAM
Iran vows legal action against Saudi after hajj disaster-Associated Press
Iraqi Lawmaker Calls for Lawsuit against Riyadh over Mina Disaster-Islamic Invitation Turkey
Mina Disaster Death Toll May Rise above 1,000-TEMPO.CO
WAS THE MINA DISASTER A COVER TO GRAB SOME IRANIANS?-SACHTIMES
Mina disaster death toll crosses 4000-The New Nation
Iranian senior clerics slam Saudis over mismanagement in Mina disaster-The Iran Project
And there are many more so why call it "stampede" over "disaster"! Sheriff (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)- While Google index counts are admittedly not the most reliable, there is more than an order of magnitude difference in use counts between "Mina disaster" (~60k results) and "Mina stampede" (~972k results). Clearly, one is the common term. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment User: David Levy thanks for the forensics on what I wrote - it was skillfully done - but I won't do the same back as it doesn't lead anywhere; it tends to miss the point by taking issue with what I wrote about what you (and others) wrote, all of which is really beside the point. What I was attempting to do was to get the argument off a simple preference for one term over another - or rather an argument over which is the commonly used term - without reference to other considerations, by drawing attention to those other considerations (without repeating them). I'm not now and never was wedded to "disaster". As I said quite early on in all this, "crush" is an option - as User: The Rambling Man suggests above. My question - and it was framed as a question - was whether "stampede" was the best term we could use. My approach was around definitions. Others weighed in with comments re bias/WP and I was persuaded. Others also chimed in to point out that many similar incidents are not commonly or on Wikipedia referred to as "stampedes". I genuinely don't understand why some users are so determined that stampede is retained as the right/best term for this incident. I have said enough - more than, most will say - so will let this be my final comment and see how it comes out. Thanks to all anyway, though.--Stratfordjohns (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Stampede in English means running. But this incident was not one in which anyone ran - rather they were crushed. So people read the title and get confused. I suggest naming this 2015 Mina crush instead. - User JoeyZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 (talk) 19:01, September 30, 2015|19:01, September 30, 2015 Moved from new section.
- Not necessarily. A stampede can be relatively slowly moving if the individuals involved are not showing proper awareness of their surroundings and care for those around them. Also, in my dialect of English, that usage of crush (as a noun) is unknown. If you spoke to me of "a crush", I would think you were speaking of a soda. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe a stampede can start slowly, but it always involves increasing speed and an impulsive beginning. That simply didn't happen. People walking in a slow, deliberate way cape upon others who were slower or stopped, and a crowd of 5,000 was unable to stop suddenly. They were slowing, not stampeding. I have yet to see a definition of a stampede that refers to a crowd that is slowing down to a stop. Dcs002 (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Or, if somebody spoke to me of a "crush", i would think of this crush. Sheriff (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Khajidha & Sheriff: this is what I was trying to get across to a UK user but he didn't understand. (on ITN/C for the Shanghai "crowd disaster"). Note that constriction (probably not by a British author?) makes a point of snakes not crushing their prey when they kill, which is how I always understood what death by crushing meant. The British apparently see things differently and consider suffocation being crushed to death. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand. I am American, and the place where I have most often heard "crush" used as a noun is on UK news media, e.g., "96 fans were killed in the crush." I have heard it used numerous times on BBC World Service and on UK television, whenever an event such as this occurs, regardless of the magnitude. Dcs002 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I was saying, crush (disaster type) is used much more in Britain than the US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- And this is not the only place I've seen that made a point out of snakes not killing by crushing. Nothing in the site of the definitive US dictionary mentions deaths or injuries for this word either (Webster's: crush). Nor asphyxiation. It's part of a foreign dialect (though some words like boot are too and they often stop bewildering Americans after some context like "car boot" or "96 fans died in a crowd crush") Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand. I am American, and the place where I have most often heard "crush" used as a noun is on UK news media, e.g., "96 fans were killed in the crush." I have heard it used numerous times on BBC World Service and on UK television, whenever an event such as this occurs, regardless of the magnitude. Dcs002 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Approve Regardless of WP:COMMONNAME, and IN AGREEMENT WITH all definitions I have seen, I think we would be furthering a wrong if we followed WP:COMMONNAME to the letter. Look at the numbers and see how this is racially separatist language, and that cannot be ignored or allowed to stand in WP. As of September 28, 21 of 25 articles (84%) describing these events in non-white countries used the word "stampede," while only 2 of 22 (9%) in white countries used "stampede" in the article title. That is far beyond any reasonable variation in naming, and it is unrelated to the definition of "stampede." This is the strongest evidence of racial bias I have ever seen in WP, which (to our credit) ordinarily goes out of its way to use racially neutral and inclusive language. "Stampede" may be the favorite word in Western media (and let's make no mistake which sources we are referring to here), but am I the only one who sees this sharp and blatant division along racial lines as a problem? 84% of articles about events in non-white countries are stampedes? Yet only 9% in white countries are stampedes? WE don't stampede in white countries; it's THEM in non-white countries who do. That's not the WP I want.
- I don't believe for one second that WP editors are racist, intentionally or unintentionally. I think our sources are. No one here is acting like a racist, and no one wants to be accused of racism by the likes of me. But the numbers are absolutely undeniable. We have disasters, tragedies, and crushes. They have stampedes. There is political pressure in the US to make Muslims seem dangerous and unreasonable. (A stampede is dangerous and unreasonable.) A lot of Americans still refuse to fly with a Muslim on the plane. We MUST regard our sources carefully, and remember to keep them in context. We have disasters, but they have stampedes. This is unacceptable in an encyclopedia, and it's shameful to perpetuate this linguistic game of us vs. them. This, IMO, FAR outweighs any principles outlined in WP:COMMONNAME. Racially separatist language is inexcusable, even if sources are using it. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
- The definitions of "stampede" that I have seen so far, including WP's own, all refer to an impulse, and a start of a crowd movement, usually chaotic. This is a crowd that was already in slow, orderly motion, and the people in the back didn't know the people in front had stopped. That is the opposite of a stampede. This was a crowd coming to a stop, not one taking off on an impulse. This was not a stampede of any type. It was a crowd disaster involving non-white people, and we need to face that. The numbers are irrefutable, and Wikipedia is right now irrefutably supporting the use of racially separatist language. (Run a statistical analysis on those numbers. It's not randomly distributed across racial lines - not even close.) I think we need to right this wrong, starting right here. Words mean things. A stampede means a crowd takes off impulsively and begins running. That is not what happened here. The pilgrims did not kill over a thousand of their number on impulse. I will vote to oppose any use of the word "stampede" for something that was not a stampede, especially if it furthers our racially separatist language. Dcs002 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to right this wrong, starting right here.
- Please see WP:GREATWRONGS (and see my other reply with this timestamp, in which I address your "racism" argument). —David Levy 00:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The fact that RS use the word "stampede" incorrectly, or contrary to all definitions, does not bind WP to the use of the term, not does it make it right or wise to perpetuate its misuse, especially in light of our racially separatist history of its use in WP. On the contrary; I think that makes it a very BAD idea. I have seen no definition of "stampede" that remotely fits this crowd disaster. A stampede does not describe a slowly moving, organized crowd coming to a stop. It does, however, connote many ugly things. Dcs002 (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment My apologies if I am speaking more than my share, but I think it is misguided to go through and change article names to include "stampede" in an attempt to make things more neutral. The fact remains that until this event happened, WP has had a long history of using "stampede" in a racially selective way, and the word now carries that taint. We cannot repair that damage by applying racially divisive language equally to all races, especially to articles describing events in which no stampede occurred. WP has a history with this word now that cannot be ignored. Quick-fixes like this do not help when there is a wound of racially divisive language in our history. We can't bury this problem so easily. Why have we been using "stampede" in such a racially unequal way? How did this come about? Spreading the language to places where it doesn't belong gives the illusion of fairness, only the illusion. We did this, and we need to figure out why, and quit this nonsense of finding quick fixes by spreading the label farther. I find this problem and these quick fixes very troubling. We MUST face our history and figure out how this happened. We need to learn from this, not sweep it under the rug. Dcs002 (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- STRONGLY approve change of article title, avoidance of word "stampede" Dcs002 you are absolutely correct that the word "stampede" is prejudicial not only in cultural terms, but also in understanding how this massive human crush happened and how disasters like it can be prevented in the future. Experts on crowd crush disasters, and what in this specific case is believed to be a "progressive crowd collapse" (possibly in the context of two streams of human traffic ordered to move against each other), as described in this Guardian article, firmly reject the word "stampede" and its connotations of deliberate trampling. Here's a quote:
For all their complexity, however, crowd disasters are as much a political problem as a technical one. A common reaction – indeed the usual reaction – is to evoke the idea of an indiscriminate mob, of mass panic. To blame, in short, the crowd. In the case of Hillsborough, this was done deliberately by the police and the Sun newspaper. In other cases, it may just be assumed and implied. People who have never seen mass panic find it easy to imagine, but in fact that’s almost everybody, because mass panic virtually does not exist. Indeed believing in mass panics is dangerous, because it means the authorities sometimes conceal alarming but important information for fear of starting one. “Utter, complete rubbish,” is what [Edwin] Galea thinks of that strategy. “All the evidence shows that people will be able to react and take sensible decisions based on the information you provide [...]"
One word bears a lot of blame here, at least in English. Mention a “stampede” in front of Galea and he starts to look pretty wild-eyed. “This is just absolute nonsense,” he says. “It’s pure ignorance, and laziness … It gives the impression that it was a mindless crowd only caring about themselves, and they were prepared to crush people.” The truth is that people are only directly crushed by others who have no choice in the matter, and the people who can choose don’t know what is going on because they’re too far away from the epicentre – often reassuringly surrounded by marshals and smiling faces. [...]
On the extremely rare occasions that a real stampede happens – that is, people running over you – it is unlikely to be fatal. “If you look at the analysis, I’ve not seen any instances of the cause of mass fatalities being a stampede,” says Keith Still, professor of crowd science at Manchester Metropolitan University. “People don’t die because they panic. They panic because they are dying.” In Still and Galea’s small but growing field, this is now the consensus view. “Crowd quakes [or collapses] are a typical reason for crowd disasters, to be distinguished from those resulting from ‘mass panic’ or ‘crowd crushes’,” says Dirk Helbing, a computing professor at ETH Zurich. “The idea of the hysterical mass is a myth,” says Paul Torrens, a professor at the Center for Geospatial Information Science at the University of Maryland.
Anyway, good luck convincing the above editors, none of whom cited any scientific knowledge or insight drawn from the field which actually studies crowd crush phenomena, why the word "stampede" is inappropriate. "That crowd" has probably all moved on by now, to opine on other things. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Most of the editors who are opposing the name change, are citing WP:PRECISION so let's nip it in the bud, WP:PRECISION clearly says
The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
So, what I am not understanding here is how "2015 Mina disaster" does not "distinguish it from other subjects". Whereas you have year "2015", city "Mina" preceeding the word disaster, there is no other incident which so far has happened in year 2015 and in city of Mina. Sheriff (report) 20:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- "2015 Mina disaster" works for me. For what it's worth, The New York Times called it a "stampede" in its first story headline, and in subsequent days' reporting called it the "Mina (or Hajj) tragedy" or "Mina disaster". Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- That explains, they realized that they used a wrong word and we should learn from that as well and do away with wrong terms. We will not do justice to encyclopedia if we kept sticking with them. Sheriff (report) 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- And yet the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, to name but three, have used stampede from the beginning and continue to do so. This isn't a "wrong term", it's a term that has been over-analysed and has been made to become offensive to some. How can anyone find a ... reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus. offensive, or claim it to be an incorrect description of what happened at Mina? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- As quoted, who indeed? But if someone believes that you intentionally left out the key words in that definition, "sudden" and "rapid", they might find it offensive or incorrect. And you should have a look at what the Guardian published on the subject [[1]], as pointed out above by Vesuvius Dogg. They have been using both 'crush" and "stampede" all along, but it seems some at the Guardian feel strongly about this issue too. Dcs002 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you find it difficult to read logical English: there is an "OR" in that sentence, the second clause is abundantly clear: reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus. You can deny it as much as you like, but that's not getting you far. This is plain and simple an attempt to derail the English language, stampede it was, stampede it is, that's why it's still being reported as such. And don't attribute a "feeling" to The Guardian, it's a piece written by one journalist, working empathetically with those who clearly have some difficulty understanding that in English, this isn't an offensive term. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- One journalist? The article now draws from three different journalists (writing for The Guardian, Newsweek, and The New Yorker) each of whom quotes experts, all apparently at top of the field, unanimously decrying the use of the word "stampede" in circumstances like the Mina disaster. John Seabrook's excellent 2011 New Yorker investigative piece, "Crush Point", includes the following paragraph:
- Perhaps you find it difficult to read logical English: there is an "OR" in that sentence, the second clause is abundantly clear: reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus. You can deny it as much as you like, but that's not getting you far. This is plain and simple an attempt to derail the English language, stampede it was, stampede it is, that's why it's still being reported as such. And don't attribute a "feeling" to The Guardian, it's a piece written by one journalist, working empathetically with those who clearly have some difficulty understanding that in English, this isn't an offensive term. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- As quoted, who indeed? But if someone believes that you intentionally left out the key words in that definition, "sudden" and "rapid", they might find it offensive or incorrect. And you should have a look at what the Guardian published on the subject [[1]], as pointed out above by Vesuvius Dogg. They have been using both 'crush" and "stampede" all along, but it seems some at the Guardian feel strongly about this issue too. Dcs002 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- And yet the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, to name but three, have used stampede from the beginning and continue to do so. This isn't a "wrong term", it's a term that has been over-analysed and has been made to become offensive to some. How can anyone find a ... reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus. offensive, or claim it to be an incorrect description of what happened at Mina? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- That explains, they realized that they used a wrong word and we should learn from that as well and do away with wrong terms. We will not do justice to encyclopedia if we kept sticking with them. Sheriff (report) 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
So why do we still think in terms of panics and stampedes? In many crowd disasters, particularly those in the West where commercial interests are involved, different stakeholders are potentially responsible, including the organizers of the event, the venue owners and designers, and the public officials and private security firms whose job is to secure public safety. In the aftermath of disasters, they all vigorously defend their interests, and rarely are any of them held accountable. But almost no one speaks for the crowd, and the crowd usually takes the blame.
- It takes time to read this and other articles, more time than it takes to read (say) a dictionary definition which is then altered to suit a Talk page argument. But it's VERY clear that "stampede" does NOT describe what happened in Mina, according to usage preferred by those who research these crowd phenomena, and it's also VERY clear that "stampede" is often used after the fact to deflect responsibility. Hardly surprising the House of Saud would first blame a bunch of Africans for not taking directions, and use the word "stampede" in their own press releases.... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I think you're wasting your time, particularly when responding to me. The word stampede, in my language, in my culture, is not negative, is just purely descriptive. It is by far the most commonly used term for this event. If you weren't already aware, Wikipedia works on a principle of verifiability, not just some particular individual's interpretation of their version of the "truth" of a particular situation. I'm certainly done here, but I'm sure you'll be around for the next stampede at the next Hajj, and I'm also sure you'll be working hard on all the other "misnamed" articles and categories that use "stampede" in this precise and accurate fashion. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It takes time to read this and other articles, more time than it takes to read (say) a dictionary definition which is then altered to suit a Talk page argument. But it's VERY clear that "stampede" does NOT describe what happened in Mina, according to usage preferred by those who research these crowd phenomena, and it's also VERY clear that "stampede" is often used after the fact to deflect responsibility. Hardly surprising the House of Saud would first blame a bunch of Africans for not taking directions, and use the word "stampede" in their own press releases.... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I've been doing a lot of work cleaning up references in this article, so I decided to make a count of how those cited articles refer to the event in Mina. Of the cited articles that were 1) written in English and 2) had headlines that directly referenced the event, the following words are used to describe it.
- I did not count articles that were not in English (as words can be translated multiple ways) and I did not count articles where the headline did not directly refer to the Mina event (examples: "Saudi royal calls for regime change in Riyadh" and "Indonesia offers body identification assistance to Saudi Arabia". A number of articles used "stampede" along with other descriptors (such as "Chief of Baghdad crimes unit died in hajj stampede" and "Hajj: More than 700 dead in Mina stampede"). In those cases, I counted such articles under "stampede" rather than "Death(s)/Death Toll" as "stampede" was the primary descriptive term.
- Stampede: 51
- BBC x4, CBS, International Business Times x2, Daily Trust (Nigeria), The New York Times, The Washington Post x2, Saudi Gazette, PBS NewsHour, Yahoo! News, NewsGD.com (China), Ethiopian News Agency, Outlook (India), Rappler (Philippines), Rudaw (Kurdish Iraq), Libya's Channel, New Straits Times (Malaysia), Vanguard (Nigeria), PhilStar (Philippines), Daily News (Sri Lanka), Dabanga (Darfur & Sudan), National Mirror (Nigeria), NAIJ (Nigeria), Nigerian Eye, Al Bawaba (Jordan), Al Jazeera x4, Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Al Arabiya News (United Arab Emirates), Asharq Al-Awsat (Saudi Arabia), DNA (India), The Quint (India), Naira Naija News (Nigeria), The Guardian, CNN, ABC (US), Al Alam (Iran), Trend (Azerbaijan), The Express Tribune (Pakistan), Daily Sabah (Turkey), Premium Times (Nigeria), Nigerian Tribune, Independent (UK), The Cairo Post (Egypt), [Not counted for Stampede: Laila's Blog (Nigeria)]
- Tragedy: 17
- 92 News (Pakistan), The New York Times, NewsX (India), Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran) x3, Myanmar Times, The Maravi Post (Malawi), PressTV x3 (Iran), Saudi Gazette, The News (Nigeria), SAMMA TV (Pakistan), Hürriyet Daily News (Turkey), Yahoo! News, Wall Street Journal
- Death(s)/Death Toll: 10
- SAMMA TV (Pakistan), The Daily Star (Bangladesh), StarAfrica, News24 (South Africa), The Citizen (Tanzania), PressTV x2 (Iran), Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran), Nigerian Eye, Jakarta Globe (Indonesia)
- Missing: 8
- The Point (the Gambia), CitiFM (Ghana), Antara (Indonesia), The Jordan Times, Times of Oman, BBC, SAMMA TV (Pakistan), PressTV (Iran)
- Crush: 7
- Arab News (Saudi Arabia), The Guardian x3, Sunday's Zaman (Turkey), ITV (UK), ISNA (Iran)
- Disaster: 6
- Belfast Telegraph, The Guardian, Hürriyet Daily News (Turkey), Yahoo! News, The Guardian (Nigeria), The Exponent Telegram (US)
- Based on my analysis, it seems clear that, among the sources cited in this Wikipedia article, "stampede" is the overwhelmingly the most common word used to describe the Mina event. As such, I vote for the article title to remain as it stands: "2015 Mina stampede".
- I hope this is useful for the discussion. Carl Henderson (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment We are not bound by the majority in any sense. Thank you for your work, Carl, but the majority of sources are misusing the word "stampede." WP has a history of blatantly racist application of the word that we are only now discussing. We have an extra burden now to ensure that we don't use that word inappropriately, even if everybody else does. We are here to make a great encyclopedia, not to repeat the mistakes of others. No definition of "stampede" describes any account of this event, and the word has been used with racial bias. If ever there were a case for WP:IGNORE, this has to be it. Dcs002 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of the sources used in the article (as of evening of 3 October 2015), 51 used "stampede". Of those 51, 32 uses (a clear majority) were from non western-sources:
- Daily Trust (Nigeria), Saudi Gazette, NewsGD.com (China), Ethiopian News Agency, Outlook (India), Rappler (Philippines), Rudaw (Kurdish Iraq), Libya's Channel, New Straits Times (Malaysia), Vanguard (Nigeria), PhilStar (Philippines), Daily News (Sri Lanka), Dabanga (Darfur & Sudan), National Mirror (Nigeria), NAIJ (Nigeria), Nigerian Eye, Al Bawaba (Jordan), Al Jazeera x4, Al Arabiya News (United Arab Emirates), Asharq Al-Awsat (Saudi Arabia), DNA (India), The Quint (India), Naira Naija News (Nigeria), Al Alam (Iran), The Express Tribune (Pakistan), Daily Sabah (Turkey), Premium Times (Nigeria), Nigerian Tribune, The Cairo Post (Egypt)
- Thus I question whether then association of "stampede" with some sort of Anglo-American cultural racism is reasonable. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of the sources used in the article (as of evening of 3 October 2015), 51 used "stampede". Of those 51, 32 uses (a clear majority) were from non western-sources:
- I'd also like to point out (perhaps to the detriment of my original argument) that only 12 western sources used a non-stampede term for the event in Mina. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, of the 48 sources that used another term as the primary descriptor, 11 were Iranian
- Tragedy: Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran) x3, PressTV x3 (Iran)
- Death(s)/Death Toll: PressTV x2 (Iran), Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran)
- Missing: PressTV (Iran)
- Crush: ISNA (Iran)
- It is possible that in an effort to avoid what some believe may be a racist word choice in the title, that Wikipedia would be instead promoting the Iranian official POV. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, of the 48 sources that used another term as the primary descriptor, 11 were Iranian
- For your additional consideration, here is the Google count as of 4:45 CDT 4 October 2015:
- 2015 mina deaths 8,110,000
- 2015 mina stampede 5,050,000
- 2015 mina martyr[s/ed] 2,920,000
- 2015 mina disaster 2,410,000
- 2015 mina tragedy 2,020,000
- 2015 mina missing 1,930,000
- 2015 mina crush 1,580,000
- To my surprise, "deaths" leads the results, followed by "stampede", and then by "martyr[s/ed]". The title "2015 Mina deaths" would be most NPOV by this metric. My vote is still Oppose as the option on the table is to change the article tile to "2015 Mina disaster". Carl Henderson (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC
- For your additional consideration, here is the Google count as of 4:45 CDT 4 October 2015:
- Comment: The word "stampede" is a scape goat for those who wants to put the blame on the crowd. It's like saying "people killed people", there is no one to blame, it was an accident. They just ran over each other, the word stampede classify the incident as an accident that is why governmens tand their non-free media like to use this word to describe such events. If animals run over each other then there is no one to blame, you cannot blame the sheppard or a hunter with a gun in his hand and that is the reason media tries to steer free and use the words which are not offensive to governments so their license to operate cannot be revoked. The other reason is that most modern media in third world countries take their clue from the western media and sometimes they get their news from a western source or host country source (in this case Saudi Arabia) so they carry the word forward. The perfect example to the contrary is Iranian media and why they are not using the word "stampede" is that they do not get their news from a western source or Saudi source because of long standing conflict with the West and Saudis. We should not play into hands of those entities who are trying to put the blame on the crowd that they just moved on an impulse and stampeded and crushed each other. The word "disaster" has a broader definition and does not classify the event in one category or another and we should rename this page to that. By using the word "stampede", we are not being neutral and impartial as an encyclopedia and instead putting a blame on one party which is the "crowd", that people in the acted on an impulse but in reality the incident happened without them even knowing about it. The word "disaster" is more neutral compared to "stampede".I will accept "2015 Mina deaths" as an alternative if we cannot reach to a conclusion to change it to "2015 Mina disaster". Sheriff (report) 01:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the word has been used in a racist manner, the solution is NOT to cease using the word entirely. The solution is to use it for all appropriate events, regardless of the race of the people involved. As The Rambling Man pointed out above, this DOES fit at least one definition of the word stampede and is the word used by several high quality English language sources. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with what you say about using the word for all appropriate events, but The Rambling Man's definition (if I have found the correct one) is incomplete, and it does not represent the full definition from the source. (Always question the ellipses...) He wrote "a ... reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus." By that definition a crowd who laughs at a comedian's joke has stampeded. That is a reaction (laughter) of a mass of people (the crowd) in response to a particular stimulus (the joke). You can see this definition is an absurdity in its incomplete form. But if you look at the whole definition from that source, you get "a sudden rapid movement or reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus." For whatever reason, The Rambling Man left out the key words "sudden" and "rapid." (This is from The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English 2009, accessed via Encyclopedia.com.)
- If the word has been used in a racist manner, the solution is NOT to cease using the word entirely. The solution is to use it for all appropriate events, regardless of the race of the people involved. As The Rambling Man pointed out above, this DOES fit at least one definition of the word stampede and is the word used by several high quality English language sources. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is no credible definition of a stampede that fits what we know of these events unless we cut them up until they are meaningless, as in the example above. If there were a definition that fit the events, this discussion would be moot. (I think someone would have posted and sourced such a definition by now. It would be a very easy way to shut me up anyway.) The word "stampede" does not mean a slow, deliberate crowd movement resulting in a crowd collapse or crowd crush. We cannot force-fit the definition of the word into the events in Mina. All three dictionaries in my apartment (American Family and School, Webster's New American, and Merriam-Webster) require at least impulse-driven action or sudden action. This was slow and deliberate movement into a crowd collapse or crowd crush. (Definitions from the Guardian, which published a piece against the use of the word "stampede" in this story - linked and quoted above by Vesuvius Dogg.) The Guardian is changing, the New York Times is changing, and we should have changed our usage long ago.
- Yep, try "reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus." Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, please stop citing that definition without citing it competely. Your argument about the use of "or" fails because, as I wrote above, it leaves us with an absurdity. The conjunction "or" in this case means "A sudden rapid (movement or reaction)," not "A (sudden rapid movement) or reaction." The context gives the definition, as the latter case results in an absurdity. When you chop out part of the definition and fail to give the source, you are not giving people a fair chance to consider the actual definition, only your custom-edted version, and I think that compromises the integrity of this discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- You'd be better off leaving this to others to decide, rather than continually insulting everyone's intelligence and continually badgering me. It doesn't help your crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, please stop citing that definition without citing it competely. Your argument about the use of "or" fails because, as I wrote above, it leaves us with an absurdity. The conjunction "or" in this case means "A sudden rapid (movement or reaction)," not "A (sudden rapid movement) or reaction." The context gives the definition, as the latter case results in an absurdity. When you chop out part of the definition and fail to give the source, you are not giving people a fair chance to consider the actual definition, only your custom-edted version, and I think that compromises the integrity of this discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, try "reaction of a mass of people in response to a particular circumstance or stimulus." Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Or "a mass movement of people at a common impulse " or "overrun (a place)". See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stampede and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stampede --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ths again requires the movement to be "at a common impulse," which was not at all the case, and nothing was overrun. As far as I can tell, the crowd remained in the streets, within the fenced-in areas. Had there been a place to overrun, few, if any, would have died. Dcs002 (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "common impulse" was the desire to move forward and the place overrun was the area where the movement was stopped. That area was overrun to the point where crowding led to deaths. This is really quite simple. --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, It's not that simple and your account of the incident does not make sense. On the contrary, Vesuvius Dogg and Dcs002 have provided information from reliable sources explaining why this incident was not a stampede and should not be called stampede. Sheriff (report) 14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- How does "As they neared the area, they converged with an existing group of people who were already in the area, which pushed the area to over capacity." not equate to the area being overrun? --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Khajidha, no area was overrun because the area had been set aside for the crowd, and people were present the entire time. They did not take over or invade a space. They remained within the fenced-in area designated for the crowd. The crowding became more dense, and their movement slowed, eventually to a deadly stop. (That's the opposite of a stampede, which features an impulsive or sudden start, not a stop.) Dcs002 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Pushing an area to over capacity" does not mean "stampede", it's called "crushing or suffocating people because of overcrowding", it does not automatically mean that people ran over each other, if an area got over crowded or went over capacity then there is no room for people to move less run over each other, that is what we have been trying to make sense, good thing, you quoted that text. It also proves the point that it was not a "stampede". Sheriff (report) 15:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- And "to overrun a place" is one definition of a stampede. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Not sure what you have been reading. Stampede defines stampede as
A stampede is an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose.
- This is not what happened. Sheriff (report) 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Khajidha (and others): what do you think of the consensus among crowd behavior experts, and among academics who study such crowd phenomena, counseling against the use of the word "stampede" in crowd crush and crowd collapse situations? No matter how many ignorant European headline writers used it, the word "stampede" is freighted with unwanted and unnecessary connotations here, thanks to its primary and widely-understood definition. "Stampede" (as these experts point out) pre-supposes a callous, animalistic impulse which attaches blame to the crowd (while exonerating and excusing officials) even before the investigation has happened; the word "stampede" thus seems to me prejudicial and insensitive to victims and their families, much in the way that Sun headlines were insensitive to Liverpool "hooligan" victims of the Hillsborough disaster in their reporting just after that sad 1989 event (which I saw unfold on live TV, policeman idly linked arm-and-arm across the middle of the pitch, guarding against motionless "hooligans" who were gasping their last breaths just yards away). We can't change the whole culture, but we can use words responsibly. "2015 Mina disaster" is not misleading any more than "Hillsborough disaster" is... Why not, just for the sake of neutrality, change this to "2015 Mina disaster"? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think they are being overly sensitive. The word is simply referring to the movement of large numbers into the area within a reasonably short time period. And "2015 Mina disaster" is not a good name, it tells you nothing about what sort of disaster occurred. --Khajidha (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think experts who have dedicated their lives and careers to preventing these events from happening are "overly sensitive". They make the point that words like "stampede" and "panic" often cause officials, unfamiliar with the phenomenon, to withhold or delay important safety advice until it is too late, for fear of inciting a crowd. There is nothing "simple" about this word with its animalistic connotations, which you cannot ignore or discard even with your cherry-picked secondary definition from one dictionary. Again—you think people who study crowd crushes are "overly sensitive"? You think people who have made their careers studying and modeling fire evacuations (i.e., TRUE stampede and panic situations, unlike the 2015 Mina crowd disaster) aren't aware of how popular semantic misunderstandings of the word "stampede" can actually worsen the gravity of a crowd crush incident? If only I hadn't seen such a tragedy unfold before my eyes.. So what is wrong with "2015 Mina crowd disaster"? Still descriptive but neutral, yes? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am completely okay with "2015 Mina crowd disaster" as a second choice. Sheriff (report) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's still a bit lame, you have a couple of journo's whose opinions you are now declaring as absolute fact, while there are dozens of reliable sources who use the term "stampede". It's becoming a problem of your own making now, there's no real issue with this term except in the minds of those who are seeking to find an issue. To the vast majority, it's not an issue at all, there's no connotation, no racism, no transference of blame, nothing, it's all stuff you're making up. Anyway, since this has disappeared from the main page, my interest is somewhat diminished. But, in parting, if you actually believe in any of the things you're saying/claiming, please address it on a wider forum. We have a template for human stampedes, that also includes a number of Hajj incidents. It would be utterly remiss and totally irresponsible of you to focus on just this one article, if you genuinely care about this issue. You should construct an RFC and include all relevant stampedes that you do not believe to be stampedes, and allow the community as a whole to get involved. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, those are not opinions that can be dismissed, as you do, as coming from "a couple of journo's." These definitions and usages come from academic (primary) sources as quoted in secondary sources. (Remember that secondary sources are the preferred sources in WP.) I don't know what would satisfy your requirements for a definition other than the one you hold, but every single source, including the one you introduced, has an element of impulse or suddenness. Most list animal or herd behavior before human behavior, thus acknowledging animalistic connotations. The racism was covered above. It is not a matter of the term being inherently racist, only our application of it. We (Wikipedia) have for years now applied it overwhelmingly and selectively to articles about non-white events. On September 28, the WP article List of human stampedes pointed to 22 events in predominantly white countries and 25 in predominantly non-white countries. In white countries, 9% of the articles in this list (which is titled as a list of stampedes) used the word "stampede" in their titles. In non-white countries, 84% had the word "stampede" in their titles. This application of the word is not only a matter of incorrect usage, but also a matter of racist word selection, i.e., word selection based on race. If the RS use racist language, it does not follow that we should use it here in our namespace. Dcs002 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Correlation does not imply causation. That the disparity is attributable to racism is entirely speculative. It might reflect unrelated factors, such as a greater tendency for incidents occurring in certain countries to become widely known as "__________ disaster" (or something that translates as such) within the relevant cultures.
- I suggest that you focus on potential confusion among readers instead of seeking to use Wikipedia to right a great wrong that you perceive. —David Levy 00:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- David Levy, I am a retired neuroscientist. I know all about correlation and causation. I have taught those concepts and many other scientific and logical pitfalls to thousands of students. That's not what this is about. (Another slogan to consider is "words mean things.") Racial hatred might or might not be the cause of this lopsided application of the word "stampede," but the word has been applied along racial lines in WP. As such, there is a bias in its use here. It is not applied evenly, without regard to race. Its use is biased toward non-white populations without any credible justification, just speculation. I have said several times that I don't think any WP editors were applying their own racist attitudes, and I have offered other suggestions that might explain its origin. Nonetheless, maintaining that bias along racial lines is unacceptable, not because it comes from hate, but because we are treating people differently because of their race. We are applying a word with ugly connotations on people who are not like white Westerners, and that word does not describe what happened. I reject the notion that this might be the result of local preference for the word "stampede" in non-white countries for two reasons. First, most of these incidents in non-white countries happened in places where English is not the primary language (e.g., Saudi Arabia), so what they call it locally isn't going to be useful in the English Wikipedia. Second, we are not meant to be a reflection of the linguistic habits of non-English-speaking countries. We are the English language Wikipedia. We specify which style of English to be used in a given article and go from there. For your last points, I believe it is more confusing to readers to use words that mean something other than what they are describing. No stampede happened in Mina, by any reliable definition. I think it is confusing, and worse, misleading, to the readers. Finally, I have already argued that we are not here to right great wrongs, but that refers to the world's great wrongs. If WP has committed a wrong, it is our imperative to make it right, right now. Dcs002 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, those are not opinions that can be dismissed, as you do, as coming from "a couple of journo's." These definitions and usages come from academic (primary) sources as quoted in secondary sources. (Remember that secondary sources are the preferred sources in WP.) I don't know what would satisfy your requirements for a definition other than the one you hold, but every single source, including the one you introduced, has an element of impulse or suddenness. Most list animal or herd behavior before human behavior, thus acknowledging animalistic connotations. The racism was covered above. It is not a matter of the term being inherently racist, only our application of it. We (Wikipedia) have for years now applied it overwhelmingly and selectively to articles about non-white events. On September 28, the WP article List of human stampedes pointed to 22 events in predominantly white countries and 25 in predominantly non-white countries. In white countries, 9% of the articles in this list (which is titled as a list of stampedes) used the word "stampede" in their titles. In non-white countries, 84% had the word "stampede" in their titles. This application of the word is not only a matter of incorrect usage, but also a matter of racist word selection, i.e., word selection based on race. If the RS use racist language, it does not follow that we should use it here in our namespace. Dcs002 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's still a bit lame, you have a couple of journo's whose opinions you are now declaring as absolute fact, while there are dozens of reliable sources who use the term "stampede". It's becoming a problem of your own making now, there's no real issue with this term except in the minds of those who are seeking to find an issue. To the vast majority, it's not an issue at all, there's no connotation, no racism, no transference of blame, nothing, it's all stuff you're making up. Anyway, since this has disappeared from the main page, my interest is somewhat diminished. But, in parting, if you actually believe in any of the things you're saying/claiming, please address it on a wider forum. We have a template for human stampedes, that also includes a number of Hajj incidents. It would be utterly remiss and totally irresponsible of you to focus on just this one article, if you genuinely care about this issue. You should construct an RFC and include all relevant stampedes that you do not believe to be stampedes, and allow the community as a whole to get involved. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am completely okay with "2015 Mina crowd disaster" as a second choice. Sheriff (report) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Not sure what you have been reading. Stampede defines stampede as
- And "to overrun a place" is one definition of a stampede. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- How does "As they neared the area, they converged with an existing group of people who were already in the area, which pushed the area to over capacity." not equate to the area being overrun? --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, It's not that simple and your account of the incident does not make sense. On the contrary, Vesuvius Dogg and Dcs002 have provided information from reliable sources explaining why this incident was not a stampede and should not be called stampede. Sheriff (report) 14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "common impulse" was the desire to move forward and the place overrun was the area where the movement was stopped. That area was overrun to the point where crowding led to deaths. This is really quite simple. --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ths again requires the movement to be "at a common impulse," which was not at all the case, and nothing was overrun. As far as I can tell, the crowd remained in the streets, within the fenced-in areas. Had there been a place to overrun, few, if any, would have died. Dcs002 (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Or "a mass movement of people at a common impulse " or "overrun (a place)". See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stampede and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stampede --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Racial hatred might or might not be the cause of this lopsided application of the word "stampede," but the word has been applied along racial lines in WP.
- This is where you're conflating correlation and causation. You've observed a correlation between usage of the word "stampede" and countries with predominantly non-white populations. This doesn't mean that the word "stampede" was used (either at Wikipedia or at sources upstream) because the countries' populations are predominantly non-white.
- David Levy, the correlation indicates biased usage, not the cause of the bias. The word has been applied along racial lines. The correlation is enough. I am conflating nothing. I am not pointing fingers or trying to establish cause right now. The bias is easily demonstrable through mathematics. That bias can later become causation for something uglier. This is what my racist usage argument rests on. I am sorry if I seem to be bludgeoning, but I do want my point to be understood. If you still think I am conflating correlation and causation, then you still don't understand my argument. Regardless of any cause, we have separate terms for the same behavior, depending on the predominant skin color where the behavior occurred, and that could lead to ugly consequences. Dcs002 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
We are applying a word with ugly connotations on people who are not like white Westerners, and that word does not describe what happened.
- Editors from multiple countries have expressed disagreement with your assertion that the word "stampede" has ugly connotations. You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no need to continue bludgeoning us with it.
I reject the notion that this might be the result of local preference for the word "stampede" in non-white countries for two reasons.
- That isn't what I wrote. It's possible that "stampede" is simply the default terminology, used by English-language writers to describe this type of incident when no particular designation clearly predominates.
First, most of these incidents in non-white countries happened in places where English is not the primary language (e.g., Saudi Arabia), so what they call it locally isn't going to be useful in the English Wikipedia.
- But if an event's de facto name contains a term conventionally translated as "disaster", reliable sources are more likely to be label it as such. It's a vague description, so we generally should use it only when it's strongly associated with a particular subject (such as the Hindenburg disaster).
Second, we are not meant to be a reflection of the linguistic habits of non-English-speaking countries.
- We are meant to reflect usage by reliable English-language sources, some of which might reflect the linguistic habits of non-English-speaking countries.
For your last points, I believe it is more confusing to readers to use words that mean something other than what they are describing. No stampede happened in Mina, by any reliable definition.
- I see definitions of "stampede" that appear applicable to the incident and others that obviously aren't. Perhaps another description would convey the relevant concept with greater clarity. We should be brainstorming possibilities instead of speculating as to our sources' motives. "Stampede" needn't be linguistically invalid or racially biased for something else to be preferable. —David Levy 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly endorse that idea! Dcs002 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose the more times you claim a word to be racist, the more people will become convinced that it is, even if it isn't the case. I guess it's a modern proclivity to find issue where issue doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again, The Rambling Man, I have not claimed, nor do I believe, that the word "stampede" is racist, offensive, or even rude. I sure would appreciate it if you characterized my words fairly. You have been doing this and promoting your own edited definition that fits your position. Why do you do these things? The issue gives us enough to talk about. Make your case with words that support your case, or talk about why you think my case is flawed. Your case would be much stronger without stooping to these tactics, which really feel personal. Speak to the message please, not the messenger. (If you knew me in real life, you'd laugh at the thought of me being a politically correct vigilante.) Dcs002 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ultimately, your position has been more than adequately dissected above, and shows that your crusade, while important to you, is not going to change Wikipedia's usage of reliable sources and of idiomatic language which is commonly used in English. I don't need to make a case to define why your position is flawed, the status quo will remain the status quo, it meets the WP:V requirements of Wikipedia policy as multiple, multi-language WP:RS use the term. Just because you and a handful of others don't like it for one reason or another, it doesn't mean we'll be modifying some of the basic tenets of Wikipedia to accommodate your desires. Sorry about that. Time to stop pretending you know what happened at the Hajj and time to get on with making the article better, and all the other stampede articles which you have summarily ignored thus far. Good luck. P.S. I think someone just above erroneously claims that The New York Times has stopped using the term, well that's completely false, e.g. today's article which is titled "Pakistan Moves to Quiet Outcry Against Saudi Arabia Over Hajj Stampede" and starts "For years, Saudi Arabia has enjoyed a hallowed status here, considered above question or criticism. Yet the hajj stampede near Mecca last month......", written by Salman Masood. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, Your choice of the word "crusade" astonishes me. I don't know if you are just trying to dismiss me personally instead of the points I have made, or to use that word for some other emotional impact beyond that. If your goal is to make me look like a fool, give it up - I have done a far better job than you could. If I do look like a fool, at least I am sincere fool who is trying his best to improve this encyclopedia. But in an article about an Islamic tragedy with over a thousand dead, one as sensitive and so emotionally charged as this, you could have chosen your words better. I have tried to assume best intentions, but you have really pushed things. This is not a place to accuse me (or anyone) of things like pretending to know or impugn my motives or offer sarcastic apologies, and if you don't understand the baggage carried by the word "crusade," I think you should stop right now and find out why that word is particularly emotive and insulting to some. And I did not say that about the NYT. Are you just baiting me now? FWIW, people are thanking me every day for my posts in here. Maybe they don't want to deal with the kind of disrespect that you continue to lay out. Is that your goal? Is that why you refer to our cause as a "crusade"? If you are offensive enough the opposition will go away? Has that been working for you? Dcs002 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Listen, it's all getting a little TLDR and off-topic. If you get this page moved, then it will be by emotional blackmail and not through policy. That will diminish the encyclopedia a little bit, but I guess nothing can be done about that given all the "ICANTHEARYOU" votes here. The article now contains the one "stampede" more than 100 times, the denial is astonishing. But I really am done here, much better things to do, so thanks, and bye. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, Your choice of the word "crusade" astonishes me. I don't know if you are just trying to dismiss me personally instead of the points I have made, or to use that word for some other emotional impact beyond that. If your goal is to make me look like a fool, give it up - I have done a far better job than you could. If I do look like a fool, at least I am sincere fool who is trying his best to improve this encyclopedia. But in an article about an Islamic tragedy with over a thousand dead, one as sensitive and so emotionally charged as this, you could have chosen your words better. I have tried to assume best intentions, but you have really pushed things. This is not a place to accuse me (or anyone) of things like pretending to know or impugn my motives or offer sarcastic apologies, and if you don't understand the baggage carried by the word "crusade," I think you should stop right now and find out why that word is particularly emotive and insulting to some. And I did not say that about the NYT. Are you just baiting me now? FWIW, people are thanking me every day for my posts in here. Maybe they don't want to deal with the kind of disrespect that you continue to lay out. Is that your goal? Is that why you refer to our cause as a "crusade"? If you are offensive enough the opposition will go away? Has that been working for you? Dcs002 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ultimately, your position has been more than adequately dissected above, and shows that your crusade, while important to you, is not going to change Wikipedia's usage of reliable sources and of idiomatic language which is commonly used in English. I don't need to make a case to define why your position is flawed, the status quo will remain the status quo, it meets the WP:V requirements of Wikipedia policy as multiple, multi-language WP:RS use the term. Just because you and a handful of others don't like it for one reason or another, it doesn't mean we'll be modifying some of the basic tenets of Wikipedia to accommodate your desires. Sorry about that. Time to stop pretending you know what happened at the Hajj and time to get on with making the article better, and all the other stampede articles which you have summarily ignored thus far. Good luck. P.S. I think someone just above erroneously claims that The New York Times has stopped using the term, well that's completely false, e.g. today's article which is titled "Pakistan Moves to Quiet Outcry Against Saudi Arabia Over Hajj Stampede" and starts "For years, Saudi Arabia has enjoyed a hallowed status here, considered above question or criticism. Yet the hajj stampede near Mecca last month......", written by Salman Masood. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again, The Rambling Man, I have not claimed, nor do I believe, that the word "stampede" is racist, offensive, or even rude. I sure would appreciate it if you characterized my words fairly. You have been doing this and promoting your own edited definition that fits your position. Why do you do these things? The issue gives us enough to talk about. Make your case with words that support your case, or talk about why you think my case is flawed. Your case would be much stronger without stooping to these tactics, which really feel personal. Speak to the message please, not the messenger. (If you knew me in real life, you'd laugh at the thought of me being a politically correct vigilante.) Dcs002 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Approve I agree that the title of the article should be changed to "2015 Mina Disaster","2015 Mina Tragedy" or some other title that does not carry the value-laden prejudices often connoted by the word 'stampede'. Even "2015 Mina Crush", although the word 'crush' is somewhat region-specific in its English usage. "2015 Mina Disaster" is probably best.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Approve. It is factually incorrect to describe this as a "stampede". I, for one, have been given the wrong impression by the use of the word. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Human Stampedes Category in Wikipedia—Usage of "Stampede" in Title by Race
[While I was conducting and writing this analysis of past Wikipedia usage, an admin closed discussion with a decision of "Not Moved". I wish they had had a chance to read it first, as it was compelling enough for me to change my vote.]
Note: In assigning incidents to racial categories, I am following common American practice where Arabs, Hispanics, South Asians, and East Asians are counted as "Non-White". I realize that these definitions of "white" and "non-white" are cultural and arbitrary.
2—"White" People Involved
- Title Uses Stampede
- Victoria Hall stampede, Barnsley Public Hall stampede
18—"White" People Involved
- Title Uses Other Name
- Brooklyn Theatre fire, Khodynka Tragedy, Iroquois Theatre fire, Italian Hall disaster, Laurier Palace Theatre fire, Bethnal Green tube station ("Wartime disaster" section), Burnden Park disaster, 1971 Ibrox disaster, The Who concert disaster, Karaiskakis Stadium disaster, Luzhniki disaster, Heysel Stadium disaster, April 9 tragedy, Hillsborough disaster, Camp Randall Stadium ("The Camp Randall Crush" section), Roskilde Festival("2000 incident" section), The Station nightclub fire, Love Parade disaster
33—"Non-White" People Involved
- Title Uses Stampede
- Shiloh Baptist Church stampede, 1954 Kumbh Mela stampede, 1987 Shanghai stampede, Mahamaham stampede, Lan Kwai Fong ("Stampede" section), 1994 Gowari stampede, 1996 Ujjain and Haridwar stampedes, 1999 Sabarimala stampede, 2003 E2 nightclub stampede, Mandher Devi temple stampede, 2005 Al-Aaimmah bridge stampede, 2005 November Chennai Stampede, 2005 December Chennai Stampede, 2006 Hajj stampede, PhilSports Stadium stampede, 2008 Naina Devi temple stampede, 2008 Jodhpur stampede, 2009 Houphouët-Boigny stampede, Mawazine stampede, Kor Royal Cup stampede, Pratapgarh stampede, Phnom Penh stampede, 2011 Sabarimala stampede, 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede, 2013 Kumbh Mela stampede, 2013 Madhya Pradesh stampede, 2014 Mumbai stampede, 2014 Patna stampede, 2014 Multan stampede, Kwekwe stadium stampede, 2014 Shanghai stampede, 30 June Stadium stampede, 2015 Haiti Carnival stampede
14—"Non-White" People Involved
- Title Uses Other Name
- Kayseri Atatürk Stadium disaster, Zamalek disaster, 1988 Kathmandu stadium disaster, Estadio Mateo Flores ("The October 16 disaster" section), Uphaar Cinema fire, Oppenheimer Stadium disaster, Ellis Park Stadium disaster, Accra Sports Stadium disaster, Akashi pedestrian bridge accident, Port Said Stadium riot, Satsanga Deoghar disaster, Kiss nightclub fire, 2014 Stade Tata Raphaël disaster
Excluded from Count
- 1990 Hajj stampede => 1990 Mina disaster => 1990 Hajj disaster
- (Name changed while Mina discussion underway by party to that discussion)
- 1994 Hajj stampede
- (Article created while Mina discussion underway by party to that discussion)
- 1998 Hajj stampede
- (Article created while Mina discussion underway by party to that discussion)
- Nyamiha disaster => Nyamiha stampede
- (Name changed while Mina discussion underway)
- 2001 Hajj stampede
- (Article created while Mina discussion underway)
- 2004 Hajj stampede
- (Article created while Mina discussion underway)
This analysis of Wikipedia titles gives us a stampede to other name ratio of 2.36 to 1 for "non-white" people and a 0.11 to 1 for "white" people. This shows a very strong correlation between the use of the term stampede and "non-white" victims.
Of course correlation is not causation, and there could be other factors at work here. However, the evidence is enough for me personally to withdraw my Oppose vote on the name change for the article. I'm switching to Neutral pending further evidence. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [Of course, my change of vote doesn't matter now]
- The rush to change the names of those other articles and to create the new ones as part of this dispute has only made the racist usage worse - 2.86:1, or 26 times more likely to be called a stampede than if it were a predominantly white event. This problem will not go away with the closure of the RfM, though the closer gave a good suggestion where to take this issue next. Maybe trying to change one article at a time isn't the way to go, but it was the only way I knew until the close. Dcs002 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)