Talk:Astroworld Festival crowd crush/Archive 1

Archive 1

someone readd protected lock

i dont know how to delete this once added back CringeButSerious (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't get what you're trying to request or why. Is something wrong with the protection lock? Do you think it should be removed? What are you trying to say? Love of Corey (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done I added the protection template. Usually a bot does it if it's missing. clpo13_(talk) 22:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest

I found the usage of "cardiac arrest" to be interesting because that's how emergency services in Japan refer to the dead; it's a euphemism for people who are obviously dead and who are going to stay that way but a doctor hasn't said as much. I haven't heard it in the U.S. before. kencf0618 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In Japan it can last for days, because they wait until the official coroner inquest. In this situation the fire chief probably used this because he was sure of the state people were evacuated in to hospital but he did not necessarily have up to date information from all the hospitals receiving patients. Pikavoom (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct! A more commodious phrase makes sense given the unclear situation. kencf0618 (talk)

Disaster cats

The exact definition of disaster varies by source, including a significant difference between our definitions on WP & Wiktionary. This crush has been described by RS as a disaster and should be in the cats Category:2021 disasters in the United States, Category:Concert disasters & Category:Disasters in Texas. Jim Michael (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Stampede cats

We don't have cats for crushes, so the cats Human stampedes in 2021 & Human stampedes in the United States should be reinstated & all those in the stampede tree renamed to include crushes. Crowd crush redirects to stampede. They're variations on the same type of crowd accident. Jim Michael (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't really make sense. It's like saying "We don't have a category for fish, so the article on haddock will go into the bird category and we can rename the category 'birds and fish'". Even if it made sense to create a combined category (which is not clear here), you should give the category the appropriate name before adding the article to it. Einsof (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

According to stampede, "Some media sources refer to situations in which people were injured or have died due to compression in very dense crowds as a "stampede", but this is a misnomer; the more appropriate term would be crush, or crowd collapse." WWGB (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For years we've included crowd crush as a part of the stampede article, and articles on crushes in the stampede cats. They're variations on the same type of crowd accident. Some such events are a combination of stampede and crush, so the comparison with birds & fish isn't reasonable. It doesn't make sense to have a new, separate category tree for crushes. The template includes both, as should the cats. Jim Michael (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Categorically, a crush is not a stampede. If there is not a relevant category, then start one. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with WWGB. Categorization by inertia is the sort of thing we should only do in the absence of better guidance. In this case, our own stampede article tells us that Academic experts who study crowd movements and crushing disasters oppose the use of the term "stampede". That's a loud and clear signal that putting a crowd crush into a category called "stampedes" is not appropriate, regardless of what we've been doing in the past. Einsof (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment only, I guess. I like the term "crowd accident". Seems like Stampede#Human stampedes (itself a misnomer since it deals mostly with crushes) should be split out as Crowd accident or somesuch to encompass incidents like this of either sort (or both combined). Retswerb (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I placed the stampede cat, and I think it belongs. I copied it with changing geography from 2021 Meron crowd crush, which was the last event in 2021. A crowd crush is a type of stampede event. If there needs to be a differentiation, it should be done by renaming the stampede category, which includes all types of these human crowd crushing panic events now, to something broader and adding sub-categories for crushes and stampedes. Pikavoom (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a Crowd crush article - it's a redirect to the Crushes subsection of Stampede. We've always put both types of event in stampede cats. There's been a tree of them for years, but there's only one crush cat, which was created today. I don't dispute that there are differences between the two. However, they're similar in that they're both man-made accidents caused by the movement in the same direction of many people for a short period of time, causing injuries and in some cases deaths. In some cases, a crush & stampede occur simultaneously. Adding and crowd crushes to the names of all the cats on the stampede tree makes more sense than categorising them separately. Jim Michael (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Some relevant discussion is taking place here for those interested. Retswerb (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

After reading through the comments, I agree, this event was not a stampede and would not be the appropriate term. While "crowd crush" is not typically a term used in the United States, it is a term that is accurate. I am more familiar with the phrase "stampede" but understand the difference between the terms and why the current term is the one being used. I support this direction. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Getting the end time of the concert right

Hello everyone,

There is currently a disagreement between sources and editors as to when the concert ended. City officials say the concert ended prematurely at 10:10, as reported by some reliable source. (1) Other media (2) have however supported the assertion that the concert ended with the scheduled last song at 10:15. The difference is important, because there are two conflicting narratives at play: one that states that Travis Scott cut his concert short, and another that states he didn't. We should strive to report both these facts as they are (at the time of writing) backed by reliable sources. Pilaz (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Nice4What since they're involved. Re-reading the Houston Chronicle article, I now think they're saying that while the officials say 10:10, attendees are saying 10:15. So I think it's more that they're reporting on the possible discrepancy rather than saying that it for sure ended at 10:15. I agree with Pilaz that it might be worthwhile to mention the discrepancy in the article.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also Nice4What, I took out the TMZ quote because of WP:TMZ and to avoid WP:OVERCITE. I forgot to write this in my edit summary, so hopefully this helps to explain my reasoning. Pilaz (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I think we should stick with what authorities have said over the attendee's words for now. The police chief said that it took 40 minutes to end the show early, but that it did in fact end early. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice4What The police chief indeed also said 10:10pm, but we should definitely keep The Houston Chronicle's indication that it may have ended at 10:15pm in the article. Are you opposed to having both (with the Houston Chronicle's 10:15pm mentioned second)? Pilaz (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep both for now and we can rediscuss as more sources report an end time. I know Apple Music livestreamed the event, so we could also find a definitive time from that as well. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥)

We don't have to necessarily settle on one "right" time. We just have to be balanced in our writing and avoid original research. That's my reasoning for inclusion of both, although 10:10pm is preferred due to a higher degree of confidence by an authoritative source. Pilaz (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You put "right" in quotations but there's certainly a factual end time to his set. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. And if reliable sources report different end times, we should report conflicting information with due weight regardless. Pilaz (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The conflicting report linked to says "appeared to". Given that the difference is only 5 minutes, I'm inclined to think that the concert goers are just (understandably) confused.--Khajidha (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with khajidha, a five minute difference in the reported time of the ending of the concert is not a big issue and either time can be accurate depending on who was interviewed and their point of view. I like the use of the term "appeared to" or "approximately" as this signals to the reader that it is an estimate. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is such a storm in a teacup! I have been to hundreds of pop/rock concerts, and the predicted finishing time is merely a target. The actual finishing time depends on factors that evolve during the concert, such as the length of applause, encores and the like. A concert can only be said to finish early if the artist fails to perform the entire setlist. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A disagreement on five minutes is trivial, and it ended here quite some time after the crowd surge, five minutes in either direction do no change much. Pikavoom (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Impact of Drake

I'm surprised that until I just added it, there was no mention of Drake in this article. Source seem to confirm that he was a surprise guest with Scott on stage during the tragedy. [1] Some sources say that his appearance may have caused the crowd to get more rowdy (also claimed by a lawsuit), so this merits a mention with the right context. [2] -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Update, and an answer to my own question - there is now a specific mention and account from the Houston Chronicle's own music critic about Drake's appearance and effect, which has been added to the article. [3] - Fuzheado | Talk 18:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A music critic said Drake's appearance contributed to an "increase in energy". Without officials directly connecting Drake's appearance to the crush, I believe we should not keep the critic's opinion in the "Crush" subsection as it may be a BLP issue. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC); Edited 22:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nice4What Could you be more specific ? What BLP policy is specifically violated with a sourced quote from the Houston Chronicle that mentions he was on stage during the crowd crush? Pilaz (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha Last I checked, that's not a WP:POLICY for removing a reliably-sourced quote either. Pilaz (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but that does not mean the quote is related to the event in question: the crowd crush. Rather than this back-and-forth, let's work on finding a way to reach consensus? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This back-and-forth is necessary because we're trying to figure out why we are in disagreement. Let's make a chronology of events:

• Fuzheado made this constructive edit, stating: add Guerra account from Houston Chronicle, Drake appearance. The contested edit is the one below:

Near the end of the performance, Scott brought rapper Drake on stage as a surprise guest, something that Joey Guerra, Houston Chronicle music critic, said “amped up the energy like crazy.”

• You reverted this edit writing in the edit summary: Shouldn't be included unless police state that Drake's appearance was related to the crush"
• I reverted back to the previous version by Fuzheado, writing in the edit summary: Don't see that as a valid reason for removal, since Drake was on stage during part of the event and is the subject of a lawsuit anyway
• You reverted back again, writing in the edit summary: It's already covered in the article that Drake joined on stage. Including this and saying there was an "increase in energy" seems to place blame on Drake. Let's take this to the talk page.
• Fuzheado wrote on the talk page asking for the reasoning behind your removal.
• You responded: A music critic said Drake's appearance contributed to an "increase in energy". Without officials directly connecting Drake's appearance to the crush, I believe we should not keep the critic's opinion in the "Crush" subsection as it may be a BLP issue.

I immediately asked what BLP issue you thought it was specifically violating. I'm still waiting for a response on that point. You said that Drake's presence on stage was already covered in the article, which was factually false at the time of your writing: Drake only received a passing mention as a defendant in a lawsuit at the end of this article. By removing the Drake quote from the "crush" part of the the article, you have, in my opinion, made the reader worse by removing the key information that Drake was performing on scene while the crowd crush was ongoing. The quote included information that indicated that there was a second wave of agitation in the crowd. How a crowd acts and reacts during a crowd disaster is particularly legitimate and valuable information for the reader to have in an article about a crowd crush.

My proposal is that we restore the quote in its integrality, but I'm open to hear how you think we could improve the sentence. Are you opposed to the integrality of it? Or only parts of it? The quote of Drake's arrival causing an additional commotion is also backed by witnesses cited by the Houston Chronicle here, by the way. Pilaz (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

It was a crowd of 50,000. The source doesn't state that the increase in "energy" affected those in the crush. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥)

@Nice4What: If Drake affects the crowd, and the crowd affects the crush, then Drake affects the crush. The second source also confirms that Drake made the crowd "chaotic again". Would you rather have us use that second quote? Would you rather see the Drake appearance at around 10 p.m. be present elsewhere in the article? A lot of your reasoning behind your reverts remains obscure to me. Do you think we should move towards mediation or an RfC to resolve this? Also pinging Fuzheado for additional thoughts about the discussion above and on how to best move forward. Thanks. Pilaz (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Hi Nice4What - This is the second time you have removed Drake from the article, with the first time not even making it part of the edit summary (first removal, second removal). I'm concerned by your over-enthusiasm in removing his name from the page. Can you please engage in dialogue here about this, as he is one of the largest stars in the music industry and by far the most famous person at the event. A WP:RS stating this is significant and should be at least part of the article. Courtesy ping - @Pilaz: Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Fuzheado – You must've missed the message just above because I already left my thoughts. Please note that Drake's name is in the "Aftermath" subsection, so I'm not adamant about wiping his name from the article. I'd have no issue having Drake mentioned in the "Crush" subsection so long as his appearance is directly connected to the incident. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose/Wait – Don't include the "increase in energy" quote for now. It can be readded once other reliable sources directly tie Drake's appearance to the crush. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Selection of Relevant and Contextual information.

This is mostly to draw concern to the fact that mentions of 'past incidents' use articles written post Astroworld incident. (This is only with the exception of the 2017 article, which has a paywall, which I think warrants a replacement if not accompanying source). The articles written after November 5th, while relevant, do not have the goal of covering the subject referenced. I think sources written before this incident will do a better job of objectively capturing the essence of these incidents without misrepresentation.

I myself am biased in this regard and do not want to make these changes at all if not with any other input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdHoldSon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point. Post-Astroworld articles possibly have writing biases that previous articles didn't. At the same time, they may lack up to date information, so in my opinion we could look for the old articles to supplement the newer ones. Pilaz (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary, articles written on the 2021 crowd crush and investigation are those most likely to properly frame the previous safety record for this Wikipedia article on the crowd crush. Pikavoom (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The source referenced to the incident from 2015 covers such event in merely 17 words.

“ He was arrested in 2015 after telling his fans to jump the barricades during his Lollapalooza performance ” — Rachel Treisman, NPR

The article itself links to another source from Associated Press, which is a far more detailed and actually represents what the Wikipedia article is referencing. Current and future investigations are indeed more likely to accurately frame these events. However, the selected sources are not deeper investigations, and instead dilute the key information a referencing source should be representative of in favor of current events. EdHoldSon (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As a general note, having a paywall isn't a sufficient reason to reject a source or feel that a replacement is needed: WP:PAYWALL. So, searching for a replacement purely because it is paywalled isn't really appropriate or useful. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Should the section regarding conspiracy theories made in the wake of this event remain up in the article? LouisVuittonDevil17 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. In the interest of the discussion that will follow, editors, please be reminded of the existence of WP:FRINGE. Pilaz (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I totally understand if it needs to be removed, and I didn't create it in the first place - leaving both those points here for the record. As I put in the edit history in the meantime however to try and be helpful, I tried to reframe the section to focus it on the virality of the conspiracies, which is the real story here (and why it got so much "mainstream" coverage) and not the conspiracies themselves. Whatever happens to this from here on out, I look forward to seeing it. Onan808 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the section can be moved to a more relevant article like QAnon, with a brief summary in this article to boot. Love of Corey (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thing is though, there's way more here than just QAnon. It's anti-vax, Gen-Z behavior during lockdown. Lots more facets to this.Onan808 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Then it could be mentioned on all of the relevant articles. Love of Corey (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sections in each of the articles on the AstroWorld conspiracies. Wow, yeah. Valid point. I'm certainly not bothering with those edits. HA. Whether or how to include this seems to provoke strong reactions either way so I'm just going to do small edits until someone else makes a decision. Onan808 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I could do without the sarcasm, thank you very much. Love of Corey (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually was being sincere but I can see if it didn't read that way. It wasn't directed towards you, just speaking generally. The topic in general just seemed overwhelming. Sorry for the misinterpretation.Onan808 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me know. Love of Corey (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:FRINGE seems less relevant here than WP:NOTNEWS. Pop stars being accused of being Satanic/Illuminati/MK Ultra/whatever ops are routine as far as thing goes, as are TikTok trends. All of the mainstream coverage of this amounts to little more than "a bunch of TikTok teens are calling this Satanism," and the primary real-world consequence seems to be people tweeting about it. As for anti-vax, QAnon, etc., this stuff is also routine: it happens with every festival or mass gathering, everyone says the same things, and not much of consequence comes of it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. These loopy fringe theories emerge after every major trauma. The attention seekers have no more credibility than flat-earthers or tin foil hat wearers. No intelligent person believes this garbage, so why do we insult Wikipedia readers by including this nonsense? WWGB (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: This section is totally unnecessary to the greater article, it holds no encyclopaedic value, all it does is contribute to a culture akin to tabloid media Calvincoolidgeisunderrated 05:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Follow-up/Conclusion: To avoid any false accusations in the editing wars as I've seen to other users in articles in the past anyone that has any concerns with the deletion can follow-up with WWGB. Leaving here again, for the record. Over and out. Onan808 (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Removed section, clearly no appetite for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Love of Corey (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" section revisions

This discussion has been closed by Super Goku V. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was removed by an involved editor. For the purpose of proper archiving, it has been restored.
Onan808 has repeatedly removed nearly all of my contributions to the "Conspiracy theories" section, to replace them with content that is functionally the same, but far less encyclopedic in tone. The fact that conspiracies are being covered is what makes them notable, per WP:NOTE. Additionally, I'm not sure why an undue weight tag has been put on the entire section; if it was due to my inclusion of specific examples, I suppose I understand, but would argue that examples are necessary to demonstrate the overall tone of the conspiracy theories, but if it's simply due to the existence of a section covering the conspiracy theories, I would again point to WP:NOTE.Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I'd argue it was more than just the order of the text but inclusion of specific examples but I understand your other points. I was going on the assumption going too much into the rituals was exactly what was originally criticized with the validity tag (not getting the terminology correct, apologies in advance) so if Nice4What could resolve this once and for all hopefully we can figure out now whether this article should have any conspiracy section at all. I'm not seeing much coverage outside of these outlets listed for reference. Will also bring in Love of Corey's suggestion on adding it to the other articles such as QAnon, etc. Onan808 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC) i'm a different person, but i think it might be because the conspiracy theories aren't all that relevant to the event itself, which is what the page is about. in all honesty, i'm personally inclined to agree with that, given, as Onan808 has pointed out, there is almost zero coverage on it outside of the articles listed as references. while i'm in no way a representative sample, i do know that i hadn't heard of them at all before reading this page, and given that this event happened so recently, it's unlikely that these theories have become widespread outside of extremely-specific circles,so the inclusion of the section itself possibly constitutes WP:Undue Weight, and a possible WP:Fringe concern, even if it technically has been picked up by a few mainstream outlets. birdn4t0r (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC) another different person here. I can't edit the article because I don't have an account but this phrasing: "observations on social media from conspiracy theorists that the tragedy was an intentionally orchestrated Satanic ritual" is FUCKING INSANE. the use of the word "observations" implies that the subordinate clause is literally observably true. wtf are y'all doing? fix your shit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4101:9b70:c5d8:a747:f849:bf4a (talk • contribs)

Missing; description of venue layout

At this point I see nothing describing the venue, its layout, or the positions of stage(s), gates and barriers. It doesn't even say the venue is outdoors. I hope this is only a temporary omission. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there was no 2021 festival map published online. The only existing maps are the ones (supposedly) distributed during the festival. So that somewhat limits our options as to the layout and positions of the stages. We could try to use general information from the 2018 and 2019 maps, along with pictures from articles like the ones linked here, but it is problematic without an actual layout and there is only so much we can really do without said map. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Found an additional potential source for this. Has an overhead shot that shots the stage and the nearby layout. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Spacing

Can 9:06-10:10 be changed to 9:06 - 10:10, so there are spaces added please? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Was going to make this edit to see it'd get approved but can WWGB respond to this for or against? Onan808 (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand. WWGB has to make the change and does there have to be a consensus first? Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

WWGB is an experienced editor, so maybe that was why they wanted to wait. (Not to mention that the time was wrapped in the {{Circa}} template, which made it a more complex edit.) Regardless, the Manual of Style for dates and numbers on Wikipedia says that we do need a space of a specific type there, so I have added two to the time. If there are any questions or concerns, feel free to ping me. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me. WWGB (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Using BlogTo and alleged $1 million

I wanted to get a bit of consensus surrounding the inclusion of the bold claim that Drake spent $1 million in Area 29. The only source citated that supports this is blogTo; undoubtedly a great place for local news and culture, restaurant reviews, event listings and the best of the city of Toronto, but does not seem reputable enough for this topic matter in my opinion. Also the blogTo source doesn't even claim that a million was spent, just that rumours were flying and Akademiks captioned a post "threw like a milly". I think the whole sentence should be removed, as well as the reference. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Removed. WWGB (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Did You Know

I think it would be a good thing for this article to be nominated for DYK. It could be a tribute to those who have died and good way to remind readers of the dangers posed by poorly managed events like this one. Thriley (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

While I support more recognition of this event, I feel nominating it just to "remind readers of the dangers posed by poorly managed events like this one" is more of a political move and goes against politicizing tragedies. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thriley:, it was already on the main page as an ITN just recently. Pikavoom (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I find the proposal to make this "a tribute to those who have died" to be a wildly inappropriate usage of the encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You would not be alone in that assessment—it seems to go against the spirit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. While that section appears to largely pertain to the creation of pages for otherwise non-notable people (which doesn't apply here, since this is a page about the event itself), it's clear that Wikipedia is not intended to be used for memorial purposes, so adding the article to the DYK section of the main page would likely not be an appropriate step. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 14:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thriley: Personally, I don't really care that you have a specific intention in mind, with part of the reason being that such a nomination is handled based on Template talk:Did you know criteria. However, I should make sure that you are aware of the conditions to having a successful nomination. The first is that there needs to be something interesting that catches the attention of the reader. The FAQ on the DYK nomination page is a recommended read as without an interesting hook, there likely isn't a successful nomination possible. Honestly, I would say that the Astroworld Festival article would be a better candidate, especially since it is eligible for being a former stub that has been recently expanded due to the crowd crush and that there might be an interesting hook due to covering 2018 to 2021. (Maybe something about the 2020 Fortnite event would work.) Though, assuming you are intending on only nominating this article, you should know that it does qualify as it is a new article. (As a recent example, 2021 New York City Marathon appeared as a DYK on the 7th and as a INT on the 9th.) Just because this article was an INT does not disqualify it as a potential DYK.

Another challenge this article faces is passing the "Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing" criteria. Sadly, there was some edits recently that violated these policies. While the user was informed of the issue and corrective edits have been made to the article, it seems that there is still some content that is questionable left in the article. Thanks to this suggestion, I was given the idea to check the article using the Earwig's Copyvio Detector. The results currently show that the article is 20% or more similar to six separate sources. Additionally, the "Immediate response" and "Jurisdiction" sections seem to have a high likelihood of violations and will need to be rewritten in those sections.

This isn't intended to prevent you from doing this, but more of a warning that this isn't going to be a cakewalk and that you are not going to succeeded without some effort. Still, there are things that will work in favor of a successful DYK nomination: This is a new article and is eligible; Any copyright issues can be fixed and are limited to three paragraphs of the article; there is quite a bit of content in the article and there might be something interesting that can be used; the article has almost 100 sources, which will make it easier to pass the "Adequate sourcing" criteria. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Though the discussion was well-attended, much of the commentary here was not anchored in naming policy in any obvious way. Much of the opposition to the proposed title was based on the contention that "disaster" is overly subjective or non-specific, which can be seen as echoing the advice given at WP:DISASTER (though the naming guideline of which this is a part was only explicitly referenced by Local Variable toward the end of the discussion). Policy-based reasons given to support the move included consistency with similar articles (cf. WP:CONSISTENT), and the use of the term in a number of reliable sources identified by Pilaz. Ultimately, neither view attracted a clear consensus. Some editors have suggested waiting to see whether a clear WP:COMMONNAME emerges in RS coverage. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Astroworld Festival crowd crush → Astroworld Festival disaster – I'd like to raise the question as to whether using the term "crush" is appropriate. I want your opinions as to whether we should instead refer to this event as a broader "disaster" instead. Pilaz (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

1. On Wikipedia, previous similar incidents generally adopted the larger name of "disaster" (Love Parade disaster, The Who concert disaster). Similar events in association football venues have also adopted the term "disaster" (Hillsborough disaster, Heysel Stadium disaster, 1971 Ibrox disaster). Why are we choosing the term crush in the first place?

2. Where's the bottleneck? According one of the most cited studies on crowd disasters (PDF), which covered the 2010 Love Parade disaster:

The term ‘crushing’ suggests that the cause of the crowd disaster is an uncontrolled pushing of a crowd towards a bottleneck, which creates densities so high that the bodies of people are crushed.

This would be a great definition for something like the Victoria Hall disaster. However, at the Astroworld Festival event: (1) there was no particular bottleneck; (2) request for medical help was not concentrated in one area, but spread out (they came from the left of the scene at 9:24pm, and from the front-right at 9:42pm). (3) the timing between the crowd "pushing" at 9:06pm (and 10pm) and the casualties happening at 9:30pm (per Fire Chief) are too far apart to establish direct causality between the pushing and the deaths.

The Hillsborough disaster, 1971 Ibrox disaster, and Love Parade disaster all featured a crowd incident with a bottleneck. The incident at Astroworld seems not to feature a bottleneck of that sort.

3. The term crush is misleading. When the word "crush" is displayed, readers may think of people dying from compression against one another or against a solid surface. But that is not the leading cause of mortality: suffocation under a pile of humans is. Per the previous study:

According to recent studies [172], it is often not the density alone that kills (‘crushes’) people, but the particular kind of dynamics that occurs when the density is so high that physical interaction between people inadvertently transfer forces from one body to another.

What are those dynamics? Very packed crowds will eventually become fluid. If somebody falls, the person next to them risks falling on the person who has already fallen because they have liberated a space, leading to a "domino effect" and creating piles of bodies. Some people will be even forced to step on the piles by the crowd themselves. We have reports of "piling up" happening at the concert from witnesses. (1). Per the authors:

This creates a heap of people, in which nobody can easily get back on their feet again. Those on the bottom have serious difficulties to breathe, and they are likely to suffocate if this state lasts too long, given the weight of others on their top.

The leading cause of mortality in a "crush" is asphyxiation under other humans, as evidenced by the 2010 Love Parade disaster. The authors suggest using the terms "crowd quake" and "crowd turbulence" instead of "crush" as a result.

4. In 1978, sociology Barry Turner wrote a book called "Man-Made Disasters", in which he analyzed 85 disasters, where he showed that each had a long string of warning signs which were not taken seriously. By referring to this incident as a disaster rather than as a crush, we give editors a better chance to assess the incident from all its angles: structural, organizational, and behavioral, and not to tunnel vision on one particular (if crucial) aspect, death in the crowd.

What do you think? Should we keep the word "crowd crush" in the title or should we change the title to "disaster"? Pilaz (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There was a crowd crush that occurred at Astroworld, and the article covers that. As the causes of death is revealed by the investigation, I think we could discuss renaming the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent proposals both. kencf0618 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support rename to "Astroworld Festival disaster" over "crowd crush" as Pilaz has given a very detailed and well-reasoned argument. I would also be open to other more broad terms like "incident," though that seems too mild to describe what happened here. I too had issues with this being title "crush" since there were a whole host of factors that led to the injuries and deaths, and not necessarily just a crushing of bodies. Therefore, for accuracy's sake I would support this being named consistently with other articles of a similar type. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support rename to disaster I came here from WP:WikiProject Disaster management. "Disaster" is an appropriate term for this event. "Crowd crush" does cover all of the event because there were multiple disaster occurrences. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - "disaster" is vague to the point of uselessness. If a plane had crashed on the concert, or if an earthquake had opened the ground beneath their feet, or if a pack of wolves had attacked and devoured members of the crowd, or if any of countless other things had happened, it would still have been a "disaster". This was a particular thing. In my variant of English it would be called a "stampede". Apparently "crowd crush" is a technical term for certain types of stampedes. Thus, the name should either be "Astroworld Festival crowd crush" or "Astroworld Festival stampede". Would support banning the the format "________ disaster" from use in article titles because of its worthlessness. And "incident" is even worse. --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on whether to split stampedes and crowd crushes on the stampede article, if you're interested. The two are however considered distinct, and "stampede" is shunned by academics for being victim-blaming. Pilaz (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. The thing is, in my dialect of English, they aren't distinct. "Stampede" includes things that you call "crowd crushes". And it is also not seen as judgmental. At least not beyond the level of "why in the world would anybody want to go anywhere with THAT many people?" --Khajidha (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose hardly a disaster with only eight deaths, by that measure most bus crashes could be considered disaters which is unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Point of information: Pilaz has detailed above why disaster would be a relevant label for consideration given the criteria of "a long string of warning signs which were not taken seriously," which is applicable to the Astroworld Festival. That is what sets it apart from the example of a "bus crash." - Fuzheado | Talk 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  I often see bus crashes and such labelled or described as "disasters". It's a nearly meaningless word.--Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Question: out of curiosity, what is your preferred death threshold before an event qualifies as a disaster? And why do you not include injuries in your calculation? Pilaz (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Name Change to include Incident Contingent Support Until more details are known as to the cause and outcomes of the incident, it might be too soon to change this label. There are other factors, such as the possible aggressor(s) injecting people that may have incited panic and caused deaths for example. Additionally, disaster implies an unavoidable outcome, when investigation into what can be attributed towards this incident are still underway and unclear. Depending on this, the title could be entirely different to what it is even right now. EdHoldSon (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC) My position has changed. Considering that it will be a large debate on who and what is culpable for why this happened, we should stray away from using the word Disaster, as it frames negligence as a irrelevant factor. Though there are elements that can attribute this event as disastrous, that does not justify removing attribution that indicate negligence if they are overwhelmingly present. If for example the organizers of the event were aware of that the event met criteria for an unsafe environment prior to its commencement for example.
• Oppose. A disaster "exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources". I do not see ANY evidence that the Houston authorities were overwhelmed by this incident. The use of "disaster" is just tabloid rhetoric. The bottleneck of this crush is clearly seen in bodies pressed up against the stage barrier. WWGB (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  As @Jim Michael: said earlier, there are varying definitions of disaster, but with this particular definition it says "affected community". You have taken that to mean Houston authorities, but something that vague could merely apply to the people running the concert, who clearly were overwhelmed. I don't have a particular opinion on the page title, just wanted to point that out. --Pokelova (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Khajidha. "Disaster" is a bit of a generic term and can be applied to anything. "Crowd crush" is more specific yet just as clear and succinct. Love of Corey (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, I think disaster is more formal than crowd crush. And the crowd crushing wasn't the only casualty that happened at the event. --The Tips of Apmh (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vague. Einsof (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Neither. Until we get the autopsies but even past that point as they aren't definitive in many cases, we don't and won't know if more contributed to their deaths than just getting "crushed". In all honestly I don't like neither. "Crowd crush" is far too informal for the seriousness of this incident and "disaster" too vague and old-fashioned. Onan808 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This follows precedent from other disasters and future-proofs the title in case the autopsies reveal some other cause of death. 9yz (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not a fan of the current name, but as others have said this hardly qualifies as a bonefide disaster. We should at least wait until we can see how the event is referred to in retrospect, rather than granting it the disaster title ourselves. Brycehughes (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This was more than a crush; similar to Hillsborough in which a series of mismanagement, planning errors, and poor responses from both Scott and others led to the more broader definition of 'disaster'. Article should be named Astroworld Festival Disaster. AlienChex (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "disaster" by itself, but Support using it in combination with some wording including the word "crowd" or "crowding". I don't support "stampede" as it implies a large number of people/cattle/horses/etc. moving quite some distance. Astroworld Festival Crowding Disaster would be my first choice. Respecting the deceased and their loved ones, Facts707 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Weakly oppose changing the name in general but Strongly oppose renaming to "disaster" I feel like using "disaster" is quite vague as "crowd crush" is the technical and correct term to describe incidents like these. Yes, although technically most of the deaths were caused by suffocation, renaming it to just "-disaster" alone certainly isn't the best choice as a disaster could mean a natural disaster, a financial disaster or something of the sort. Alone, "disaster" is too broad of a term to describe the Astroworld festival crowd crush. The title should give a brief idea of what had exactly happened or what is being discussed on the article page. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, less specific. Pikavoom (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, puts the article in line with the names of other articles for similar events. Cspans (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposed title is too broad and it implies that it effected Houston in a major way when it didn't. I feel like the current title is much more appropriate and specific. - SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support/Wait – This is consistent with other articles above similar events. We should wait to see if anything other than the crush was proven to cause fatalities or mass injuries. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Pilaz's response to GhostOfDanGurney listing many reliable sources describing the incident as a "disaster". The word is not sensational and is consistent with other articles' titles. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Vague and subjective sensationalism versus straightforward and precise factual description. Shouldn't be a close call. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

*Support rename to 'attacks and crowd crush' or [crowd] disaster or [crowd] incident, I support a name change, either to Astroworld Festival incident (or crowd incident) or Astroworld Festival disaster (or crowd disaster). If disaster is sensational which I don't think it really is, incident or crowd disaster (which reduces the sensationalization, since we're only dealing with crowd disasters as opposed to much larger scale disasters) might be appropriate. As autopsies are ongoing, is not clear whether all or any of the victims died from crowd crush, and there is evidence that both attacks with a syringe and resuscitations with Narcan to save attack victims were significant elements of the tragedy, perhaps the defining element in terms of deaths. Patches320 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The only current evidence for any sort of injections taking place is a police press statement, which are often inaccurate or misleading, particularly directly after a major incident which could paint the police or security in a bad light. It's entirely possible the naloxone injections were unnecessary; its use doesn't mean evidence of an overdose was found.

• Support name change, but not to “disaster” ': I would support the name change to Astroworld Festival Tragedy as various media outlets have referred to the crush as the “Astroworld Tragedy”. Obviously, we cannot simply change the name by removing “Festival” but it would reflect more upon what the media has referred to the crush as a tragedy. Disaster has not been used at large in the media, and neither has crowd-crush. Simply, they’ve referred to it as a tragedy, stampede or just a crush. There has been evidence of someone injecting spectators at random with a substance that caused a security guard to collapse and need to be revived with Narcan. It has become more apparent that despite the fact a crush did occur, other factors such as the overdoses and cardiac arrests at the festival contributed to the high toll of hospitalizations and deaths. In conclusion, This article should be referred to as the “Astroworld Festival tragedy” due to its portrayal in the media as well as the other factors to the injuries and fatalities asides from the human crush. CanadianOntarian (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Stongly oppose use of "disaster" as sensationalism that is not supported by Reliable Sources used by a majority of Reliable Sources; weakly oppose other proposals as WP:TOOSOON. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney: many reliable sources have used the word disaster in their reporting. WSJ, The Guardian, ABC13, Texas Monthly, Houston Chronicle (inline), Houston Chronicle 2 (inline). Pilaz (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And at least one CTV News uses "crowd crush". CBC uses "apparent crowd surge" and neither use the word "disaster" in their bodies. Per WWGB, there is no indication that authorities became overwhelmed. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Houston fire chief has stated that personnel was "overwhelmed". Source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A number of sources, including the Guardian and WSJ are describing it as a disaster. e.g. Probe of Astroworld Concert Disaster... -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I will edit my vote so as not to imply that there are none at all, then. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Could you also make use of the strikethrough template to show your original message? This will help future readers make sense of this discussion. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ironically that source using the word "overwhelmed" doesn't directly call this incident a "disaster", only a link to a page that says Before Astroworld Festival, these disasters hit music venues GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As said above, "disaster" seems sensationalist. "Crowd crush" accurately describes what caused the injuries and fatalities. Additionally, Stampede currently has a split proposal open to move Crowd crush to its own page, which I think is relevant to keeping nomenclature for these kinds of incidents standard across the site. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't yet know what caused the fatalities. Patches320 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support The word "disaster" is much more encyclopedic, brings this article in line with other similar incidents. Also at least some RS are using the same language. Like this article in the Guardian: "Astroworld Disaster fuels waves of Satanic Conspiracy Theories". --Bob drobbs (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Tragedy" works too. I'd be fine with that change. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Renaming would align the title with similar incidents. User:U193581 | Talk 19:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait/Weak Support to change the name A lot of people in this discussion are not in favor of the word "disaster", and I agree somewhat. Fuzheado mentioned the word "incident," and although not a perfect solution, this is the option that I think best balances the factors that need to be considered, including maintaining an encyclopedic tone and ensuring accuracy. At any rate, there will surely be a lot more reliable sources in the next few days that will mention this occurrence, so this discussion may become clearer later. ―NK1406 22:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support name change to "disaster" or "tragedy" Most publications are using "tragedy" to describe the incident that happened here, and "disaster" would also describe it well. Using the word "crush" is misleading and sensationalist. Legallyfeline (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the term "disaster" is too broad. What has happened is "crowd crush" and the title of the article should articulate it clearly. People that read the title of the article should know that a crowd crush had happened before reading the rest of the article. All of us might know that Astroworld Festival is about crowd crush, but people reading in 10-20 years ahead should also know from the title that the type of disaster that happened is "crowd crush". SunDawntalk 02:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This idea is a disaster. But really, the word gives off a sensationalist, tabloid style that we shouldn't be striving for. The current title explains exactly what the incident was, a crowd surge. KidAd • SPEAK 06:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose change to disaster, perhaps to "crowd surge" to fully describe situation i agree with the general argument that "disaster" is too vague, and it has sensationalist undertones that, while it makes sense in a news headline because they're trying to catch your attention, are unsuitable for wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. while the word "crush" on its own is unencyclopedic, the phrase "crowd crush" is the formal term for this type of event, just as the phrase Crush injury is the formal name of injuries caused by, well, being crushed. other terms that could be used, if you specifically dislike the term "crush," that are caused by the same mechanics, are "crowd collapse," which is when someone falls, and then everyone else around them falls into the open space, and "crowd surge," which is a term that more broadly encompasses any sudden movement of a large number of people resulting from high-density crowd dynamics; perhaps an alternative title could be "2021 Astroworld Festival crowd surge", since from my understanding, based on reporting of first-hand accounts, both crushes and collapses were observed here.birdn4t0r (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A crowd crush is a kind of disaster. Let's stick with the more specific term. TypoBoy (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Same reason as above. It's absolutely a disaster, but "crowd crush" is more specific. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The current term is an accurate term. I echo the thoughts of Birdn4t0r who gives good insight on the term and why it is the proper term. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per reasons stated by Legallyfeline. FreeEncyclopediaMusic (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'm surprised there isn't a single reference to the relevant naming convention (WP:NCEVENTS) in any of the above discussion, as it looks highly relevant. It seems to me the real issue in dispute is what to prioritise between: (1) use of a common title (if 'disaster' is found to be the common title), and (2) maintaining specificity/neutrality (I note the naming convention says that 'disaster' should usually be avoided except in certain circumstances it outlines). The only other thing I'll add is that while I think this is a fair debate to have, it's regrettable that we have to have it now. This is another case of an article title discussion arising immediately after an event has happened, leading to an unfortunate tag at the top of what is no doubt a high traffic article. It can almost always wait. Local Variable (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To add on to Local Variable's comment, the WP:NCEVENTS convention also typically recommends adding the year to the title. Is this something that we should consider as well? ―NK1406 15:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Other music festival disaster articles (like the Love Parade disaster) tend not to use the year in the title. NCEVENTS says that "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." Given that Astroworld was identified front and center with the incident... — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support I do believe that this would be considered a disaster, and as such would support the idea of moving it to a disaster naming idea. Thebest8382 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Naming it as a diaster would bring it in line with titles for similar events. However, I want to point out that it's no question of whether or not this even was a crowd crush. Not all crowd crushes involve bottlenecks. Crowd crushes can happen as a result of standing-room only pits or "festival seating". Please see this article which describes the two causes of a crowd crush, one being bottlenecks and the other being festival seating. Please also look up interviews with crowd control expert Paul Wertheimer who explains this in detail. April Jennifer (she/her • talk • contributions) 03:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much of a broad term. It would be credible on a news site but this is an online encyclopedia. "Disaster" could mean anything that is a tragedy. --Pink Saffron (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose too broad for an encyclopedia, "crowd crush" is an appropriate description. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Substantiating Claims/Arguments

This section intends to aggregate recurring arguments/counter arguments. For example, precedent set by previous circumstances is being cited. Appealing to precedent ensures fairness, but becomes useless if such precedent does not address key issues about the current situation. Please feel free to add and modify this section to broaden perspective and sensibilities. To avoid clutter and disorganization I believe keeping accepted consensus seperate from discussion. EdHoldSon (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

At the moment I have only listed these recurring arguments by theme. EdHoldSon (talk)

Clearly no interest in these sections. Re-add if wanted. WWGB (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sentence structure

A 9-year-old boy was placed in a medically induced coma after being crushed and trampled at the concert, becoming the tenth fatality of the event on November 14.

The structure of the sentence above seems to show the event took place on November 14, at least in terms of how I interpret the sentence. What about phrasing the sentence this way? A 9-year-old boy was placed in a medically induced coma after being crushed and trampled at the concert, and on November 14 the boy became the tenth fatality of the event. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Pyrotechnics adjustment

Per NYT the general responsibility on the part of organizers not related to the crowd crush is likely to be questioned in court, therefore making the forced adjustment of pyrotechnics by fire marshals relevant to include here - they didn't follow original planning. This point was questioned already for being included here and I reinstated it with no issue until Round 2 where again, it's been taken down citing relevance from someone else. Are we waiting for more sourcing on this WWGB? Onan808 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see no relationship between a cancelled pyrotechnic show and the fatal crowd crush. If a relationship is established in court or elsewhere, the topic could then be added to the article. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I second this. It creates a really vauge interpretation that they are disorganised or incompetent, but that would be a bit of an WP:ORy stretch. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the clarification. Until then, sounds good. Onan808 (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of redirects to "Stampede"

I'd like to propose that relevant sections redirect the term "crowd crush" to Crowd collapses and crushes instead of Stampede.

As mentioned in the previous discussion over renaming the article, there is currently Talk:Stampede#Split_proposal to split the crowd crush section from the original Stampede article. The crush section of the Stampede article mostly discusses how it's inappropriate to refer to a crowd crush as a stampede and is often a dehumanizing/victim-blaming term, which is within the purview of the Astroworld crowd crush.

Conversely, Crowd collapses and crushes goes into depth defining a crowd crush and differentiating between a crowd crush and a crowd collapse. This would be a more beneficial redirect than Stampede, as it defines what a crowd crush is as opposed to explaining why it isn't a stampede.

The Astroworld crowd crush article doesn't otherwise refer to the 2021 incident as a stampede, only referring to previous incidents as a stampede, which refer to instances where the crowds actively were running. In that example, it would be more accurate.

IJF99 (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Instead of “crowd crush”

The input of “crowd crush” could possibly be insensitive to the fallen victims and their families. Instead, use “Travis Scott Astroworld Incident” 208.38.225.158 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you being serious? What is insensitive about crowd crush?--Khajidha (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

When people die, you don't call it an "incident," you call it what it is. It's not not insensitive, it's sensible. 2601:741:8000:1A80:DDD7:AF20:3839:4E49 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, using Scott's name would seem to ascribe more responsibility to him than is appropriate. Yes, his appearance caused the crowd to react, but many crowds get excited without deaths occurring. There were many factors involved in the crush that were far outside of his control. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this fits the parameters as stated in the prior closed discussion for a revival of this debate on naming but WWGB can do a clean-up if not. The original argument here is not rooted in specific Wiki policy and also ignored the point made prior from several editors and users that we're largely waiting for further developments in the investigation, especially cause of death, before any changes to the name are made. Onan808 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@208.38.225.158: We are not going to change the title of a widely read article just to appease the victims' families. Also, there was a discussion above, and it was decided that "crowd crush" is the best fit. --The Tips of Apmh (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

External Map Upload / Copyright

Just looking for some clarity on whether any of these are able to be used: Example 1, and Example 2

Following up on this conversation in prior sub cat from archive 1 from Super Goku V, especially in light of the external video links just recently uploaded. Do we need confirmation the first map isn't fan-made prior to uploading because it doesn't appear to be? (2nd is from AP, which I'm including for reference to see if that would work either). How would copyright apply, etc?

It was referenced in the earlier discussion that there were never maps from Astroworld published online but there were maps distributed on the grounds - do we have confirmation of that or was the online version deleted after the incident? Is it required to have a live/archived link from Astroworld's social media account of the map directly and not just a screengrab? Onan808 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There are 2 maps published in the AstroWorld emergency operations plan found here (see the last 2 pages). I don't know if they could be referenced to create a Wikimedia map. I'm not entirely familiar with those regulations, but these are the officially published maps from the event organizers. The map creator is not given, nor is any copyright information, and the document preparer has been redacted, so I don't know if maybe this document is a government document or in the public domain. The document itself does not say. Dcs002 (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dcs002:I have been searching for more maps, so that document is very helpful. Regarding policy, we can request a technical map be created at WP:GL/MAP and have a discussion regarding concerns about the sources there. There is also a way to request a map through a talk page template, which I will do in a moment. For now, I am willing to take the slower route unless it is considered to be a priority or that such a map is important to the article over the one we currently are using. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Onan808: The "Example 1" map is the 2019 map mentioned here. Since it is the Festival's map, that should take care of any concerns it is fan-made. Regarding copyright and policy, it is my belief that the best thing to do is to discuss this at WP:GL/MAP and see if a technical map can be created as they would have more experience than we do with how maps can be created and used on Wikipedia. The next best thing is that we could make a request for a map on the talk page here and potentially a technical map will be created. For now, I am taking the second route as there is interest in a map, but it isn't clear if it is a priority given that there is already a map on this article. Regarding the 2021 maps, the Festival's website makes mention of using the map, so I believe one potentially exists and was given out directly at the venue. It is possible that the map was removed from their social media accounts in the aftermath of the incident, but I believe it is unlikely for a number of reasons. The most compelling of these reasons to me is complaints on social media that the map had not been uploaded online in the leadup to the event. In short, there likely was a 2021 map, but it was not uploaded online. If it was distributed in any form, it was done so at the venue. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Thank you for posting the correct maps here for the record and clarifying what they were used for, how and when. Onan808 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Thank you for the correction and clarification on the maps, distribution, timeline and possible procedures. Both of you answered all of my questions on this. I agree on the slower route - my sole priority was having answers on any 2021 map at all finalized here as there was so much confusion surrounding its use and existence. Now that that's been settled I'll leave it to others to request technical maps be created through WP:GL/MAP or the talk page. Onan808 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Names, age, and source of the ten victims that died

https://www.nytimes.com/article/astroworld-festival-victims.html

Franco Patino – 21, Jacob Jurinek – 21, Danish Baig – 27, John Hilgert – 14, Brianna Rodriguez – 16, Rudy Pena – 23, Axel Acosta – 21, Madison Dubiski – 23

Arjoccolenty (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I oppose putting these names in. They are not notable, just being more or less random people who happened to die in this event. --Khajidha (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with --Khajidha here, not on notability grounds, but because it wouldn't add much to the article that isn't already there. We already have their ages in the article, if anything. Pilaz (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Omit, the deceased were not notable and their names are meaningless to almost all readers. WWGB (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I wasn't asking if we could put their names in when I posted that link. I did it in case anybody wanted sources. I know that their names wouldn't mean much to readers. I just found the information after searching for a while. Arjoccolenty (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but for privacy and legal reasons, mentioning the names of recently deceased people is generally avoided on Wikipedia (even on talk pages) and anyways, the names of the deceased aren't usually that useful to most readers and we do not want people to attack the families of those who have recently had someone that has died. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Love of Corey (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Pikavoom (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there are now 9 victims. [4] The names of the victims help reinforce the fact that they were real people and not just statistics. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words, it memorializes them. Still not appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

--Khajidha, stating the names of the victims is not appropriate? Are you only referring to what is appropriate in [5]? There are memorials of the victims, which seems perfectly appropriate to me. 161.77.57.235 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course I am only speaking of the Wikipedia article. That's what this talk page is about. There is no encyclopedic value to having these names. They are just more or less random people out of those who were there. That they died and others didn't was happenstance, not something specific to them. --Khajidha (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Love of Corey: For future reference, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about articles memorializing people, not about events naming victims consistent with our sources. Hopefully this clears up your misunderstanding of this policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not according to recent mass shooting articles. :) Love of Corey (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Bad decision making in the past does not magically change that NOTMEMORIAL only applies to articles on non-notable dead people. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If the policy says that it only applies to the creation of articles about a person, then it is limited to that. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that the original discussion about mentioning the victims names was discredited due to them being "not notable"... I would like to restart a discussion that these names should be notable and even if they "are not" under Wikipedia rules. It is important that any discussion of the event regarding their death involves their names. This event did not happen to the Wikipedia community and moderator team.. it happened to the victims and their families and therefore Wikipedia should honour that and publish the identities of the victims, thereby their families have already realised it already in public domain, following their untimely death as a mark of respect to lives lost. Please discuss..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticalSwift (talk • contribs)

I find it MUCH more respectful to let them just rest in peace and not have the only reason anyone ever hears about them to be the worst thing that ever happened to them. --Khajidha (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

An unsigned segment from someone that's not me and also chose to not start another section correctly. Not only that but they apparently ignored the parameters already laid out on Wiki policy of victims in countless recent incidents. There is nothing to discuss, it's already been finalized. Referring to WWGB for next course of action here for the record. Onan808 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added an unsigned template with the author's wikiname, and moved this thread to the correct section. Still no consensus to include victim names. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me if another section is needed. Here are the names of the additional victims to bring the total to 10: Bharti Shahani - 22, Ezra Blount - 9 I figured all the names should be listed, even though a consensus has not been reached to include the victim names in the article. I am curious, what is the value to having names in some articles and not in others? It sounds like editors pick and choose which articles get to have victim names. 161.77.57.235 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What value is there to having the names in any of these articles? The problem is the articles with victim names, not the ones without. --Khajidha (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC

Humans generally have sympathy for victims, especially when the names are known. That is just my opinion. I was just curious what the criteria was to include or not include victim names. I am not trying to start an argument. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have participated in many of these discussions over the years. I disagree that there is more sympathy when names are known. There is more likelihood to include names when, for example, the victim was a police officer killed on duty. There has been no consensus to name unknown people who died in a random attack. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So an earlier post someone made was basically correct. Names are added depending on the circumstances surrounding the event. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Business Insider vs. Insider, both under Insider Inc.

Insider (launched May 2016) is a separate lifestyle-oriented entity from Business Insider, both of which are now under the retitled Insider Inc (which was originally called Business Insider). After not getting further clarity from their own wiki pages, the majority of articles here under Insider (in both the titles in the article and subsequent reference notes) are being redirected to Business Insider, when it should be Insider Inc, which Insider itself is mentioned on (and it doesn't have its own wiki page). Leaving here for the record to get some clarity as I'd correct them again but didn't want any editing wars. Should it be titled/redirected to "Business Insider" because the url is businessinsider.com? The masthead for the majority if not all of the articles themselves is just "Insider". Will leave to another editor. Onan808 (talk)

I think this piece is Business Insider as it is under their domain. It is hard to tell them apart, if you click on pages on Business Insider main page you get a big "INSIDER" logo on top of all of them. Pikavoom (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Subjectivity of 11th wrongful death via lost pregnancy in May lawsuit

Leaving here for the record as opposed to making any article changes primarily due to Judge Hawkins gag order as to not only what constitutes a death legally in the state of Texas but whether a legal filing listing an 11th death is fit to replace law enforcement confirmation even if it was. My impression is that the former is unclear in this instance and the latter is not. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/astroworld-pregnancy-wrongful-death-lawsuit-1265989/

If an editor or several could clarify I'd appreciate it. Onan808 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an unborn child, and it is unclear how far into her pregnancy she was at the time of the concert. I wouldn't add it to the death tally just yet, but we could add it as a separate claim. Whether an unborn child is alive is complicated, and it's a different situation if she was 8 weeks pregnant or 40 weeks, both are awful but the 40 weeks is worse. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Victim section so short?

10 people died and we have a mention of two of them. Any reason why??? 2600:1700:AA98:4010:246C:DB06:2AFC:867D (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Any mention? You mean specifically on how they died? Please clarify what you're referring to. There's no ulterior motive here or specific takedown or block from editors here on them. No victims are named per Wiki policy as has already been discussed extensively in the Talk section in the first archive (if that's what you're referring to).

There is no specificity to the eight victims deaths the night of because the reporting isn't there - believe me, I've looked (spent weeks looking last year afterwards then continuously up until the judge's gag order).

The 9-year old and 22 year old received the vast majority of press attention (unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) because they didn't die the night of and their deaths happened to have witnesses (that were also technically victims if you include PTSD/minor injuries) that spoke extensively to the press.

The 9 year old boy also received outsized press attention mostly due to his age, the circumstances of falling off his Dad's shoulders and because one of his relatives has been vocal in speaking to the press and one of his verbal back-and-forth accusations regarding Travis Scott's charity is one of several reasons the judge put in place a gag order.

The 22 year old woman also received outsized press attention because one of the witnesses (a concert attendee that was also an EMT as mentioned here already) spoke extensively regarding ParaDocs faulty use of a stretcher to prop her unconscious body, and because she was still on life support during multiple rounds of early press conferences immediately after the incident.

Other than another young woman who died whose family put up photos at the memorial, specificity on any of the other victims deaths is lacking, other than three young men where there's speculation that hasn't been corroborated from other witnesses on them trying to protect a young woman in the Southern Quadrant before they were all crushed by the swaying crowd.

If your suggestion is to expand on the other deaths, I'd start there, but I don't think reporting on it extends beyond a couple shaky quotes in the ABC13 documentary. Onan808 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems very subjective, almost like it was written by an interested parties lawyer…

I’m not sure what to do about this but this article is quite subjective and assigns blame when that seems like it is still being determined. 24.14.89.115 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have specific claims to bring up, please do. Generic statements like this aren't helpful at all.

The subjectivity of each occurrence is implied from who each incident is being described by, all of which is mentioned and which hasn't been contested by any higher editors here. Opinions and occurrences from both major defendants and plaintiffs are presented in equal measure here prior to the gag order.

The most prominent of the defendant statements is the ParaDocs CEO simply because he spoke extensively prior to the gag order regarding his process and what prevented in his view his workers from doing their job. That continues to Travis' own interview with Charlemagne, as another example.

If you don't see it from the larger defendants, it's because they didn't speak to the press prior to the gag order, it's as simple as that. Larger defendants such as Live Nation's only major press statements other than condolences were to contest PR claims from a relative of a victim, unless anyone else here missed something. Onan808 (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)