User talk:Pldx1/Sortable list of crowd crushes

Date material was accessed?

Pldx1, thank you again for compiling this massive dataset. I have imported it into Excel, and I plan to add other factors and do a proper statistical analysis (multifactorial) to inform our discussion in the RfC. FoCuS suggested an assessment of other factors besides race that might better explain our usage of the word "stampede" (e.g., setting and crowd size), and he is right. It is proper to consider a variety of factors.

In order to use the extensive data you have compiled, I need to know the date or date range when you gathered this data. Things obviously changed across many of these articles pretty rapidly after the event in Mina, so I'd like to pin down the timing, and maybe do some updating of the data you have gathered. I don't know if it is most appropriate to analyze the most current data or to pick an arbitrary date and look at the history as of that date. Obviously the latter would be easier, because then I could use your data as it is instead of updating it. But my argument from the beginning has been that WP has been applying the term disproportionately, meaning WP has this history, which should be considered in our present decisions.

Thanks again for all the data, and please let me know the date(s) when you can. Dcs002 (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• 2015-10-09. I have chosen this date due to the renaming of Victoria_Hall_disaster by an activist of renaming... who never contributed to the domain (neither before, nor after). See Talk:Victoria_Hall_stampede. By the way, using the name 'race' to describe the pink factor seems to be only another bias. The main impulse for using stampede instead of disaster is not the fact of the reporters, but mostly the fact of the governments (India, Saudi Arabia, etc). Therefore, apart the fact that races don't exist, but only racist prejudice, we have to examin all the possible racist prejudices. And the greatest possibility is racist prejudice from Saudi leaders against Nigerians, Iranians, etc. Or from the upper castes against untoucheables, etc.

Moreover, it seems that British sources are more prone to use 'stampede' than the US ones (not backed by a study, only a feeling). Maybe US reporters are associating Saudi Arabia = petrol = George Bush, while British ones are associating Saudi Arabia = Laurence = Peter O'Toole. Pldx1 (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not exactly sure at this point what to say about the pink factor. I understand the concept and I agree with its importance, but I don't want to confuse people as they interpret the results. I am also aware that the Saudi source said "some Africans", and much of the protest to that assignment of responsibility seems to have come from Nigerian authorities, but at least one other source said the same thing about a group of Egyptians, also Africans, but perhaps less racially different in the eyes of Middle Easterners than sub-Saharan "black" Africans - I don't know. I know the Egyptian governments since Anwar Sadat have been reviled by many in the region because of their separate peace with the Israelis in 1979, so there is reason to suspect bias just the same.

For now, since I am using your dataset, I will report the result using the exact terminology that you used - "Column 'w' contains "A" or "B" according to some geographic categorization of the crowd crush." (My original data concerned geography as well - the Middle East, Asia, and Africa in one category, and everywhere else in the other.) When I have finished compiling all the data and analyzing it, I think I will try to make an assignment of a racial variable based on my best understanding of how most people understand the term (and stated as such, with methods given). Events within the US are important, for example. In 2003 we had the E2 Nightclub "stampede" at a club filled with African Americans (21 deaths in a collapse in a stairway), and 3 days later we had the Station Nightclub Fire at a nearly all-white nightclub, in which at least 40 of the 100 dead (possibly another 18) were killed ("trampled") in a collapse at the main entrance/exit. Race is a social construct, but as long as people believe in it and act accordingly, we should be considering the outcomes of that belief and those actions. Geography first though. Dcs002 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Pldx1, I would be grateful if you would have a look at how I am characterizing your dataset in my statistical analysis so far. I do not want to misspeak or misuse your data, and I am only human. Any critical comments would be welcome. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Change made based on source

I changed the description of #76 in your table. A translation of the Hungarian source says that one of the dead had amphetamine in her blood, which might have slowed her ability to recognize and respond to the emergency. The source does not attribute this event to drugs. It does say that the venue's escape capacity is 307, that nearly 3,000 were present, and that 4,000 tickets were printed. Absolutely insane... Building evacuation took a half to three quarters of an hour. A Budapest police representative, Tamás Tóth, said there was no panic in the crowd. Part of the translation says, "A witness in his testimony, said that five to ten minutes did not reach the feet of the land, the place was so crowded". (I assume this means his feet didn't touch the floor for 5-10 minutes.) And there were only 0 security personnel in this extremely dense crowd of 3,000. Thought you might be interested. Dcs002 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)