Jump to content

Talk:2021 Meron crowd crush: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Durdyfiv1 (talk | contribs)
85 edits
→Background: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 176: Line 176:
::I think people can figure out what happened. All the reliable sources didn't see the need to spell it out. We're not necessarily writing for children. I also find your addition of a pipe to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Meron_stampede&diff=1021924105&oldid=1021923824 link "asphyxia" instead] to [[Asphyxia#Compressive]] as somewhat patronizing and a bit [[MOS:EGG]]y. Let's see what others think.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
::I think people can figure out what happened. All the reliable sources didn't see the need to spell it out. We're not necessarily writing for children. I also find your addition of a pipe to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Meron_stampede&diff=1021924105&oldid=1021923824 link "asphyxia" instead] to [[Asphyxia#Compressive]] as somewhat patronizing and a bit [[MOS:EGG]]y. Let's see what others think.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
:::I don't think it's at all obvious (to adults as well as children) that asphyxiation is due to people not being able to expand their ribcages, the technique of constrictor snakes. Linking to ''compressive'' asphyxia is simply more specific, as that is the type of asphyxia, rather than smothering, strangulation, etc. I've added a mention that people were saying they couldn't breathe, which is in most sources, but that doesn't clarify this point. Best wishes, [[User:Pol098|Pol098]] ([[User talk:Pol098|talk]]) 13:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
:::I don't think it's at all obvious (to adults as well as children) that asphyxiation is due to people not being able to expand their ribcages, the technique of constrictor snakes. Linking to ''compressive'' asphyxia is simply more specific, as that is the type of asphyxia, rather than smothering, strangulation, etc. I've added a mention that people were saying they couldn't breathe, which is in most sources, but that doesn't clarify this point. Best wishes, [[User:Pol098|Pol098]] ([[User talk:Pol098|talk]]) 13:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

== Background ==

What happened to the background? Seems like it was removed, perhaps by a Troll. [[User:Durdyfiv1|Durdyfiv1]] ([[User talk:Durdyfiv1|talk]]) 00:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:22, 8 May 2021

Requested move 1 May 2021

2021 Meron stampede → 2021 Meron crowd crush – There has already been a lot of debate about this above, but in summary my opinion is that the use of "stampede" is an extremely loaded term and should be avoided. Contrary to what's written above this is not original research, as reliable sources such as [1] (which is used in our own crowd crush article) say the term is rejected by academics. 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.”. Obviously I'm aware that many sources are indeed calling it a stampede, but it's more ubiquitously called a "crush" - most sources saying "stampede" also seem to say "crush", while plenty of sources such as the BBC avoid the use of the loaded "stampede" altogether. Finally, regarding the year I am less concerned about that, and I would also support Meron crowd crush as a second choice, but in general I favour inclusion of years for WP:RECOGNIZE reasons and as per similar unambiguous examples like 2016 Munich shooting and 2021 Hualien train derailment.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst "crowd crush" is technically accurate, "stampede" or "disaster" is the Wikipedian vernacular. The main article is Crowd crush; the subsection list is "Examples of stampedes and crushes"; none of the incidents listed (except for this one) is a denoted as a crush. That said, I await the translation of the Hebrew. kencf0618 (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page has gone through multiple titles whose combinations have included:
    Year: Include 2021 or not
    Location: Israel, Mount Meron, or Meron
    Incident type: Stampede or crush—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting that the original title was 2021 Israel stampede. There hadn't been as much debate on the locality question, which is why I restored it to "Meron" again this morning rather than to "Israel".  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Meron crowd crush.
a) The year isn't needed, because it's a major, well-known event; the only one of its type at this location. The 1911 disaster there wasn't a crowd crush or a stampede.
b) The location - rather than merely the country - should be in the title. It took place in Meron, not on Mount Meron.
c) It was a crowd crush rather than a stampede, despite many media sources using the latter term. Jim Michael (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "stampede" in title. According to WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia [...] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). [...] In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets [...]. Looking at the front pages of the world, only UK sources use the term "crush" — the rest of the world uses the term "stampede". "Stampede" is used by the New York Times [2], The Washington Post [3], the Wall Street Journal [4], AlJazeera [5], Reuters [6] and the Jerusalem Post [7]. "Crush" is used by The Guardian [8], the BBC [9] and the Times [10]. There is, in other words, a clear tendency in reliable sources of using the term "stampede" over the term "crush". In any case, since Israel is not part of the UK, there is no reason to favour UK terminology. JBchrch (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument completely fails to address the neutrality issue. At the end of the day, this is a *descriptive* title. There's no official name for this incident, which means that we use the title to describe the event in a way that is recognizable. As such, we follow WP:NDESC, which warns us to ""avoid judgmental and non-neutral words". I've explained above that reliable sources have flagged "stampede" on this basis, and it's therefore preferable for Wikipedia to steer clear of that by using neutral language which also recognizably describes the event.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is the following: if there is a consensus among reliable sources as to the name of a particular event (as is the case for most newsworthy events), then we must use this name per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVNAME. If such a consensus cannot be found, and if we editors have to decide on a title, then we must apply WP:CRITERIA and WP:NDESC. It's funny that this discussion would come up right now, because I am working on a draft where there is no consensus on how to name the event in question, so I had to come up with something myself.
    Regardless, it looks like the correct work is actually stampede. From what I could gather looking at the Cambridge dictionary [11][12] and the Oxford English Dictionary [13][14], it's "stampede" that applies when crowds are panicking, moving or fleeing, which was the case here. JBchrch (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You hit the nail on the head with your quote "if there is a consensus among reliable sources as to the name of a particular event". There clearly isn't though, because numerous sources are actively avoiding the term you favour. When sources are actively telling us this is a problematic term, it's simply wrong for us to be perpetuating it like this.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the subject of only UK sources use the term "crush" — the rest of the world uses the term "stampede", six of the eight sources on the page that use 'stampede' (New York Times, Sky News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Stars and Stripes, Associated Press) are American, so I'm thinking stampede is actually only "the correct word" in American English. And 'stampede' doesn't apply when a crowd is just moving, only when it is panicked or fleeing (see OED, again); which in fact wasn't the case here. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not necessarily arguing for crush over stampede, but crush is not limited to UK sources. See "Crush at religious festival in Israel's Mount Meron kills 45 people". CNN, "After Meron tragedy: How to survive a crowd crush". The Jerusalem Post, "Israel seeks to identify 45 dead in crush". Australian Associated Press.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention year because of the 1911 disaster when the railing break and people fell and died. Mentioning the year indicating that it somewhat a repeat disaster. Sokuya (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1911, people fell and died when a railing broke.[15] It was neither a stampede nor crush.—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the only way that we'd need the year in the title is if we decide to use disaster in it rather than crush or stampede. Jim Michael (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to those cats. Inside, many of those pages do not have the word stampede in them. I would support name changes on most of the articles which are also clearly not stampedes by definition. Shuki (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meron crowd crush", largely per Jim Michael. There's no clear winner between "stampede" and "(crowd) crush" COMMONNAME-wise, which means we can use our editorial discretion, and there are multiple good reasons to prefer the latter, both for academic accuracy and in light of the general bias toward using "stampede" for events that happen outside the West. Given that this is a) the only event of its kind in Meron and b) very notable: Disambiguation by year is unnecessary. That would only be necessary if there were actual ambiguity with another event, or if a very generic term like "incident" were being used. The 1911 event wasn't a stampede; there will probably be some people who mix it up with one, but that's what hatnotes are for—see, e.g. 1993 World Trade Center bombing. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "crush" wording. It is inaccurate to call it a stampede when the facts and video show that this was an overcrowding issue, not some mass rush on impulse or flight from some other reason. This specific event does not fall under any common use of the term stampede. Shuki (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it is "inaccurate to call it a stampede" when the top 2 most reliable and neutral sources in the world say stampede...just saying. See my comment below for a more detailed reasoning for this comment. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your wish to rely on the terminology chosen by those companies, but just because they 'say' it was a stampede but report that it was not about a stampede mentality or action should mean a lot more. I would support an even more neutral simple term 'Meron Disaster' like is used for many other similar catastrophes. Shuki (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while "stampede" is probably used more, I don't think the degree to which it is used more supports a strong enough WP:COMMONNAME argument to supersede the utility in using the correct nomenclature; "crush" and "stampede" are both used quite often. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Keep Stampede as many editors that know me, I use logic in discussions rather than Wiki policies. (AP News) & (Reuters) calls it a stampede. Logically, since the 2 most reliable and neutral sources in the world (Per the famous media bias/reliability graph/research a few years ago), I have to say that Wikipedia, the worlds largest encyclopedia, should also call it a stampede. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. for people wanting to know, (here) is a link to that media bias graph. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In general I think crowd crush is the more overall descriptive term, a stampede refers to usually running as an example a stampede of people on black Friday, however as made clear it in the article it wasn't just people running but instead a crowd crush, of people staying roughly in the same area therefor I think that logic of crowd crush is better to describe the horrible event. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as a casual reader from Israel of wikipedia. I was searching online for English "2021 Meron Disaster" to find it. In Hebrew it's called "Mount Meron Disaster" (also Hebrew wikipedia article) or "Meron Disaster". Stampede is a loaded word with animalistic connotation and Crush is too unfamiliar or too cold and "scientific"103.1.31.200 (talk)
  • Comment No need for the year. I think "disaster" or similar is a better title, as others noted, the event doesn't actually have a name and Wikipedia is supposed to avoid being the source for the name. If we need to choose, "stampede" is more common, "crowd crush" just sounds weird and pedantic. Hydromania (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Wikipedia is supposed to avoid being the source for the name: Not true. Per the policy WP:NDESC, non-judgmental descriptive titles often need to be invented. —Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support crowd crush. It was a crowd crush, not a stampede. I also saw that an earlier editor noted that Wikipedia articles do not need to follow titles used by mainstream news sources. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support crowd crush; it's a more accurate term. Yitz (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Simply because it was a crowd crush and not a stampede. --geageaTalk 13:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It was not a stampede. It was a crowd crush--Steamboat2020 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)--Steamboat2020 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Almost all of the articles about similar tragedies (this happens in Meccas somewhat often) use stampede. While "crush" may be scientifically more correct, that is not the term used in common parlance.Jdavi333 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"used in common parlance" - it cannot be common parlance after 3 days. You can use this argument if it common over the time and wiki article participate also in creation of misleading "common parlance". --geageaTalk 10:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdavi333, I support also changing the titles on all those articles about tragedies where it is not a stampede (and frankly most were not at all). Shuki (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Meron crowd crush". The article doesn't use the word stampede anywhere. --Bsherr (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people have mentioned using "disaster" in the title. It doesn't seem very WP:PRECISE, and most people aren't going to remember the exact year, making the year a less preferable main disambiguator from other disasters e.g. 1911. I wouldn't use "disaster", short of it becoming part of a proper noun WP:COMMONNAME, which hasn't happened.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Mount Meron Disaster" would be ideal, in line with the terminology used for the Hillsborough disaster, but given a binary choice between "stampede" and "crush", "crush" is a less loaded term. --Zhanmusi (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose It is almost mind-boggling that "Lag BaOmer" is not in the title. Why not call the Boston Marathon bombing the "2013 Boston bombing"? I propose the "2021 Mount Meron Lag BaOmer crush or disaster". The Kingfisher (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with Moonraker12 and some others in this thread that, if the dispute between stampede and crowd crush is not settled, disaster is the best title (followed by tragedy and incident). And, as Jim Michael has pointed out, the year would have to be added. Leoseliv (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until I actually see a number-based argument proving that crowd crush is the WP:COMMONNAME. Anecdotally, from what I've seen, most sources use stampede. Us changing the name because we think it's technically wrong is WP:OR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may or may not be the right title, but choosing "crowd crush" is not wrong because of OR. Per the policy WP:NDESC, descriptive titles are often required to be "invented" by our editors: ... often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. —Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep the year number - given the politics in Israel, especially surrounding the Charedim, the chance of any major change is slim. I just read this morning that it was predicted, back in 1965, that a crowd-disaster would happen eventually. It shouldn't be a surprise if in 4 years on Lag BaOmer (next time it falls on Thursday night/Friday) an other disaster occurs. Animal lover 666 (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Please change the word stampede in the title to crowd crush. The word "stampede" has an animalistic and uncivilized connotation, giving the wrong impression that people were wildly, intentionally storming through the crowds. This is terribly disrespectful to those who died and were injured, as the disaster was caused by extreme overcrowding but not due to any kind of aggressive or intentional behavior. Crowd crush is a much more neutral, fair, and accurate description.185.120.125.41 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note I've copied this !vote from this since deleted duplicate RM that the user opened. It was for all intents and purposes a "support", whose bolded text I added above, while the remainder was copied verbatim.—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support apart from anything else (lots of good comments above), the word "stampede" does not appear in the article itself, whereas "crush" appears repeatedly. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as some editors apparently took it upon themselves to make the body of the article inconsistent with the title, and then remove any in-prose reference to a "stampede" as inconsistent. Really gives you a headache when you think about it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AllegedlyHuman:: Can you clarify this: are you imputing some base motive here? Are these edits incorrect, or inaccurate, or misleading at all? Or are they in fact reasonable corrections to a previously inaccurate or misleading text? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comment speaks for itself: right now, the title says x and the article says y. That is not, as OP previously thought, something that happened naturally. I would think if the change were really as necessary and uncontroversial as you are asserting then there's no reason this move wouldn't have been speedied. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To throw some perspective on almost every similar article listed in the template; Of the 93 articles listed, 40 also contain the year (ie. 43%) and 53 use the term 'stampede' ( 56%) so it is hardly 'almost every' anything. And those that list the date only do so because there was more than one incident at that location. It remains to be seen how accurate those that use 'stampede' actually are: Of the articles on pre-20th century incidents, only 1 of 5 use the term; for 20th century incidents, 11 of 36; and of 21st century incidents, 41 of 52. which I feel says more about the way they are reported here than anything else. As for the template title, you may want to consider the heading there and the associated list says Human stampedes and crushes, while all the associated categories are titled 'Human stampedes', despite their content. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only reason why early media reports used the inaccurate word "stampede" is because it was believed at the time that the crush was caused by a collapsed grandstand, which lead some journalists to believe that the incident was the result of a rush of people running from the collapse. That proved to be false. There was no sudden trigger; the crowd was simply too big for the venue and a series of minor incidents (slips, falls, and the like) caused a holdup that ultimately lead to the crush as more and more people were pressed together in the crowd. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 16:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME stampede should be kept in the name. Most news sources won't (and didn't, in this context) use the term "crowd crush" as opposed to "stampede". Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought; Does this debate reflect a difference of American English vs other Englishes? As pointed out above, US media sources seem to refer to these incidents as stampedes, while British sources generally don’t. As a Brit who finds the use of the term 'stampede' for this kind of incident a bit odd, can I ask; are those who oppose this generally American, and those who support generally not? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A few British dictionaries I checked online said stampede applies to animals and people. Are you saying it's not the case in practice? —Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of different countries using different words for the same thing. "Stampede" and "crush" are both used everywhere, but they have different meanings. Uncontrolled running, versus being slowly squashed against an obstruction. For example, in the Hillsborough disaster in England the police and authorities maintained that the crowd had stampeded and run riot, but inquiries decades later established that it was a classic crush, and the police were a major part of the problem, not the solution. Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's really about assessing the incident itself, and English variants are not an impact. —Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:: My apologies; I may not have been clear here. I agree that the word stampede is used in British English; my point was only that British media sources seem to differentiate between incidents where a panic or a surge is involved (ie. ‘stampede’) and where overcrowding is the cause (ie. a crush) while US sources seem to use the term stampede without distinction (though on second thoughts, that may just reflect the papers I read; see below) Sorry for any confusion… Moonraker12 (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clickbait? Slower news cycles with the new president. —Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I voted oppose... And am British. So maybe we need to consider whether the title should use an American standpoint or British (though I think I know which way it's likely to go). — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's merely a reflection on you, buddy. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Durdyfiv1: It's unclear who you are responding to. Consider using indentation or identifying the person explicitly. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Security footage comment New security footage released here. It gives a better idea than printed words of whether it was a crowd crush or a stampede.—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If correct, the prose in that link would appear to settle the matter. If the crowd were motionless, with the crush occurring because some people lost their footing and fell downwards, that's can't be a stampede. A stampede is a herd of animals (or people, if that's the context) all moving or fleeing in a particular direction.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've held out and been reading all the comments. COMMONNAME is often brought up, but sources don't generally call this plain "Meron stampede". It's not a proper noun, where WP:POVNAME might apply. Some sources use stampede and say it happened in Meron, but there is no common name of "Meron stampede". Therefore, we use a non-judgmental descriptive title (WP:NDESC): These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words ... Stampede implies a crowd with a sudden, rapid movement. Watch the latest video. People are crowded and barely moving, certainly not fast and sudden. They are getting ... crushed. Sources cite witness saying people couldn't breathe. That's not from being stampeded over. There's no evidence that these people died from a crowd out of control. They were crushed by the site's layout and its crowd control. The year in the title is fine. People can link to 2021 Meron stampede in prose directly and not have to write "the Meron stampede in 2021 ...", as the year would typically be mentioned anyways in the absence of a recognizable proper name.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for title "Meron Disaster" Per research on both terms, it appears that "crowd collapse" might be preferable to "crowd crush" for this occurrence, but I agree that the best fit is "Meron Disaster" - as "crowd collapse" is a more academic term. "Disaster" is also the term used in the Hebrew Wikipedia article.--FirstResearch (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The opposition to a title change based on common name argues that the term 'stampede' is more widely used in sources (although, of the sources used here, 'stampede' is used in 8 titles, while 'crush' is used in 6, and 'tragedy' in 5, so it's maybe not as widespread as all that); however this piece (an academic source from the University of Greenwich) states that the term 'stampede' is both "incorrect" and "biased", and the product of "poor journalism". So does that make the media sources that use the term unreliable in that regard? Do WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump WP:COMMONNAME? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition.—Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if you look at Wikipedia:Article titles, WP:NPOVTITLE is in conjunction with WP:COMMONNAME. One doesn't automatically outweigh the other. Any conflicts for a given page's title are resolved through consensus e.g. here. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday–Friday significance

The article currently says Additionally, for the first time in 13 years, the Mount Meron celebration happened between Thursday and Friday ... Is there a cultural significance or implication there? If so, can it be made stated more explicitly?—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat is the missing info. While the revelry traditionally takes place on Lag BaOmer, it is typically drawn out over a few days to accommodate the large crowds. However this wasn't really possible here because the following day is Shabbat, were no travel or bonfire lighting can take place (among other restrictions). As such there was much pressure to cram more people and bonfires in a short time. I'll try to edit the article to clarify (without too much original research). Rami R 08:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Thursday night in Israel is considered to be like Saturday night in the West. Friday is like Sunday, because of the need to prepare for the Shabbat. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited assuming that the festivities had to stop at sunset on Friday, the start of Shabbat. But they may well have been scheduled to end earlier (people had to travel back). It would be useful for someone who knows to state the actual cutoff time. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you removed my point about Thursday night being a busy night in Israel, which I consider a factor in there being larger-than-normal crowds. I added it back in. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stairs were closed by police before stampede

the article don't mention the fact as per many witnesses on scene that the police closed the exit of the stairs before, which was the main cause why people were crushed to deathYeams (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would think someone should cite a source for such witness reports e.g. several yeshivaworldnews reports and then post them in the article. This is a very important point that this being overlooked. Here's the link to an eyewitness report https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/1970352/i-cried-to-the-policeman-take-the-barrier-away-or-people-will-die.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by POR613 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeams (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A witness in that source said "The gate eventually broke and people fell over it, and then... they were crushed". But that doesn't match the video footage here, where it looks like people are getting crushed in the middle of the crowd in the pathway, not right at a gate. Perhaps there was more than one place where people were crushed. I haven't seen a source that's had a clear timeline of events and how closed gates factored in.—Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.barrons.com/news/from-festival-to-tragedy-israel-pilgrims-recount-stampede-01619791515

Crowd limit

I removed conflicting statements about the bonfire crowd limit, sinceThe New York Times reports that it was never implemented. The government’s plan — a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times — was never implemented because none of the government departments took responsibility for doing so, according to an official involved in the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official was not allowed to speak publicly.[16]—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted your change, the NYT talk about a different points , the sources are clear 3000 for each bonfire and 10,000 for the entire complex (which include the bonfrire platforms , a waiting area , tribune and the bridge.141.226.217.61 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't selectively ignore sources any claim it's "clear". The Times of Israel wrote: A framework drawn up by the Health Ministry, in consultation with other government officials, police and others, would have limited the event to 9,000 participants but was not implemented.[17]. If there were up to 20,000 just in that one compound right before the disaster, it's not consistent with those limits having been enforced.—Bagumba (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rule says you shouldn't drive drunk, but people still drive drunk. 141.226.218.57 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is not talking about a rule at: Three bonfires were lit at the same time, each by an Admor, with approximately 3,000 people at each bonfire. And there is a different expectation with permitted when it's a situation where the reader assumes there is active enforcement, such as a crowd with a fixed entrance and presumably guards, vs a drunk driving law where there isnt an officer at each vehicle and breath analyzers aren't standard equipment in cars.—Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wise to add in that section that even that limits had been mentioned, they had not been properly enforced, and to make it clear that the compund itself was built against regulations , permits. where the state commision,the fire and resuce services and Moshav chairman had mentioned it was not following regulation 141.226.218.57 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps move to 2021 Meron stampede#Safety warnings, which already mentions a 9,000 limit and needing 4 exits.—Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the limits to the "Safety warnings" section. People can feel free to expand on the reasons they weren't followed.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How people actually die

It's worth reading stampede#Crushes to understand what happens. There are basically 2 sorts of crushes due to overcrowding as densities increase beyond 4 people per square meter. People die because they are unable to expand their ribs to breathe, so they asphyxiate (that is how boa constrictors operate); they are not usually "crushed to death" as by a heavy weight. Broken ribs are common.

1. a "progressive crowd collapse"—individuals are pressed so closely against each other they are unable to move as individuals, and shockwaves can travel through a crowd which, at such densities, behaves somewhat like a fluid. If a single person falls, or other people reach down to help, waves of bodies can be involuntarily precipitated forward into the open space. One such shockwave can create other openings in the crowd nearby, precipitating further crushing. Unable to draw breath, individuals in a crowd can also be crushed while standing.

2: A "crowd crush" as such ensues when a large crowd is trying to move in a certain direction to reach an objective or in response to the need to move forwards due to events at the back, with those at the back pushing forward not knowing that those at the front are being crushed. This may happen if an exit is blocked.

That is the accepted wisdom. My own opinion from the news I've read is that the Meron disaster had elements of both a crush and a collapse or collapses, but not a stampede. But "crowd collapse" isn't a term that's used outside academic circles. HTH, Pol098 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also read up on both of these terms. Accordingly, within the article itself, the inaccurate word "trampled" is used several times. However, per eyewitness reports, what actually occurred was that people slipped and fell, those behind them successively falling over them, resulting in a pileup. This was not made clear in the article.--FirstResearch (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the accounts of survivors and helpers, there were piles of bodies, with those at the bottom unable to breathe. That indicates a crowd collapse. And the strong railings at the side were twisted and distorted by huge force. That indicates a crowd crush. While reports speak of "trampling" and "stampede", there is no indication of either of these in detailed descriptions, just the words, and description of crushing. Pol098 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asphyxiated

@Pol098: I've reverted your change to replace asphyxiated with the verbose "unable to breathe due to the pressure". Asphyxiated seems succinct and as described by numerous sources:

  • "Overcrowding in a tight passageway in the male section of the gender-segregated event is thought to have caused the tragedy, with children among those who died from being trampled or asphyxiated."The Independent
  • "The exact cause of the disaster is still not clear, but witness accounts and videos posted on social media suggested that some people had fallen down stairs leading out of a narrow passageway packed by hundreds of worshippers trying to exit the site, as a surge of people came down upon those ahead of them who had fallen, being trampled and asphyxiated." Reuters
  • "Witnesses said people were asphyxiated or trampled in a tightly packed passageway around three metres wide" The Guardian
  • "Witnesses said people were asphyxiated or trampled in the tightly packed corridor." NPR—Bagumba (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asphyxiated is technically correct, but gives the impression of people smothered by having their faces blocked in the crowd. Asphyxiated by compression is slightly better, but still technical. What actually happens in crushes is that people are unable to expand their ribcages to draw breath; this clarifies asphyxiated but does not contradict it. I'll leave "asphyxiated" for now, in the hope that another editor will deal with it. Maybe I will add some sourced explanation of what this means. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think people can figure out what happened. All the reliable sources didn't see the need to spell it out. We're not necessarily writing for children. I also find your addition of a pipe to link "asphyxia" instead to Asphyxia#Compressive as somewhat patronizing and a bit MOS:EGGy. Let's see what others think.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's at all obvious (to adults as well as children) that asphyxiation is due to people not being able to expand their ribcages, the technique of constrictor snakes. Linking to compressive asphyxia is simply more specific, as that is the type of asphyxia, rather than smothering, strangulation, etc. I've added a mention that people were saying they couldn't breathe, which is in most sources, but that doesn't clarify this point. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

What happened to the background? Seems like it was removed, perhaps by a Troll. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Meron_crowd_crush&oldid=1022023553"