Talk:Kumbh Mela

Crush or stampede

Per wp:bold, revert, discuss, this is to question the reversion of my edit by Toddy1.

The article uses the tabloid term "stampede" when the description shows clearly that it was a crowd crush. The justification Toddy1 gives for reversion is that this is the term that the sources used. As a matter of principle, we report quotes verbatim but we have no obligation to replicate in wp:wikivoice the style used by the colonial administration. For example, how can we justify a sentence like this: Template:Tq Subtext: the local populace can be expected to behave like animals.

Perhaps the distinction between a stampede and a crowd crush is not appreciated? This report by Al Jazeera puts it very well:

Edwin Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at the University of Greenwich, England makes it even clearer:

Stampede is not only an incorrect term, it is a loaded word, as it assigns blame to the victims for behaving in an irrational, self-destructive, unthinking and uncaring manner, it's pure ignorance, and laziness [...] It gives the impression that it was a mindless crowd only caring about themselves, and they were prepared to crush people.

In virtually all these situations, this is not the case, and it is usually the authorities to blame for poor planning, poor design, poor control, poor policing and mismanagement.

The truth is that people are only directly crushed by others who have no choice in the matter, and the people who can choose don't know what is going on because they're too far away from the epicentre.

The popular press may be satisfied with such sloppy use of words but wp:wikipedia is not a newspaper and we have higher standards. The events described were crowd crushes and it is collusion to call them stampedes. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Conversely, Terrorism in India#2010 Varanasi blasts uses the term "stampede" correctly. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

One view is that "stampede" and "crowd crush" are used by sources to mean the same thing. If you have that view, then editing the text to change "stampede" to "crowd crush" is entirely legitimate.

But the newspaper articles cited above^[1][2] say that a "stampede" and a "crowd crush" are either different things, or that the words have significantly different meanings. If the newspaper articles are right, then a source that says "stampede" does not directly support a statement that there was a "crowd crush". See Wikipedia:No original research, which says that Wikipedia articles must not contain "any analysis ... of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that ... directly support the material being presented."-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, in the sentence Template:Tq, the subtext is that the officials and the police acted responsibly with respect of planning, design, control, policing and management. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

If a source used the name "lion" for a big cat predator with black stripes on yellow fur, we would just correct it to "tiger": no original research is involved. The description of the event says nothing about an explosion, a burst of gunfire, a lathi charge or indeed anything that would suggest a stampede. Compare and contrast with the Amritsar massacre: the fact that people were crushed trying to escape does not mean it was a crowd crush, it is still a stampede. C&C also with Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, where the Government of Israel says it was a crowd crush towards the aid trucks but Palestine and the UN say it was a stampede away from IDF gunfire. Choice of words matters and are potentially NPOV violations.

Older sources were sloppy about terminologyTemplate:Snd we don't use the n-word in Wikivoice, for example. Older sources used the word "stampede" irrespective of circumstances. Modern sources (e.g, Guardian, BBC (usually)) choose consciously which word to use.

I would accept your WP:NOR challenge as valid if I were doing any analysis, but I don't see that I am. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Talk-ref

History

I'm finding overweight to mention especially string claim that the first thing happened was 1870, while multiple scholars ascrib early form or similar festival those mentioned by Chinese Travaleler to Harsha or other as these version. Also, MacLean 's opinion has already been mentioned at later at lead and other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:2018:DAED:D1FA:704D:3707:EBE2 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, articles have a lead section that is meant to summarise the article. The lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarise the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It is not appropriate to delete information from the body of the article on the grounds that the information is already mentioned in the lead.

So removing mention of what happened in 1870 from the body of the article because it is already mentioned in the lead would be a mistake.

But the same information does not need to be mentioned in both the first paragraph of the "History" section and the sixth paragraph of the "Evolution of earlier melas to Kumbh Melas" section. Template:Ping seems to think that the sixth paragraph of the "Evolution..." section is the right place to mention it in the body of the article. I cannot see anything wrong with that. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems the particular is added in the surrounding dates whatsoever and the unfo "first Kumbh is.." uncertain and strong claim and actually covered of what Mc Lean opines.

Also the last hindi source actually says that the importance or traditions of Kumbh Mela is old and in Modern times, it was officially celebrated in British time 2409:40E4:1356:D503:1CEC:D7C:1771:7401 (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Alsosee https://sundayguardianlive.com/maha-kumbh/beyond-faith-how-kumbh-mela-reshapes-the-course-of-history/amp 2409:40E4:1356:D503:1CEC:D7C:1771:7401 (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)