Talk:Love Parade disaster

Inevitable

500,000 person capacity for an event where 1 million+ people were expected, with a single entrance that was fed by a tunnel. Was this recipe-for-disaster the product of incompetence or yet another sacrifice in the name of security concerns? Specifically, what was the response of the officials when Der Westen raised some fairly obvious safety concerns?BlueRobe (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

500,000 people at any one time those 1million+ are over a few days, not all at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.220.188 (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the single entrance being used by hundreds of thousands of people, with a tunnel leading to the entrance, that caused this disaster. It was another Hillsborough Disaster waiting to happen. BlueRobe (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Loveparade was not planned to be over few days but on only one. And yes, they expected up to 1,5 million visitors to the city in total, planning to have only 250.000 on the festival ground. Which went fatally wrong.

Newsmagazine Der Spiegel gives an accurate analysis in it's current release (August 2nd, 2010):

1. City officials (plus media and the public) wanted the Loveparade at "any means". Thus leading to pressure on clerks responsible for planning and approving. The police chief's concerns were subject to calls for his deposition, he was sent to retirement just some months before. Another high ranking city official, originally responsible for approving the festival refused to sign the clearance and was shifted to another post. There were a lot of concerns but critics didn't get through. In 2009 the event should take place in Bochum. However, the Bochum city mayor canceled the event due to security concerns and was subject to very bad media coverage. This increased the pressure on the city of Duisburg, the mayor there stated the guideline "we won't cancel the festival" (Von uns wird das Fest nicht abgesagt, Der Spiegel citating Duisburg mayor Adolf Sauerland). So, cancellation simply was not an option from a political view.
2. The organizer had no real experience with such a mass event. They organize only the loveparade, no other festivals. It was their third loveparade (2007 in Essen, 2008 in Dortmund), but the first two were consulted by the original organizers of the former loveparades (trademark was sold to the company "Lopavent" in 200x). Now, 2010, they planned it all alone. They choose Duisburg, a city with no record of such mass events, too. And they fatally choose an inadequate festival ground instead of the open places/streets the loveparade was before.
3. There was no real exit, at least not properly marked. "There were phases between 3pm and 5pm, where no real exit was present" (Es gab Phasen zwischen 15 und 17 Uhr, wo es keinen richtigen Ausgang gab, citation in Der Spiegel, word from the responsible crowd manager). The original plan was to have the tunnels as entrance and the same tunnels later on as exit, despite the (known and planned!) fact that between 4pm and 6pm about 100.000 visitors were expected to leave the event already. Plus, the tunnels were known to have a capacity of about 30.000 visitors per hour, which gives >8 hours for entrance and again ~8 hours for exit assuming 250.000 visitors by simple mathematics. Seems that no one did this calculation. The people leaving the festival ground collided with those still wanting to enter it - one of the reasons for the pressure.
4. There is a local law for such events, requiring 1 square meter for 2 visitors. Free ground was 110.000 square meters, do the math: 220.000 visitors are acceptable. But 250.000 were approved by the city. The organizer planned with 485.000 and always talked of 1 to 1,5 millions in his public relation. the million seems slightly exaggerated, typical PR - but no one did the math...
5. According to this law the total width of emergency exits should be 1,20 meter for 600 visitors. So, with 220.000 visitors (the acceptable number, see above) it should be at least emergency exits with a total of 440 meter, with 250.000 visitors (the approved number) it has to be 500 meters. The organizers requested this to be shortened to 155 meters, because of "you don't need to evacuate more than a third of the visitors". Finally, the city approved this!
6. The final approval was given at July, 21st. Three days before the day of the festival. Police states that they received the approval letter on the day of the parade and had not the time to adjust their concepts to the final approval. Anyway, the approval obviously was uncommonly short and lacked details, which are normally subject to such an approval (including exact regulations for the organizer etc.).
7. Start of entrance was delayed. 11am should be the opening, but the organizers weren't yet ready with some pavement works. Opening was around 12:30 then. The floats (trucks with DJs and dancers, main attraction of the parade) started at 2pm. "Unhappy" and pushing visitors (some already drunk) were the result of this bad timing.
8. At 1pm the visitor count at the western tunnel entrance was already 100%, measured by city officials. Police still assumed 50%. At 3pm both authorities agreed to "filled".
9. This was when the ramp leading from both tunnels to the festival grounds was already stacked with people. The "floats" way was directly in front of the ramp. Organizers planned to have the visitors deployed over the full festival ground, but in reality the incoming visitors realized that they had a good view there where they are and stopped, thus blocking entrance for those behind them. So called "pushers" were planned, security staff who had the task to push people forward to the remaining festival ground to solve the problem. They failed - other reports talk about general failure in staff planning or getting them in place.
10. Decision came to close the entrance. This was issued by a crowd control manager, a psychologist who surveyed the entrance section by video monitoring (oinside of the container you see in some Youtube videos directly between the tunnel exits). He had a police liaison officer by his side who failed to get this decision out, because he was not equipped with a radio - someone obviously decided a connection by mobile phone should be enough. But the cellular net was overloaded and down. It took around 30 minutes to get a connection to police command center (the crowd manager and his officer event couldn't get out of their container because they were enclosed in the crowd).
11. Some radio and communication problems added time delay, even when the order was out. The police blocked the east tunnel at 3:45 pm, the west tunnel 10 minutes later. At 4:01 pm a third police chain blocked the ramp to let noone out (into the entering crowd) and to control the entrance in the overcrowded area. Plan was to first clear the ramp from people, then let the others from the tunnel in. Good plan, but then it happened, that the block of the west tunnel was broken: someone (organizer security and police still blame each other) let an ambulance through, which was followed by an unstoppable mass of visitors (bad decision anyway, the ambulance was stuck in visitors and didn't came through, had to turn around).
12. Situation in the tunnels at ~4pm: a lot of people, waiting for entrance, hearing the music from above, knowing there is the fun, the air in the crowd getting bad (-> no fun), and nothing goes on. They even don't exactly know where to go! The ramp leading to the festival grounds was not viewable for those stuck in the crowd. From the east tunnel the view was free to a small stairway, obvioulsy closed (-> really no fun!), secured only by a flawy fence and some few security staff. So the crowd pushed forward to this stairway, at ~4:15 the first one climbed it and some others followed, ignored by security staff. This motivated all others and now hundreds or more pushed to this "only way to the festival grounds". Waves of human beeings were pushed forward and backward, even the police officers on the ramp (already facing two crowds, the one who wants in and others who want out) were not able to stand this and gave up. Lot of people fell down and were pressed on the ground, others against the walls. It was not exactly a stampede (there was not much motion in one direction at all) but a pressure built up by hundreds of persons pushing forward against a concrete wall. Eye witnesses report much space in other directions - the people in the crowd simply couldn't see those spaces. Single tries from police officers to show the real entrance (the ramp) were not followed/understood (in one youtube video you can see a police officers waving hand in one direction and a lot of folks answering with waving hands too - they simply didn't understand what the officer tries to say and didn't get it, that there were already victims in front of them).
13. All in all there was no real mass panic or stampede - it was relatively normal behaviour of the people, only misleaded by not really knowing where to go, seeing only one exit (the inappropriate stairway), having the will to get out of the unfunny situation (bad air, crowded) and not realising, that the whole mass builds up a pressure which is too much for the people ahead. As a police officer states: "They weren't in panic, they simply were irritated and wanted to get out. They were hundreds." (Die waren nicht in Panik, die waren nur völlig genervt und wollten einfach nur raus. Das waren Hunderte. citated by Der Spiegel).

Well, that was it. Then, massive police force was called in to get the people out, medical first responders started from the festival ground (1st responder wave), but the tragedy already happened. However, the emergency medical response was pretty good (with usual problems for the first few medics), there were several EMS and disaster units on near standby and immedeatley called in (2nd responder wave). Medical on-site treatment facilities were set up quick, helicopters and ambulances staged up in large number on a nearby motorway (closed for public traffic). Since the festival was not stopped (police decision to not have additional problems), the medical and security coverage of the mass event still had to continue. Additional emergency units from the whole state were called in (3rd responder wave), but mostly were not needed - fortunately.

Official count is now 21 dead and 511 injured (red cross tracing service registrated 19 dead and 480 injured at July 25, 8am, two victims died the following days in hospital).

All in all a result of criminal bad planning, bad implementation and bad luck (where planning and implementation was based on good hope and luck). :(

--84.152.48.188 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the best eyewitness account on Youtube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmFhNuxS1w (part 1 of 4) with (partly) english subtitles and detailed insights (parental warning: part #3 and #4 are not for the sensible mind). --84.152.48.11 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The organizer Lopavent made original documents and surveillance video tapes available to state his point of view: http://www.dokumentation-loveparade.com/english/?lang=en (in english and german language). Some police helicopter pictures are available here: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-57630-5.html . --84.152.48.244 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Tunnel

Picture of tunnel on google maps: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.217.212 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Preemting hatespeech

Disgusting as it may be, it may be expected that hatemongers would call love parade "sodomites" or other slur, but it would be good to remember in that case that AFAIK this does not grant those people prominence to be mentioned as reactions to the incident, as was the conclusion for Pat Robertson on Haiti Earthquake for example (instead it went to Pat_Robertson_controversies#Remarks_about_2010_Haiti_Earthquake). If one wants to counter such hatespeech, it makes some sense to point out how tragically common stampedes are. CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The fastest way to give "hatemongers" a voice, and to give credibility to hatespeech, is to respond with censorship. Have you learned nothing from history? BlueRobe (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't consider on good grounds refusing to grant prominence and reminding of previous cases as close to censorship. Regardless, I just stated my opinion of the sensible thing to do, you are entitled to your own. CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Two tunnels, West and East

[2] According to this news report in German, people came from both directions. Where did the accident take place? Calle Widmann (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely clear, but somewhere near the north ramp (basically where the two tunnels meet up and led towards the terrain). According to the pressconference, there were no casualties inside the tunnel. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On all the pictures it seems to have been really bad in the opening of the tunnel leading westwards. Calle Widmann (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

If you have English language references to replace the German references, please add them, or leave them here on the talk page. We should avoid German references where possible, but atm, they are a bit more accurate and available. Will take a while before the international press catches up with the press conference etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Updates and title of article

Just heard from the live press conference in Duisburg that 14 of the casualties fell off a the stairs at the ramp, and 2 while climbing the a wall. This corroborates witness accounts heard yesterday on the radio. The overcrowding forced people up the stairs and walls, and when they started falling into the pavement below, panic broke out.

Having said this, I also think that the article should be titled differently. I really hate the word "stampede" up there. --77.181.99.4 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should be renaming and amending this. Still waiting for some better sources to make the final changes though. I propose Love Parade accident or something. Similar articles are named Hillsborough Disaster, Heysel Stadium disaster. Disaster seems a bit over the top tough.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

the german WP uses the word "Massenpanik" which links to our "Mass hysteria", and which links back to "Massenhysterie". our phrase Mass panic redirects to Mass hysteria. I'm not sure it sounds right, but i think it may be more accurate than stampede.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stampede just sounds like something animals do, and that it shouldn't apply to humans. Not sure what to replace it with, though... Trampling? EditorInTheRye (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would add my strong support for changing the title to something like "Love Parade Disaster". Stampede is something animals do, and at this point it looks unlikely that this was a mass panic with people being trampled to death. --24.85.68.231 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Love Parade disaster in accordance with Hillsborough disaster, which was an accident of the same type. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note our article stampede, which shows that stampeding is very much something humans do (humans being a specific type of animal). Although the word "disaster" is used on Wikipedia for several similar incidents, its only virtue is that it covers more than just the stampede. Crushing -- people simply asphyxiating standing up between other people -- is also a notable aspect of stampedes, not just being trod on, and mass panic is really not a very accurate way to describe what happens, either. Anyway, I dislike "disaster" for being so generic. What happened? Did a light tower fall on people, a tornado sweep people away? The word "disaster" tells so little; it's hardly better than the common headline title "Love Parade tragedy". Finally, the word "stampede" is a trivially confirmed journalism usage. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change! Anyway, it looks like most people died falling off a stairwell, rather than being crushed to death in a stampede. --24.85.68.231 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

I have uploaded a snapshot of OpenStreetMap of the festival area here File:Love_Parade_2010_map.png. If anyone can improve upon it, adding accessroutes and area highlight etc alla this, then that would be great. More maps [3] [4] —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a map request. Hopefully someone can assist in creating a good map. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A video which is clearly showing what happened

[5] This is by far the best video I have seen so far of this thing. And I don't believe people died by falling down from stairs. It is clear that they died in the crowd. Calle Widmann (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i don't really believe that either. Most people in situations like this die of suffocation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a huge crowd in a narrow area. Who said that people died exactly when these images were taken? The police have already stated that apparently there was no panic - and the video doesn't show one either. According to them, people died from falling from stairs. And I rather believe the police than a hugely manipulative tabloid newspaper like Bild. 77.180.39.129 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote what I believe. I may be wrong and I have no problem with being wrong. Do you think that Bild has manipulated this video? At 12.50 today I had not seen any other pictures of what really happened between the tunnels on the Karl-Lehr-Strasse. Yes, it's only a hugh crowd, but it's still the best that I had seen at that time. I have never affirmed that people died exactly when these images were taken. There's no panic on these pictures? If so, you and I don't share the same opinion of what the word panic means. Calle Widmann (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not say you are wrong. But I don't believe that things are as clear as you suggest with your tagline "A video which is clearly showing what happened". Up to now nothing is clear, as the investigation by the authorities has just started and will surely last several days if not weeks. The problem with the video is that Bild (which is one of the worst newspapers in the western hemisphere, usually manipulating and lying all over the place) is showing images that have no relation at all to the commentary. This is what I meant by manipulating - it is in no way clear, and in my opinion highly unlikely, that these images show the actual situation when people died (and the commentary is suggesting exactly that) or even a panic. If there ever was a panic, and yes, you and I seem to have different opinions on what the word panic means. Right now we have three possibilities of what could have happened. Option 1: There was a panic and people were trampled to death, the media's version. Option 2: People just suffocated, as suggested by User: TheDJ. Option 3: People fell from stairs trying to get in an already closed area, the police's version. In my opinion, Option 1 is unlikely, because if there really had been a panic, there would have been a lot more dead people. And not one video or image made public till now has showed a panic, i.e. people running around and trampling people to death. Option 2 is also unlikely, because almost all people died at the same place and not spread over the entire tunnel area, so why did people suffocate at only one spot? This leaves option 3 as the most probable. But again, this is only my opinion and I do not say that this is exactly or clearly what has happened. I'm waiting for the final investigation report to give a definitive answer. Greetings 77.180.39.129 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. I will also wait for the answer of the investigation and I will say no more about this now. If you interpreted my tone as harsh, that was not my intention. Take care! Calle Widmann (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There ist a video (this bird's-eye view video is very graphic watch?v=R5Gn_MX14XU) where you can see several people sunken to the ground and other people walking over them. This place is next to the narrow stairs where the most bodys were found (watch?v=36gI7lHBdgk). --78.94.107.55 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel obligated to warn people about this last video, it is VERY graphic and not for the faint of heart. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens in incidents like this. We search for a "cause" and saying it was a mass panic seems like we are saying that people panicked and then there was a stampede, but the panic is really more of a secondary effect as the crowd -- often trapped by structural elements such as walls or stairwells -- simply runs out of room and people are literally lifted off their feet. (A friend of mine was in a stadium stampede/crush once and described the effect to me, and I've been in a concert situation that resembled this as well -- people falling like dominoes one into the other and everyone trying to brace themselves but unable to withstand the force of dozens of other persons' weight.) Once the physical effects begin and individual humans in the crowd lose their ability to control their personal space and stay upright or begin to asphyxiate, then the panic begins and people try to escape, often dropping to an every-man-for-himself desperation. But the panic did not cause this, it was a result of the somewhat circumstantial crush effects. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article in bild.de is helpful. I think it shows the problem. 3 streams of people. 2 from both of the tunnels, trying to get onto the terrain, 1 from the terrain trying to get INTO the tunnels. Result, total deadlock with ever more people being fed into the 'pit' from all sides, resulting in the crush. Apparently the second ramp was supposed to be the exit, but it was not expected that so many people would be leaving the grounds by that time (or they simply forgot...not sure). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

These videos in 4 parts show a very good chronology on how the panic occured (part 3 & 4 are VERY graphic and disturbing, be warned):

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4zcs6Eo7gc
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmwIb421hkQ
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlmIAcVbEkA
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG5rQnE1AXE

—GenioLux (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of Police

More police officers than stated in the article were present during the festival. There weren't 1,200 or 2,000 but actually 1,200 plus 2,000. 1,200 from the Federal Police (Bundespolizei) and 2,000 from the State Police (Polizei Nordrhein-Westfalen). I have changed this accordingly. 77.180.39.129 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this statement ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I read these numbers in different articles which are no longer online. Or at least I can't find them. However, the online article which is used as a source for the 2,000 number actually includes both numbers: http://www.derwesten.de/kultur/Liveticker-Loveparade-id3276177.html At 16.59 Uhr it says '2000 Einsatzkräfte der Landespolizei' which means '2000 offciers of the State Police' and at 22.36 Uhr it says 'Die Bundespolizei ist allein am Hauptbahnhof mit etwa 1000 Kräften im Einsatz.' which translates as 'The Federal Police is in action with around 1,000 officers at the central station alone.' Meaning that additional officers (the 200 missing from the total) were in action in other parts of the city. Greetings 77.180.39.129 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this news story:

"Officials said 4,000 police officers and 1,000 security guards were deployed at the event."Gordonlighter (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To add some clarity:

1. There had been 1200 officers of the "Bundespolizei", their only task was to guard the central station and the railway tracks, particularly with regard to brainless idiots trying to cross the tracks to get to the festival area.
2. There had been 14 Hundertschaften of the Bereitschaftspolizei with about 120 officers each, i.e. about 1700 officers in total. 4 Hundertschaften had been stationed on the festival area to assist the (obviously overstrained) security guards of the festival organizer, all others had been allocate along the main access ways.
3. Countless members of the Schutzpolizei – most local officers and many colleagues of other cities helping out – managing the traffic on the streets offside the main access ways.

That's pretty exact the situation that had been ... axp_de^Hello! 07:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Similarity with the Roskilde 2000 accident?

I think the reference to this accident should be removed as I don't see any similarity of the two accidents except that both occurred during music festivals and involved big crowds. At Roskilde people were crushed in front of the stage, and according to the article about this accident, one of the factors was crowdsurfing. It seems that the reference to the Hillsborough Disaster is more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.243.77 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely both are relevant? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, both are relevant. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? 130.225.243.77 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the Hillsbourgh disaster is directly similar, and the other was at a music festival. And they've occurred in developed countries and are all down to letting too many people into a small area. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Danish newspaper Politiken reports (http://politiken.dk/indland/article1023283.ece) that "the direct circumstances are different". The article also has a link to the official police investigation which is cited. So if you guys think this qualifies for the reference, then every stampede that has taken place should be relevant. Then a better reference would be to the article stampede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.243.77 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hillsborough Disaster is definitely relevant. The causes of the injuries and deaths are eerily similar. But, a reference to the Roskilde incident is not relevant merely by virtue of the fact that it occurred at a musical event. The relevance of the Hillsborough Disaster to this article is determined by the failures of crowd control, not by the presence of music. BlueRobe (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Other useful material

• WDR Timeline
• WDR list of warnings before the event

—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Move

Really? Dunno, I thought 'disaster' sounds like an exaggeration. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets think about a better lemma like 2010 Love Parade disaster which at least gives the year or 2010 Love Parade stampede. --Scriberius (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Love Parade stampede seems to be suitable. --Scriberius (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need the year per WP:PRECISION. --Kslotte (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, what if 2011 (or any other future year) follows another disaster? "Love Parade disaster" is just sketchy. @ possible smart allecks: I already know that there will be another Love parade in Germany. --Scriberius (talk)

What you you think? It gets its year in the title then. You think Chernobyl disaster should get a year too? Or the big bang, there could be another one :) -Koppapa (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Other options are Love Parade deadly accident or Love Parade human crush. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Human crush is not a common term in the English language and should not be used IMO. Especially since this is the "Love Parade" and the term "crush" is often associated with temporary love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonlighter (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

An article title does not have to be 100% correctly descriptive. According to WP:TITLE we should go by the most common name in sources. "Love Parade disaster" gets about 43k hits on Google[6] while "Love Parade stampede" gets 3.8 million hits.[7] Correct or not, the choice for now seems pretty obvious.

--Peter ^Isotalo 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Incident or Accident

Should the "Incident" chapter be renamed to "Accident". I believe the term accident is better than incident. Accident implies that the disaster did not happen on purpose, contrary to incident, which might indicate that the disaster was intentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.26.16 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Love Parade accident" gets about 5.1k hits on Google[8] and out of those a lot seem pretty vague.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fatalities Wikitable

Does anyone else think that this wikitable carries analysis into the realms of insensitivity and is anyway more detail than we strictly need? My fear is that these will spread to all articles involving large numbers of victims and the breakdowns are something we can do without. The reaction of some outside wikipedia to them is also something that concerns me somewhat. Britmax (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhr 2010/Loveparade

Hello from Germany. The Loveparade was NOT oficially one of the program elements of RUHR.2010. It just took place at the same time and the idea of the loveparade was only supported by RUHR.2010 (yes, both hosts expected a great PR for their own event, created by the other). Two events, two hosts, no official connection (read the citation carefully!). and sorry for my english ;-)) --Luekk (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not officially connected to the organisers perhaps, but it's on their (RUHR2010) event calendar and promoted on their website. There were banners of RUHR2010 everywhere during the loveparade. Too bad if this is now a little less PR than they had anticipated, but the connection is there. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, a connection is there. I assume they are not very happy with it, yet. --Luekk (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish woman both aged 22

The Spanish woman both aged 22. Link in Spanish language: El PAÍS, Adiós a las víctimas de Duisburgo

1. REDIRECT [[9]]

The interesting part of the article: a las dos españolas de 22 años fallecidas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.156.226 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. HaeB (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Love Parade stampede → Love Parade disaster – Or anything that's more NPOV than the current title! Naming the article after the stampede implies that the crowd were mainly to blame, and the deaths were inevitable, a position Wikipedia should not be taking without strong evidence.

Other factors were involved, such as crowd control and planning, that could have prevented the stampede and "mass panic". We already discussed this in 2010 -- English-speakers know that "disaster" is a common neutral name for these events in English.

But then User:Peter Isotalo moved the page without consensus on 2 August 2010 for the reason that: 'Even if it's technically not "correct", "Love Parade Stampede" is by far the most common name for this incident.' (Edit) He also said, '"Love Parade disaster" gets about 43k hits on Google[10] while "Love Parade stampede" gets 3.8 million hits.[11]' -- absolute nonsense. (Click his links and find out.)

"By far" is untrue. It sounds like POV-pushing. FWIW, other languages' wikis variously use "accident", "disaster", "mass panic", "misfortune", etc.
- Responsible? (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the move. The word "stampede" is wildly inaccurate (not just "technically"), see e.g. this reliable source which at the same time is a good reference for the usage of the term "Love Parade disaster":

" a mass panic was most likely not the cause of the Love Parade disaster. The video recordings from the Love Parade do not provide evidence for a stampede of people, while the dangerous phenomenon of crowd turbulence is clearly visible"

"In Duisburg, people’s lives were endangered not by a stampede that crushed other people, but by a high crowd pressure"

There were no people running in the area where the fatalities happened.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OP comment: Apply non-POV guideline #3 in this case. "Stampede" (and whether one even occurred) is disputed, and the 'popularity contest' argument is not strong. On page 10 of Google results (more/less reliable?) today, L.P. stampede gets 93,000 hits, L.P. disaster 81,000. Therefore rules #1 and 2 should not apply IMO. The page was first moved from "disaster" to "stampede" unilaterally, not by consensus.
- Responsible? (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As this move request turned out not to be controversial, and the inappropriateness of the "stampede" title has become clearer with the additional sources that have become available since 2010, I have now move the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Love Parade disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730040807/http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100725/twl-nineteen-dead-in-german-festival-hor-3fd0ae9.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100725/twl-nineteen-dead-in-german-festival-hor-3fd0ae9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730030559/http://www.essen-fuer-das-ruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de/en/programme/a-time-to-celebrate/loveparade.html to http://www.essen-fuer-das-ruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de/en/programme/a-time-to-celebrate/loveparade.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130106043425/http://www.abendblatt.de/vermischtes/article1578314/21-Jaehriger-aus-Niedersachsen-unter-Toten-der-Loveparade.html to http://www.abendblatt.de/vermischtes/article1578314/21-Jaehriger-aus-Niedersachsen-unter-Toten-der-Loveparade.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217182117/http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Loveparade_2010_Duisburg_planning_documents%2C_2007-2010/ to http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Loveparade_2010_Duisburg_planning_documents,_2007-2010/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hindsight bias in this article?

After I've repeatedly come across the hindsight bias, I felt it might be relevant in the context of the present Wikipedia article. According to the hindsight bias, people overestimate in retrospect the likelihood, foreseeability and/or inevitability of an event, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on catastrophes/ accidents: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 That's why I was wondering whether hindsight bias might have entered into this article as well (i.e., whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was from the foresight perspective, i.e., without outcome knowledge. According to researchers, the hindsight bias can be countered by deliberately taking information into account that would have argued against the outcome – obviously, the hindsight bias results from a retrospective one-sided focus on information that is consistent with the event while ignoring or not taking seriously information that is inconsistent with it (i.e., would have argued for another outcome). So maybe it would be good to check again and make sure that event-inconsistent information was not overlooked?--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:61F3:7C52:F3B4:D1D8 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Source for the memorial

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/remembering-a-tragedy-the-long-search-for-a-love-parade-memorial-a-745908.html

We have a photo of it but we don't mention it in the article.©Geni (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)