This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Festivals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Festivals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FestivalsWikipedia:WikiProject FestivalsTemplate:WikiProject FestivalsFestivals ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. India: Uttar Pradesh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh.

When was the last 144 years Maha Kumbh before 2025? 202.142.71.52 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was fairly sure I recalled the 2013 Kumbh Mela being described as a Maha Kumbh Mela, so I checked our other articles. Our articles Kumbh Mela and Prayag Kumbh Mela do indeed describe the 2013 festival as a Maha Kumbh Mela, although that may be to distinguish it from the intervening 2019 Ardh Kumbh Mela. The main Kumbh Mela article also mentions that owing to the orbit of Jupiter not being quite 12 years, the festival has an 11-year interval around once a century. If that's right, then the recurrence of the true Maha Kumbh Mela would be expected to be every 142 or 143 years. This implies that if it's true that the present Mela is the one in question, the last one was the 1882 festival - do we have any sources which talk about it in that context? GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 2013 was the last Maha Kumbh Mela and 2157 is the next one. 2025 is perhaps only Purna Kumbh Mela. 24.6.161.196 (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources quote 1977 as the year of Maha Kumbh Mela 24.6.161.196 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide any of these sources? There seems to be significant confusion on this point, and it would be good to have some clarity. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ITN nomination [1] for this currently - pinging @ExclusiveEditor: who is involved in that discussion as well. I think it will be important to clarify this before an ITN blurb goes up on the main page calling this a "Maha" kumbh. Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purna= 12 year cycle, Maha= 144 year cycle. 2001^[a], 2013^[b] and 2025 are all called Maha Kumbh by various sources. There are BBC articles mentioning 2013 as the 144 year special Kumbh Mela, and there is also BBC article calling this year's KM as 144 year special. Surely all the original sources are Indian, so I think different people hold different believes of which the Maha Kumbh is, and the organisers use the term everytime so as attract more and more people. There is not a single source describing previous Maha Kumbh of 1800s, most probably no one knows, at least any reliable source. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the government and related sources stating and publicising every iteration as 'Maha' makes sense given that it generates revenue for them and the people. --ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The present article now claims without citation that the previous such event was held in 1881; this despite our own other articles saying it was in 1882. Can we please have some source that isn't just a recent press release that deals with the recurrence issue? GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GenevieveDEon: That is all uncited/ original research/ wp:synth mess, please remove any such year if you see it. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 05:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current text says " As per astronomical calculations, the 2025 edition is unique since the constellation alignment seen is witnessed once in 144 years." The constellations do not move significantly on that timescale, and do not move cyclically. Could we have some accurate and clear statement about what is aligning, and why it is on a 144 year cycle? GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a cyclical spin Indian astronomers accurately estimated for over 1500yrs though at first they assumed it reverses direction every x° (it won't). I don't know much about Indian cultures no idea what constellational alignment they might be talking about or if that's just someone typing without thinking. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire cycle referred to by the image caption on the right, originally discovered by ancient Greek astronomers around 120 BCE and assumed by them to be a small back-and-forth tilt of a few degrees, takes almost 26,000 years, see axial precession and Great Year. Even half that time as mentioned in the image caption on the right (when "a lot of things will have to be re-named") takes c. 13,000 years. I have no idea whether the Great Year has anything to do with the festival, I just wanted to chime in to explain what the image on the right is referring to that somebody has added here. --2003:DA:CF2E:4557:D573:63C3:A7B:7A9A (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is irrelevant and unnecessary. Millions of people visit it including hundreds of notable people. There is no point in keeping list of who visited. The article is about the event and should focus on it. Nizil (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list is important to convey the importance of this event to the world. Saksham108 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, reading the first and last columns of this table together, it appears that the Second Amrit Snan is the First Amrit Snan, the Third is the Second, and the Fourth is the Third. Can someone who understands this material make this accurate and consistent please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I correct it by removing the first column, which is unnecessary. Saksham108 (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notatall00 has moved the "stampede" section so that it comes after the "attendance" section.^[2] It used to be before the "attendance" section.^[3] This change was made without discussion and without an edit summary.

Not Sure clearly objects to this, but appears to have thought that the "stampede" section had been deleted.^[4] I have reverted Not Sure's edit because it left two identical "stampede" sections and made the "safety and security" section a subsection of the "stampede" section, which I assumed was an error. Instead I have reverted Notatall00's edit, putting the "stampede" section before the "attendance" section.

Not Sure's argument was The stampede was a major event, but some editors want to bury this information -- thus proving the criticism cited in this section. Do not make such changes unless there is a discussion first.^[5] I agree with that statement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Thank you! I had thought all of my edits had been reverted by an account that had only been active for less than a week and did not provide any reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page. (The account has now been blocked anyway.) I appreciate your efforts at making this page more comprehensive and even-handed. Cheers, -- Not Sure (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the entire event is entirely related to a certain constellation that only occurs every 144 years, it should be described what this significant alignment is in astronomical terms. It's found in none of the English-language Wikipedia articles related to the festival, and I couldn't find it in the sources for this article, either. --2003:DA:CF2E:4557:D573:63C3:A7B:7A9A (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'constellation' in English refers to a configuration of the 'fixed' stars, not any periodic event. That's why I'm trying to get some clarity here. What is the astronomical event that has the 143-144 year periodicity that relates to this festival? GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My German talkradio where I've heard a report on the festival yesterday made some vague reference to an "alignment of Jupiter, Mercury, Saturn, and the fixed stars". In order to find out the details, I turned to Wikipedia, but it seems WP knows even less about what constellation or alignment it is. --2003:DA:CF2E:4557:D573:63C3:A7B:7A9A (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is all sort-of explained in this Times of India article by Rajiv Mani.^{Times of India 8 Jan 2025} But to decipher the article you need to know terms used in Hindu astrology:

• A "nakshatra" (also called a birth-star) is one of 27-28 sectors of the sky.
• "The Pitcher" is Aquarius (constellation)

I do not know what it means by "the four Rishis, including Sanak, Sanandan, Sanatan, and Sanatkumar".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the four Rishis are figures in the story of the Churning of the Ocean, so I don't think that affects the astronomy/astrology aspect. That's a helpful article, thank you. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I still can't make sense of the alignment. I used theplanetstoday.com to reconstruct the zodiacal placement of the planets on 29 January, and Jupiter/Guru was in Gemini, Saturn/Shani was in Pisces, and the Moon/Chandra and the Sun/Surya were in Aquarius. Pushya, the Nakshatra mentioned in the article, is part of Cancer, adjacent to Leo - that's where Mars/Mangala is at the moment. (On 13 January, when the festival began, the positions were broadly similar, except that the Sun was in Capricorn and the Moon was opposite it in Cancer/Pushya.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say 50 million, some say 50 crore (500 million). Surely the second number cannot be correct? You can't physically transport a third of the population of the country to the same spot. Jpatokal (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 14 February source cited for 50 crore does not support that there have been 500 million visitors. It merely supports a statement that the Uttar Pradesh government claims this.

• "Maha Kumbh 2025 achieves historic milestone: 50 crore take holy dip". Hindustan Times. 14 February 2025. Retrieved 14 February 2025.

A 12 February source reported that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath when "addressing a public gathering in Baghpat’s Chaprauli, he also said that by Thursday, nearly 50 crore devotees would have taken the sacred bath at the grand religious event." But the next paragraph of the article said "More than 4.883 crore devotees have taken the holy bath so far, according to the official data."

• "Maha Kumbh: 73.60 lakh devotees participate in Maghi Purnima snan in Prayagraj". Hindustan Times. PTI. 12 February 2025.</ref>

Leisure centre statistics are in terms of visits. For example Central Bedfordshire Council said on 16 January 2025 "Between April 2023 and March 2024 there have been over 2.3M visits to the leisure centres, which is a 41% increase on the previous year." (The population of Central Bedfordshire in 2021 was 295,541.) If a person goes into a leisure centre on average twice a week, that person counts as 104 visits. It is possible that the UP Government's claimed statistics are confusing the number of people with the number of visits.

I would guess that this also applies to the number of devotees taking a dip; if you queue up and dip five times, you get counted five times.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it even more likely it's a simple mistake on the Minister's part: if you have 4.8 crore on Wed Feb 12, it would make much sense to say that "by Thursday, 5.0 crore" instead of 50 crore by the following day. Jpatokal (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4.8 crore is likely incorrect till date since 3.5 crore was the actual number who dip at auspicious day of Makar Sankranti 14th January.

Also from the same source, and official Government status like https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2101679 both says actually that the total cumulative counting is over 500 million. 2409:40E4:11E9:69B2:BC19:FCDA:6D7E:CF8A (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALANCE says Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. The UP Government claimed numbers are about ten times larger than the 48.83 million official figure of 12 February. UP Government claims are more prominent in reliable sources than the 48.83 million figure, so they ought to be mentioned in the lead.

A press release by PIB Delhi dated 11 February said that on 9 February, about 330 trains transported 1.25 million pilgrims (that is the number of passenger-journeys both to and from the event, so the number coming per day by train was 625,000). Another press release by PIB Delhi dated 28 January said that operating 360 trains per day from Prayagraj (Allahabad) was an all time high. There were 30 days between 13 January and 11 February (inclusive), so that would mean about 18.75 million people arriving by train between 13 January and 11 February. To generate 48.83 million visitors by the start of 12 February, we would have to assume that the number of visitors was 2.6 times the number carried by train. That seems plausible.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, compared with all other reliable sources, the UP government figures are out by a factor of 10. That looks like a typo or calculation error, and that in my opinion throws the reliability of that source into question. I don't think we should give prominence to an obviously erroneous figure, and arguably we shouldn't give it coverage at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must be doing more research especially to give more weight but in general the figure of 48.83 is single day high visitors, see from the same source mint https://www.livemint.com/news/india/maha-kumbh-mela-2025-video-shows-crowd-continues-to-swell-as-gathering-nears-end-watch-prayagraj-uttar-pradesh-11739942330456.html

or another news https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/a-week-left-a-sudden-surge-in-footfall-at-kumbh-9845522/

Also note, On Tuesday alone, 1.26 crore pilgrims arrived, following 1.35 crore on Monday, 1.49 crore on Sunday, and 1.36 crore on Saturday. The report further highlights that on Friday (February 14), the footfall was 94.98 lakh, while on Thursday (February 13), it stood at 80.46 lakh.

For the 2013 -or 2019 Half Kumbh, the same 3 crore (relatively lesser than 3.5 at Makar sanranri this year) at the auspicious day https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/over-three-crore-devotees-take-the-dip-at-sangam/article4401726.ece

Further, there are 200 million people in UP alone.

Yes, people are preferring Buses and other means than Train because they are over crowded that's true even for anything trips 2409:40E4:122A:A2CF:EC03:F8E0:733E:F8B6 (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why to list the incidents??. Wikipedia is some notice board?? Rehmanian (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd crush, incidents one by one in different headers is like a deliberate attempt to show. Rehmanian (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire article (2025 Prayag Maha Kumbh Mela crowd crush) on the crowd crush and I think that it should be mentioned here as it is very much relevant 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited it better, you can check, i also removed some contents. Rehmanian (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you removed cited content that mention's the criticism by the opposition. I dont see a good reason to remove that 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view by showing all POVs 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to include incidents that didn’t even happen inside the Maha Kumbh Mela. If a family is traveling to attend an annual pilgrimage in Iran or Saudi Arabia where millions gather every year and one of his family members dies on let's say in Japan or china, would you include that incident took in the article? This edit should be removed, as it appears to deliberately portray the Maha Kumbh Mela in a negative light by referencing an unrelated incident. 2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes actually we do have to mention it if it was covered by sources 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents should only be added if it happened inside the area not outside. Whats the point of adding all these that a random suv met with an accident and all that? 2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not random? They were headed to Prayag 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did it happen inside the mela premises? 2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

killed in a crowd crush at the New Delhi railway station rail station after trains carrying pilgrims,
a bus carrying Nepali devotees to the festival overturned,
an SUV carrying pilgrims from West Bengal crashed.
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added incident section in Masjid al-Haram too. I hope you will agree on me on this. 2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's with you obsession with islam? Hajj and the stampede isn't in masjid al-haram. It's also not a reason to delete text from this article.. these are your words right? You said stampede didn't happen inside the mosque so it shouldn't be there although it happened there and crowd was there to visit the mosque but in this article that is mahakumbh when I said the incidents were not happened inside the mahakumbh then you were like it's important to add cuz it's related to it LOl. Even hypocrisy is afraid of you guys, no wonder from where the hate is coming from. 2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 just place it in the correct article if it isn't there already 🙏 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the 2025 Prayag Kumbh Mela. It ought to tell the reader about what happened. So I would expect the article to tell me about incidents where people got killed; and even though the fire did not result in deaths or injuries, it probably ought to be mentioned too (which it is).

I think that the 29 January crowd crush should be listed in the list of incidents instead of having its own section. It is only one paragraph, and that could easily be given a bullet point and added to the list. There is a separate article on the 2025 New Delhi railway station stampede, which is wikilinked to in the list. So the 2025 Prayag Maha Kumbh Mela crowd crush-link could be handled in the same way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 My point is, new Delhi incidents happened in new delhi, not in Prayag Kumbh Mela premises. Also some incidents which happened outside the premise is irrelevant. And listing one by one looks childish like a deliberate attempt to show off. Rehmanian (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But reliable sources cited for the three incidents you removed linked the incidents to the Prayag Kumbh Mela.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Obviously Sources is there but those incidents are irrelevant because it didn't happened in Prayagraj Mela premises. And this page is about Kumbh Mela. Rehmanian (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The government in its press releases thinks that travel to and from the Kumbh Mela is relevant to the Kumbh Mela.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 you aren't getting it. It didn't happened in Prayagraj, where the Mela is being held. It happened in New Delhi and other places. How to list these here. Rehmanian (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The crowd crush happened because the pilgrims were going to the Mela, so yes, it's relevant and notable. Jpatokal (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with this. When the sources strongly tie the incidents to this, the sources are supporting the relevance of including them here. Ravensfire (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire I support for the crowd crush which happened at Mela premises, but not others. Rehmanian (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

only which happened at ground is well worth to be mentioned, the one at station is definitely not at the Prayag but may have been the people going although not for same purpose . 2409:40E4:1239:B0CE:D8A2:A03C:E77B:E84A (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here looks like wikipedia is now highly biased and controlled by leftists. Wikipedia was once a great site for the knowledge but now it's turning into a propoganda website. The time is not far when government of different countries will start banning wikipedia. 2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to decide what people can and can not read on the internet? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The government will decide, not you and me. The government of Maharashtra already proceeded to take legal action against the wikipedia. I give them donation everytime they beg and that's why I am here. So, don't try to act oversmart by saying who are you to decide. 2405:201:304F:B814:57B:3B15:3852:DAC5 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YEAH MAKE WIKIPEDIA GREAT AGAIN 🦅🦅🦅📖📖📖📖 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 see special:diff/1277757746 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See The Indian Express which explains what the UP Government say is going on today. It does help to understand what the numbers are meant to mean. Note the stress on railway stations, which implies that a significant proportion of dippers come by train.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template that puts the "Notable people" section in columns. {{div col|colwidth=22em|rules=yes|gap=4em|small=no|content=}} @Chaotic Enby: deleted it because they objected to small text (see MOS:SMALLTEXT). I have restored the template with small=no (it previously had small=yes).

It needs to have an {{end div col}} at the end of the section. @Bruce1ee: deleted it to fix lint errors. But deleting it, puts latter sections into column format, which is undesirable. Do we have lint errors now?

There has also been a disagreement over the content= parameter; if you want to change that, please explain why here first - I am told that there is a good reason for it being blank.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The version with the lint error had {{div col|colwidth=22em|rules=yes|gap=4em|small=yes|content=4}}. This did not work correctly; it displayed the number "4" instead of making the section display in multiple columns. Presumably this was the lint error that Bruce1ee was trying to fix.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: The current version of the article has no lint errors and the "Notable people" table looks fine to me. Removing the "4" from |content= was correct because that parameter is used to specify the contents of the table, which is not needed in this case. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that section should go. If 600 million people went there, there must be like at least a 100k or something notable people who also went there (or let's say only 1k people: They aren't going to fit in this article) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this topic, so there might be a way to make a shorter list make sense, but a complete list is unwieldy and might go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]